>> next, the supreme court oral argument in the case of a nine year-old boy born in jerusalem to american parents. the state department has a policy against or if congress has a role as well. this is just over one hour. hear argument first this morning in case -- zivotofsky v. clinton. mr. lewin. mr. lewin: mr. -- mr. chief justice, and may it please the court: in its recent decisions in medellin v. texas and in hamdan v. rumsfeld, this court approved and applied the familiar tripartite scheme that justice jackson articulated in the steel seizure case. when the president takes

measures incompatible with the express or implied will of congress his power is at its lowest ebb. in that instance, said justice jackson, his claim to a power at once so conclusive and preclusive must be scrutinized with caution to preserve the equilibrium established by our constitutional system. justice kagan: well, mr. lewin, what power is congress exercising here? mr. lewin: justice kagan, congress has exercised its power over passport, the issuance of passports under the immigration, naturalization and foreign commerce powers that congress has. it has enacted passport legislation back in , in . it can control what the contents of a passport ought to be, what its duration may be -- alito: what --

mr. lewin: -- how the application is to be made. and we say this is an identification -- justice alito: do you -- mr. lewin: -- portion of the passport. justice alito: do you think it's relevant that the title of section is "united states policy with respect to jerusalem as the capital of israel"? mr. lewin: well, we think -- and we have cited i guess in footnote of our brief a number of recent cases of this court that have said that you take each statutory provision independently and determine its constitutionality. true, congress has a broader view with regard to the policy of jerusalem being part of israel than the executive branch has had since . however, that purpose is not determinative of what the constitutionality is of subsection [d]. moreover -- justice ginsburg: but you say, mr. lewin, that -- you are not claiming exclusivity in congress.

you say foreign relations is a shared power. so if it is a shared power, why does congress trump the executive? mr. lewin: because -- precisely because under the standard of the steel seizure case and this tripartite scheme, if congress determines that what the president has done -- and this is a statute which is really very narrow and deals with past conduct by the executive branch, as it were. it does not hobble the president in terms of future foreign policy. justice kennedy: well, under your -- under your theory, and this is just a following on justice ginsburg's question, i think. under your theory what foreign relations determinations are for the president alone to make? mr. lewin: foreign relations determinations are not left to the president alone. justice kennedy: are there any foreign relations determinations

that are for the president alone to make under your theory of the case? mr. lewin: yes, justice kennedy. justice kennedy: and those are? mr. lewin: those are diplomatic communications. in other, it's the president who makes -- justice kennedy: in other words, who gets the telegram? mr. lewin: well, who issues the communication to the foreign government, who determines; there are certain things that the president alone does because he's the one who implements foreign policy. justice kennedy: is there any treatise writer or decision of this court that supports such a narrow, crabbed interpretation of the president's foreign affairs power? mr. lewin: well, with all respect, justice kennedy, we don't think it's crabbed. we think that that is exactly what justice jackson was referring to, and that's what this court has said in the medellin case and -- and in hamdan as well, that if -- justice kennedy: of course -- mr.lewin -- congress does not authorize -- justice kennedy: -- the jackson tripartite division, this famous division he had, i think assumes the validity of the

congressional statute at the first step of inquiry. and here that's the whole question. mr. lewin: i don't know whether it's limited to the assumption with regard to the congressional statute. if congress says, as it did in this case, we disapprove of the state department's view that passports should not contain the -- the identification of israel for people who were born in jerusalem, that is congress disapproving of what the state department and past state department -- sotomayor: mr. -- lewin: -- policy has been. justice sotomayor: mr. lewin, you were cut off earlier when you were saying this reading doesn't hobble the president in the future. it says anybody born in -- in jerusalem can have israel listed, correct? what happens if there is a peace accord tomorrow, and israel gives up any claim to sovereignty over jerusalem? is the president free to stop

listing israel on the passport? mr. lewin: if -- sotomayor: or does he have to wait for congress to change the law? mr. lewin: i think he does have to wait for congress to change the law. justice sotomayor: so you are hobbling the president with respect to situations that occur frequently -- lewin: well -- sotomayor: -- as happened in egypt, sometimes overnight. mr. lewin: no, but it may in some way, in a very remote possible way -- i mean, i think under those circumstances, if there were a peace treaty and if jerusalem were handed over to a palestinian state, i think congress would repeal the statute. that's the point. congress has the power, has the authority under the constitution to enact laws, and it is congress that makes the decision even with regard to foreign policy issues.

justice sotomayor: the constitution requires ambassadors to be appointed with the consent of the senate. it gives congress the power of the purse. so why don't -- why isn't the better view that we let congress express its approval and disapproval in the mechanism set up by the constitution to do so? meaning, if the president recognizes a country that congress doesn't want it to recognize, it can withhold approval of an ambassador, it could refuse to fund the embassy. it could do many other things. but what entitles congress to trench on a presidential power that has been exercised virtually since the beginning of the country? mr. lewin: with all respect, justice sotomayor, i think history demonstrates that that's simply not true, that in fact congress has had equal, quote, "recognition power," if in fact that's a power rather

than a ceremonial duty. we have in our reply brief gone through the fact that from presidents monroe, jackson, taylor, lincoln, and even at the time of president mckinley, congress said: we have the authority to be recognized -- to recognize. justice kagan: mr. lewin, this gets back to the question of exactly what congressional power you are basing your argument on. you started by saying you were basing it on congress's passport power, which is a function of its control over immigration issues. now you are saying congress has a co--equal recognition power. which is it, or is it both? mr. lewin: no. it's in the alternative, justice kagan; it is both. we submit first of all there is no exclusive recognition power in the president, if there is a recognition power, and we spell that out.

justice ginsburg: does that go the full length of saying if congress passed a law that says the united states recognizes jerusalem as the capital of israel and jerusalem must be designated as the capital of israel in all official documents -- suppose that were the law. i take it from everything you have argued your position would be yes, congress has that authority. mr. lewin: we say congress has that authority. but i have to add, justice ginsburg, that congress has been very careful in the past and we believe it will be in the future to give the president broad authority. to the extent that congress has tried to do that, congress has consistently said that the president can waive the moving of the embassy to jerusalem, because congress recognizes -- this is one of these very rare situations where congress has

said what the president has done and what the department of state has done is simply wrong. justice scalia: mr. lewin, you're -- it seems to me you are not arguing for a co--equal congressional power, you are arguing for a superior congressional power. you are saying whatever congress says, the president has to comply with. now, that's quite different from saying that they both have authority in the field. and if they both have authority in the field and they are exercising it in different fashions, i frankly would not be inclined to intervene. i would let -- i would them conduct the usual inter--branch hand wrestling that goes on all the time, which probably means that if congress cares enough congress will win, because, as you say, it has an innumerable number of clubs with which to beat the executive. but if -- if the power is a co-- equal power and they are both exercising it in a -- in a different way, why don't we just -- just, you know, let them go at it? why is it any of our business which is the better foreign policy position?

mr. lewin: we are not -- the court is not being asked to determine what is the better foreign policy position. congress has determined -- scalia: congress is supreme, then? that is your position. not -- not that congress has co--equal authority with the executive, but congress is supreme? mr. lewin: no, there is two aspects to this, justice scalia. one is the recognition power. as to the recognition power, if it exists, congress has it together with the president. but with regard to foreign policy and with regard to the question of whether congress can trump the president, this is not a new proposition. the court determined it in the steel seizure case. the court more recently in -- in approving justice jackson's tripartite scheme, approved it in medellin v. texas. chief justice roberts: well, medellin involved a situation

where the president's purported exercise of authority changed domestic law, and not simply domestic law, but domestic state law. that seems to me to be quite a distinguishable circumstance. mr. lewin: but what -- again, what justice jackson said was that when there -- the two are incompatible, then you look, the court looks and scrutinizes, "subjects to scrutiny" -- those words are in justice jackson's standard -- scrutinizes what the president has done. and we submit in this case, if the court were to look at the answers to the interrogatories in this case, what is the basis for the president's policy, if one scrutinizes it, we say in our brief, it's -- we call it trivial, because what happens is the department of state has said -- and again this is important in terms of this statute -- all that happens with this statute is that , american citizens have the same passport as , other american citizens who were born in tel aviv or haifa. it just says "israel"; it doesn't say "jerusalem, israel"; it just says "israel." and the state department says that's justified because arab countries or palestinians may be upset if they misperceive.

chief justice roberts: so you were suggesting that the outcome of this if congress said jerusalem is rea. mr. lewin: i say it's a different case, yes, absolutely. in this case what the -- the important-- thing about this case and this statute is that it gives the individual passport holder a choice. chief justice roberts: why is it -- why is it a different case? mr. lewin: it's a different case because if it were to say "jerusalem, israel" there would be more of an argument. again, i'm not saying i would be here acknowledging that that's impermissible. but it would be more of an argument that it appears to be some official approval of jerusalem being in israel. chief justice roberts: so would

there be --there would be a greater concern -- the concern on the part of the executive that there would be adverse political reaction would have a greater degree of credibility? mr. lewin: somewhat greater degree. again chief justice roberts: so we are supposed to decide whether or not the executive is correct in saying that it's a significant problem. and he says, well, he says that, but we know foreign policy better; we don't think it's going to be a big deal. mr. lewin: no, i don't think the court is being asked to decide a question of foreign policy. congress has decided that saying "israel" alone does not present a foreign policy issue. congress recognized that with moving the embassy there might be a foreign policy issue, so they said that the president can waive that. with regard to this provision, congress has said, no, there is not likely to be any foreign policy harm. and all that the court is being asked to do is it's being asked to enforce the congressional conclusion, which is, we submit, exactly what the third level under justice jackson's test

is: that if in fact congress decides that what the president has concluded or the executive branch has concluded is wrong, it may -- and it has the constitutional power to say -- with regard to foreign policy, we can exercise our determination. chief justice roberts: i don't see justice jackson's analysis -- what he's saying, and i guess i don't think it's as controlling as others might. he's saying when there is a conflict it's a harder case. mr. lewin: yes. chief justice roberts: when there's -- when they agree it's an easy case. when you can't tell it's sort of a middle case. i don't see how that is very helpful in resolving the dispute before us. mr. lewin: well, because he says that when it's in the third category the court has an obligation under those

circumstances if it's going to keep the equilibrium of the balance of powers, to look at what the president's justification is. the word "scrutiny" is in there. that's not just a phrase that justice jackson has taken out of the air. he says you are supposed to scrutinize it. and if you scrutinize it in this case, there is nothing other than the possibility that there would be a misperception by palestinians. that's what the state department is saying. justice scalia: what -- what were we scrutinizing in the steel seizure case? mr. lewin: i think in the steel seizure case the court was scrutinizing whether, notwithstanding the fact that congress did not give the president the power to seize steel mills, nonetheless whether there could be some justification that, even in contrary to congress's wishes, the president would be able to exercise that power. justice scalia: and what presidential power would have supported that, the war power? mr. lewin: possibly the claim that as commander in chief in the time of the korean war he would be able -- justice scalia: right. he was claiming that the korean

war mr. lewin: entitled him to. justice scalia: -- required that these --that these companies remain in business. and i guess we did scrutinize that. what did we conclude, that that was -- lewin: i think the court concluded that no, that did not justify the exercise of the president's power even though it was -- kennedy: but that wasn't a case --that wasn't a case in which the congress had said you may not seize mills. and that's what your case is. so there's a difference. mr. lewin: well, but that's -- that's an a fortiori situation, justice kennedy. if if congress didn't even say you may not seize steel mills, but simply because they didn't give the president affirmatively the authority -- kennedy: it is if you assume that the statute is valid. mr. lewin: well, but the statute in this case -- again i come back to the fact that the statute in this case is a passport statute. justice kennedy: if the statute is invalid we are in category

one. mr. lewin: yes. justice kennedy: or two. mr. lewin: but the statute in this case is on its face a passport statute. there's no reason -- kagan: but it's a passport statute that -- lewin: it's an identification. justice kagan: i'm sorry. it's a passport statute that seems to have nothing to do with the immigration functions that passport statutes usually serve. it seems to have everything to do with congress's declaration of a foreign policy, as opposed to congress's exercise of power relating to immigration control. so convince me that i am wrong on that. mr. lewin: i think you are wrong on that, justice, and let me explain why. let me explain why. because it is clear from the history of this line on the passport that it is purely an identification of the individual; it is not an exercise of any foreign policy. indeed, the passport statute itself says that a passport is "any travel document issued by competent authority showing the bearer's origin, identity, and nationality." and in this case, the history of this line on the passport demonstrates i think conclusively, and the state department has acknowledged it, that it is purely a means of identification. and what congress has said is, with regard to these citizens we will permit them to identify themselves, like congress

permitted the taiwanese to identify themselves. justice alito: are you suggesting congress enacted this because they thought that if these individuals' passports simply said "jerusalem" there would be an identification problem? mr. lewin: not be -- justice alito, it is not because there would be an identification problem. but there was -- congress recognized that with regard to the , people who have a passport that says "jerusalem," they are being denied a certain sense of self--respect that they feel they should be able to have in terms of their own identification. this is not a statute that is designed to create some political brouhaha or make a foreign policy statement. it's a statute that frankly fits in with what the state department does in accommodating to individual passport holders. the state department says if you are a palestinian or an arab and you are born in haifa and

you don't like seeing "israel" in your passport, we will allow you to eliminate "israel" from your passport. and all that congress has said is -- justice kagan: that might be true, mr. lewin. i think you would have a better argument if this statute said if you were born in jerusalem you can pick anything you want in your passport; you can pick jerusalem, you can pick israel or you can pick palestine. but the statute in fact doesn't say that. it says you can pick israel. so why isn't that a statement of foreign policy as to recognition that jerusalem is the capital of israel as opposed to what you are characterizing it as, which is a sort of freedom of sort of choice provision? mr. lewin: i think that what you said the statute doesn't say, justice kagan, is exactly what the statute does say. the statute does say that the individual passport holder can choose to say israel or can

keep it as jerusalem, and if he's born before he can say palestine. so it is an individual choice. justice kagan: well, you have to be very old to say palestine. mr. lewin: pardon? pardon? justice ginsburg: not all that old. [laughter.] mr. lewin: it's -- i guess it's a reflection on my own seniority that -- it's my generation that fits into that. but -- but the fact is exactly; our point is that that's all that the statute does. the statute is a means of permitting self--identification by an american citizen who says: my birth in jerusalem, indeed in west jerusalem, which has always been recognized as a part of israel, i want to call -- i want my passport to say "israel." chief justice roberts: but it's recognizing that principle only with respect to a particular jurisdiction.

an american citizen born in northern ireland doesn't have this option, because he thinks it's a part of ireland. mr. lewin: no, but an american citizen born in taiwan apparently does have that option, even the though the united states says we don't recognize taiwan as an independent country. chief justice roberts: and your -- and your friend on behalf of the united states says that's because of a state department judgment that in one situation it's significant, in the other it's not. mr. lewin: well, no, it's not just because. it's because what happens is there is a recognition in both cases that it is a personal identification choice with regard to what goes on the passport. sure, in that case the state department didn't take it to litigation, although i submit that had they chosen to litigate that case they would have a stronger position than they have in this case. justice scalia: but a personal identification choice can also have significant foreign policy implications, can it not?

is -- is that an either--or situation? what the state department is saying is to allow this particular personal identification choice may antagonize some foreign nations that we don't want to antagonize. what if they gave them the choice of saying "israel, the only democracy in the middle east." okay, that's their choice. they can have that on their passport. would that be okay? mr. lewin: i have to say that, given this court's view about congress's power with regard to a--passports -- and again, i go back to the fact that in zemel and rusk, in haig and agee, in kent v. dulles, in all these passport cases this court said we look to see whether what the president does is authorized by congress, whether implicitly or otherwise. so that, i submit, that with regard to passports you need the congressional authority,

whether it's implicit or express. and with regard to your question, justice scalia, yes, congress could in its exercise of its passport authority say: here is what the passport has to say. it would be a foolish statute. but this court has said, and i think you, justice scalia, have said it many times, it's not the court's job to determine whether congress is foolish or not. if congress decides that, look, somebody born in israel, a passport should say "israel, the only democracy in the middle east," congress can say that. congress has passport authority. and this -- ginsburg: well, what is -- lewin: -- and this has to do with the contents of the passport. justice ginsburg: mr. lewin, what you've argued is that you are skipping over the question that the d.c. circuit decided. i take it your view is it's not a political question, so the

court should resolve the merits? mr. lewin: our view is it's not a political question because it is like many other questions that affect foreign policy. and the court said in baker and carr, not every decision that touches on foreign affairs or foreign policy is a political question that can't be determined. it -- it -- arguably, according to the government, this affects foreign policy. we say it is simply congress having passed a statute which either is unconstitutional -- we say it is constitutional -- either is unconstitutional or the court should simply enforce it, like in the japan whaling case. in the japan whaling case, this court rejected the claim that the outcome of a determination by the court might very well affect foreign relations and said it's not a political question. i would like to reserve the remaining time for rebuttal. thank you. chief justice roberts: thank you, mr. lewin. general verrilli.

verrilli: mr. chief justice and may it please the court: the executive has determined that the passports it issues should not identify israel as the place of birth for persons born in jerusalem. petitioner seeks relief under section [d] that would countermand that executive judgment. but under the constitution that is an exercise of the executive's exclusive recognition power. the constitution commits that power exclusively to the executive and neither a court nor the congress can override that judgment. chief justice roberts: your friend -- ginsburg: well, the --chief justice roberts: your friend documented contrary history at some length in his reply brief, where from the beginning at least as he says through the mckinley administration, the two

branches acted as if they had co--equal authority. gen. verrilli: mr. chief justice, if i might spend a minute or two on that history, because i don't think it shows what my friend suggests that it does. before getting to the starting point of that story, which i think is the monroe administration, i would like to point out that in the washington administration the president confronted the question with respect to whether to recognize the revolutionary government of france. and president washington consulted with his cabinet, and of course his cabinet included jefferson and madison and hamilton and jay. and they decided that this was a power that was exclusive to the president to such an extent that they didn't even need to send a message to the congress that they were going to recognize the new revolutionary government in france. now, the second fact i think is critical as a matter of history is that there is not a single piece of legislation that has passed both houses of congress

and come to the president purporting to recognize a foreign nation or territorial boundary of a foreign nation. justice alito: has there ever been an instance in which the president has recognized a foreign government over congress's sustained objection? gen. verrilli: i don't -- i can't think of an instance of congress's sustained objection. i think probably the closest we would come is the revolutionary government of mexico, which president wilson first recognized on a de facto basis in and a de jure basis in . congress indicated displeasure with that. president wilson sent his message to congress saying that this is an exclusive executive function. congress backed down. justice breyer: what would have been the reasons that -- because your friend says that this is an a fortiori case from everything, because all of these words -- every time the word

"exclusive power" has appeared in any source -- i think that's what you are saying -- it is meant that the president can act without supporting authority from congress. but there never has been a case or a suggestion that the president can act where congress has legislated to the contrary. now, i think that's the -- that's the argument. and so what -- i would like to hear what you have to say about that argument. gen. verrilli: yes. yes, i will answer that question directly. justice breyer: uh--huh. gen. verrilli: it is true that the court has never before, with respect to the recognition power, confronted the question of whether the president is free to act in a manner different than a congressional command because congress has never purported to issue a command. that does not mean, however, that my friend is correct that this is a situation in which congress has the authority to countermand or direct the decision of the president. this is, we submit -- even if

one thinks about this as a youngstown category three case, this is a youngstown category three case of the kind that justice jackson identified in footnote , where he cited myers v. the united states. the kind of case in category three of youngstown, in which the president's judgment can prevail even over a contrary judgment of congress, is a case in which the president has exclusive authority. justice breyer: all right now, but my question is what leads you to that conclusion. gen. verrilli: well, let me -- breyer: there are very, very few cases i can ever think of where -- where the president -- where the court has said the president can act contrary to a statute. and so the point of my question was to get you to talk about why, even though this is a fortiori. gen. verrilli: so, i do think, if i could -- i think it would be helpful in answering your question, justice breyer, if i could return to the chief justice's question about history. moving beyond that initial recognition by washington that

this is an exclusive power, which i think is quite significant, when we get to the monroe administration there is a fight between clay and monroe about whether the president has exclusive authority to recognize the new south american republics. now, a couple of points there. i think the -- what -- the only thing that one could point to as an action by the congress that even implicates the-- recognition power is one house of congress passed an appropriations measure for an ambassador. what the --the history treatise, the global treatise that my friend cites says on page , the very page that he cites in his reply brief, is that clay's effort to contest the president's exclusive authority came to a, quote, "inglorious end, unquote. he then goes on to say -- my friend goes on to say: well, but a year later when president monroe sought to actually recognize these south american

republics he asked -- he asked the congress to join him in it. what he asked congress for was an appropriation for an ambassador. but it was not the sending of an ambassador to the republic of columbia that was the recognition. it was when president monroe received an ambassador from columbia that constituted the recognition, and that was an exclusive act that he undertook without any consultation with congress. now justice ginsburg: the two examples you are given in the brief, one of texas, where petitioner says there was a case where congress went for -- congress recognized and the president acquiesced, and the same thing with taiwan; it was a statute and the president implemented it. so congress thought it had the authority, the recognition authority, in those two measures and the president acquiesced. gen. verrilli: i would like to

address texas because i do think that's probably the most significant example that my friend's identified. but even there, i think if one works through the history we'll see that's it's an exclusive executive power. president jackson, in his first letter in to the congress says essentially: i hear you; you think you we should recognize texas. and then he says: it's an open question as far as i am concerned whether there is exclusive authority or not. it's not been something that the legislature has ever studied, but as a matter of expediency, he says, we don't need to resolve that question, because i want to work with you. he then goes on to caution the congress to not move too quickly for fear of precipitating war with mexico, which i think, justice breyer, i will try to return to a functional analysis later, and i think it's an important point. then -- i think what is important, justice ginsburg, is that what congress did next, as to pass two appropriations measures, one in the house, one

in the senate. each of those measures appropriates funds for an emissary to the republic of texas, but each includes language that says: at such time that the president determines that it's appropriate to do so. if one looks at the page in the congressional globe that my friend cites, one will see that that language was added because as originally introduced the appropriations riders were objected to by members of the congress on the ground that they infringed on the president's exclusive recognition authority. chief justice roberts: counsel, if i could just stop you and just have you address the political question doctrine. gen. verrilli: certainly. chief justice roberts: you say this is exclusively committed to the president and therefore it is a non--justiciable political question. how is that different from saying, it's our job to decide cases, it is justiciable, and then you can argue that the answer of that analysis is that it is exclusively committed to the president? i don't understand why labeling it a political question advances the analysis much. gen. verrilli: well, i think we agree, mr. chief justice, that there isn't a very great deal of difference.

we acknowledge that in conducting the political question analysis that it is for the court do decide whether there is a textual commitment to the executive; it is for the court to decide the scope. we think that's what nixon v. the united states says; it's what powell v. mccormack says; and that in answering those questions we think that the court will have gone a very long way to determining the question of the constitution -- ginsburg: why not all the way? i mean, if the court decides that the constitution commits this authority exclusively to the president, then it's all over. that's the merits of the case: does the president have this authority? so the political question label seems to be kind of a -- a substitute because if there is a textual commission, commitment to the president, that's the end of the case. gen.

verrilli: well, the -- i do think that with respect to the first baker v. carr factor, textual commitment is a factor that the court has indicated is one that can lead to the conclusion that it's a political question. i do think that the court has to go through the analysis. and so at the end of the day, there may not be very much of a difference -- justice alito: well, doesn't it depend on what the question is. in order to decide whether it's a political question, you have to identify the question. now, if the question is whether the president has exclusive authority with respect to the formal recognition of a foreign country that might be one thing. but what if the question is whether the president has exclusive jurisdiction with respect -- has plenary authority, unreviewable authority, with respect to anything that the president thinks has a bearing on the question of recognition. now, if that's the question, is that committed exclusively to the president? verrilli: no, justice alito, we

don't -- we think powell v. mccormick and nixon say that the question of -- not just the question of commitment, but also the question of scope, are questions for the court to decide. now, we do think, with respect to the question here that, even though it's for the court to decide, it's for the court to decide with a very significant measure of deference, because when -- the decision by the executive with respect to how it's going to handle the status of jerusalem in passports is a very sensitive and delicate matter. this position was arrived at after very careful thought and it is enforced very carefully. and i think from that should come the lesson that this judge -- and the reason is because the executive believes that the statement on the passport has to be understood as a manifestation of the president's exercise of the recognition power. justice kagan: suppose, general verrilli, suppose that this statute, there was a -- the section that's there now and then there was another section, and the section said: "the recording of israel as a place of birth on a passport shall

not constitute recognition of israel's sovereignty over jerusalem." would that be constitutional? gen. verrilli: i don't think it would change the analysis, justice kagan. i -- i think -- of course, that is not this statute, which has a title which says "united states policy with respect to jerusalem as the capital of israel." but -- kagan: no, my statute has a title which says "identification of persons born in jerusalem." gen. verrilli: i still think that would be within the scope of the executive's power to decide because the content of the passport insofar as the executive believes that it constitutes an expression of -- of, an incident of recognition, is a judgment that the executive makes. now, the court can review that, but the court's review of it should be done with a significant measure of deference as the court suggested in regan v. wald -- sotomayor: general, what is -- kennedy: that seems to me different than the rationale of the d.c. circuit. it seems to me you are not

defending the rationale of the d.c. circuit --gen. verrilli: no, we -- kennedy: -- that there's no jurisdiction. and -- you know, it's always awkward for us to tell counsel what's in their best interest, but --but it does, it does seem to me that your position would be much stronger if you said there is jurisdiction and the president wins. gen. verrilli: well, we think -- we do think that if there is jurisdiction, the president wins. but we do think that the d.c. circuit acted appropriately in finding that -- kennedy: because if this -- if this rationale remains the law and is the law, then you have the specter of constant legislative determinations that are not clearly -- not clearly invalid. and it seems to me that's, again with all due respect, not in the best interest of the ultimate argument you are making. gen. verrilli: well, we appreciate that, justice kennedy. we do think that in resolving a political question -- in conducting the political

question analysis, the questions that the court would need to decide under nixon and powell would go a very long way to clarifying that problem. chief justice roberts: what if -- sotomayor: general --chief justice roberts: what if congress's statute said: what you must put on the passport, if requested, is "israel," parentheses, "disputed," close parentheses, which would seem to take care of your objection that people are going to look at this and draw a false conclusion. gen. verrilli: i don't think that changes the analysis, mr. chief justice, because i think that the -- to the -- because it would -- that would be again congress seeking to direct a judgment of the --chief justice roberts: it is the position of the administration, isn't it, that the status of jerusalem is disputed? verrilli: that's correct, mr. chief justice, but it -- what the united states says about that in official communications -- and remember, a passport is not a communication by the passport holder.

states official united document that communicates the position of the united states. chief justice roberts: so what if congress says in the place that you have it: this person has the choice of whether or not to put jerusalem or israel. this doesn't affect whether the united states recognizes jerusalem as part of israel or not; it's just his choice. same problem? gen. verrilli: same problem, mr. chief justice. this is --chief justice roberts: really? i thought your argument was that someone's going to look at that and say: that offends me, that you are calling this part of israel. that was the foreign policy significance. and i tried to give you a hypothetical in which nobody could reasonably draw that conclusion, and you say still, same thing. gen. verrilli: i do think that this is an area in which the executive's got to make the judgment because it's of paramount importance that the nation speak with one voice. justice ginsburg: then, mister

-- general verrilli, then you are taking the position that this is not a shared authority; it's an exclusive authority; that there is no role for congress. am i right? or is there some role in recognition for congress? gen. verrilli: our position, justice ginsburg, is that the recognition power is exclusive to the president. justice scalia: what if -- what if the recognition of a breakaway province of a foreign country by the united states will clearly provoke a war with that country. would congress have the power to decree that the president shall not recognize that breakaway province, knowing -- knowing that if he does recognize it, that country will declare war on the united states? gen. verrilli: i think, justice scalia, that's a situation in which the president would exercise that recognition power very carefully -- scalia: no, no. we have a foolish president. {laughter.]

justice scalia: contrary to our entire history, we have a --[ laughter.] gen. verrilli: i think -- although i don't -- i just don't think that in a situation like that, the president would exercise a recognition power, but if -- but if the president did, it's the president's judgment to make. and i -- justice breyer, if i could get back to your question, the -- scalia: please stay on this. i am -- i am willing -- our -- our cases say repeatedly that the president is the sole instrument of the united states for the conduct of foreign policy, but to be the sole instrument and to determine the foreign policy are two quite different things. to say he's the sole instrument simply means that congressmen traveling abroad, or globetrotting ex--presidents, nobody except the president of the united states pronounces the foreign policy. but it doesn't necessarily mean that the president determines

everything in foreign policy. he's the instrument, but there is certainly room in -- in those many cases for saying that congress can say what the -- what it's -- what the country's instrument is supposed to do. gen. verrilli: i -- i think with respect to the question of recognition, justice scalia, that it is a power that rests with the executive. and i think in addition to the history -- in that we do now in --plus years in our constitution, do not have a single example of congress actually exercising the power -- and i think in addition to the history, there are very good functional reasons why that is so. and i think, justice breyer, in answering your earlier question, i think those are significant. the exercise of the recognition power depends, we think, on three things that make it clear that it needs to be exclusive. the first is timing; the second is expertise; and the third is a need for secrecy. timing -- kennedy: i didn't hear the third.

verrilli: the need for secrecy. timing is, i think the israel example shows, is of critical importance. but it's not just speed. of course, congress can't act with the dispatch needed in a situation like the recognition of israel. but the --but apart from that, recognition -- a recognition that occurs too soon could send events in the direction that could be very disadvantageous to our foreign policy. a recognition that comes too late could -- could squander an important opportunity in the national interest in the foreign policy realm. justice kagan: general verrilli, is the textural basis for your argument that the president has exclusive power here? is it the receipt of ambassadors clause alone, or is it something else? because i was frankly a little bit surprised that your brief put so much weight on that receipt of ambassadors clause, which arguably was meant to give the president a purely ministerial function. and so literally, on any other power that the president has. gen. verrilli: so -- here's our position on that, justice kagan.

we do think that the reception clause is the source of the recognition power. hamilton identified it as the source of the recognition power in the washington administration. i think it's now understood that it's hornbook law that that's the textual source -- but to the extent that -- scalia: well, it's the best there is. i mean, if you've got to cast about for something, i suppose -- i don't know what else you'd -- you'd land upon. verrilli: it is there. justice scalia: well, it is there. gen. verrilli: and i would say in addition -- i would say in addition, to the extent that there is a question, we do think, as i think we indicated in our brief, that -- that one can see this power as part of what the court in garamendi described as the vast share of responsibility that the constitution assigns to the executive. now, we don't think all of that shared responsibility is exclusive to the executive -- but we think this

responsibility is exclusive -- kagan: so if that provision were not in the constitution, would you be making the same argument you are now? gen. verrilli: if the reception clause were not in the constitution -- but we had the same history that we have now and the same functional considerations about the need for it being in the control of the executive, yes, we would. justice alito: there are many things that congress could do to frustrate the president's decision to recognize another country. now, would you say all of those are unconstitutional? they all infringe the president's exclusive recognition authority? suppose the president decides to recognize a country and congress refuses to appropriate any money for an embassy there, or refuses to confirm any u.s. ambassador to that country. those presumably would not be unconstitutional, would they? gen. verrilli: the -- i think that there would be a difference between -- i -- i think that -- that congress has authority over appropriations. congress has authority to appoint ambassadors. it's entitled to exercise that authority, and it's entitled to exercise that authority even if

it's intentioned with the president's recognition decision. it is the position of the executive though that there could be circumstances in which congress could try to exercise its appropriations authority in a way that would preclude the executive from exercising its -- its recognition power, and that -- the executive would -- would in some circumstances believe that it had the authority to move ahead despite those actions by congress. but of course, this is not a situation in which congress has passed a sense of the congress resolution about what it thinks. it's not a situation in which congress has exercised attaching conditions to its spending power about what private parties do. this is an effort by congress to regulate the content of a passport, which, as the court recognized in haig v. agee, is a core instrument of diplomatic communication. justice alito: do -- do you think that's an exclusive power, to -- to determine of the contents of passports? hasn't congress exercised that authority for a long time? gen. verrilli: we -- we don't think

that the -- the entire content of passports is an exclusive power. i would -- and i will explain, justice alito, where we think the line is. but before doing so, i want to push back a little bit on the notion that congress has for a long time exercised authority over the content of passport the. the first passport act was in . what this court said in haig v. agee was that the enactment of that statute merely confirmed a power that everyone understood to be inherent in the executive. that statute did not purport to regulate the content of passports. it in fact said that passports shall be issued under such rules as the president shall proscribe. and -- and in haig, that was that language i think that led the court to conclude that this was a confirmation of the executive's authority, and an action in aid of that authority. now -- breyer: i just want -- i don't want the time to elapse. you can finish that if you'd like. i'd just like somewhere a few words about the political question, which you don't believe in -- from reading your

brief. i would say you don't believe in it much. and my question on the political question for either of you is this: that -- that this is an area of foreign affairs. it's an area of -- of, you know, recognition. we know that. never has this court or anyone else held that congress can go ahead in this area over a law passed by congress. but it is passports, which both regulate. and our real problem is these are words that are officially said and they are detailed words, and those words may really disrupt coherent foreign policy. viewed that way, there are billions of words that might have the same effect. and do we know that these words will and some other words won't? no, judges don't know that. and therefore, when you get into this area, the best thing to do is avoid multifarious pronouncements by various departments of government on one question, do not respect the views of other branches,

and judges, stay out of it. let them work it out by themselves. i just want a word from either you and really mr. lewin on -- on that. gen. verrilli: well, we do think -- that's -- that's what -- we think that the appropriate inquiry for political question purposes is into the relief that the petitioner is seeking. and if the relief the petitioner is seeking would invade the kinds of judgments that the constitution commits exclusively to the executive, and the reason it commits these kind of judgments exclusively to the executive is because this is a situation in which multifarious voices are inimical to the national interest. justice ginsburg: but that is -- that presents a merits determination. the whole question is who has the authority. and whatever label you put on it, if you decide that the president has, as you just said, the exclusive authority, that's the end of the matter. it's -- it's not leaving it -- it is not leaving it, as

justice breyer said, to the political branches to fight it out between them. it is saying the president has the exclusive authority. gen. verrilli: well, i -- i think in --in -- let me try to put it this way, justice ginsburg: in the absence of section , i think it would be clear from pink and belmont that this -- that the judgment on recognition is exclusively committed to the executive, and it would be a political question, if a party came in and said i want my passport to say something different about jerusalem than it says -- sotomayor: general, the -- the tension that i see here, and i think it's what justice breyer's getting at, is the label's important, because if we call this a political question and don't address the merits, the outcome is that the president is saying that he's entitled to ignore the congress. i don't know what kind of message that sends, but it's a little unsettling that a court charged with enforcing the laws passed by congress are basically saying we are not

going to determine whether this law is constitutional or unconstitutional. that's what your definition of political question is becoming, and where does that stop? gen. verrilli: well, i -- sotomayor: in what situations? only in foreign policy do we decide not to --gen. verrilli: i think, justice sotomayor, it's actually quite narrow, and the problem isn't a significant one in the case of textual commitment, because the court does in reaching the conclusion, as the d.c. circuit did, that it's a political question the court does have to decide whether there is a textual commitment to the executive here, so the court would resolve that question. the court would resolve that question of whether the conduct at issue here is within the scope of that textual commitment. so the court would issue those rulings. chief justice roberts: and what you told -- sotomayor: but that's not what

the d.c. circuit did. chief justice roberts: you told -- you told justice kagan it didn't -- your position didn't depend upon a textual commitment, that your position would be the same if the receive ambassadors clause were not in the constitution. gen. verrilli: but i -- i didn't mean that it wouldn't be a textual commitment. it would be -- it would be a commitment that one would read as the historical gloss on the vesting power, which is what -- garamendi said. chief justice roberts: that sounds to me like not in the text. gen. verrilli: well, i think it's the historical gloss on the vesting power is -- functions as has the equivalent of the specific textual commitment. of course, we do have the specific textual commitment here, the -- scalia: this textual commitment applies when somebody comes to the court and asks for the court to make the decision. if the plaintiff here had come in and -- without a congressional statute to rely upon, and had said, it is -- it is wrong for the state department not to let me say israel on my passport, then we would say, you know, textually committed to the executive.

but this is a different situation where you have a -- a dispute between the two branches, and where that happens, i find it hard to say, well, you know, we can't get into it -- because why? because it's textually committed to one of the branches? it seems to me we have to resolve that question. gen. verrilli: well, as i said earlier, i tried to say, we think that the -- the announcement of the political question doctrine goes a very long way towards answering that question, justice scalia. we do think this could be seen as a case like gilligan in looking at the relief that the petitioner is seeking, the plaintiff is seeking leads the court to conclude that this -- that -- that entertaining the claim would embroil the court in decisions that are supposed to be made by another branch; and that in fact, i think you can understand section [d] as precisely that, an effort to try to draw the court into this

dispute between congress and the executive over whether section -- over whether jerusalem should be recognized as part of israel. chief justice roberts: i will give you a couple more minutes. if my colleagues have any questions? justice scalia: yes, i -- i wanted to follow up on that. does -- does that mean you're content to have this court not say whether it's the exclusive executive power or there's some congressional participation? i mean, if we just abstain, if we just say it's none of our business, it's none of our business; let you two guys fight it out. that's not what you are asking us to do, is it? gen. verrilli: that's correct, justice scalia. it's what we are asking you to -- scalia: you are asking us to decide the question that it is exclusively the presidential power. gen. verrilli: yes. that is correct. justice scalia: that doesn't sound to me like -- you know, like abstaining because it's a

political question. it seems to me like deciding the case. chief justice roberts: do you want to answer? gen. verrilli: we -- we do think that the -- whether the court is looking at it as a political question or whether the court is looking at it as a judgment of the merits, the issue is textual commitment. this is -- there is textual commitment. this is a situation in which the country has to speak with one voice, and the executive has determined what the country should say. thank you. chief justice roberts: thank you, counsel. mr. lewin, we will give you minutes. >>let me begin my rebuttal by echoing really what justice alito said during my colleague's argument. the question is whether anything that the president thinks bears on recognition, it forecloses this court or any court from making that determination? this is not in our view a recognition case. this is a passport case. the question is, what goes on the passport, and may somebody self--identify? this is again, if one looks at the statute, if one even looks at the foreign affairs manual, a passport is not today considered a diplomatic statement, it's an identification of a person in

order to enable him to travel abroad. now again, let me also echo what the chief justice and justice kagan asked during my colleague's argument. if in fact the statute had said we don't say jerusalem is part of israel, but you can identify yourself as being in israel, my -- we submit that result can very easily be achieved and was achieved in the case of taiwan by a public statement by the executive. congress -- this law can be enacted; people who were born in jerusalem can have their passport say either jerusalem or israel, that's their choice; congress hasn't said it has to say israel, and then the department of state can issue as it did in the case of taiwan, a

public statement saying, this is not official american policy. nobody's asking this court to decide what is official american policy. nobody is asking the court to decide what as justice scalia said would happen if there were no congressional statute. in that case it would be a political question. if my client had decided he wanted to have his passport say israel and he had no congressional stature, and we brought the case to a court, the court could say, no, you are asking us to decide what the president should decide, what the department of state should decide. but other than that, congress has enacted the law. the -- the fact is that with regard to this legislation it is a statute which determines personal choice with regard to a passport. the case can be a vehicle -- this case can be a vehicle for an authoritative clarification

of the roles of congress and the president in conducting the nation's foreign affairs. if so, then we submit justice jackson's statement, which acknowledges that congress has the final word in the third category, is one that should control. but there are narrower grounds for enforcing section [d] that do not implicate separation of powers issues. it's a passport law; it's within congress's constitutional authority on the cases that have recognized that the president may not deny or restrict passports without the express or implied approval of congress. that doesn't require the recognition or involve the recognition of foreign sovereigns. and the state department's justification for a policy that congress has disapproved does not -- withstand --scrutiny. the court merely has to look at

the record in this case in which the state department has said, look, we're concerned that there may be a misperception of what this means -- a misperception. on it's extraordinary that the basis of the fact that there is an alleged misperception, american citizens who have been authorized by congress to say -- identify themselves on their passports as being born in israel, will now find that statute null and void. justice sotomayor: could you tell me -- let's assume that a dozen nations said this designation on the passport as we view is an act of war. if the united states is going to do this, we're going to view it as an act of war. would that then permit the president to ignore congress's -- lewin: i think congress has to weigh that; and if congress

determines that in any event this is what the passport should say, then that is congress -- sotomayor: so it's not the misperception that's at issue. mr. lewin: well, in this case -- sotomayor: the misperception has nothing to do with your argument. mr. lewin: i -- i don't think that's true, because -- sotomayor: you are going back to justice scalia's point, which is what you're saying is congress dictates foreign policy in the end. mr. lewin: in the end, if congress determines that what the president has said in this context is wrong, yes. we live in a system under which congress passes the law, and the president has the duty -- and i think justice scalia has said it, has the duty to be the sole instrument of foreign policy. the president speaks for the foreign policy that -- when congress authorizes him to do it, he may formulate it. when congress does not authorize him to do it, he may formulate it. but when congress disapproves of what he does, then under justice jackson's test in the

steel seizure case, congress prevails. the fact that there is dictum in cases -- particularly curtiss--wright, which has not come up in the course of the argument, but justice sutherland's opinion in the curtiss--wright case in which he spoke broadly of the president as being the sole organ of foreign policy, one has to say that the harvard professor thomas reed powell, who used to tell his students that just because justice sutherland writes clearly, you must not suppose that he thinks clearly. [laughter.] mr. lewin: and we submit that is really what it's all about. justice kennedy: i -- just -- just one question on -- on washington's recognition of revolutionary france. you cite in the reply brief the fact that the administration was simply following what it deemed to be a dictate of international law. do you want us to infer from

that that he was not exercising real discretion there? mr. lewin: correct. the -- historians who studied that have determined that he was just following mr. vattel, who said you had have to recognize any country that has de facto control, and therefore, since the french revolutionists were in de facto control of the french government, washington had no choice. he was not exercising any kind of discretion. chief justice roberts: thank you, counsel. >> condoleezza rice and jim lehrer had line this weekend at book tb -- the 28 annual miami book fair international. join in with your calls, and mills, and tweets like this weekend on c-span2. you can look for miami book fair web cast at booktv.org. pat buchanan and ralph nader on the end of america. >> nationalism, tribalism,

religious fundamentalism are far more powerful than ideology. we are not immune in this country from these forces and when the melting pot has been thrown out and you are preaching multiculturalism, what holds us together? >> mr. buchanan pocketbook is "suicide of a superpower." from new york city, the national book awards. find the complete schedule online at booktv.org. >> in about a half an hour, we will go to the jefferson davis -- jefferson jackson dinner. a look at the future of the occupied movement with an activist and wall street occupier. >> for the next 45 minutes, we will talk about the goals of the occupy movement.

>> it is a moral movement that has a structural critique of where we are today. >> tell me what is going on today and how this movement has evolved to where it is now today in new york. >> it started on september 17. the whole idea was occupy wall street. the issues were social and economic justice and equality. the idea of the 99% not being represented by the government and the government not being responsive to the will of the people. that is where it started. it has gained momentum since then. people are beginning to see that

critique and they are adopting it. they feel that they are identified with that. host: joining us here in washington, d.c. to talk about the movement in d.c. is an activist with occupy d.d. -- occupy d.c. host: is there a different goal or agenda? guest: by and large we are on the same page. we are in different places. they are closer to the financial district. i think we are very focused on money and politics. because of that, there is a huge amount of power equalization in our government. we are in the right position for that. host: we are showing a video right now of the occupy movement

in d.c. tell us about the evolution of occupy d.c. and the changes that have been affected over the past two months. guest: we started on octave -- october 1. we are younger than occupy wall street. we have over 150 tents in mcpherson square. we have a welcome tent, a media tent. actually, a pretty advanced micro-society. host: as this micro-society evolves, what is its purpose? where are you going with it? guest: i urge people to be patient in looking at where we are going with this.

we are kind of creating the world we would like to see. it is a very democratic community. all important decisions are made by consensus. we would like to come to a compromise on the very -- major decisions that we make. if congress would work like that, it would be quite a different world. it is a very human space. very dynamic, human space. i have made a lot of great friends they're already in just over eight months. we are kind of creating the world we want to see. host: your tent city has been taken down. how does that change the focus or change the purpose of the movement there in new york? guest: the purpose of the movement is still the same. again, social and economic justice and equality. to actually provide a structural

entity outside partisan -- the partisan system, which does not allow for many of the voices to be heard. in terms of losing space, i think that only strengthened the movement. it is a challenge, but that is why we are meeting in cafes, restaurants, and people's living rooms. the idea of occupying space is almost a metaphor. liberty square is a symbol of black community that we are trying to build and the challenges we are willing to take. it is empowering people that we are after. empowering people to occupy their lives, occupy their schools, occupy their hospitals, and liberate those things. > we are talking with amin husain, an organizer an activist movement.e occupy

we want to get some sound of one credit from the occupy movement. the criticism is that it does not stand for anything. this comes from representative peter king from new york. we will hear what he has to say and get responses from our guest. >> life is full of frustration. let's talk about concrete proposals. what are they proposing as far as tax reform? what about job growth? what about government regulations? what about trade? they are angry people who are

losers. they are on the outside and screaming. if they want to get involved, go into the system. how do they achieve anything by living in dirt for two months. they are living in dirt. they are proud to do that. what does that mean? what message is that sending? mayor bloomberg exactly the right thing. host: sam with occupy d.c. -- your thoughts? guest: he said at what people on the outside have been saying. the number of people supporting this movement -- the number of people saying they think there is too much money in politics and there is a gap between the poor and wealthy is about 80%. the vast majority of people in this country agree.

host: your thoughts about representative king's statement? guest: i think he needs to do more research and pay attention to what is happening. there are too many proposals. there is too much talking. what is happening with the people on the street that are addressing these issues, those are people who love lost their jobs or are leaving their families in other states, coming here, and making their voices heard in a way the current system does not allow. the idea of an elected representative speaking on behalf of their constituencies by narrowing very complex issues into 2-3 -- come up with the proposal about housing,, with a proposal about jobs. it does not work. host: if you were to try and answer him regarding proposals about housing and those kinds of things, is the occupy movement

working towards specific proposals? out to borrow a phrase from other political entities, are you setting up a platform with various planks on issues like housing, defense, etc.? guest: back in july when we discussed this issue at length over whether there would be concrete demands or proposals, we agreed that we would not by consensus. the theory behind it was that people feel disenfranchised. we want to create a political space where we empower people, in power much analyzed voices to have their voices heard. we can free up people's imaginations to think up solutions together in solidarity. the only thing i would add to that, and this is something i started off with. this is a movement that has its lineage to the civil rights

movement where people were talking about economic justice. that talk in that conversation never ended. what the movement is doing right now is bringing that conversation back to the forefront again. people that do have -- movements and organizations -- this movement is in solidarity with them. as you saw with the worker unions that support the occupy movement, they have become more vocal about their demands. this movement strengthens those that have articulated demands. on health care, on student loans and the like. host: let's get to the phones. we are talking about the goals of the occupied movement. our first call is from harbor springs, mich.. you are on "washington journal." caller: i can give you a very serious example of how people are so grossly marginalize.

there is a real community in michigan. on wednesday of this week, a gentleman went into the bank with a semiautomatic weapon, robbed the bank of $100,000. that is very serious. he has not been caught. i would venture to say that probably the majority of people realize bait -- are probably rooting for him. that is where we have lost so much in terms of how we are giving people a chance to live a decent life. people that live up here do not have economic wherewithal to travel to big places to protest. they do live in the streets or in the woods.

i would like to see situations like that addressed. i substitute teaching up here. i cannot begin to tell you the poverty i see in the faces of children. host: talk to us about economic despair and what cathy was trying to address. guest: it really gets to the point that this is a moral movement. people who may not know all the facts about economic disparity can feel it. they can feel that the government is not responding. they can feel that things are getting worse in this country. for years we have been looking at polls that say the country is headed the wrong way. what she is saying speaks to that. host: next up, portland, oregon. caller: amin, are you muslim and did you vote for obama? guest: i was born muslim.

i am not practicing. i voted for the first time in my life once for president and that was obama. host: alan, what is your point? caller: i make about $50,000 a year. i am not rich. i disagree with about every single thing you guys stand for. i have no grudge against people who earn money. i have no grudge against corporations that create jobs. they produce something. do you people produce anything? and your encampments? you leave it for the police and community to clean up at the cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars. host: allen, 48 people were arrested on three occasions in portland, adding that they used

pepper spray in one of those incidents. the you think that action was justified? alan? allen is gone. amin, do you want to respond to what he had to say? guest: i think each human being has inherent value in what they do in society. i come from a poor background. i made it in this country. i am trained as a lawyer and i worked in finance. i was making touraine $50,000 at one time. i felt i was overpaid. i chose poverty because i felt like i had a responsibility. i am accomplished in a sense, but to me it is about how you live a good life and what kind of life are we imagining for our children and our future? i think it requires a little bit more imagination and opening up

the conversation we are helping -- having nationally at a critical time in our history. host: john calling from albany, new york. go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. i look at this movement and i am kind of torn. i belong to a union and might union is flirting with you guys someonwhat. i am very uneasy about that. let's talk about ethics. we want to talk about ethics in government and society, fine. i will decide my own morals. i do not need a super committee to decide my morals. that sounds too socialistic, almost tantamount to communism. i see red flags there and it reminds me of when i came back from vietnam. people called me some vile

things for serving my country, but my point is this -- if you really want to have an impact, you should take all your expertise and you should start delving into the public records of which politicians are taking money. it is the outside money that is influencing all of this stuff that filters down to the street level. if you cannot do that, then i fear this movement is just going to fade. start naming names. where they got their money from, who they are. do not be bashful. how they voted. host: we will leave it there. sam here in d.c., talk to us about what john had to say about morals, ethics, and the significance of union support for the movement. guest: we have gotten support

for things like showers and things like that. we do definitely view that as a common cause. we should have solidarity with humans. there are people just like us. host: are you living right now in the occupied d.c. city? tell us a little bit about how that works. guest: it is great. i have a lot of friends there. in my own tent, my own sleeping bags, blankets. i enjoy it. there are people who come through the park all day and night. we have great conversations with them about our country and our culture and politics. host: where were you living before this and how long does the occupy d.c. mu'min intend to

occupy the space downtown? guest: i lived with my parents. host: how long do you think you will be there in your own space? guest: as long as i need to be there. host: there will be snow on the ground soon. would your tent city be able to survive? guest: we have cold weather sleeping bags. we have all kinds of clothing. people have been in camps much worse. i know personally that 100-150 people will be determined and up to stay there. host: what is the end game? very often when we are in military conflicts, they want to know what is the end game. what is the out strategy? how the recognize victory in this particular situation?

guest: we are fighting at a very powerful forces. we are definitely changing the national conversation already. i think we have to be patient and determined. we'll see where it goes. host: what is the endgame for the occupy movement? the new york tent city has been taken down. how you identified victory in your opinion? guest: i think the victory can be measured in at least two ways. number one, and this relates to the question asked about unions and the role of unions in this movement. i think of them as labor. this is about building a transformative movement that is bottom line by students, labor, and the middle-class that has been disenfranchised and have

lost their homes. i think that is important in terms of the visual of what we see. that movement is going to grow and become something of a popular movement or a popular, not violence, uprising that can put pressure on the political system in terms of the structural modification or structural change. in terms of the end game or in terms of goal, i only speak to -- i only speak for myself -- is breaking the link between global capital and banks. the thing that is getting money out of politics. all the different ways are important because it is disenfranchising to people. if the will of the people can be heard, as it should be, our political system would be working and we would be getting places.

host: let's go back to the phones. on our line for republicans, tim as calling from florence, alabama. good morning. guest: yes, sir. am i on? host: yes. your thoughts or questions? guest: i just wonder what they think about their movement over in the foreign countries? for instance, great britain, trying to get shariah law in place. this guy with the cap and the eye glasses on, he is islamic, no question about it. the other one sitting beside you, he is for the islamic movement. they are over here try to cause chaos. it is small and do everything you want to mr. for eyes.

-- four eyes. host: we will leave it there. talked-about some of the occupied movements overseas. what is the connection between those movements overseas and the movement here in the united states? do you communicate with each other? the you make plans, that kind of thing? guest: it is called movement building. it is movement building nationally and internationally. i think it is important to recognize the iapetus behind the movement in new york and the occupied movement in general. we saw a lot of things happen in the middle east, beginning with what happened in egypt. we saw a democracy rise up against the government in terms of austerity measures in greece. in spain, we saw an advanced economy using the same kind of people-power to make lots of change. i think that, from there, we got the idea of, again, people

power, coming out to general assembly's, and things like that. mainly, the spanish and greek people have been involved in terms of the initial tools we have used. that is the lineage, i think, of some of what we are seeing right now in the united states. i think moving forward we will dig people are looking to the united states and the occupied movement over here for the lead. we have integrated that movement from what people told us. host: don as our next caller for project from the line encore -- for democrats. what part of new york are you in? >> buffalo. i have no question, i just wanted to make a comment. first, i want to thank these gentlemen for their service and all the rest of the people who are participating in this

movement. the ethics in this country have gone south. people are really struggling financially because of these large corporations and because of the politicians who are, you know, doing insider-trading. i think somebody wrote a book about that. it has been publicized now. people who have written this book have come forward because of the occupy movement. that is my comment. host: sam, go ahead. guest: i think everyone is starting to see that our country is in a bad place. the top 1% have made 60% of all

new and come in the last 30 years. there is nothing fair about that. it is simply not healthy for our country. it is not any way to build a stable, functioning democracy. host: we have an e-mail from jack in new york city to rights the reason the government is broke is because too few people are supporting too few people already. capital provides opportunity for people like your guest to start their own businesses, work for charities, or move to areas where jobs are available. the move is an abrogation of societies of losers who are unprepared for life. socialism does not work. the evidence is that the democratic party has foisted it on america and that is why we are in such deep debt. again, that is jack in new york city. your thoughts about what jack had to say?

guest: i think jack may be right. i think jack may be wrong. the beauty of this movement is it is telling everyone we have a problem. we think the problem has to do with a lack of justice and equality. we would love for you to get involved. you can move this movement in the direction that the 99% would like it to go. purposely, we have stayed away from isms -- socialism, capitalism. those are blatant terms that have lots of baggage with them. losing jobs, losing houses, doing what you are supposed to do, but there is no american dream. there is a problem. i think that is what 99% of us can agree on i think in terms of the solution, this movement is about empowering people to think about that. that is all. if you get involved, which can think about what the solutions are, but too many people have

told us for too long that these are the choices and what we are challenging is that narrative. let's free up our imagination collectively. let's work towards solutions other than what is already presented to us. host: amin husain is an organizer. he is a studio artist. previously, he was a finance lawyer in new york city, born in chicago, illinois. here in d.c. we are talking to sam jeweler, a d.c. native. he worked for at washingtonian magazine and ran a world of telecommunications operation. our next call comes from london. you are on "washington journal." go-ahead. caller: good morning. i was visiting london and was based in new york. i got caught up in the

demonstrations during deep occupy movement in union square. i must say that although i might agree with some of the issues and a lot of people that were observing the crowd, the message is quite disturbing and terrorizing. to be clear, it is important that the united states, in particular people who are viewing this show, as well as reading about this movement, really see first hand on the ground their message. the methods are, to be kind, radical and reminiscent of the '60s. i get the feeling that most of these people are kids in their 20s who missed the 1960's protest movements and have tried to claim this issue as a replication of that movement

when the two have no similarities whatsoever. host: before we get a response from our guests, talk to us a little bit about the comparisons between the movement overseas and the movement here in the united states. one of the things about the movement in london -- how they compare themselves to what we are doing in the united states? robert? caller: the message that i think is being spoonfed around the world through some of these organizers -- the actions are different. what i observed on thursday and what i have seen in london -- it really is -- you can blindfold yourself and place yourself in either one of these cities and it as -- it is as if you have

not left the city. it is a big difference. host: sam, your thoughts. guest: just like roderick did, i invite anyone who is interested in this movement to come down and check it out yourself. i think what we are seeing around the world right now -- he mentioned the word terrorizing. the only terrorizing i have seen is by the government against peaceful protesters. i think that is very telling. when you have police officers pipper spraying harmless people, that says a lot about our government and our society today. host: amin husain, talk to us about the tactics. some folks say it looks like terrorism. talk to us about the tactics like tying up the brooklyn

bridge, going to areas of public transportation, making it difficult. -- making it difficult for those who may not be part of that 99% to get to work and try to fulfill their own little part of the american dream. guest: we are cognizant of people working hard to make a living. in all of the actions that we planned, we try to include, not exclude, and not be antagonistic. one of the principles of every action is non-violence. that does not mean that there is not transgression. frankly, some laws that inhibit assembly, free-speech, and movement -- those need to be challenged. this is a component of what people are doing if they feel

comfortable with the rest. incidents like the brooklyn bridge -- that was a situation where you had thousands of people. hard for a crowd to be controlled in a manner. on the other hand, frankly, we were very excited that we did take the bridge. there was something amazing about that in terms of sending a message to the world. i do think -- i wonder why people feel rushed to place labels -- radical, and then taking radical and saying it is bad or good. terrorist or terrorism -- these terms our conversation anders, not conversation starters. what we are interested in is having a conversation. the only other thing i will add -- i am sorry -- the idea?

people are not recognizing right now -- the narrative on the 17th was never supposed to be protesters against police. there are important issues we want to talk about police brutality is existent. we would rather not talk about it. we are not interested in those types of confrontations. host: you brought up the right to assembly. tell us in your mind what the difference is between the right to assembly and the right to occupy. amin husain. guest: that is a great question. to me, they are important, at least for this movement and in this time. physically where? in some place, right? geography matters. what is happening right now is you have a general assemblies that happened. but the occupation was to try

and create a space that is liberated, for people to have conversations that they otherwise are unable to have in society in general. that was the idea. that is still the idea and it is important. host: back to the phones and our discussion regarding the occupy movement. our call is from san diego, california. caller: i want to say about the caller in florida who said something about your religion, we have freedom of religion in this country. that is what our founding fathers fought for and your right to protest peacefully. i commend you for peaceful protest. if you wanted to pull me in on the street to occupy santiago,

-- santiago, the target of the real problem is the federal reserve. it is not bank of america. the federal reserve is causing all the wars. it makes us a place to the whole system here. it is not just the small banks -- not small, but the large banks -- it is the federal reserve. the tea party is scared right now. i just watched msnbc and they are nervous that the tea party is. to join with you. trust me, i am not socialist. i am not for government at all. host: we are going to leave it there and get a response from sam here in d.c. guest: applying a label to bust -- we are just trying to have a conversation. any money -- anybody who feels

disenfranchised, anybody who feels they are part of the 99% or the kind of people we are talking with in our camps. i appreciate him calling in and defending the right to freedom of religion and freedom of speech. host: we have an article from the "miami herald." "occupy wall street shares roots with tea party protesters, but different goals per "do you agree or disagree with that? do they share similar goals or similar routes with the tea party bamut -- tea party? guest: they are both groups of people who feel disenfranchised and think there is too much power in the hands of too few people in this country. host: have there been discussions with tea party members here in washington, d.c. to hash out where you all might

be on the same page and where you differ? guest: that has not happened yet. some people are interested in getting that conversation started. they are part of the 99%. we are all part of the 99%. i think that would be an interesting conversation to have. host: our next call comes from harry in pittsburgh on our line for republicans. guest: i just want to make a few statements. number one, there will be a lot of angry people. i am looking at a block and you see pictures of urination in the streets -- >> we take you live to the iowa democratic party's jefferson jackson dinner in -- jefferson jackson dinner. rahm emmannuel is the keynote speaker. he will be introduced in just a few minutes. you are watching live coverage

here on c-span. >> because this is our family dinner, every year, just like any other family dinner, we welcome our elected officials, our party leaders, hard at work every day. we have a tremendous, tremendous crew on the ground in the county. you know that because that is where you are from and that is the work that you do. i would like to have the democratic party's vice chairmen stand up. county chairs in attendance, stand as well so we can recognize you and thank you for your hard work. [applause] i want to send a special shout

out to a particular member. he may be behind me. he was part of the band's strike team. austin -- all of you should be proud of the work they are doing. they are fired up, ready to go. there are tables of them out there. please give them a hand because they really are our future. [applause] as we look to the future, we also look to our incredible, illustrious past. we have tonight with us former lieutenant governor sally peterson. we have former lieutenant governor out that the judge. we have former governor chet culver. we have neil smith and secretary of state michael barker. thank you. [applause] thank you, all, four years of

service, years of example, and giving us something to live up to. i would also like to recognize -- we have not been together as a family, all of us, since the legislative session of this year i -- i would like to recognize -- many of you have a heard me say this -- i do not need my glasses because i do not need the notes -- the members performed a service for the people of this day, not just the people of the democratic party. they stayed in there for six months and fought time after time and day after day and week after week. they stayed in, they hung in. they could not win very often, and they knew that, but that did not stop them. because they stayed in and did the best they could to send over legislation that was slightly less onerous to the senate, they

stepped up our conversation and i want to recognize the members of the iowa house. thank you, all of you. house members, stand up. [applause] i can tell you for those who are interested in this, this is part of our plan going forward, they're recruiting is going great. we have exciting things going on over there. know it, watch it, support it. it will be the news in 2012. we could not be more thrilled. [applause] and then they sent back to the iowa senate. i do have a point of personal privilege -- i have my own senator, coincidently my

favorite senator. once in a while i will have dinner with her and it is so much fun. bob is here with our doctors. i have to thank them publicly for the support that they give the party, me, and progressive issues on two campuses and in the heart of senate district 15. [applause] that leads us to our senators. my gosh, our senators. now we have senator elect. on monday, she will become a full-fledged member of the iowa senate, a special warm welcome to liz mathis. [applause]

i also what -- i also want to welcome mike fitzgerald. the line they hold on that executive council is so important. thank you. you are going to hear more from them later this evening, but you cannot mention too often our congressman. [applause] when the voters of senate district 18 elected liz earlier this month, it was not just a win for democrats. i believe it was a victory for the state of iowa. it showed how effective the democratic message is and how organized we are. it is why and how we will win in

2012. there is no doubt that we have a lot on our plates in 2012. we must expand the majority in the iowa senate. we must break the grip of tea party republicans from the iowa house. we must send for democrats to congress. -- four democrats to congress. we must reelect barack obama as president of the united states. those are not goals of this organization and the people in this room, those are the imperatives. some people look at that as a lot of work i look at it as a lot of opportunity. an opportunity to engage the voters across the state like never before. an opportunity to connect with people across iowa just like we did in 18.

it is an opportunity to highlight our outstanding cankered -- our outstanding candidates. when we have that conversation with voters, when we lay out 2012 as a choice between a package to progress and an absolute guarantee of regress, the answer could not be clearer. the exact conversations will take place in precincts across this state at the democratic caucuses on january 3. while republican presidential candidates argue about who will cut most programs, who will argue the most progress, and who will do the least to help middle-class americans, democrats are already organized towards victory. we know our nominees. the democratic caucuses are an invaluable opportunity for

democrats in every corner of this state to become active and campaign for the white house and the courthouses. it is a time to stand with your neighbors and show support for responsible, democratic leadership in iowa and across this country. traveling this state, i have witnessed firsthand the excitement among democrats in iowa. they know the privilege and the responsibility we have as first and the nation and they are ready to kick off the 2012 election. in every corner of this day, democrats know that between january 3, 2012 and november 6 they have one goal in front of them -- to elect democrats to office. every island -- every iowan

who commits is taking the first debt. you know that a strong middle class is a strong america. you know workers' rights are not a bargaining chip. you know that america deserves a world-class schools. attending the democratic caucuses and standing proudly behind president obama means you are prepared to protect our priorities. two weeks ago i let overwhelmingly -- iowans overwhelmingly stood up for progress. in less than a year, the nation will do the same. we will achieve our goals and be on the path to progress. thank you, again, for your support and for everything you are going to do in the coming months. [applause] >> please direct your attention to the video screen.

♪ ladies and gentlemen, please welcome congressman bruce bareilraley. [applause] congressman dave loeblack. congressman leonard boswell.

cristy vilsack. congressman braley. [applause] >> is everybody having a good time tonight? i want to thank suit are at inviting my former drill instructor to be the keynote speaker tonight. you are going to get a chance to hear him speak in a few minutes, but what most of you do not know it is rahm emmannuel actually believes that at holiday classic, "oh, come emanuel," was written in

chicago 100 years ago. we want to start by closing your eyes -- everybody close your eyes, do not open them until i tell you -- i want you to think back to that magical night in denver in august 2008 and i want you to hear those fireworks exploding over head at mile high stadium and i want you to smell the smoke in the air. i want you to see the sky and exploding in color and i want you to feel the electricity in that stadium. now, i want you to imagine what we could do together if we all still believed in hope and change. i want each one of you to think

about what you are going to do in the next year to bring that back -- that magic back to iowa on november 6, 2012. please open your eyes. one week ago, carolyn and i watched an extraordinary film. it was produced by nancy pelosi's daughter, alexandra. she went to 50 swearing-in swearing in -- 50 swearing-in ceremonies in 50 states. you need to watch this film because it will remind you why we are so lucky to live in the united states of america. one of the most profound moments in that film was when a young girl from slovenia was asked what is the most striking thing you have noticed about americans since you came here? she said, "it is how much they

complain." we need to think about her comment. we have not so much to be grateful for in this country. if you come into my office in washington, you will see a large poster of a movie -- one of my favorite movies -- that my son gave me. the movie is "the shawshank redemption." is about hope, a change, and redemption. if you remember only one thing about what i say tonight, remember this -- my favorite line in the movie -- it comes down to a simple choice -- get busy living, or get busy dying. it is time for democrats to get busy living. it is time for the democrats in iowa to find and recapture that

hope and change of feeling. it is time for us to come together and we elect our presidents and all the great democrats in this room and it is time for us to stop complaining. we have a lot of hard work to do. let's get to work. thank you very much. [applause] >> congressman loeblack. [applause] >> how is everybody doing tonight? we are going to get democrats reelected? we are going to get new democrats like christy vilsack elected? we are going to take back the house of representatives. we never should have lost it last year, ok? when bruce and i got elected in 2006, i talked a lot about hope

and change. many of you know how i grew up. you know i grew up in sioux city in poverty. i had a single parent mothers who struggled with mental illness and her whole life. in 2006, it was pretty apparent this country was going in the wrong direction under president bush. we captured the house of representatives. we began to change the direction of the country. then we got barack obama elected president. while we have not done everything that we wanted to do, we still have the right priorities in barack obama. we still have the right priorities in the democrats in the u.s. house and u.s. senate. those priorities are getting people back to work first and foremost. [applause] but we cannot do it we do not focus on the things that matter. i would not be here if not for

the education i got at the public schools in sioux city and at iowa state university. i would not be here if it were not for that. the victory last night for the cyclones, was it not? [applause] but we cannot focus just on education. we have to make sure that when our troops come back from iraq and afghanistan -- and the sooner the better -- we have to make sure that we treat them with the respect and dignity that they deserve. we have to make sure that they have jobs, the day are not sleeping under -- that they are not sleeping under bridges, that they are treated the way they deserve to be treated after all that they have done for us. and we have to make sure that whatever we do we do not balance the budget on the backs of the senior citizens of america, the middle class, and those who are

the most vulnerable among us. we cannot do that. but tonight this is mostly about you. it is about other people in iowa who are struggling as well, folks who cannot find a job, young people who cannot get an education for one reason or another. it is about the people of iowa and americans and making sure that we do restore that hope and opportunity for those folks who want it. that is what this is about. i'm going to ask you tonight to help all of us who are on stage, help the president of the united states get reelected, and make sure that we keep the iowa senate in democratic hands and that we do as much as we can to take back the iowa house. it is that critical. thank you so much. thank you for everything. let's keep fighting as hard as we possibly can. thank you everybody. thank you. >> congressman boswell.

>> good evening, everybody, and again, it is wonderful to be with you here tonight to come together and rejuvenate. we know there is a lot lying before us. i would say to you tonight that what is in jeopardy as i look at this beautiful flight of ours is the escaping of the american dream for our young -- flag of ours is the escaping of the american dream for our young people, our children and our grandchildren. we even have a few great grandchildren in a few days. my concern, and i know it is yours, i have talked too many of you, is we have got to make sure that we hang onto this great country of ours and the american dream that that flag stands for. we have got to do it. some of you probably know i a farmhouse about

70 miles from here. i was the first of my family to go to college, the first to have the opportunity to pursue and participate in the american dream. what we have got to do is remember that education brings us to the places we need to be. we have got to get people back to work. we want to do something for this economy, let's get people to work. the number of things the president has offered up in his jobs bill, a number of things in there will put us back to work and they are things we have to do anyway. what are we about? i am very pleased and i want to say thank you to many of you. bruce, dave, christie. thank you for that. [applause] i never thought a few years ago that i would see anybody that

would jeopardize our country for the benefit of such of you. it ought to be cleared to -- such a few. it ought to be clear to all of us as we look back over our history, when everybody participates when we are challenged like we are right now, we solve the problems. we solve the problems. we cannot blame it on the working class. we cannot put it on the poor folks. we have got to do this together, and if everybody participate, we can deal with this, move on, and get our country back to productivity and see that the american dream is there for all of us. this is something we have got to do and we have got to do it now. we have got to be sure that the united states of america continues to be the great country that we have had the privilege to live our lives in. in means a lot to us. god bless you and let's do it

and we will. i appreciate being with you tonight. [applause] >> christi vilsack. [applause] >> thank you for a great party. i have got to tell you i have been waiting a long time to have these three guys standing behind me. i appreciate you guys back there. when i was 15-years old, i read "to kill a mockingbird" for the first time. faugh if you have not read the book, you -- if you have not read the book, you may have seen the movie. when i read it for the first time, i thought that pakistan was my dad. the second -- i thought that atticus finch was my dad. the second time i read it, i

thought he was my husband. this year, i thought maybe i should read it again. i thought there might be something in there that would teach me. this year when i read it, i realize i am atticus finch. [applause] in fact, all of us are. when you hear someone say that people who are unemployed should vote or thevallowed to people who do not own property should not be allowed to vote, then somebody has to stand up. i am going to stand up. when he votes against social security and medicare and the best interests of our seniors, when he votes against flood relief for the people of our own district, when he votes against the issues that are important to us, somebody has to stand up. my question to all of you is

will you stand? will you stand? will you stand? [applause] we will stand to gather and win the fourth district, and the third district, and the second district, and the first district, and take those 25 seats for congress, and then we will move forward with the president's agenda. thank you a lot. [applause] >> once again, chairwoman sued vorsky.e the -- sue decorsk

♪ [come back anytime] >> are you so excited? this is not going to be good. the kids up there will be like, put the thing back on. i will say again, are you so excited? i am. ok, well, you know that sometimes we get accused of not reading our scripture, but i know this part. wherever two more -- two or more are gathered, there we are with a bucket, because we are the democratic party. it is but it passing time. let's turn on the lights.

you know that to get this thing done, president to the congressional, you know what has to happen. you know. dig down deep. kids are going to come up. i know that you all paid to get here. you know that i know because i have talked to all of the multiple times. but that is the day. we can do better and we can do more. all right. the best things in life are free, but you can give them to the birds and bees. i want money. that's what i won. that's what i want. that's what i want. ♪ >> loss of volunteers here tonight from -- lots of

volunteers here tonight from the high school. thank you, guys. that's what i want. everything itget pursues, but it gets me what i can use. i want money. that's what i want. that's what i want. that's what i want. ♪ >> do not be shy. raise your hand so you're sure they can see you. that's what i want.

♪ that's what i want. ♪ that's what i want. ♪ give me money. ♪ that's what i want. give me money. ♪ a lot of money. ♪ give me money. ♪ that's what i want. ♪ that's what i want. ♪ that's what i want.

>> thank you, all. i often write all of the thank- you notes and i know all of you have gotten them. thank you again, thank you as usual. tonight, we have another thing that is going to happen. we have something really fun to auction tonight. we are going to bring it up here, and to do it, we're going to have democrat from hancock county, randy black is going to help us. come on up. the templeton brewery has a special place in the history of iowa and a special place in the hearts of many iowa democrats. we are going to be bringing out, in a moment, a templeton rye stamped whiskey barrel that i am quite excited about. on it -- you can take it out of the plain brown wrapper now.

we know most of you, so the templeton stayed back in the staff room until we were ready to bring it out here. i will also tell you that that may or may not be the bottle that santa brought me last year. i am so committed to this party. randy is going to start this and i am going to step down because i may or may not be bidding. >> it is not full, but isn't there something special to this? weren't you going to engrave something on this? also, the winning bidder will be able to get something in grave in this, so if you are looking for a nice piece to go in your man cave, there you go. it dig deep, guys.

first of all, i am going to ask you to lift your arms really high so i can see you. you all know this is rare stuff throughout the midwest. we only make so many bottles at a time. when you go to your local grocers and it is empty on the shelf, that is all they get. it is good whiskey. you cannot get better than templeton ride. to i have $2? $300? $400? now $500, now $600, let's get this thing to $1,000. i have $700. $800. would you give it to 800? i have 700 here, now 8. i have $750, now $800.

$750, now $800. i have $800, now $900. would you take it to 9 $50. -- $950. do you want it in your man cave or not? it is a good, good barrel. this is for the democratic party. $850. $850. $850 now $900. how about $1,000? let's take it up to $1,000? it is just $100 more. $1,000, and look what you are giving to the democratic party. how about $950? i have $950. how about $1,000? i have $1,000. how about $1,100?

$1,100? a 11th ellison -- $1,100? i have a question to ask you. it is rare that i have women bid on this kind of stuff. has your husband got a hold on your wallet? good, then let loose. how about 10 $50? -- how about $1,050? how about $1,050? it is just $50 more. 1050? sold it, $1,000, right there. a bottle of whiskey. thank you, folks.

>> want to see nervous? watch the senate appropriations chair when we are bidding. amy, a great idea. thank you, all. has always and as usual. tonight, we heard from our congressman. we heard from christy vilsack about why we have to send them back to washington. tom harkin knows better than most how incredibly important that task is. to accomplish everything in front of us and continue forward momentum, we have to give tom harkin democratic colleagues in washington who will stay focused on politics and not on a radical agenda that pushes us backwards. although senator harkin was unable to join us tonight, we have a special video message from him about what is at stake in 2012 and how the democrats will win.

>> good evening. i welcome mayor rahm emanuel to iowa and send my warm regards. we are all celebrating the big victory of lives. she is a terrific candidate and will be a fine senator. make no mistake. this was a team victory. my hands off to sue and the state party, to the staff and labor programs, to all who pulled together for this win, and especially for our senate majority leader. was big news here in washington and across the country. a rank right up there with the victory for labor rights in ohio and women's rights in mississippi. the successes of the common denominator. in each case, progressives decided to stand up and fight back. we were focused, organized and

relentless, and we won. there is a powerful lesson here for 2012. we know it is going to be a challenging year. but frankly, i have no patience for folks who say they lack the same enthusiasm they fell four years ago. that is just not acceptable. as rahm emanuel can tell you, successful campaigns are not about mitt control or magic, they are about choosing to fight back, knocking on doors, making calls, raising money, and doing the thousands of nuts and bolts things that add up to victory on election day. please enjoy tonight's festivities, but tomorrow, back to work. and please, i am asking everyone of you to turn out on caucus night january 3rd. this is a critical organizing opportunity for our party and it will set the tone for our entire 2012 campaign.

friends, we have got an election to win next year. we about to energize, organize and mobilize our neighbor -- we have got to energize, organize and mobilize our neighbors to reelect president obama and to ensure the success of the entire iowa democratic party ticket next november 6th. again, have a great dinner, and i look forward to seeing you on the campaign trail. [applause] >> so, here we come to it. when barack obama took office three years ago, he needed a chief of staff who would be loyal, aggressive, and get the job done in the face of a global economic crisis and eight years of completely failed domestic policy. that is exactly what he got in

rahm emanuel. serving in both the clinton and obama white houses, representing illinois's fifth congressional district and in his current position as mayor of the great city of chicago, rum has always been focused on results. -- rahm emanuel has always been focused on results. as chief of staff, he became one of president obama's closes at pfizer's, a catalyst for the most productive first -- closest advisers, a catalyst for the most productive first 100 days in presidential history. he ensure that policies were put into place to turn the economy around, and after decades of complacency, america has true health care reform. [applause] he is here tonight because he has been a witness to president obama's vision for our nation,

and he knows the importance of granting him another four years in the white house. please join me in welcoming chicago's mayor, rahm emanuel. [applause] ♪ >> thank you, sue. we need here tonight -- while we meet here tonight, the republicans are having a debate across town. i do not know about you, but i have watched a couple of those debates. i have got to be honest. i never thought i would say this.

i'm beginning to miss the wisdom of sarah palin. [laughter] their debate was called the thanksgiving family forum, which is fitting, because i have never seen a greater collection of turkeys. [laughter] look at their candidates. take mitt romney. he is said to be in iowa -- he said he would be in iowa tonight. we should have known he would change his mind. newt was at the debate. he had to leave early. he had to run back to his most important people, the salespeople at tiffany's. herman cain and rick perry were a little late. they had to take a class to learn where libya was. governor mitch daniels, governor

haley barbour, governor jeb bush are impressive candidates. the only problem is they're not in the field. think of our field. vice-president joe biden. secretary of state hillary clinton. former senator chris dodd. president obama. now you think of their field. michele bachmann. rick perry. rick santorum. who is not feeling sorry for republican primary voters right now? four years ago, at this dinner, and many of you were in attendance, a young senator from my home state of illinois, who was 23 points down in the polls, spoke to you in words you will never forget. with the promises he made in a speech, he began a journey that

would change history, and he did it with your help. now, all of us may be a little older and a little grayer, or as my youngest daughter likes to say, they call it salt and pepper, but for your dad, it is all salt. we can remember what he said, but we can also remember that what he said was worth fighting for. he stood on this platform and promised to end a war that should never have been authorized and should never have been waged. republicans -- [applause] republicans did not want to let it happen, and be honest. democrats did not believe it could. yet tonight, the last of america's finest are on their way home. the war is over. [applause] that is the change we believed

in. that is the change we worked for and that is the change our president delivered. four years ago, at this very dinner, then senator obama promised he would take the fight to al qaeda, to those who perpetuated the 9-11 events. those who were responsible for 9-11. he said he would bring justice to allocate a leaders. tonight, osama bin ladin is history. al qaeda has been decimated thanks to the bold and determined leadership of our president. justice has been done and america is safer for it. typical of the person i know, president obama did not brag. you think our troops. you think our intelligence services -- he thanked our troops. he thanked our intelligence

services for their incredible work. he moved onto the next person threatening america and brought him to justice. he did not hang a banner. he did not pretend that the mission was accomplished. he got the job done. that is the change we believed in. that is the change we worked for, and that is the change the president delivered. four years ago, senator obama at this podium stood before you and said he wanted to stop talking about the outrage of 47 million americans without health care and start actually doing something about it. he promised then, i will make certain that every single american in this country has health care they can count on, and i will not do it 20 years from now. i will not do it 10 years from now. i will do it at the end of my

first term as president. now folks, you know this. politicians have been talking about this for 60 years. president obama delivered. [applause] because of president obama's leadership, an insurance company cannot turn you down because you have a pre-existing condition. [applause] because of president obama, they cannot discriminate against you because you are a woman or have grown older. because of president obama, your children can stay on a parent's policy until they enter the workforce. because of your support, iowa, and his courage, no american will ever again receive this letter, "sorry, you have reached the limit. we will not pay for your cancer

treatment anymore. [applause] republicans opposed every one of those reforms, but now we have those life-saving protections, that peace of mind, because of president obama's leadership. that is the change we believed in, that is the change we worked for, and that is the change the president delivered. [applause] then senator obama stood at this podium four years ago, at this dinner, and he promised to make sure that every american child has the best education we have to offer, from the day they are born to the day they graduate from college. as president, he doubled college scholarships. he expanded pell grants. he brought down the cost of college loans. he invested in schools with

innovation with race to the top. he expanded access to community colleges, our most undervalued educational tool. you gave him that chance, iowa. republicans fought him every step of the way, but because of his leadership, millions of young americans have been given a better chance. that is the change we believed in. that is the change we worked for. that is the change president obama delivered. [applause] you heard him say it right here in iowa four years ago. he made the pledge not just to you but to the american people, and now you have seen him deliver on the promises he made. that is how we measure character, doing what you say you will do. now, i had the privilege of seeing that character close of.

working by his side during two of the most harrowing years any president has faced in our lifetime. and no, despite what you are thinking right now, they were not heroine because i was by his side. -- harrowing because i was by his side. they say you can learn most about someone's character in a crisis. then i think we all know our president pretty well. during our greatest economic crisis in decades, the strength of our presidents character was on display every day. the president inherited an economy that was spiraling toward a depression, a financial system that had frozen up, and an auto industry that was near collapse. the problems president obama faced were not caused by accident. they were caused by policies, republican policies. the first time i worked in the

white house with president clinton, we had a democratic president, a democratic house and a democratic senate. we passed an economic plan without a single republican vote, and that plan put america back to work and back to economic growth. it created millions of private sector jobs. it lifted 7 million americans out of poverty. it ended welfare as we know it and put 100,000 cops on american streets. we balanced the budget. we put america on the path to the zero debt by 2009. that so far away date. we left president bush and the republicans a record surplus and a left president obama and the democrats' record national debt. you know how that happened. the republicans happened. they held the white house, the house and senate for six long years. they did something no one had

ever tried into the years of american history. they tried to fund two wars with three tax cuts. that is how you go from 029 trillion dollars in debt. it is that simple. -- from 0-$9 trillion in debt. it is that simple. they took everything they inherited, the jobs, the surplus, the stature of america and around the world, and they squandered it. it is a bit ironic, isn't it? you figure the one thing republicans are good at is inheriting things. [laughter] i kind of liked that one. [laughter] that is what the republicans handed president obama and america on day one, january 28th, 2009, the worst economic mess since president roosevelt took over for president hoover. but president obama did not

blame or complain. he knew the burdens on everyday americans were far worse than the ones he was facing. so he rolled up its sleeves and went to work on behalf of the hard-working families in this country. every day of work by his side, i saw him to be a leader who did not ask what is the easy thing to do, what was the politically convenient thing to do, but what was the right thing to do. what was the essential thing to do for america and america's future? the president did not -- 9 the president did not make choices based on politics. he made them because of his principles. he did not make choices for the next election, he made them for the next generation. trust me. i know this firsthand. he did not make decisions based on if they were quick or politically convenient, because i wanted him to go with decisions that were quick and politically convenient and i did not win any of those fights.

president obama never tailored what he believed to the moment. compare that for a second to mitt romney, who was once pro- choice, now is not. he was once pro gay rights, and now he is night -- is not. he was once in favor of gun control. now he is not. he supported immigration reform. now he does not. he supported national health care reform with a mandate. now he does not. mitt romney says he is a man of steadiness and consistency. if that is true, i am a linebacker for the chicago bears. [laughter] [applause] now, i want you to take a step back. while people have talked about all of the flip-flops, i actually think there is a different part to mitt romney that people do not fully appreciate. it is what he has been steadfast about, what he has refused to

give an inch on, what he has refused to bend on, what he will never flip on and never abandoned his position on, and that is his position on the middle class versus the most fortunate. what he has failed to do for the middle class and what he is willing to do for the most privileged and fortunate in our society. he faced the same set of choices president obama did when the country faced an auto industry in crisis. when the markets collapsed in 2008 and the government had to step in, mitt romney did not hesitate for a moment. he welcomed putting taxpayers on the hook to save the financial system. but when the auto industry and the millions of jobs that are dependent on it, the backbone of america's manufacturing economy was on the brink, he said while the families, all the communities, all the small businesses and all the workers, you should go bankrupt. nothing reveals more about the

character and values of these two individuals and how they dealt with these two crises. president obama did not think either one should be abandoned, the financial system or the auto industry. both were is essential to america's economic leadership and to economic growth in the future. those were the decisions he faced in the oval office. the choices he faced were not easy. for the financial system, it was a choice between more taxpayer money to support the banks or to nationalize them. for the auto companies, between helping them out or letting them go bankrupt. there were those he said he was throwing good money after bad. there were those who said that chrysler go to save gm. and then there were those led by mitt romney who advocated bankruptcy.

we know where mitt romney stood. the title of the op ed under his signature, "let detroit go bankrupt." but the financial engineers who helped create the mess were essential to our future. the engineers, the technicians, the workers on the shop floor of the auto industry were dispensable. they were dispensable. three years later, now we know who was right and who was wrong. [applause] and even after the auto industry has not only survived but is thriving, is adding jobs, is paying back of the taxpayer money, mitt romney has stuck to his guns and defended his decision to let them go bankrupt. now look, i am the mayor of chicago. ford has a plant on the south side. ford just added 1200 jobs. in ohio, chrysler just added

another 1100 jobs. if we had followed mitt romney's advise, those jobs would not be there and our communities would not be thriving. you could say that is a one-off mistake. mitt romney did not stop there. he continued to show his true colors. he values the privileged and the affluent over the middle class. just this summer, the -- mitt romney said the president was out of touch for his focus on manufacturing jobs. he has valued outsourcing over those manufacturing jobs. here in iowa, right here, he said the corporations are people with all the same rights. in nevada, one of the states with the worst housing in foreclosure crisis, he said the mortgage crisis should run its course and hit bottom. he had a plan for speculator is to step in, but not for people

living in those homes who are trying to achieve the american dream. so people think he is a flip- flop. well, the only thing scarier than what he has flip flop on are the issues he has refused to bend on, where he has refused to change. he has been rock-solid in siding with the privileged over the middle class. whether it is homeowners vs speculators, the autoworker versus the financial engineer or employees versus corporations, he has been consistent in whose side he is on. if you're in the hard-working middle class, you're left with the scrap heap. in the next four years there will be more challenges and more crises. those crises that will

determine the economic vitality of the middle class and the economic future of this country. whose character, whose judgment, do you want in that office? over the next four years, there will be a series of choices. it won't be clear what the outcome will be. we will need leadership; we will need values as guideposts. the past tells you everything you need to know about mitt romney and president obama. how they will make decisions in the future and who they will make them for. middle-class americans cannot afford mitt romney's leadership and values. the middle class of this country are fighting every day to hang on. they're fighting a daily struggle to give their children a better life. they cannot have a leader who turns a blind eye to their struggles. so, who do you want in the oval office? a man who said that the auto

industry and auto workers are dispensable? a man who says the corporations are more valuable than their employees? a man who says the to speculators -- who says the speculators are more important than people living in their homes. can we afford mitt romney's values? can we afford mitt romney's leadership? can we afford mitt romney's judgment? can we afford mitt romney's character? that is not the america our parents fought for and that is not the values that we are teaching our children. to create true middle class security, we can't just cut our way to prosperity. we must out-innovate, out- educate and out-build the world. america cannot afford an economy built on outsourcing and risky financial deals.

we need an economy that is built to last. that creates jobs for the future, that makes the things the rest of the world wants to buy. we need a president who sees america's potential in every american, an america where every american plays a role in winning the 21st century. president obama believes in an america where hard work pays off, where responsibility is rewarded. he believes in an america where everyone, from main street to wall street, does their fair share. he believes in an america where we don't have two rule books, one for those at the top, and another set for everyone else. president obama believes in the idea that our country prospers when we're all in it together. [applause]

that is the american dream. it is the dream that president obama has lived by. the president was raised by a single mother who worked hard and got up before dawn to drill him on reading, math and history. he earned scholarships to the best schools and rose through his hard work and intellect. after he was the president of harvard law, he could have made millions. but his values, his values brought into the south side of chicago to help working people who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own. here is the deal. you know and i know our president is a man of character. he is a man of principle. he is a man who has been fighting for the middle class and he will continue to fight for middle-class families. i know the president's values. i have seen his persistence. you need not ask whether

president obama will continue to fight. the only question is, will we fight for his belief in america? [applause] i want to hear it. will you fight for the president who is fighting to save the middle class? >> yes! >> will you fight for the president who is fighting for middle-class values? for education and a clean environment for all of our children? will you fight for a president who is fighting for equality for all of god's children, men, women, asian, hispanic, gay, straight? work.let's go to let's get in this fight. let's support our president, support the middle class. let's fight for the country we live for, the country our parents and grandparents fought for, because america and the middle class are worth fighting for. bair bless you and thank you.

-- thank you and god bless you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> also in the minors earlier to nine, six republican -- in des moines earlier tonight, six republicans spoke at the things giving family forum. newt gingrich addressed some of

the concerns about his family history. herman cain focused on his wife supporting him through cancer and his regret over not spending enough time with his children. he welled up twice, comforted by rick perry, who was sitting next to him. the occasion also included ron paul, michele bachmann and rick santorum. the 2012 iowa caucuses are scheduled to take place january 3rd. you can see this event with rahm emanuel, chicago mayor, and the other iowa congressional members later tonight at 12:10 pm eastern here on c-span -- 12:10 am eastern here on c-span. >> on "newsmakers" this week, senator tom coburn discusses the

attempt to cut federal spending. >> was the super committee a good idea or was it a mistake? >> it was washington's answer to kicking the can down the road. >> was it a mistake? >> watched the entire interview sunday at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. it is also available online and c-span.org. our political coverage continues tonight with remarks from republican candidates in new gingrich and rick perry. the group project go paint hosted this conservative women's conference in maryland. this is a little over two hours. >> good morning. i see that everyone was out partying last night. they did not make it to the opening session. but i hope you had a great day yesterday.

this is something that is a work in progress. my name is sue lynch and i am the president of the national federation of republican women. one of the cool things that has happened during my term is the fact that we have really reached out to like-minded groups. and when susie and i met in new orleans this year in april, we talked with sharon and ruth to see what we could put together to kind of collaborate and help educate women who might be interested in running for office, and sharing some of the strengths that we have in our different organizations. i was delighted when this came to fruition, when the date was set and we were able to market

it to our membership. so, yesterday was just the beginning of what i hope is a long-term relationship with gold paint. -- go pink. my term expires the the end of this year. i would like to introduce to you our incoming president from arizona, who will be at the helm for the next two years. again, i hope that relationship continues. i would also like to introduce some of the other members that are here, who are part of the executive committee and have been on our committees, because they really have given me the strength and determination to really step us up to more visibility nationally.

if you will hold your applause, i will introduce them. betty is the president from south carolina and is also coming in as the third vice- president. donna was one of our members at large several years ago and was involved with the palladium few who did our straw poll at the convention. she is from south carolina as well. a couple of other state presidents are here. rihanna johnson from arizona, the pride of arizona -- leona johnson from arizona, the pride of arizona. we also have our membership chairman. the membership growth has been substantial. we have added 113 new clubs in

two years. we also had an increase in membership in 33 states. that is just wonderful news that i would like to share. one of our committee chairs is here, sarah sellers, who is chair of our armed services committee. she is of veteran. i think we should give her a round of applause for her service to our country. [applause] i would also like to knowledge of the national republican committee women, who have partnered with us, but are also a part of us. mary jensen is in the back with christie. you will love christie. mary was my mentor with ruth. freddie since then from washington state -- simpson from

washington state. these are just some of the names of people who have really worked together to help us grow and become the 77,000 strong plus membership that we have. we have elaine from texas and joan from maryland. it is great to see all of our members supporting like-minded groups as we move forward into the 2012 election cycle. i see lady jane, warning for congress. a good friend -- running for congress. a good friend from tennessee. it has been my honor to service

the national president. you will see more of me today. in 2012, we will win the white house. o pat, you just came in. i introduced you. i did not see you. pat parker from maryland. again, thank you for coming. and mauryas here. she is from our staff. -- valerie is here. she is from our staff. she is our political director. again, thank you for the opportunity to serve and collaborate. let's win in 2012. god bless all of you and god bless america. >> as a small-business owner and a nurse, diana brings a unique perspective to her work in washington. she was elected to represent the

six connatural -- congressional district. she serves on the house ways and means committee as part of the subcommittee for human- resources. police swat, congresswoman black. -- please welcome congresswoman black. >> is light on the number of people that were able to make it but it is wonderful to be here with all of you. in order to understand more about who you are, i'm going to ask you to participate in an exercise. it is not going to take any real energy. i am going to ask about whether you fall into this category. i want you to raise your hand and say, that is me.

so i can learn about you. i want to know if you are a wife. pretty good. if you're a mother. all right. how about a grandmother. ooh, good. how many of you are a nurse? oh, great. teachers? ok, that used to be you. let me go a different direction, how many like to fish? i love that. how many of you have started a small business? great. let me try this one, how many have jumped out of an airplane? one, two, three of you. great. i do that because what i just

ask you is me. all of those things, that is what i have done. i know this gathering is to help you get a techniques and tools to help you know how you might better a fact working in someone's campaign or possibly being a candidate. i want to talk about how i got to where i am today and show you you are no different than who i am or some of these other interesting ladies that are going to follow me. some of my female colleagues that were elected into congress are such exciting people. we have of varied backgrounds. let me talk about how i got into this crazy field of being an elected official.

i am a nurse and mother. i am a grandmother. i was active in my community in many of those areas because of health care. i was on the board of the american cancer society, began a chapter in my own town, the american heart association. have your help to build a house with habitat for humanity? there you go. i was the vice chairman of our habitat for humanity chapter in my town and have built 12 houses. i was very active in the community and doing what i have always known what i wanted to do from the time i was 4 years old, to be a nurse. i was enjoying the heck had of my life raising my three children with my wonderful

husband. a friend of mine who i had helped in several campaigns and had been my representative, he came to me and said, i just found out that cindy is pregnant with twins. i could not believe it. he said there was unexpected. god has sent us a blessing. i have been in the legislature for 10 years. and i do not want to do that with my twins. i think you ought to take my seat. i said, i think you are crazy. not only was he a good friend, we also shared another commonality in that we're both very faith based. we talked about how the lord had called us. he said i have been praying about this and the lord says your the one that should replace me.

i said maybe you should -- have not heard the lord. a month went by and randy continue to tell people they need to encourage me to run. my husband thought i was crazy. after a lot of prayerful consideration, we decided to put my name on the ballot. i had a 20% chance of winning because the gentleman i was running against had been in that community since the late 1800's and i had only lived there for 12 years. in tennessee you are not a native after 12 years. not until you can save your family goes back to the 1800's. we decided we were going to have a grass-roots campaign and let people know i could beat -- could do the job, by golly, .

our numbers went up and up and we won by 62%. [applause] thank you. what a blessing that was. i use the word "we" because it was not just me. one of the most fun things was, i love to knock on doors. i am -- doors are opening and people are going, you took care of my father in the emergency room. you took care of my son. the most interesting one of all was a little girl about four years old, her mother was in the emergency room and she was covered with blood. a dog had attacked her. we were unsure about whether her face had been damaged. she was a smart growth so she put her head down into her hands

and say interface. -- saved her face. i said if my four year-old were in here, i would not want her to have her face down so i took a board high late on a stretcher with her her face next to mine and i talked to hurt the entire time we were doing the procedure. that too little girl came to me and said, i know you. she said, i would know your voice anywhere. why is that? because you whispered in my ear while i was being taken care of. when a blessing that was to run a campaign and to have so many people i had cared for, that is what got me there. iran for that office and one and

served for six years in a minority. it was a tough time. then decided to run against the speaker in the senate. i did not have much of a chance. about 20%. this time i did not know that. they did not tell me what the poll was. they said it was pretty good. i went about my business doing what i had done before and we beat to the speaker pro tem of the senate by 52%. we brought the majority to the senate for the first time in 158 years. [applause] what a dream come true for all of us. from there i served in the senate before running for leadership and i was the first female in tennessee to serve as the caucus chairman. you might say, how did that

happen? you had 19 members, 16 were male. i had an opponent to have served longer than i had. my colleagues saw that i could lead and they elected me. what an honor that was. i say all of these things to encourage you because women have something that is natural that puts this in the position of being great elected officials. we are very organized. i do not know many men who are organized. maybe a couple. for the most part, men are not an organized. women are better at organizing. women are also gatherers. i don't know if yes in the comedian talking about the difference between men and women that men are pointers and shooters and they say when they

go shopping and you want a pink blouse and they say shoot it and take it home. women say we have to look at five stores to make sure it is the right one because we gather information. we are good about gathering all the information to make sure that when we make a decision, we have gathered all the needed information. that is one of the prime differences as i work with nelson that we are a very good about gathering information and making sure we making the decision. we're good a gathering, we are also passionate. women as -- r mama grizzlies. we are passionate about taking care of our children. that is the reason i am doing what i do today. i have six grandchildren.

when they were born i was in the delivery room and i touched them as soon as they were born. i am here because i believe we need to have a smaller government. less debt. i believe we need to lead this country -- leave this country in good shape for our children. [applause] we mama grizzlies and know what the goal is and we know what the mission is and we have the energy and organization skills. we get 'er done. that is why women make such a good candidates and elected officials. there is no one in this room that could not do just that. i encourage you, if someone says no, you only have a 20% chance,

don't let that stop you. if you have it in your gut and the power -- the passion and the fire in your belly, do it. you will be successful. thank you for what to do whether you run for office or decide to keep your home fire is going and raise a family that knows about conservative principles, follow that passion in your gut. be sure to rise and answer the call. thank you for having me here today. [applause]

>> good morning. i am married jeanne jensen from south dakota and the want to talk about the perfect candidate. we are all looking for the perfect candidate. i want you to know she is in your community. we have found the perfect candidate in a south dakota. she was right in our community, active, a leader. maybe 20 years ago, kristi noem had no idea congress would be on her plate later on. she was a young college pro with a future and then reality happens. a tragic accident and she had to go home and run the family business. running a business, a farm, a

restaurant, a hunting lodge, those are the things that trained us to be the perfect candidate. i want you to know that kristi noem represents the whole state of south dakota. there are only two other states that have a larger district and in this not because of people but miles. montana and wyoming are larger districts. she spends her time back and forth every weekend with family. a lot of time on the road dealing with every single small town, all of the constituents that want a piece of the congresswoman. keep looking for that perfect candidate. we think we found her. welcome kristi noem. [applause]

>> thank you. she is so sweet. thank you for having me. i'm thrilled to be here. they told me i was one of the first ones so i needed to wake you up. i'm not going to do a dance or anything but share a few words about my story and my life, why i ran for congress and what motivates me. i am blessed to have my oldest daughter with me. i am going to make her way that you. cassidy is with me. [applause] this is my daughter, my oldest. she is 17. we are looking at colleges right now. she wants to be an orthodontist. kennedy is my other daughter, she is 14. and a boy named booker. thank you for coming out.

it is so good to be here. this hotel complexes special to me because when i was sworn in in january, my family stayed here. my family is large. i was the third of four children. my husband was also the middle child out of three boys. we do stuff together. we all load up and go. ryan and i had to be here earlier four meetings before we were sworn into congress. the rest of my family decided they would drive. cassidy is the oldest of 14 grandchildren on my side of the family. they decided they would load up and head up to washington, d.c. to get here. we came out here to me to them and to greet them. when they pulled up to the hotel, they had gotten a trailer to put the luggage in because my

brother in law said there will be more room in the vehicles for the kids. they pulled up with all of the vehicles, the trailer and everything and started to unload. they have been on the road for three days. i see that everybody has opened up the trailer and are carrying in a bunch of rubbermaid tubs. i said what is with that? she said, we decided to pack in tubs. it would be easier. you came to washington, d.c. and you packed in rubbermaid tubs? i thought that was a perfect story about south dakota people. look at this fancy hotel and we have my family who unloads and

caring in -- and carrying in tubs. talk about common sense. i thought that is exactly the kind of people we need in washington, d.c. things were we do not worry about being the best or the person that looks to the best but the person who gets the job done. when i first decided to run for congress, from the time i was little, all i wanted to do was a farm with my dad. my dad was a cowboy. we had a big ranch and a farming operation. that is what i wanted to do. he was killed in an accident on my farm. he was 49 years old and we did not know how we were going to move forward. my sister was in georgia, my

other brother was in oklahoma. it was left up to me to come home and take over the operation. one thing that opened my eyes to government was we were hit very hard with the state taxes. if you have worked in a family business you may have equity in land or machinery but not a lot of cash. me being a very young, 22, i came home to take over this operation. sell land or take out a loan? my dad taught me that you do not sell land because god is not making any more land. i took out a loan and then took us 10 years to pay off the estate taxes. this is something that makes me think about government and its role in people's lives and what we do to help or harm businesses.

i started to get involved locally. to serve on different boards and commissions. iran for legislature in 2006. when i had cassidy, when she was first born, when you go to baby showers, my grandmother came. you go around the room and say, give the new mother some advice for that child. tell her something but will be helpful. you guys have done this before. well, my grandmother said to me, i will never forget, kristi, say yes as much as you possibly can. i thought about that a lot. i thought it was so true with our lives.

we have opportunities in front of us. we see jobs that need to be done. a role that needs to be filled or a leader that needs to do something and we come up with reasons why we should not do it or why it doesn't work. for me, i decided when i see things, why wouldn't i do that? if i can, i'm going to say yes. that was a decision i made in running for state legislature. we needed somebody who understood the business. my mom bought a restaurant in a nearby town. she thought it would be a lot of fun. i don't know if yarn run a restaurant but it is a lot of work. after six months, she asked me to help her. i managed her books and employees as well. that was one of the businesses i

was not the most find out. through the process of running businesses realized that some of times we should not be people who automatically think no. if you leave here today, i know you are involved in government, maybe even thinking of running for office, i would tell you say yes as much as you can. our country needs you. our young women need to as role models. we need people who are used to juggling things to come forward and get things accomplished. we have a lot to do. i will leave you with one thought, as i jumped into our race, within two years i decided to run for his leadership. the reason why was it because i did not like being on the outside of were the decisions

were made. i wanted to be as effective as i could wherever i was going to be. i was elected to be the assistant majority leader of the house in south dakota and served there. a lot of people talk to us about running. three years ago i would have never thought i would be in congress. it was that far off my radar. representing your state or people that are not working or of protein, it is up to us to make sure we fix this. we should be a sixers. that is what i decided. a fight to give the south dakota people their voice back that was willing to listen and to do the work that needed to be done,

then why wouldn't i do that? maybe that was another situation where i could say yes. we had a tough race for congress but i want to tell you a story that somebody used in his example with me. how many at the got in your vehicles and have started driving down the road in your vehicle is not working right? for me it is a pickup, it drives kind of dirty and it is stiff and not turning right and you are frustrated. all of a sudden you realize that you have your emergency brake on. come on, how many of you have done that? just once and then never happens again. our lives are like that. when you pull that emergency

brake, all of a sudden, aren't you amazed at how good your car drives? it works beautifully. everything is smooth. our lives are like that. our emergency brakes can be different. could be an insecurity we have battle. maybe it is speaking in front of people. maybe walking into a room of strangers and you're not sure who you can talk to or you don't always view yourself as a leader. i will tell you that all of those things are the emergency brakes in our lives. they keep things flowing. if we would let those go, put those behind us, we would be able to have accomplished everything that's bought has for us. -- that god has for us. what holds us back is the fact we let our hang ups told us back.

as you get involved and work with each organization or run for public office, know that we need you. this country needs you. you can do anything if you will say yes. thank you for having me today. [applause] >> hello again. congresswoman lummis was elected in 2008. she graduated from the university of wyoming and served 14 years. she now serves in the house appropriations committee as part of the subcommittee on agriculture and also on the labor and human services.

please welcome cynthia lummis. [applause] >> thank you and good morning. you have heard from two outstanding freshmen members of the house. we welcome them as part of the 87 member republican freshman class. they are making a difference. when i was first elected, it was during the era when the republicans were in the minority. we learned that when you allow people who believe in big government and big spending to run the government, it will grow so much faster than our ability to pay off the debt they are running upper that it became imperative that we have more

republicans and the house. we take over the majority. we bring in and restore some fiscal sanity. that's now has to be done in the u.s. senate. i love to you to say support people who are running for reelection, especially for women. please help elect a republican majority to the u.s. senate in addition to where republican president. no election is more important than the one coming out. we always say that. but this time nothing could be truer. here is why. the united states had its national debt pass its national output.

the gdp of the united states has now been surpassed by the national debt. if that were your house, that would be the way of saying our loan is under water. with our loan under water, we need people who know how to stop spending. believe me, we need more republicans who know how to stop spending, not just democrats. [applause] do you know what the largest emerging market economy in the world is? hong kong, yes. it is the american woman. [applause]

american women are the largest emerging market economy in the world according to the author of "influence, how women's sorry economic power will change our world for the better." women are responsible for a 83% of all consumer purchases, including 53% of stock-market investments, 62% of new car purchases, and 55% of all consumer electronics, to name a few. globally, women control about $20 trillion in annual consumer spending. that figure could climb as high as $28 trillion in the next five years. what is the tie between our emerging economic power and the need for our emerging political power, especially as republican

women and conservative women? they go hand in hand. debt ise united states' over $15 trillion at very low interest rates, as soon as the interest rates go up, interest payments on the national debt will crowd out all other spending, including the ability of the private market economy to adjust. american women are the private market economy. here is what we have to do in business and in politics -- we have to cultivate each other's talent, drawing each other from the workers in at an organization to the top of the organization. you do that by identifying your women colleagues, whether it is in a political group, a club or

organization, whether it is in your place of business. you put that woman in a higher area of disability. you nurtured her talents. you give her responsibility. you mentor her. mentoring is something that men do well by design. women do it so slowly that they do not even recognize it. in the business place, we are not as apt to consciously pick a woman who we work with, who we recognize as truly talented, and give that woman an opportunity to grow her talents, to become more visible, to gain a position that turns them into a in black or a christine noem, or even a condoleezza price. women frequently are so busy

nurturing the entire organization or, as a previous speaker said, gathering from among the organization that they are not looking at pinpointing and mentoring and developing that leader in them. we have to do better at that because women leaders like you just had on the stage are truly significant in the u.s. commerce in terms of forcing fiscal discipline -- u.s. congress by enforcing fiscal discipline on people who are not accustomed to adjusting to fiscal discipline, and i mean republicans and democrats. there are many republicans in this congress who have become so accustomed to an appropriations committee dominated by big spending democrats and moderate republicans that the culture of

the appropriations committee over the last 50 years has become a culture of spending, not a culture of savings. i have read a book called "the power of perks" which is a history of the appropriations committee in the u.s. house. pre-1965, before the lbj presidency, the appropriations committee, democrats and republicans, were these types -- these tight fisted leaders and protectors of the american taxpayer dollars. they took enormous pride in making sure that taxpayer dollars were handed out sparingly, appropriately, and not spent on programs that we could not afford. that culture changed during the lbj era when the great society

began to expand the scope and the role of the federal government. the desire for a bigger more intrusive federal government, greater regulation at the federal level, brought about an era of -- an era where democrats but their most liberal members on the appropriations committee and republicans put their most moderate people on the appropriations committee. the culture has come full pendulum in the last 50 years to the point where it now must swing back. some of the freshmen that you helped elect in this last congress are helping swing it backed, but it is painful. of course, the people in leadership positions within the appropriations committee are by and large it those who came up

through the ranks over the years of that culture of spending and now trying to recourse the ship into a culture of savings and cutting is causing tremendous turmoil within the congress. we need more. we need to be at the point in 50 years when i am no longer around, when most of us in this room are no longer around, that our children and grandchildren are saying it is time for the pendulum to swing again, that we have gotten our fiscal house in order, that we have right sized these run rate -- runaway entitlement programs, that are spending is appropriate for our gdp, that we are spending enough on those constitutional duties that the founding fathers enumerated and that we are

spending less at the federal level, and trusting our states, our governor, and our state legislators to do what is ripe for their citizens within their states in the -- what is right for their citizens within their states in the context of that. that is what we the to do. we need to return power to the states because the government more efficiently, they know about the local nuances that make it appropriate for them to make spending decisions. women recognize that. i will close by telling you this -- i was in the wyoming legislature for 15 years. there were not many women in the wyoming legislature. but we had a chief clark that had been watching legislators for years. one time he was asked, what is the difference between men and

women in the legislature? is there anything that transcends party and that seems to be more consistent with gender among legislators? he, without hesitation, said, "absolutely. women look farther down the road. men seem to be talking and it looking to the next election more often than women. women are looking to how their children's lives will be, their grandchildren's life will project lies will be, and what they can do now to shape a better pitcher." we all know that through polling, more people believe that america's best years are behind us and that we may hand to our children a lesser american -- america than we inherited from our parents. we cannot allow that to happen.

women need to assert themselves in the strongest of zero ways to make sure that our children inherit a better america. we must do it by imposing fiscal discipline. restoring the founding fathers' vision for our country, having great states as incubators of great ideas, and allowing that to happen in a way that keeps the federal government to the greatest extent possible in a strong, but limited role, and our states will flower. our economy will prosper. our people will take charge, and america will be better for it. thank you is very much for your role. [applause]

>> i have the honor of introducing the next speaker. it is always comfortable to introduce a woman who is raising a family with two kids and a husband in politics. i met dale huff earlier this year when we held an event for her husband, governor scott brown, who is doing a good job of representing the people in massachusetts. when senator brown came to washington, not only did the senate get better, so did our local broadcast mood. gayle mood from the abc affiliate in washington to the one in washington, d.c. it is a significant part of her life. she does it with tremendous grace and a whole lot of style.

as they say in broadcasting, when we have a story and we have a reporter, we are going to throw it to her please give a warm welcome to gail huff. [applause] >> good morning. thank you for that very kind introduction. for those of you who do not know me, and i am short many of you here from all over the country -- how many here from outside of the d.c. area? almost everyone. that pretty much explains that. welcome to my second and sort of a newly adopted home, washington, d.c. there are so many wonderful things to do here. i hope you are enjoying some of the wonderful things that -- that our nation's capital has to offer. as i was thinking about what i wanted to share with you, i thought about the mission of this organization -- motivating,

mentoring, and mobilizing women to have the courage and encourage them to get into public service and politics. it struck me that many of you probably feel that you are constantly faced with choices, like being a series of choices. does it limit your dreams of having to make choices, whether it is career, family, public service, private life, ambition -- it seems especially as women that we are constantly being asked to make those decisions. one thing i hope you take away prompt today and remember is that you do not have to choose as long as you keep true to your core priorities and you allow for change -- a lot of change. i found out the more you embrace your core priorities, the more you can do and the more you get out of life. i am. to share a little bit about my

background. my husband, senator scott brown from massachusetts, and i met 27 years ago. we just celebrated our 20th wedding anniversary in july. i was in graduate school learned to be a news reporter when we first met. i wanted to travel around the world and tell people's stories. scott was in law school. he wanted to become a lawyer so he could help good people who found themselves in bad situations, as he would say, something he do a lot about having been arrested at age 12 for stealing at a department store. it is one of many stories outlined in his book, "against all odds." after a lot of hard work, we created an ideal family situation in boston, scott being a lawyer and a state senator, beat -- me being a reporter or the local abc television station. two daughters. one just graduated from college.

life is really great right now. i really feel settled. you know how important it is to have that feeling that everything is right right now. in 2009, scott came home and said, "honey, i am thinking about running with the u.s. senate." it was shocking. needless to say, when he won, it involved a change and a lot of change. with that change, scott and i had choices to make. he was going to be spending a lot of time in washington and i could join him or i could keep working at my reporter job in boston. first this seemed like a very difficult choice to make. do i support my cousin in his career at the expense of mine, or do i prioritize my career, stay in boston, and see him on weekends? most senate spouses do not move to washington, d.c., and this surprised me because i figured

if i move to washington, d.c. i would see all of the other senate spouses, but guess what. most of them end up staying home in their states, in their districts. but after more than 20 years with scott, i could not imagine not seeing him on a day-to-day basis and going weeks at a time without seeing each other. on the other hand, i had been at the abc television station for almost two decades. prior to the u.s. senate election, i was arguably the better known of the two of us in the household that you do not count our daughter who was on "american idol," who was far better known than mom or dad. there were two core priorities i felt i could not give up -- supporting my husband and continuing my job as a journalist. when i realized that my professional career was not tied to where i lived, the choice became a lot more clear.

i was very fortunate. i was able to get a job at the abc station here in washington, d.c., where i now at work as a reporter for wjla, channel 7. i wanted to keep my identity as gail huff, the journalist, but i also wanted to be mrs. scott brown. i wanted the experiences that came with that like going to the white house for the congressional picnic. that was an opportunity i did not want to miss out on. like many of you, we are also a two-income family and i like making my own money. i did not like to explain to scott why i needed eight 60th pair of shoes. you know how that is. it might have been a lot easier to keep my job in boston, but not embracing the opportunity to

make a change would have meant sacrificing a core priority, and that was supporting scott. being here meant that i got his support as well. there are challenges, like scheduling opportunities. this thanksgiving, for instance, i will be working. i have been at the station for a little over a year, so i am very low on the totem pole. scott and the girls will be going to some of the shelters, helping to deliver and serb food, and help those who need it far more than i do. life is not simple. after today, i will go to the airport, flight to boston, take the subway to pick up my car, and then drive an hour to get home. i will cook and clean for our extended family to come for our daughter's 21st per party. we did not get a chance to spend it with part because she is at syracuse and we are here in d.c. we ended up missing out on those types of things. it has been very stressful to

try and balance his career and my career and our family life. but for scott and me, it has been the greatest honor in the world to be able to help other people and to serve our country. i understand that saying yes to a job that puts you in the public spotlight is very difficult. you give up so much. privacy and family life -- those are the losses i feel the most. but i do think that the gains outweigh the losses. you are a part of something so much bigger than yourself. it gives you the strength to keep fighting harder and harder. at the end of the day, what is most important to me and you is following your core priorities, serving the public, supporting each other, and being there for our daughters and our extended family. those are the things that make us who we are. if you can find your core

priorities, you will be amazed at how much you really can accomplish and how rewarding public service really is. my daughter, who now lives in nashville and sings country- western -- in fact, she writes her own music now -- she wrote a song that sums it up -- "go get it." i leave you today with that message. go get it. believe in yourself, lead in the country, believe in what you can do to make a difference. thank you. [applause] >> now it is my honor to introduce to you kolstad gingrich, who is the president of the gingrich production, a

multimedia production company based in washington, d.c. calista and her husband produced a historical public policy documentary. she will be talking about those shortly. she is also an author of a children's book about american exceptional wasn't entitled "the sweet land of liberty featuring ellis the elephant." after she speaks, she will be signing books in the lobby. prior to callista joining the gingrich productions, she served for the houseerk committee on agriculture in washington, d.c. prior to that, she was a staff assistant. i got to know her a little bit

better during her term as a staff assistant on the hill. i am excited that she is able to be with us here today to talk to you about what she has done as a woman in politics. let's give her a warm welcome here at go pink. [applause] >> thank you for that kind introduction and warm welcome. i would like to think project go pink for the opportunity to be with you this morning. i appreciate the contributions that each of you make to mobilize, support, and elect republican women across our country. your continued support for conservative policy and strategy are necessary to ensure that our nation remains a beacon of freedom for future generations.

as you probably know, my husband is a republican candidate for president of the united states [applause] -- president of the united states. [applause] the last few weeks have been very exciting for our campaign. one of the best things about a presidential campaign is the chance to meet so many wonderful people across america and to learn about their concerns and hopes for our future. newt and i are determined to run a positive, issue-oriented, and solution-based campaign. we know and think of the other republican candidates as friends. many of us have bonded along the campaign trail as we go through similar, life-changing experiences. we are all in this together and believe that what we are doing is in the best interest of our country. our only opponent is barack obama and we are committed to removing him from the white

house. [applause] over the last few months, the poles have been wild. in june and july, we were told that our campaign was dead. that was hard. recent polls reflect that he is surging ahead. this is better than being dead. [laughter] newt and i are engaged in this race because we believe america is at a crossroads and cared deeply about the future of our country. we believe that america is an exceptional nation and must remain so. today, i would like to share with you why i believe our understanding of american exceptional lissome and american history will be a pivotal factor in determining the direction and the survival of our nation as we know it. over the past several years, we have had the privilege of working on several documentary

films and books, exploring various events and individuals in american history that have helped make america an exceptional nation. throughout the course of our work, it has become increasingly obvious to me that america is facing an identity crisis unlike anything we have ever faced before. this crisis is most evident among our youth who are being taught that pride in our national heritage is inappropriate and that there is nothing uniquely special about being an american or about the values and principles upon which our country has been built. we are currently in a great debate over whether america is an exceptional nation or whether we are just another country. it is up to bust to decide which version of america our children -- it is up to us to decide which version of america our children will believe in.

over 20 years ago in his farewell address, president ronald reagan called upon america to return to, what he called, and and formed patriotism, warning that those who are not sure that an appreciation of america is the right thing to teach children. president reagan understood what was at stake and that it is not simply an academic or abstract debate. our understanding and appreciation of what we are as a nation determines our policies, our values, and whether or not we teach our children that we are a special nation. as for me, everything i know about the history of our country and our core values has led me to believe that we are an exceptional nation and people. growing up in wisconsin, an all- american, midwestern town, it was impossible not to be

instilled with a sense of patriotism. at sunset elementary, we said the pledge of allegiance each morning and then sang a patriotic song. in junior high and high school, my band and choir celebrated national holidays by singing and playing patriotic music. as a girl scout, i truly believed in our pledge to serve god and our country. in fact, today, i find myself living out that pledge in ways i could have never imagined back at sunset elementary. as a young person, i was surrounded by people who believed in the greatness of america and were unapologetic about those beliefs. contrast this with today. when a majority of eighth graders cannot explain the meaning of the declaration of independence and 95% of high- school seniors cannot explain how the three branches of government are meant to

interact. it goes without saying that most high school students graduate without ever coming to appreciate what makes america unique. the united states was the first nation to be founded in 8 rebellion against a colonial power. it was the first nation to be established on the premise that the rights of man are inherent and that government tries -- derives its power and the consent of the people. it was the first nation to be based on a separation of powers and to recognize that the existence of the state is solely to secure the rights of the people. finally, it was the first nation to affirm all of this in a publicly debated and democratically accepted constitution. all of these pings make america a unique, but, in fact, as i become more involved in studying our history, i realize that american exceptional wasnism is

rooted in something even more fundamental. five years ago, we made a documentary film entitled "we discovering god in america." it has a walking tour of washington from the national archives to arlington national cemetery. at the national archives, the first recorded the -- the declaration of independence. the key in this document is our founding fathers' assertion that we hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal and that we are endowed by our creator with unalienable rights among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. it is this assertion that our rights come from god that makes america truly exceptional.

we are the only country in history to assert that each of us personally receives our rights from god, not from bureaucrats, politicians, or judges, but from god. this means that each of us is personally sovereign. this is why our constitution begins "we the people." we the people loan power to the government. government never loans power to us. [applause] this unique endowment by our creator is why americans are citizens while other governments often treat their people as subjects. in many countries, the government and political bosses rain. here in america, the people reign. because our founders understood that freedom was based -- and no

government could come between god and man. art form of government was grown in the rule of law, structured to recognize and protect the dignity and value of every individual these protections have allowed patriotism, individualism, an entrepreneur ship to thrive here in america as they have nowhere else on earth. because our founders rejected the notion that government had unlimited power over individuals, property rights were protected in the constitution to a degree they had never been protected before. the founding fathers even wrote a patent office into the constitution to protect the intellectual property of inventors, giving americans the ability and incentive to create, invent, and realize a better future. there are a number of american

inventors who personify the spirit of innovation and belief in progress. benjamin franklin invented the lichen -- lightning rod and bifocal glasses. a few years later, robert fulton invented the steam boat. samuel morse, the telegraph. thomas edison gave us the electric light and phonograph. henry ford invented mass produced, affordable automobiles. and the wright brothers discovered how to fly. all of these inventors illustrate the very best of the american experience, of hope, opportunity, and ought to ignore -- and entrepreneurship. they follow their dreams without bothering to ask the government for money, permission, or approval. in doing so, they changed the lives of every person in this room who has ever turned on a light, watched a movie, or flown in an airplane.

they demonstrated that success is truly possible when a nation unleashes its god-given creativity. modern inventors, like bill gates of microsoft and the late steve jobs of apple, are part of this long tradition of creativity and innovation. our lives have been changed again and again by pioneers and inventors. now, for a moment, forget about history. forget about the existence of the declaration and the constitution. forget heroes like jefferson, franklin, martin luther king jr., and john f. kennedy, who testified to america's uniqueness. forget the fact that we are all children of immigrants. among academic elites, the claim that america is an exceptional nation is viewed with skepticism

and even scorn. they apologized for the way in which america does not look like other nations. for such elites, the word is criticism,s soism not raise. a myth that has no place in a globalized, multi-cultural society. nothing pinpoints you as a conservative more than promoting and believing in american exceptionally sism. as i became concerned about losing side about what makes america truly exceptional, i decided to write a book entitled "sweet land of liberty." my goal was to highlight the wonderful achievements of our country, to realize a love for america, and to communicate why america is a special nation. to do this, i knew i needed a

unique character to capture the interest of young children, to guide them to the declining -- through the defining moments of our nation's history. i considered many animals including bunnies, giraffes, and hippos. i must confess i did not consider a balky. [laughter] in the end, i could not resist the adorable elephant, politics notwithstanding. when i began thinking for a name for our elephant, ellis came to mind. my grandmother came to the united states from poland from project to ellis island in 1907. i thought alice the elephant was important. it was symbolic because we are a nation of immigrants. in "sweet land of liberty" we first meet at the library.

an avid reader always reach about our history and shares what he learns about others. ellis introduces children to the first thanksgiving, the boston tea party, george washington crossing the delaware, and many other historic moments. it is my hope that these stories will help young people feel proud of our country and enable them to begin to appreciate the courage, service, and sacrifice that has made this country and exceptional nation. today, america stands at a pivotal moment, not only economically, but socially, culturally, and politically. it is important that each of us do our part now to advance and defend the pillars of freedom. our civilization is a learned civilization, which means that anyone can learn to be an american. it also means that each

generation is capable of for rgetting what makes america a special nation. micahel kaman said a civilization without memory ceases to be less civilized. a civilization without history ceases to have identity. without identity, there is no purpose. without purpose, civilization will weather. -- will wither. when we know where we are as americans, the way forward becomes increasingly clear. it is my prayer that together we may work to ensure that liberty and freedom prevail and that america remains an exceptional nation. thank you and god bless. [applause]

.hank you so much pri >> good afternoon. let me tell you a little bit about rebecca, the litton the governor from wisconsin. -- the lieutenant governor and from wisconsin. throughout the last couple of days, i have listened to our panel talked about what we need to look for in a candidate. we in wisconsin were fortunate enough to find a candidate who really reflected almost everything that they mentioned in their panel discussions. but the neat thing about rebecca is that she is one of us.

she is one of us as republican women, she is a republican -- she is a conservative republican, and she has worked very hard to make certain that she has maintained those strong values through it very difficult times. many of you know what is going on in wisconsin brigid she will not tell you this, but i will. rebecca and scott walker are being faced with recalls. i am recalled at the way the union thugs are operating in our state. there is one thing that i do not want to see and that is governor scott walker and rebecca clayfish recalled for standing for their principles as politicians. know that when she stands before you today, she is faced with all

of those emotions of what they are trying to do to not only her, but to her family in trying to bring harm to them either politically or personally. if you have any extra cash available that you might be willing to write out a check to help offset the millions of dollars that are coming into our state to recall who i think are two upcoming politicians in our party that really stand for the principles that we all believe in, go to the gop website, www.wisconsin.gov is the place you will go. on a more positive note, you will enjoy a little bit of the

midwest later our wonderful lieutenant governor, rebecca clayfish, brings to the table. with that, governor rebecca clayfish. [applause] >> emotion of a recall? i do not know what she is talking about. we are women. we are not emotional, right? i come from the land of protest signs and bongo drums, of recalls and rejection of logic. i also come from the land of reform. -- land of reform and reason of enterprise and creativity. ladies and gentleman, i come

from scott walker's wisconsin. [applause] like most of you, i am a mambo. we as moms will do just about anything in order to do it -- in order to make sure our children's futures are brighter every day. some mothers do that by teaching sunday school. others do it by volunteering in their kid's classroom. i chose to set aside my little business and run for lieutenant governor for the state of wisconsin. today, i have the joy of knowing that what i have done this year and what i go out and do every day is making a difference for my children down the road. whether i liked it or not, i also know that what i am doing every day is making a difference. i tell you that because

yesterday as i was kissing my kids before they left for school, my 8-year-old said, "mom, if you see a protester today, make sure you be nice and smile." my children at 5 and 8 have become little experts on turning the other cheek. because wisconsin's political climate is so politically charged right now, even my children have become targets. but friends, even my children know that when they have a $1, they cannot spend $2. something so simple a kindergartner could understand, right? not so much. there are some in wisconsin who still do not understand that. when i am asked to explain, i say that when we were sworn in, we had a big budget problem.

the moment we dropped our hands from being inaugurated, the governor and i were met with buckets of red ink on our desk. this year alone we had the 100th $37 million debt and we will left with a $3.60 billion deficit for our next biennium. we have to ask our government employees to contribute a little bit. we asked for a 5.8% pension contribution. that is about the national average. we asked for april. 6% of their contribution. that is about half the national average. and we asked for some concessions in collected -- collective bargaining because we could not afford it anymore. our state, like many of yours, was not given the opportunity to opt out of the recession. our taxpayers were in pain.

they elected us to do a budget without raising taxes because they simply could not afford to continue to pay. but, in wisconsin, the stimulus money was spent. our health care costs had risen 90% since 2002. we had our own pace and pottery compensation fund that we owe $200 million to. minnesota said we owed $60 million for a tax reciprocity agreement. i think they were still kind of mad that brett farve gave up his good years. despite this, the union bosses and out of state special interests and the pay protesters and even jack -- even jesse jackson and michael war descended on the state capitol in madison to defend the collective bargaining that made

sure that a volunteer crossing guard in wausau could not do his job because a paid union employee should be doing that. one of our counties had a blizzard and all of the union workers were out hollings know. when they brought in after contractors to make sure the morning commute was clear, the union filed a complaint. the snow should have just sat there, they said. they wanted paid union workers to do it. we paid teachers for hours they did not work. we gave people $4 for bringing their own lunches to work. we paid corrections officers to call in sick and then work the next shift, giving them over time. we fired the teacher of the year because she did not have enough seniority. governor walker said enough is enough. we need to do in wisconsin at

the same thing our small businesses and our hard-working families who find this government do every day. something that my kindergartner and a third grader understand. we need not spend more than what we have. i will tell you, this year alone we asked for those concessions. we made the changes to the expensive growing collective bargaining. we balanced our budget, changed a $3.60 billion at deficit into a surplus in wisconsin. -- $3.60 billion deficit into a surplus in wisconsin. [applause] by the summer, wisconsin was creating jobs at twice the national rate. we guaranteed second amendment rights by making sure we had concealed carry. we opened at wisconsin for business. if you come to wisconsin and you want to vote, now you have to

have a photo id in order to do it. [applause] but the thanks that was given to our brave legislatures -- legislators were threats, vandalism, and a recall election. six of our brave state senators faced recall elections this past summer. happily, our majority stood, but the critics are not satisfied and they were not the tour. three days ago, a group filed recalls against the governor and myself. they began collecting signatures. listen, i respect their right to collect signatures. i respect their right to be angry. but if they get us on the ballot, we will win. [applause]

i am ready. our governor is ready and our governor is strong buy in wisconsin. i tell you that because i know scott walker. in fact, i met scott walker long ago when i was a journalist and scott was one of my very best sources at the state capitol when he was a state assemblyman. he would, before he became governor, become the county executive in the largest county in the state of wisconsin, but before that would happen, the democrat county executive there would mess up big time. he was a crook. he hatched a plan to make sure that he and his cronies were paid out millions upon their retirement. the journalist that busted that guy on camera was me. i would argue that i was stop walker's refer supporter part

county executive that day. but before the eyes of the world were focused on madison and governor scott walker, the bongo drums protest signs, and -- we had to win the honor of serving. the lieutenant governor and governor run in separate primaries. in my race, it was me and four guys in an exhausting, statewide campaign. i had more chicken dinners and gas station hot dogs than any human should consume. by midsummer, i thought there was a chance i would start clucking or barking, but instead i ended up with a really bad stomach ache. i came in dead last at the wisconsin state convention. it could have been because of all the fund raising i was doing, beating all the guys in

money-making. or it could have been from something else. it ends up that the statewide campaign was the easy part. two weeks before my primary election i was diagnosed with a grapefruit sized tumor in my gut. at 35-years old in my first political race ever, i was told you have: cancer -- colon cancer. i had emergency surgery, but i got out before the polls closed. the site -- despite the naysayers, the cancer, and the brutality of the race, i'd beat the guys by 22 points. [applause] i am happy to tell you today i am cancer free. [applause]

but i went through chemotherapy during the mayhem at the capitol. my husband, who is a state representative, was watching out his capital window yesterday as they collected recall signatures against us. but, meantime, i was in another part of the state, more towards the center of wisconsin, watching the white house christmas tree being harvested from wisconsin. the farmer told me that history had been up through droughts, punishing rain, it had seen a severe hailstorm and even a tornado. but, today, it was the most beautiful and the strongest tree on the lot. kind of like wisconsin. kind of like america.

ladies, you have been called for a time such as this. you are the mothers and the daughters and the sisters and the wives who will fight to make this country all that it can be for our children. thank you. thank you pour the support of a common sense and may god bless your efforts to make our nation the exceptional one she has always deserved to be. thank you for having me. [applause] >> now it is my honor to introduce to you anita perry.

as first lady of texas for the past few years, she has worked to promote a number of issues to benefit people from all walks of life. trained and educated as a nurse, mrs. perry drew from her 17 years of nursing to champion health care issues, such as breast cancer and childhood amortizations. she has been a strong advocate of economic development and tourism in texas, a leading trade missions to germany, japan, argentina, brazil, and the czech republic, to name a few. tourism brings more than $56 billion bid to the texas economy, resulting in more than 500,000 jobs. please welcome anita perry. [applause]

>> thank you. it is great to be here in washington. the women working for change conference. when conservative women gather together for a common cause, it does not threaten men the most. it threatens the liberals the most. when it comes to ending politics as usual, conservative women are the real change. from nikki haley, to mary fallon, conservative and women one office all across the country in 2010. i think sometimes it is worth asking the question white voters have gravitated to conservative women in recent years. from running the board room, to running for office, to running the household.

we are all about empowering women of all backgrounds rather than just putting us all in one little box. we remain sympathetic to the plight of middle-class families, of women who wear the many hats of mother, wife, employee. we know that many women toil to provide the best environment possible for raising our children. we get our children ready for school. we put in long hours at the office. then we make those pta meetings, those soccer games, those baseball games. at the end of the day, too tired to take their shoes off. we know those women because we are those women. many of us have done -- duty without twice the pay, but we do it out of love and devotion to our families. as a texas woman said, liz

carpenter, "roosters crow, but deliver."vens that may be the best line i have never heard from a democratic woman. the issues are not gender based, but jobs based. it is about giving our children a better country than the one we inherited. there are a lot of great candidates out there running for president. i happen to be partial towards one just a little bit. here is why. no one is more committed to the merit system than rick perry. he truly believes in america's blindside to one's background, gender, or creed. an america that provides opportunity to any and all who work hard, play by the rules, and never stopped dreaming. he has provided a blueprint --

blueprint to a more prosperous america in our state of texas. he has cut taxes 67 times. he signed the first state budget that cut state spending since world war ii, and signed the most sweeping lawsuit reform in the nation, including just this past screen -- spring, a new loser's pay law. rick perry believes the best welfare program is a job. he believes the best economic stimulus is the private sector. he believes the best hope for the world is a strong america. he served his country because he loves his country. during his tour of duty in the united states air force, he developed a deep and abiding love for our freedom. he recognizes what is wrong in

america is not that americans are lazy, soft, or lack imagination. it is washington that is broken. he has put forward a bold plan to overhaul washington, ending business as usual and ensuring the federal government puts the american people first. he will fight to end lifetime appointees for future appointees to the federal bench because he did -- he does not believe those that legislate from the bench should be rewarded with a black robe for life. he wants to transform washington by creating a part- time conference -- a part-time congress, cutting their pay in half, their budgets in half, and a time in washington in half. he believes the concept of the citizen legislature works best and keeps lawmakers better connected to the people. finally, he wants to overhaul the permanent bureaucracy,

eliminating the departments of energy, education, and commerce, reducing and rebuilding the epa so that it no longer torments job creators, and ending the passenger harassment of the tsa by returning transportation security to the private sector. his bold plans for washington coupled with his 20% flat tax represent the most comprehensive change of any candidate. that makes sense because he is the only candidate that is not part of the establishment. he is the true outsider who will bring a breath of fresh air to the beltway. with rick perry, you do not have to wonder whether the president you get is similar to the president you see -- the candidate you see because he knows what he is and what he believes. i can promise you this -- if you help elect him president, he

will make you proud and we will have the america again that you and i know for our children and our grandchildren. processes are having me[applaus] quai>> we were totally on

contributions for registration treat if anyone but like to make a contribution because you have already registered, but to our nk.com.e www.gopin if you would like to write for us, click on what you would like to send to us. we are on twitter. as i said earlier, we are happy to work with you to put on something in your state. a 1 day training session, a mini conference like we have had. we really look forward to working with you. it is my greatest honor to introduce someone who has helped

me. she has headed up one of the most effective groups in that politics and for policy. marjorie has been -- all day today and yesterday we have talked about an administration that is burdening our unborn and it generations to come with a bad policies and the bad debt. marjorie has been on the forefront of leading the the fight for the unborn. i would like to introduce her. i would like you to know that she is a great friend to have at all times. thank you. [applause] >> i am so sure. can you see me?

i have really been looking forward to it. this is an exhale time for me. i bet this has been for you, too. we work all the time. sometimes our projects are work. this is not work at all for me. this is like coming home. normally on the third friday of the month, i have a lunch group of seven girls called "bless your hearts" . we get together or every week. we talk about a lot. a lot of the things you guys have been talking about over your next few hours and days. one of the things is how are grateful we are for the heritage we have whether it comes from our region, from a america as a

nation with our constitutional heritage and with the examples that we have women and men who have led us to this point in time, those examples and the that heritage has brought us to where we are now. i am so grateful for it. it is such a diverse heritage. the midwest, the west coast, if you are from a military family, the unique training that gives you to really reach out to other people. always mandatory even if you are going into the 711. manners are not negotiable.

they set the table for everything you are going to do from here on out. it is just a matter of being good to other people and making sure that they know they are welcome. good manners are not negotiable. lipstick vital. t has sugar. thank god that men and women are different for more than physical reasons. i love men a lot. i do not want to be one ever. i am glad i was made a woman and everything that came along with it. all of the deaths and all of the things that came along with being a woman. -- all of. gifts and all of the things that came along with being a woman. most importantly, what i think brings all of us together, certainly women from the south. we all have things that we feel

is our birthright. i do not think that was wearing lipstick when i was born. one thing i am sure of is we would not be here if we were not raised and we were not trained by our heritage and history and families as women to take responsibility for ourselves, for our families, and our communities. with a watchful eye always for the most vulnerable of us. i think sarah palin did a really good job of explaining it along the way. she came to an event that we had and talked about being a mom on grizzly. i kind of like the mama grisly thing for different reasons not because we go after people and attacked them and scratched their eyes out. a mama grizzly is a very gentle type of beer. she marks out her territory.

she lives her life with her cubs within that territory. everything that goes. god help you if you walk into the perimeter and threatened senior. then you will have your eyes of scratched out. don't mess with the most vulnerable among us. i think we are wired it that way. frontier feminism is another concept that is very compelling at all of our candidates have exemplified in some way. being aggressive moving across

this country and wagon trains and one other form, we protected our families, maintained our femininity, and we made sure that the family life. bless their hearts, if they had to wield a velvet hammer when moving out west they did. what is a velvet hammer? i love you, i love you, but do not mess with my kids or you will see the hammer coming. do not cross the line. we know who the vulnerable and society is. they start with the unborn. it branches out from there. the best of us as women leaders across time have understood that the best. some of the women who really blazed the trail for politics or the standard bearers for such a

thing. they did not always have to claim credit but they were intellectuals, they were laughing, there were profoundly nurturing, and courageous with their leadership. think of abigail adams who did not leave home. current intellectual and spiritual and emotional support of her husband all the way along sustained him in what he had to do at a time crucial to the founding of our country. the underground railroad. the women who led that but did not look for credit but quietly made sure the most vulnerable in our society were protected. then susan b. anthony, our namesake. for more reasons than what she understood -- she wasn't abolitionist and it suffrage who really placed a trail. she never saw the right to vote and yet she knew she had to fight for it. she understood something central

to all of the women i have just mentioned. that is that you can never build authentic rights on the broken rights of other human beings. you can never build authentic human rights on the broken rights of another human being. that is our sense of protecting the vulnerable. it is a human trait, but it is a uniquely and strong women treat. a mother treats. something that weekly bring to the political process that must be heard. susan b. anthony said about the connection between women and unborn child in her own newspaper called the revolution, she said in a question asking if a woman should feel guilty if she does away with her unborn child. she said, guilty, yes. no matter what he mode of. no matter for a lot of these or

a desire to save the unborn in assets from pan, she is deeply guilty. it will burn her conscious and live. it will burn her soul in the grave. thrice guilty is the one he drove her to the dreadful deed. who is driving women now to the dreadful deed it? women. folks who are looking for a money cast out from women's pain. dressed guilty are them who drive the dreadful the 4,000 tons a day. when we consider that women are treated as property, it is degraded as property. but we treat -- when we treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit. she said -- she said when a man

steals to satisfy his hunger, we may safely conclude that there is something wrong in society. when a woman destroys the life of her unborn child, it is evidence that either by education or circumstances she has been greatly wronged. one thing they are all saying the is that a dearth of rights, feeling exploitation and deprivation is never solved by taking the rights away from another human being. whether it is the vulnerable on board, whether it is the vulnerable feeble minded, whether it is a minority that is not respected in the community. we will never build our rights up by tearing the rights of those people down. in fact, we know what love does. love increases as we give rights

and as we expand rights -- more rights actually four separate it is just the nature of the blessing of liberty that our country has given us to understand that is actually true. a funny thing happened. we did not agree with them on everything. we do not have to. the women ever disagree? every once in awhile. maybe a couple of times, at least in my family. my mother always calls this the '60s business. it felt the pinch of maybe something authentic. then they really threw the baby out with the bathwater.

just think of them as interlopers between our true founders -- we do not have to call of feminism if you do not want to call that feminism. the true founders of what it means to be a woman leader and where we are now pretty interloped in the meantime to say several things. there are people like margaret sanger. there are women who made the world worse in the words of my really great friend. women who made the world worse. why did they make our country and families and our communities worse? they made us focus on a list of grievances. that instead of a list of how we can contribute to ourselves, our communities, our nation. being a woman involved in politics amounted to five things we must have or will county. take from them, give to us, we will not be happy. if you do not give it to us, you are dead.

where is the expansiveness -- the generosity? my mother is like, that is not attractive. who would want to be like that? my mother was not pro-life, but she knew what she did not like in a lady. i remember as a child you did you remember seeing jane fonda and others -- perhaps some are too young -- looking at some of the women of the national stage in the late 1970's and early 1980's and saying, who would want to beat that? who would want to act like that? they are mad all of the time. i did not want that. even as a child there was something that was repellent. sometimes the -- somehow convinced a whole lot of people, especially men in power, that to get the woman's vote you had to prove that you would liberate them. what is liberation? liberating women means he must buy into this sexual exploitation of women. he must buy into what makes them miserable every single second of

the day -- abortion. you must buy into these demands or you are not a real man. if you run for office and you do not agree to these demands, you are not a real woman. in fact, it was a wedge in the feminist movement at the time. there was a group of women who abhors abortion in the 1970's that you do not hear from now. that's let came about because the money came from the abortion movement. the vast majority and the leaders in that movement also believed that pornography and prostitution were killing the women and exploiting them. there were making them a consumer goods. they were making them commodities to take down off the shelf and put back in. decker is marginalized. there was no money for that. there was on the money for the abortion movement that became the center of the movement.

the group that was marginalized was the group that did not want women to be traffic as consumer goods cut back on the shelf to be put to back out as prostitutes and the victims of pornography again and again and again. i am reading every day now. i bet you are as well. the consequences of that split and the movement where women did not stand up at that point where the women that did stand up and really said, do not treat our girls and women like this got marginalized and pushed to the side. where did the money come from? q hefner. the money and the movement came from the pornographers. the came from people who were supporting prostitution at a time when people did not see a problem with it. we know now because we feel the pain and fallout from that. they did not see it that. what we got instead was not a

philosophy of, you do not build the rights of the back of other human beings whose right to have broken, we have a motto that said, you men, you kids, you are obstacles to my success. what are we going to do to get you to step aside so i can march through? that tended to be -- that has been the choice. what happened to ourselves, our families, our communities? the flourishing that giving to all of those things actually produces in our own lives and our families and our communities? the response is in political returned -- in political terms has been the founding of the susan b. anthony list in the early 1990's. when that whole philosophy was certainly front and center. since that time, we have altogether worked for a time when the year of the women in

1992, which was already gloria steinem's and the nancy pelosi is of the world or the victorious to last year which is the year of the pro-life woman. it is a very rare now to find an authentic woman leader who has been viable who in this last election did not get elected. it was their day. it was their time. the year of the pro-life woman was absolutely last year. going from about close to zero the type of woman who is now prevailing in public office, i am sure you were also very involved in, attorney-general races, house races, and not even

to mention the door must number of state races that i am sure he were involved in that we could not stress to reach. this is the time. thank god you are here to give voice to what is actually happening. i really believe down to my bones -- it is the reason we started the susan b. anthony list so long ago, it has to do with the trade off about who we are and how we see ourselves as complementary to men. as always with an eye out for the vulnerable among us. the mama grizzly thing is a little too aggressive. you know what i mean. we will protect our families always. we will always -- think of any corporate atmosphere where you understand -- an office atmosphere were you understand somebody is suffering. you know. you naturally reach out.

this is what the political process and what politics in general and america will benefit greatly from. regardless of the velvet hammer which, let's just say it has to be. what is the velvet hammer? we are who we are in terms of everything i have just said. he crossed that line, we will be the, grizzly. he pretend to authenticate real human rights and you do not, you need to look for a job in the private sector there are women who speak for us and there are women who do not speak for us. we together will have the muscle to make sure they know who they are and who they are not. in the process of doing that, which we have already done, we will encourage women like everybody in this room to run and do exactly "we said. the longer will they see it as beneficial to buy into this idea that to be a real woman you

have to buy into old guard feminism which sees other people as obstacles to their success. what i am not going to do is go through a bunch of calls. i want you to know what you probably already know. on the abortion issue, we are so at the -- we are not even at the crest yet. because of what we have known what abortion does to hollow out the soul and body of women and we have gone through years of experience of what that means that we have watched it. polls are dramatically moving in our direction among women. more women label themselves as pro-life than they do pro- choice. that is just a lame -- that is just a label. 50% of college-educated women were for abortion on demand. now 35% of college educated women are for abortion on demand.

women generally are for abortion on demand 26%, a quarter of women mainly in their over 40 compared to 34% in the early 1990's. everything is moving into our direction. 7 the%-80% support -- would then support late term abortion bans. parental notice, oppose funding for public abortion. undermining our consciences with our tax dollars. in summation, i would just -- i would like to continue the conversation that you probably already have been involved in already. you have already made a decision

to be engaged in a political process. we all will go back and try to make sure the other women make a very good decision about being involved in the political process. it is a decision. is not fun. who really wants to do it? it is really kind of dirty. it is not all the fun. we are not all super confrontational. we do it because we love. there is no other compelling or impelling reason to get involved. that will sustain us all in the tough times. tina fey,j i hope you have met lindsay who is our director, she turned us on to this book. we may not agree with tina fey with a lot of things but she did say in her book, when people say you really, really must do something, it means you really do not have to. nobody ever said you really,

really must deliver the baby during labor. when it is true, it does not need to be said. we really do not have to sacrifice all of the things that he sacrificed. we do not have to. it is a decision like the women that we, our national beneficiaries of, whose roots we are tipping back to now. we will do what they did. who see yourself either as a candidate yourself -- let me just say this. not everybody is a candidate. i will never be a canada. i will always find the best candidates to support. i see it as a vocational question. not everyone should do it.

if you are, do it whole hog. if you run the first time, something does not mean you were not called to do it. maybe there is something else edt due as far as running again, run for a different office, there are things that might need to be adjusted. this is a calling. i believe that at this time because of the sacrifice for our families and our communities that it takes, it as a vocation. what is that vocation it out? it is about retaking ground so that we can speak for ourselves and the majority. we return to our roots. we start to promote -- we don't start to promote, we continue to promote the antithesis of what barbara boxer fu has already peaked out nationally -- maybe not an -- we continue to promote what we know as it wasn't --

winning message among women. barbara boxer look up one morning and decided to run for the school board. had she not decided to do that, we would not be burdened with .arbara boxer right now rea women made the same type of decision. we have everything we need. we do have everything we need in this country. other countries we don't. we have the blessings of liberty. we have the aspirations of the model. we have the true gift that women like you has been given when you embrace them and share them in the political climate.

you will just be incredibly attractive. you already are. that is a great corporate thank you for having me. -- that is a great model. thank you for having me. [applause] >> tomorrow on washington journal, a discussion on u.s. afghanistan relations with missy ryan. after that and look at the 2012 presidential campaign presidentialjohn feehery and jim manley. later a discussion about the penn state and syracuse sex abuse allegations with carolyn atewll-davis. that is live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. on newsmakers this week, he

discusses the committee next week. to cut spending by 1.2 trillion dollars. >> was the super committee a good idea or was it a mistake? >> washington answer is pushing the can down the road. >> watch the entire interview thetom coburn on "newsmakers." it is also available online at c-span.org. >> now, remarks from rahm emanuel. he was the keynote speaker at the iowa jefferson jackson dinner and des moines. he talked about the 2010 presidential election. this is about 30 minutes.

>> he needed a chief of staff who would get the job done in the face of a global economic crisis and eight years of failed domestic policy. that is exactly what he got in rahm emanuel. representing the fifth congressional district and as mayor of this city of chicago, he has zoes been focused on results. as chief of staff, he became one of president obama's closest to the visors and a catalyst for the first 100 days of then- president in history. working on behalf of the president, in short the policies were put in place to turn the economy around and after decades of complacency, america has a true health care reform.

[applause] he is here tonight because he has been a witness to president obama's vision for our nation and he knows the importance of granting him another four years in the white house. please join me in welcoming rahm emanuel. ♪ >> thank you.

we meet here tonight, the republicans are having a debate across town. i have watched a couple of those debates. i have to be honest. i never thought i would say this. i am beginning to miss the wisdom of sarah palin. [laughter] the debate was called the thanksgiving family form. it is fitting because i am never seen a greater collection of turkeys. look at their candid its, mitt romney. we should have known he would change his mind. newt had to leave early and leave to the salespeople at tiffany's. in and rick perry were in

there to tour class, where is libya? [laughter] the republicans have an impressive field, governor mitch daniels. jeb bush. the only problem? they are not on the field. think about this. you're here four years ago. vice-president and joe biden. [applause] hillary clinton. [applause] chris dodd. [applause] president obama. [applause] think of their field, rick santorum, michele bock man. who was feeling sorry for voters now? four years ago, at this dinner, many of you were in attendance. a young senator from my home

state of illinois who is 23 points down in the polls spoke to you in words you'll never forget. with the promises he made in that speech he began a journey that would change history and he did it with your help. all of us may be a little older and grayer. they say it is salt and pepper but for you, dad, it is al-sadr. what is he said was worth fighting for. he stood on this platform and promised to end the war that should have never been authorized and should never have been waged. [applause] republicans did not want to let it happen. the honest. democrats did not believe it

could. tonight, the last of 170,000 of america's finest are on their way home. the war is over. [applause] that is the change we believe in. that is the change we work for and that is the change our president delivered. four years ago, at this podium, at this dinner, then senator obama promised he would take the fight to al qaeda and those who perpetuated the 9/11 events. those are responsible for 9/11. he said he would bring justice to al qaeda leaders. tonight, osama bin laden is history. thanks to the bold and determined leadership of our president, justice has been done and americans are safer for

it. typical of the person i know, president obama did not brag. he thanked our troops, our intelligence services for their excellent work and he moved onto the next terrorist was threatening america and brought him to justice. he did not hang a banner, pretend the mission was accomplished. he got the job done. [applause] he mission was accomplished. he got the job done. that is the change we believed in. that is the change we worked for, and that is the change the president delivered. four years ago, senator obama at this podium stood before you and said he wanted to stop talking about the outrage of 47 million americans without health care and start actually doing something about it. he promised then, i will make

certain that every single american in this country has health care they can count on, and i will not do it 20 years from now. i will not do it 10 years from now. i will do it at the end of my first term as president. now folks, you know this. politicians have been talking about this for 60 years. president obama delivered. [applause] because of president obama's leadership, an insurance company cannot turn you down because you have a pre-existing condition. [applause] because of president obama, they cannot discriminate against you because you are a woman or have grown older. because of president obama, your children can stay on a parent's policy until they enter the workforce. because of your support, iowa,

and his courage, no american will ever again receive this letter, "sorry, you have reached the limit. we will not pay for your cancer treatment anymore. [applause] republicans opposed every one of those reforms, but now we have those life-saving protections, that peace of mind, because of president obama's leadership. that is the change we believed in, that is the change we worked for, and that is the change the president delivered. [applause] then senator obama stood at this podium four years ago, at this dinner, and he promised to make sure that every american child has the best education we have to offer, from the day they are born to the day they graduate

from college. as president, he doubled college scholarships. he expanded pell grants. he brought down the cost of college loans. he invested in schools with innovation with race to the top. he expanded access to community colleges, our most undervalued educational tool. you gave him that chance, iowa. republicans fought him every step of the way, but because of his leadership, millions of young americans have been given a better chance. that is the change we believed in. that is the change we worked for. that is the change president obama delivered. [applause] you heard him say it right here in iowa four years ago. he made the pledge not just to you but to the american people, and now you have seen him deliver on the promises he made.

that is how we measure character, doing what you say you will do. now, i had the privilege of seeing that character close of. working by his side during two of the most harrowing years any president has faced in our lifetime. and no, despite what you are thinking right now, they were not heroine because i was by his side. -- harrowing because i was by his side. they say you can learn most about someone's character in a crisis. then i think we all know our president pretty well. during our greatest economic crisis in decades, the strength of our presidents character was on display every day. the president inherited an economy that was spiraling toward a depression, a financial system that had frozen up, and

an auto industry that was near collapse. the problems president obama faced were not caused by accident. they were caused by policies, republican policies. the first time i worked in the white house with president clinton, we had a democratic president, a democratic house and a democratic senate. we passed an economic plan without a single republican vote, and that plan put america back to work and back to economic growth. it created millions of private sector jobs. it lifted 7 million americans out of poverty. it ended welfare as we know it and put 100,000 cops on american streets. we balanced the budget. we put america on the path to the zero debt by 2009. that so far away date. we left president bush and the republicans a record surplus and

a left president obama and the democrats' record national debt. you know how that happened. the republicans happened. they held the white house, the house and senate for six long years. they did something no one had ever tried into the years of american history. they tried to fund two wars with three tax cuts. that is how you go from 029 trillion dollars in debt. it is that simple. -- from 0-$9 trillion in debt. it is that simple. they took everything they inherited, the jobs, the surplus, the stature of america and around the world, and they squandered it. it is a bit ironic, isn't it? you figure the one thing republicans are good at is inheriting things. [laughter] i kind of liked that one. [laughter] that is what the republicans handed president obama and

america on day one, january 28th, 2009, the worst economic mess since president roosevelt took over for president hoover. but president obama did not blame or complain. he knew the burdens on everyday americans were far worse than the ones he was facing. so he rolled up its sleeves and went to work on behalf of the hard-working families in this country. every day of work by his side, i saw him to be a leader who did not ask what is the easy thing to do, what was the politically convenient thing to do, but what was the right thing to do. what was the essential thing to do for america and america's future? the president did not -- 9 the president did not make choices based on politics. he made them because of his principles. he did not make choices for the next election, he made them for the next generation.

trust me. i know this firsthand. he did not make decisions based on if they were quick or politically convenient, because i wanted him to go with decisions that were quick and politically convenient and i did not win any of those fights. president obama never tailored what he believed to the moment. compare that for a second to mitt romney, who was once pro- choice, now is not. he was once pro gay rights, and now he is night -- is not. he was once in favor of gun control. now he is not. he supported immigration reform. now he does not. he supported national health care reform with a mandate. now he does not. mitt romney says he is a man of steadiness and consistency. if that is true, i am a linebacker for the chicago bears. [laughter] [applause] now, i want you to take a step

back. while people have talked about all of the flip-flops, i actually think there is a different part to mitt romney that people do not fully appreciate. it is what he has been steadfast about, what he has refused to give an inch on, what he has refused to bend on, what he will never flip on and never abandoned his position on, and that is his position on the middle class versus the most fortunate. what he has failed to do for the middle class and what he is willing to do for the most privileged and fortunate in our society. he faced the same set of choices president obama did when the country faced an auto industry in crisis. when the markets collapsed in 2008 and the government had to step in, mitt romney did not hesitate for a moment. he welcomed putting taxpayers on the hook to save the financial system. but when the auto industry and

the millions of jobs that are dependent on it, the backbone of america's manufacturing economy was on the brink, he said while the families, all the communities, all the small businesses and all the workers, you should go bankrupt. nothing reveals more about the character and values of these two individuals and how they dealt with these two crises. president obama did not think either one should be abandoned, the financial system or the auto industry. both were is essential to america's economic leadership and to economic growth in the future. those were the decisions he faced in the oval office. the choices he faced were not easy. for the financial system, it was a choice between more taxpayer money to support the banks or to nationalize them. for the auto companies, between helping them out or letting them

go bankrupt. there were those he said he was throwing good money after bad. there were those who said that chrysler go to save gm. and then there were those led by mitt romney who advocated bankruptcy. we know where mitt romney stood. the title of the op ed under his signature, "let detroit go bankrupt." but the financial engineers who helped create the mess were essential to our future. the engineers, the technicians, the workers on the shop floor of the auto industry were dispensable. they were dispensable. three years later, now we know who was right and who was wrong. [applause] and even after the auto industry has not only survived but is thriving, is adding jobs, is paying back of the taxpayer money, mitt romney has stuck to

his guns and defended his decision to let them go bankrupt. now look, i am the mayor of chicago. ford has a plant on the south side. ford just added 1200 jobs. in ohio, chrysler just added another 1100 jobs. if we had followed mitt romney's advise, those jobs would not be there and our communities would not be thriving. you could say that is a one-off mistake. mitt romney did not stop there. he continued to show his true colors. he values the privileged and the affluent over the middle class. just this summer, the -- mitt romney said the president was out of touch for his focus on manufacturing jobs. he has valued outsourcing over those manufacturing jobs. here in iowa, right here, he said the corporations are people with all the same rights. in nevada, one of the states

with the worst housing in foreclosure crisis, he said the mortgage crisis should run its course and hit bottom. he had a plan for speculator is to step in, but not for people living in those homes who are trying to achieve the american dream. so people think he is a flip- flop. well, the only thing scarier than what he has flip flop on are the issues he has refused to bend on, where he has refused to change. he has been rock-solid in siding with the privileged over the middle class. whether it is homeowners vs speculators, the autoworker versus the financial engineer or employees versus corporations, he has been consistent in whose side he is on. if you're in the hard-working middle class, you're left with the scrap heap. in the next four years there will be more challenges and more crises.

those crises that will determine the economic vitality of the middle class and the economic future of this country. whose character, whose judgment, do you want in that office? over the next four years, there will be a series of choices. it won't be clear what the outcome will be. we will need leadership; we will need values as guideposts. the past tells you everything you need to know about mitt romney and president obama. how they will make decisions in the future and who they will make them for. middle-class americans cannot afford mitt romney's leadership and values. the middle class of this country are fighting every day to hang

on. they're fighting a daily struggle to give their children a better life. they cannot have a leader who turns a blind eye to their struggles. so, who do you want in the oval office? a man who said that the auto industry and auto workers are dispensable? a man who says the corporations are more valuable than their employees? a man who says the to speculators -- who says the speculators are more important than people living in their homes. can we afford mitt romney's values? can we afford mitt romney's leadership? can we afford mitt romney's judgment? can we afford mitt romney's character? that is not the america our parents fought for and that is not the values that we are teaching our children. to create true middle class security, we can't just cut our

way to prosperity. we must out-innovate, out- educate and out-build the world. america cannot afford an economy built on outsourcing and risky financial deals. we need an economy that is built to last. that creates jobs for the future, that makes the things the rest of the world wants to buy. we need a president who sees america's potential in every american, an america where every american plays a role in winning the 21st century. president obama believes in an america where hard work pays off, where responsibility is rewarded. he believes in an america where everyone, from main street to wall street, does their fair share. he believes in an america where we don't have two rule books, one for those at the top, and another set for everyone else.

president obama believes in the idea that our country prospers when we're all in it together. [applause] that is the american dream. it is the dream that president obama has lived by. the president was raised by a single mother who worked hard and got up before dawn to drill him on reading, math and history. he earned scholarships to the best schools and rose through his hard work and intellect. after he was the president of harvard law, he could have made millions. but his values, his values brought into the south side of chicago to help working people who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own. here is the deal. you know and i know our president is a man of character. he is a man of principle.

he is a man who has been fighting for the middle class and he will continue to fight for middle-class families. i know the president's values. i have seen his persistence. you need not ask whether president obama will continue to fight. the only question is, will we fight for his belief in america? [applause] i want to hear it. will you fight for the president who is fighting to save the middle class? >> yes! >> will you fight for the president who is fighting for middle-class values? for education and a clean environment for all of our children? will you fight for a president who is fighting for equality for all of god's children, men, women, asian, hispanic, gay, straight? work.let's go to let's get in this fight.

let's support our president, support the middle class. let's fight for the country we live for, the country our parents and grandparents fought for, because america and the middle class are worth fighting for. bair bless you and thank you. -- thank you and god bless you.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> tomorrow on how washington journal, a discussion on u.s. and afghanistan relations with missy ryan. a discussion about the 2012 presidential campaign with john feehery and jim manley.

a discussion about the penn state syracuse child sex abuse allegations with carolyn atwell- davis. that is live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> president obama reps up his ninth trip to the asian-pacific region this weekend. he gave his address from indonesia where he joined leaders from u.s. companies and then mounting trade agreement he said will increase american exports and jobs. the president talks about the importance of the region to the u.s. economy and white america must invest in high-tech manufacturing. -- and white america must invest and high-tech manufacturing. the panel is negotiating a plan by next wednesday to reduce the nation's debt by at least 1.2 trillion dollars over the next decade. he talks about his party's commitment to cutting spending and changing the tax code. >> today in speaking to you from

indonesia as i finish up my trip from the asian pacific. over the past week, the progress we made in opening markets and boosting exports here will help create more jobs and more growth in the united states. i was proud to join leaders from some of our nation's top companies as they announced a trade deal that will support a hundred 30,000 american jobs and increase exports by a $39 million. boeing will sell more than 200 plans to in the media that are built with parts from suppliers in over 40 states. these agreements will help us reach my goal of doubling in american exports by 2014. a goal we are on pace to me. there are powerful examples of how we can rebuild an economy, making and selling products all

over the world that are stamped with three proud words -- made in america. over the past decade, we became a country that -- week racked up a lot of debt but did not create many jobs. we have to restore america's manufacturing might which is what helped us build the largest middle-class and history. that is why we chose to pull the audio industry back from the brink and save hundreds of thousands of jobs in the process. that is why we are investing in the next generation of high-tech manufacturing. building an economy that lasts is not about making things, it is about opening new markets to buy them. after all, 95% of the world's consumers live outside of our borders. no market is more important to our economic future than the asian-pacific region. a region where exports already support 5 million american jobs.

that is why we recently signed a landmark trade agreement with south korea that will support tens of thousands of american jobs. working with other leaders will make progress toward our most ambitious trade agreement yet. a partnership with pacific nations that hold the potential for more exports and more jobs in a region of nearly 3 billion consumers. we may be going through tough times, but as i said time and time again, the united states still has the world's most dynamic economy, the finest universities, the most innovative companies, and the hardest working people on earth. we can compete against anybody and we can win. as president, i intend to make sure that happens by doing everything i can to give

american workers and businesses the chance to succeed. >> hello. i am pat toomey from the state of pennsylvania. like so many americans, i am deeply concerned about the two biggest problems facing our country today. first, the economy has hit the wall with unemployment sitting stubbornly at 9%. after three years of failed stimulus programs and government takeovers, and americans are asking where are the jobs. out of control federal spending over the past three years have resulted in record-breaking deficit and a 15 trillion dollar debt that grows daily. if we do nothing and allow the status quo to prevail, we do not have to look far to see were the consequences will be. across the atlantic we are watching a fiscal disaster unfold in europe with the social unrest, riots in the streets, a government failing, imminent bankruptcy.

sadly, this is the inevitable result of an extended period of inadequate to economic growth and wildly excessive debt. i am concerned that this administration and many in congress are pursuing the very same policies. with the job killing taxes and regulations and record-breaking spending, this administration has put us on a path that leads to europe's destination. the good news is we are not too far down the path. we still have time and opportunity to avoid the financial crisis that europe is struggling with today. it is not too late for the united states. i have the good fortune of sitting on the committee that has the opportunity to make progress on both of these two priorities, restoring economic growth and bringing our deficits under control. the best way to revive the a beer can the economy is to reform our broken tax code. we should seize this opportunity to replace it with a system that will lower tax rates for every

single american, simplify the code and get rid of the special interest tax breaks and loopholes that make this tax code is 70,000 page mess that it is. every bipartisan commission has come to the same conclusion. pro-growth tax reform is a vital part of the solution. that is why we republican members of the joint select committee on deficit reduction have proposed a plan that replaces our current tax code with a simpler and fairer version that will encourage small businesses to expand and hire new workers to encourage creative hard-working americans to open new businesses. this reform should be permanent so that the creators across america will know that they help -- it will not be subject to the biggest tax hike in american history which is limning a mere 14 months away. we are so committed to the job committing tax reform and reaching an agreement with democratic colleagues that we

offer to use the tax reform as a way to generate revenue for deficit reduction. even the second highest ranking democrat in the senate has described the republican proposal as a breakthrough. in a addition to kickstart in our economy with tax reform, our proposal will curb the deficit by cutting spending. after all, the problem is not that americans are under tax, the government overspent. that is why we propose cutting spending by $750 billion over 10 years. let me be clear, we have identified several trillion dollars and sensible and responsible spending reductions that will actually result our fiscal crisis. in the face of intense democratic opposition, we have sailed back our proposal to just $750 billion -- less than 2% of what our government is projected to spend over the next 10 years. our democratic colleagues can agree that a bloated federal government that has grown by 25% in the last few years can

tighten its belt by 2% over the next 10 years. the hour is late. by law our work on the committee must be completed this coming week. i remain hopeful that we can meet our goal. i urge my democratic college to join us in this effort. we have what is truly a once-in- a-lifetime opportunity to pass legislation that will generate millions of jobs, create a simpler fair tax system with lower rates for everyone, and put our government on a path toward fiscal sanity. we do not have to follow the path of europe is taking. we can learn from their mistakes. we can be the land of unparalleled opportunity and prosperity. the 21st century can be another great century. the american people picture of that if we in washington will let them. . pat toomey and i think you for listening. >> center tomcoburn of

oklahoma. he talked about the deadline facing the committee next week. >> was the super committee a good idea or a mistake? ofit was washington's answer kicking the can down the road. it was a mistake. >> watch the entire interview on newsmakers. it is also available online at c-span.org. >> british prime minister david cameron with trade relations with him brazil and russia. he spoke at the lord mayor's banquet, and annual event for the diplomatic corps of london. the event begins with opening remarks from david walton. this is about 45 minutes. -- david wooten. this is 45 minutes.

>> the queen. [god save the queen] ♪ ♪

♪

♪

♪ [applause] >> your grace, my lord chancellor, prime minister, mr. speaker, your excellencies my lords, too, are, ladies and gentlemen. it has been quite a weekend. a very early on saturday i saw a sign of things to come. a road sign on london bridge which read "be aware -- avoided the city p ."

that was a vice i thought best in this lord mayor did not take. welcome from our to sheriff's as well as the the mayor of san me a very special welcome to you prime minister for this, your second lord mayor's banquet. and much has happened since he spoke on britain's place in the world last year. a year of extraordinary change and challenge for the country, for the world, and for the city. this is an alarming time for the global economy. the u.k. and the city must play their parts in meeting these

challenges. prime minister, i applaud your focus on the emerging economies for british exports, markets i will visit over the next year promoting british business. my second duty is to congratulate michael baer, a year of great progress and achievement. he has given a sharper business focus to a demanding round of overseas visits, and increasingly important part. looking for high volume opportunities for british business. opportunity's not just for financial services, but for industry as well. in all this, he has been

supported by his wife, barbara, who has carried out her own duties with charm, energy, and artistic flair. tonight, we honor and congratulate michael on a very fine job well done. [applause] i share that vision. i realized the great strength of the city's on a vibrant and diverse communities. it was not about to me. i was just one person alongside

the many thousands of the very young to the very old from some of our great olympians to the smallest charity. they give generously of their time, energy and expertise. i was just one person alongside more than half of a million. we are in the midst of a public debate about the structure of our economy and the distribution of its benefits and burdens. how it serves london and the wider economy and our the --

communities. i welcome that to debate because i have a unique opportunity to shine a light on these issues. we must see what works in the interest hundred we will support the government in creating jobs and the growth in britain, in europe, and across the world. my mayor t. will attribute -- contribute to that feature which is why it will be called it -- if it to for the feature.

the city must be fit for the future. it must be trusted and valued. so where we have got things wrong that, we will put them right and be seen to put them right. i also want to see the city's important connections and contributions recognized and renewed. i will highlight the city's importance as an economic force. in creating and supporting economic growth and in providing stable and secure jobs, not just for the more than 1 million people working in financial services across the country, but through its connections to millions more. i will highlight the connections and contributions of the city's economic footprint because for

every job created in financial services, at least one more is created elsewhere. i will champion in the crucial role manufacturing has to play.

makes products which are prized for their enterprise, innovation, and quality the world over. i will highlight the city support for our high-tech industries, concentrated near the city s kept city stretches from shortage to stratford. we must strengthen our connection and investment in these industries, especially by increasing the number of business angel supporting these cutting edge enterprises. new connections for new industries.

i want to deepen the thousands of personal connections between the city and those on the margins of our communities, expanding horizons when people are most in need of a hand and strengthening our connections with the wider community in practical personal ways. which widen access for bright young people from our neighboring boroughs. the initiative of my own.

i worked through technology college with a fantastic merrill's some of which. may i draw your attention to exhibit a. he this t-shirt created by the students themselves. only as my duty as lord mayor stopped me from wearing it tonight. i would also set out the connections. the city corporations own charitable arm, the city bridge trust, which over the last decade has given over one- quarter of a billion pounds to help meet the needs of londoners

to help them realize their potential. we are the vanguard of developing the market up investment under which we will be working with the cabinet office. new forms of finance for new forms of enterprise. new connections. you use their expertise, goodwill, to support schools, colleges, and reward schemes and a new entrant this ships. the bedrock of our communities. over 216 affiliations of our

matchless armed forces building up links to support those men and women to whom we all know so much. or the academy opened only two months ago, sponsored there a connection which in one of our oldest and youngest delivery companies. this is an investment in our future. it is rooted in the greek and traditions of the city passed. one that will help us meet new challenges. this is priceless had one with a special connection for me because my parents met at the

college. my own appeal will help us be fit for the future in a very literal sense. it is a privilege to be an olympic mayor although my chances of a gold medal are at last now slim. i want to help people across the whole country to be energized and inspired by discrete event. that is why my appeal will support a better medical facilities and immediate attention through the trauma center at our local general hospital, the royal london. better opportunities and the role foundation. rowing has been a passion of mine since i was a teenager and i want others to enjoy it as much as i do. much as i do.