>> that was from south carolina, that there was news today where rick santorum, a to was revealed today by the final tally of the iowa caucuses -- rick santorum edging mitt romney by 34 votes in a flip to the final result there. we will have rick santorum tomorrow morning on "washington journal" live at 7:45 eastern. while those results were released today, except for managing out mitt romney by 34 votes, the final tally was rick santorum -- 29,829, mitt romney 29,805. news reports indicate late this afternoon that mitt romney had called former senator santorum to congratulate him on the wind. -- on the win. >> c-span's wrote to the white house coverage shows you the candidate events leading up to south carolina put the primary. >> the obama administration just

came out with a policy that said in her program, she cannot teach abstinence as a preferable way of avoiding out of wedlock birth. and she cannot talk about marriage. she cannot talk about marriage as any other than an alternative lifestyle that is no better or no worse than any other lifestyle. my question is -- why? >> when the president adopts a stimulus package of hundreds of billions of dollars that nobody has read and then discovers to his great surprise two years later, as he himself put it, that the shovel ready jobs were not show already, and the stimulus sales will leave us $800 billion deeper in debt, at some point, he has to take responsibility. that was his plan, his proposal, and it failed.

>> as candidates meet with voters to get their message out. and after the polls close saturday evening, we will show you the results from south carolina, along with candidate speeches and your phone calls. [applause] >> president obama today signed an executive order to increase fees for processing for china and brazil, and then he went to disney world, to talk about the order, which also points new members to u.s. travel and tourism advisory board. this is 20 minutes. >> hello, everybody. i am glad to be at disney world. [applause] the magic kingdom. this is outstanding. let me begin by thanking reuben

for that extraordinary introduction. he was too bashful -- maybe he is not supposed to do this. i will do that. his restaurant is called zaza, new cuban dining. everybody check it out. on the way out, he said he did not do this a lot. he is a natural. we will have to run him for something. but thank you so much for taking the time. it is great to be here. it is rare that i get to do something that sasha and malia envy me for. [laughter] that does not happen very often. maybe for once, they will ask me at dinner, a day went. [laughter] i confess, i am excited to see mickey. it is always nice to meet a world leader who has bigger ears than me. [laughter]

i want to abolish the presence of one of florida's outstanding mayors, the mayor of orlando is in the house. [applause] we have two outstanding members of my cabinet. interior secretary salazar and commerce secretary bryson. [applause] because they are focused on what brings us here today. that is creating jobs and boosting tourism. you just heard what a huge difference tourism makes for small businesses. every year, tens of millions of tourists all over the world come to visit america. makes sense.

you have the greatest country on earth, people want to come. as folks in orlando know, that is good for our economy. it means people are renting cars and staying in hotels and eating at restaurants and checking out the sites. it means people are doing business here in the united states. in 2010, nearly 60 million international visitors helped the tourism industry generate over $134 billion. tourism is the number one service that we export. that means jobs. more money spent by more tourists means more businesses can hire more workers. that is why we are all here today -- to tell the world that america is open for business. we want to welcome you. and to take concrete steps to

boost america's tourism industry so that we can keep growing our economy and creating jobs here in florida and all across the country. here's the good news -- we have got the best product to sell. i mean, look at where we are. we have got the most entertaining destinations in the world. this is the land of extraordinary natural wonders from the rocky mountains to the grand canyon, from yellowstone to yosemite. this is the land where we do big things, and so have incredible landmarks like the golden gate bridge and the empire state building, the hoover dam, the gateway arch. this is the land of iconic cities and all their sights from independent falls in philadelphia to boston, from the space needle to the skyline of my hometown in chicago.

it is a nice skyline, for those of you who have never been there. [laughter] a couple chicagoans back there. [laughter] i am here today because i want more tourists here tomorrow. i want america to be the top tourist destination in the world. the top tourist destination in the world. [applause] this is something we have been focused on for some time. two years ago, i signed a bill into law called the travel promotion act. it has broad support of both democrats and republicans, and as you know, that does not always happen. it set up a new nonprofit organization called brand usa. its job is to pitch america as a travel destination for the rest of the world to come to visit. you guys see advertising for

other countries, other countries -- other destinations here in the united states, right? we have to do the same thing so that when people are thinking about where they want to travel, where they want to spend their vacation, we want them to come here. that is already in place, but we have got to do more. today, i directed my administration to send me a new national tourism strategy, focused on creating jobs. some of america's most successful business leaders, some who are here today, have signed up to help. we are going to see how we can make it easier for foreign tourists to find basic information about visiting america. and we are going to see how we can attract more tourists to our national parks. we want people visiting not just that caught center, but the everglades, too. -- not just epcot center. the more folks that is america,

the more americans we get back to work. it is that simple. just as we do -- need to do a better job of marketing our tourist destinations, we also have to make it easier for tourists to make the visit. there is a good reason why it is not easy for anybody to get a visa to come to america. obviously, national security is a top priority. we will always protect our borders and our shores and our tourist destinations from people who want to do us harm. unfortunately, such people exist, and that is not going to change. but we also want to get more international tourists coming to america. there is no reason why we cannot do both. we can make sure we are doing a good job keeping america secure while at the same time maintaining the openness that has always been the hallmark of america, and making sure we are welcoming travelers from all run the world. one step we are taking is the expansion of something called the global entry program.

it is a program to protect our borders and make life easier for frequent travelers to and from the united states. getting into the program requires an extensive background check, but once you are in, once you have proven yourself to be a solid individual, who is coming here for business or recreation purposes, instead of going through long lines at immigration, we can scan your passport, your fingerprints, and you are on your way. it is a great example of how we are using new technology to maintain national security and boost tourism at the same time. we are now going to make it available to almost all international travelers coming to the united states if they are willing to submit themselves to the background checks necessary. we can make sure we are facilitating their easy travel into the united states. [applause] there are some additional steps, though, that we can take.

right now, there are 36 countries are run the world whose citizens can visit america without getting a tourist visa. after they go online, they get pre-cleared by homeland security, and there is only one thing they have to do, and that is booked a flight. that has been a great boost for tourism. over 60% of our visitors do not require a visa. in most cases, that is because of this program. today, i am directing my administration to see if we can add more countries to it. [applause] we want more folks to have an easier time coming to the united states. let's also realize that in the years ahead, more and more tourists will come from countries not currently in this program. countries with a rapidly-growing economies, huge populations, and emerging middle classes. countries like china and india, and especially important for here in florida -- brazil.

it is a huge population that loves to come to florida. [applause] but we make it too hard for them. more and more of their people can now afford to visit america who could not come before. over the next four years we expect the tourists traveling from those countries to more than doubled. we want them coming right here. we want them spending money here in orlando, florida, in the united states of america, which will boost our businesses and our economy. today, i am directing the state department to accelerate our ability to process visas by 40% in china and in brazil this year. we are not talking about five years from now or 10 years from now. this year. [applause] we have already made incredible progress in this area. we have better staffed our

embassies and consulates, streamlined services with better technology. waiting times for a visa are down, but applications keep on going up. they are skyrocketing. people want to come here. china and brazil are the two countries which have some of the biggest backlogs. these are two of the countries with some of the fastest-growing middle-class is that have disposable income, money they want to spend at our parks and monuments. that is what this is all about -- telling the world that america is open for business. making it as safe and simple as possible to visit. helping our businesses all across the country grow and create jobs. helping those businesses compete and win. ultimately, that is how we will be built an economy where hard work pays off, where

responsibility is rewarded, and where anybody can make it if they tried. that is what america is all about. that is part of the reason why people want to come here. because they know our history. they know what the american dream has been all about. and it plays like disney world represents -- a place like disney world represents that quintessential american spirit. it is something that is recognized all around the world, and this weather is something that people appreciate all run the world, including the northern parts of this country. we want everybody to come, all who are watching. this new world and florida are open for business, but we want people all over on the world to know the same, and we're going to do everything we can to make sure that we are continuing to boost tourism for decades to come. thank you very much, everybody.

god bless you. god bless the united states of america. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

[applause]

[applause] >> the president is in new york city this evening. a couple of private campaign fund-raisers and a public event at the historic apollo theater in harlem. we will take you to that to hear comments from the president. it features music performances by al green. we will hear the president's comments tonight at 9:00 eastern here on c-span. tonight -- tomorrow, rick santorum on "washington journal" after news that he actually edged mitt romney in iowa. that is tomorrow live at 7:45 eastern. >> c-span's road to the white house coverage shows you the candidate events leading up to saturday's south carolina primary. >> and the obama administration just came out with a policy that said that in her program, she could not teach abstinence as a preferable way of avoiding out-

of-wedlock births, and she cannot talk about marriage. she cannot talk about marriage as any other than an alternative lifestyle that is no better or worse than any other lifestyle. my question is -- why? >> when the president adopts a stimulus package of hundreds of billions of dollars that nobody has read and then discovers to his great surprise two years later, as he himself put it, that the shovel-ready jobs were not shovel-ready, and the stimulus fails but leaves us $800 billion deeper in debt, at some point, he has to take responsibility. that was his plan, his proposal, and it failed. >> as candidates meet with voters to get their message out. and after the polls closed

saturday evening, we will show you the results from south carolina, along with candidate speeches and your phone calls. >> the group political parity today -- parity today announced a campaign to double the number of women in the u.s. house of representatives and the senate. the panel spoke about sexism in politics. this is an hour and 10 minutes. >> welcome, everyone, and thank you so much for coming today for this round table conversation sponsored by political parity. i am the co-chair of political parity. ambassador hunt is the chairman and founder of the original inspiration for this project. we are here to announce and kick

off in some ways a historic effort to double the number of women in congress and in governors' offices across the country by the year 2022. all of the folks who you see here today, many of them are involved in this effort -- they will explain how, but this is a ground-breaking approach. because for the first time, we're bringing together within from the full range of the political spectrum to work on one, an issue, and that is electing more women to the top offices across this nation. we are not as partisan. we do not endorse any woman or candidate, but we work to make sure that all women have the best possible opportunity to serve in high positions. now, i would like to introduce our chairman, ambassador hunt,

who will talk a little more about the structure of political parity, but then also what it is important to elect women. white women? ambassador. >> yes, i want to thank you for coming off the campaign trail. kerrey and i are working for opposing candidates. that probably gives you a sense of this whole endeavor. right? >> yes, we are modeling cooperation across the aisle. >> that is right. we have worked on opposite sides before, when you were running for governor, and i helped to fund raise for your opponent. here we are, nonetheless. the idea is double the number of women in congress. to do that, what we have realized is that the democratic efforts have not made it. republican efforts have not made it. people in the middle are still

stagnant here, so we have to figure out a new strategy. our foundation put together this initiative. it is a small, private foundation that we have. well, it is not too small. [laughter] because we are putting $750,000 a year into this for 10 years. what we are doing is figuring out how it is that women will make the decision to run. we know that women win in about the same proportion that they run. so we are doing the research behind it. we are funding the research, and that will help us figure out strategies, and then we have this whole idea of why they are leaving. let's get the word out. it is not just national strategies. id's people at the municipal

level who are also wanting to increase the number of women. some of them are doing it for the democrats. some for the republicans. that is cool. some are just saying, "any kind of woman, we want to get them in." we are focusing on the congress and u.s. governorships. others are saying working on the pipeline, getting younger women at the university level to run, but we know what the goal is ultimately. actually, the ultimate goal is the white house, i would say. but we are doing this bit. when we found out that someone like gloria totten, the national organization of women, they were interested, too, and we had this whole wide group of other women leaders who have fabulous bios -- we said we should put together this advisory group.

we call them the leadership team. this is not a coalition of their organizations. these are individuals, but wow, look at their bios, and you will see the wide expanse of organizations that they lead. thank you all, so many ofthank e this morning. this leads us to the question of why we would do this, why we would go to all this trouble. and the answer is because we care. we care about this country. this is a grand experiment we have undertaken. we have a lot of efforts around the world to increase the number of women in parliament. q end up with less weapons, more funding for health and education, children and families. guess what?

you also and up with more funding on environmental issues. i'm talking about parliamentary research. now, the united states of america, our great country, where are we in terms of women in legislature? when i started working on this issue, we were 42nd. that was 10 years ago. we are now 88 in the world. that is because we are stagnant and other countries keep increasing. we are behind ethiopia, folks. we are behind nepal. we are behind most of africa. do women make a difference in the u.s. congress? a new gallup poll says that the approval of congress is 11%.

another says it is 13%. that is probably within the margin of error. that is terrible. that is terrible in terms of what it does to our citizens, in terms of their desire to be part of this group or to support -- i mean, to go to the polls and the excited about what they can do with our government. we have to change that. how do you change it? well, one of the things that we know is that women tend to -- and i am never talking about one woman. i am never talking about one man. but as a group, women tend to be more collaborative. that is whether it is in business, in any other kind of setting. it is true also in politics. they tend to work across the lines more easily. and it is very important, however, that we have enough critical mass to let that happen, because otherwise it is extremely hard to vote across --

apart from your party. but if you have a block of 30%, 40%, that is when you see women really taking off in terms of their collaboration. and what do they vote for? and how they get their information about what they're going to vote for? women as a group have a different style of raising -- a gathering information. they tend to do it from the grassroots. they have their ears open. they tend to be running not because of a desire to be a senator but rather because they have a concern about an issue. i'm talking about the use that are widely held with women. -- views that are widely held with women. they will work across the aisle

to co-sponsor a bill with men. -- to co-sponsor a bill with somebody who shares that view. women cosponsor more bills than men. republican women vote more for environmental concerns than republican men and democratic women. democratic women are stronger on environmental concerns than democratic man. who knew? there is all kinds of reasoning for this collaboration. it is just good. and by the way, of course i think we have a right as women -- by the way, i am not the chairman, i am the chair. [laughter] >> i am a conservative. >> i know. every time i sign a letter, i love you dearly, i get one back

it says, sincerely. [laughter] where was i? [laughter] i know where. is about the talent pool. of course i care about women's rights, but that does not get you across the line. it just does not. it does not move people or we would be there. so, we can say we have got to draw from 100% of our talent pool. that is just smart. women are very reluctant to run. these are women who are figuring out how to push past that. >> that is our motto, the keys -- because we need 100% of america's talent.

we will now hear from five of the leaders to be we have engaged in the process to talk about this and the political landscape impacting women in 2012 and beyond. i would like to start with mary hughes, who is heading up and enormously ambitious effort to recruit, support and inspire women across the country to participate in electoral process in 2012. mary is going to tell us about her progress so far. >> good morning, everybody. it is wonderful to be with you all, lovely to see so many good friends. i want to say hello to two kates. lovely to see you. i want to talk to you very quickly and very briefly about three topics, very important. first, all history is preamble for where we are today so go back with me real quickly 20

years. 20 years ago today. 6% of the united states congress was female 20 years ago. after that november election in 1992, we were 10%. it was a joyous occasion. we'll celebrated. we thought we had knocked down those barriers and it was freeing clear sailing all the way ahead. but you know what? it did not happen that way. here is what happened in the intervening years. we made some incremental progress after 10%. up until about 1998, we were picking up a couple of seats to year. and and, oddly, between 1998- 2008, the flat lines. women stopped running. the number of nominees for congress increased by exactly 11. what is up with that? what is up with that?

so, we saw this flat lining, and we saw for the first time in 30 years in the last election, 2010, a decline in the number of women sworn into congress. fewer than the cycle before. we lost nearly 80 seats, women did, from the state legislatures in the last election cycle. this group of women, these women, all of you, we can do better. that is what we are here for. we want to do better in this next decade. i want to talk to you about the fact that we have quite a year ahead of us. 1992 was not accidental. there were political factors in place that enabled women to take advantage and to catapult 24 new women into the congress.

we have that opportunity again, and we have to take it. now, what are the factors? first, we redistricting reapportion once every 10 years. the legislatures are in the process of doing that. that means new seats are created, and the seats that exist are more competitive. open seats come into being. women do well in open seats. outsiders do well in open seats. many of the seats we won in 1992 were open seats. those are available again. in addition to redistricting and reappointment, in the intervening 20 years, 15 states have become term limited states. every two years, they create many more open seats. retirements occur. there is much more opportunity out there if we are willing to go and take it.

third, once every 20 years -- and 1992 was such a year and 2012 was such a year, the reapportionments and read districting -- redistricting coincides with the presidential election. in that year, many people come out to vote who do not necessarily vote in every school board, bond and local election. those people take the measure of each person has become. they're not so tied to party and much more responsive to what is immediately in the political environment. you take these things together and say that we have a level playing field. we have an electorate that is pretty dissatisfied with the status quo. we women are different. we run differently. we collaborate differently. we have a different set of priorities on our agenda. we believe in openness and transparency in proceedings, but

we have a lot to offer in contrast to the status quo if we go out and ran. now, the 2012 project is out there trying to expand the pool of women who think of themselves as public servants and potential elected officials. we do this with a wonderful group of 70 former elected congresswomen, governors, leaders and state legislature, a former elected women who go out , outside the normal channels of politics, to women in science and technology, health, energy, environment, finance, international relations, women who run small businesses and say to them, you are going to live a long time. you're going to live longer than your grandmother and you have a lot of wisdom, knowledge and accomplishment. we need all of america's talent

in this game. you want to think about your third act in terms of public service. what are you willing to give back, and are you willing to do it as an elected woman? women who never thought of themselves as public leaders are being asked to take up private sector non-profit accomplishment and put it to work. we do this in conferences, leadership conferences. elected women are out there and these former woelected women know what they're talking about. they have been in the trenches of the campaign. it served in the state legislature. they can dispel a lot of myths, negatives, and the things that prevent women from saying you know what? i would like to do that. i would like to do public service as an elected figure, and they are doing a terrific job. we do not just to educate about the state of american women.

the inter parliamentary union ranked on a quarterly basis how governments around the world are doing in terms of gender parity in their lower houses of parliament. for us, that would be the house of representatives. there are 90 countries ahead of us. 90 countries ahead of us in gender parity in her lower houses. that alone should make your blood boil. >> is more since i did my research. >> is. we are dropping by the month. because it is a quarterly analysis, things are on the downhill slide. in any event, we try to express what this means, what it means in terms of the stature of the united states, what a means for us in terms of commerce, when we go around the world and the rest

of the world has diversified. the rest of the world has taken on a different look and the united states continues to lead with the same as that is antiquated. we want to change that. we want to bring ourselves and to the 21st century, and it is on us to do it. the third strategy we employ is estee coalition. we have built -- a state coalition. we've built a wonderful network of women all across this country. all of us are focused on electing more women in 2012, and they work within the states to replicate the private sector and non-profit women that i described. but they know that there are women in this open seat, and if it means one party or another, go find a woman in that party.

this effort to reach out in the our organization, we could only support a dozen, but they started 12 on their own. in oregon, utah, iowa, women came together and found women to fill seats. this effort is something i hope you will all join in. i am enormously grateful for all of the collaboration of women who are doing this great work all over the country. >> thank you, mary. it is very inspirational what is going on. i would like to ask tiffany from the white house project to talk a little bit about some of the innovative ways that women are being recruited around the country to run for office. >> sure, thank you for being here. i am thrilled, as much as all of you. my life's work is advancing women and girls. it is why i am on the planet.

i pretty much know what is on my tombstone, i am just working my life backward. two years ago, i could not have told you that i would be sitting here as the president of the white house project, but i could have told you that i felt a responsibility to make an impact, and it could have spoken very passionately about what matters to me. it is the unique ability to tap into what matters to women, and to meet them where they are, that has allowed the white house project to recruit and train over 14,000 of them to become more civic being gauged, to run for office, to advance their leadership. intentionally, 75% of those women are under the age of 35. 53% are women of color. lea is one of them. lea used to be a health care worker.

what mattered to lea where the rates of obesity in her community, the fact there were health care disparities. she felt strongly that what her community needed was a grocery store. it was a food desert. there had not been a grocery store within city limits in 15 years, although there were plenty of fast-food joints. she began going to the city council to talk about how important was to get a grocery store in this town. we heard about her because she was making a really big ruckus about this grocery store, and we suggested, like we do unlike many of our colleagues do, that she should run. her first response was no. that is so is a woman's first response. we're very reluctant. but we took her through the process and she became the youngest person to sit on the city council. she became the only african- american woman ever to sit on the city council. most importantly, she broke

ground on a civil lot within two years because that was what mattered -- save-a-lot within two years because that was what was now under -- that was what mattered to her. make no mistake. she's on her way to the u.s. congress. it is pretty daunting to tap into what matters to have the population as it is one demographic. i know that what matters to me might not matter to you or to you or to you, so the white house project is very focused on narrowing our slice of the demographic of women. the focus on women who are 21- 35, and we're very excited to have partners who are also really focused on building the pipeline and focused in on younger women. that is an important part of the process. it is one strategy in one step to what we feel will make an

impact in the long term. my dad was a very interesting person. he is from watts. he is one of 13 kids and he is a perfectionist and manifesting new things and manifesting new realities. he used to tell me that if you want something you have never had before, you're going to have to do something you have never done before in order to get it. that really informs my leadership. it is what really inspires me to be on the leadership team. it really inspires me to participate in the vision that has been so aptly presented for all of us, because i think it is a new approach. i think it is a different approach. i think it could potentially create a new outcome for all of us on the entire planet. thank you for having me here. >> thank you, tiffany. next, we're going to talk to cara, who is going to talk a

little bit about republican efforts to increase representation of women within the republican party. i think it is a well-known fact that there are more women representatives within the democratic party than the republican party, so we have a special amount of work to do in this regard to catch up. >> it is a great pleasure and honor to be a part of such a wonderful task. being a woman and being involved in politics for so long, it is always interesting to see what other people look like to be arguing what you want to do. -- who are doing what you want to do. our values are very much shared amongst the republican party and as conservatives, but why is it women feel they do not want to run? why is the answer always know, i do not think so. i cannot do it.

the white male power structure in the republican party is something that is a deterrent. that is starting to fall by the wayside. we may not have the numbers, but we do one quality women. we should always want that. we shall is one quality people to run for office. -- we should always want quality people to run for office. we need in power, entrepreneurial and excellent. we are the product, and our principles are the commodity. when we have organizations like this that are entrepreneurial in their principles and running for office, that becomes something that empowers them. when we get to that point, we need to carry ourselves with excellence, something my mother taught me from very, very young. always carry yourself with excellence. it is also a great example for

other women. as conservatives, sometimes it is not always easy being in the good old boys club. it exists. i will be the first one to say that. it exists, but no one will ever tell me that i am not supposed to be there. there is an old girls' club too. but you know, women are the lifeblood of society. what we need to do is focus in on issues and putting ourselves in positions where we also become the lifeblood of politics. we do represent 50% + of the electorate. why do we not have that same level of presence, whether on a local level or a national level? we should have that presence. we need to encourage women that they can do it. it starts very young. we oftentimes think we should be pigeonholed into other careers or other avenues, teachers,

nurses, no. we deserve to be there and have a seat at that table of power just like everybody else. it starts with organizations like this. it starts in elementary school, encouraging little girls to run for student government. for me it started in fourth grade when i volunteered happily to be geraldine ferraro in a mock debate. i have sense wised up a little bit. or stiffen up. [laughter] >> but that is when i started, because no one was going to tell me i could not do it. what we do share is a desire to make things better. what better place to do that than in public service? there are different ways to do it, but i come from the great state of new jersey. i'm very proud of that.

we have had a female governor. i come from a district that has had the largest serving female member of congress. i grew up seeing a woman in congress, and i said, that is going to be me one day. to be a part of things like this, watching the progression from being a very zealous college student to my work on the hill involved in politics on several levels, i find it an honor and privilege to be in a position to encourage other women to do it, let them know they can do it. to be part of such a wonderful leadership team with other women regardless of party politics. i consider that to be an honor and privilege. someone once told me that women who aspire to be equal to men lack ambition. i do not know about that, but i

aspire to be even more so. excellence is the banner. >> thank you. we need to give that speech more often. next we are going to take miss debbie walsh. debbie is the director of the records university center for women in politics. she is also part of the 2012 project. she is our expert on statistics, backgrounds, for the environment that women will be encountering. i think that her perspective is invaluable to us. she helps us sort out fact from fiction. she helps us chase down some of the things we think may exist out there but we're not sure. she is our resident expert. please bring us up-to-date. >> i will try to bring you up- to-date with some very early numbers because we are very early in the cycle. we cannot even really get out of iowa yet. the cycle is early.

the center for american women in politics has been around for 40 years. we have a long view. we've been conducting research and monitoring trends, but we've always been keenly aware of the need to connect that research to action. that is why we are delighted to be a part of the leadership team. i think you for bringing us all together. bringing usu for b all together. it has been a terrific ride so far. we have been working with mary and stacy on the 2012 project for about two years now, and that is one example of how we try to turn research into action. i also see that patty from the yale women's campaign is here. it is another example of -- we know that women are a little reluctant to run. a lot of folks have talked about

that. they need to feel they're confident, ready to go and trained. i love that you have york congresswoman. -- your congresswomen. currently in new jersey, we have zero women in our congressional delegation. she was a great example of what we have all been talking about in terms of women making a difference. we had a republican woman in congress whose passion was family and medical leave. for very personal reasons and she has fought for that and fought for that for many years. the very first bill that bill clinton signed into law when he became president was the family medical leave act. there was bill clinton, democratic president, standing next to a republican congresswoman. that is an example of what we're

all up here talking about. i always get to do this kind of long view and what is happening now when it comes to numbers. i just want to reiterate a little bit of what mary has said. back in 1984 when geraldine ferraro was on the ticket as the first woman vice-presidential nominee of either party, it was the year of the woman and lots of trumpeting. then that did not work out so well. in 1992 was the next year of the woman, when we saw record numbers of women getting elected to congress. it was, as mary said, we went from 6 to 10, and we were celebrating 10%, which really seems a little sad. but to see 24 new women elected to congress was really quite significant. ever since then, every election

cycle, and all of my friend sitting in this room who have been following women in politics, every year they get the call, will this be the next year of the woman? will we get some kind of monumental growth? i want to say that in 2012, with some very early numbers, we are seeing some signs -- and i am particularly happy about this given the work we have been doing on the 2012 project -- 2012 has potential. i am going to have to use notes because i cannot memorize all of these numbers and get them right. we are still asking, of will this be that cycle? in the u.s. senate right now, we of 32 women who have either declared or said they are going to run. the record to beat in any cycle is 36 in primaries. we are not there yet, but we do have a record the number of incumbent women running for

reelection, so there is a little record in there. i want to take you back two cycles ago and four cycles ago so you can see where this fits in perspective. in 2008, at about this time in the progress -- in the process, we had 11 women running. in 2010, we had 29. so we are ahead. in the house right now, we of two hundred two women who are either considering running or out there pretty publicly that they are going to run. the record to be is 2010, when at the end of the day we had two hundred 22. -- 222. at this time in the cycle, we had 183 in 2010. so, we are up both in the house and in the senate.

the number right now is 202 who have either said they are going to run or declared. these are early, early numbers. but i want to drill down just a little bit, because one of the real reasons we saw the kind of change we saw in 1992 was because it was the year of the wyman, but it was also the year of the open seat -- one man, but it was also the year of the open seat -- woman, but it was also the year of the open seat. we had 39 women in a general election who were running for open seats in the house. that is by far the greatest number we have ever had or have had since. we know that open seats are the seats of opportunity. that is what much of the 2012 project is based on, how many open seats are out there, and those seats are seats of

opportunity. it paid off in 1992. we want to see what is going to happen in 2012. what i want to tell you is that right now, of those women who say they're running for the house, 56 of them are running for open seats in 36 districts with open seats. now i'm going to take you back again. in 2010 at this point, we had 28 women running for open seats in 12 districts with open seats. in 20 08, only 21 women running for open seat districts. that number, 56, is significant. it is early. there's more to come. every day we get these alerts about some new member of congress who is retiring. there are possibilities, but i just want to leave you with the thought that there is potential in 2012, if we can get women to run for these open seats, to see

significant change, and we are already seeing it now in these early numbers. >> was i right in hearing you say that women win in the same proportion that they run? >> bayh win in the same proportion as men in comparable races, so the trick is getting them to run. >> thank you. next we're going to talk to the head of the women's campaign fund. she also has been spearheading one of our groups, one of ,arities first collaboration's and it is fighting one of the most important battles we still have to fight in terms of removing one of the obstacles that is preventing women from participating in politics. >> thank you. the of a couple of partners we

would like to introduce. we of the former chair of the national women's political caucus. thank you for being here. kathryn is the head of a wonderful initiative at a philadelphia, in vision 2020. we also have jessica from running start, which does a wonderful job of encouraging young women to run and giving them financial support. we also have a legend in the room, one of the early leaders of the national organization -- naral. she is a legend. we also have a, -- there she is. stand up so we can see you. thank you for being here. i am very honored to come at the

end of this very, very important day. before i do that, i realize i have my political director from women's campaign fund. thank you for being here. einstein once said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. ranked 87 in the world, with the first backslide in the number of women in elective office in 30 years, we the women leaders of all of the story organizations are here to a knowledge an important fact, that despite the fact that we lead organizations that have been working tirelessly to elect women, it has not been enough. something has to radically change. working alone, nibbling at the corners of this vast societal problem of women's underrepresentation in this nation does not work. it will never solve this

problem. the working together -- but working together, there's absolutely nothing we cannot accomplish together. now, today i am honored to lead the oldest organization financially supporting women who run for office, millions and millions of dollars to women who run at all levels, from both parties, at the earliest stages, when that support is needed most. there are not many women on the hill who did not get their first check from us. when i first came to d.c., i had just run for congress. it was clear to me when i ran that the women's organizations were not working together to help women. that was clear. i started meeting one by one with all of the leaders, and i finally realized that one of them had the best rolodex. it was the founder of the white house project. i said this to marie.

you have the best rolodex, you need to find someone that none of us can say no to to start getting us all together, because only to gather will we fix the problem. the rest is history, because she turned to the incomparable -- >> marie and i were in a cab. we saw a long line and said, we are not going to go to that. let's go get a drink. that is the beginning of political party. >> what i am particularly proud of is that political parity is not something swanee woke up and said she was going to do. it grew out of women leaders knowing we had to do something very different and turning to swanee as a national leader and asking for her help. we're very lucky she said yes. >> thank you. >> we're very lucky she said yes. give her a round of applause.

[applause] olitical parity is today's seneca falls. as women fought together in 1848 for the right to vote, we fight today to end women's political underrepresentation in this country. alone, nothing changes. today, working together, everything changes. and today is that day. notn's political parity is an issue of fairness. it is an issue of grave national economic consequence and an issue of global competitiveness. women the vote, prioritize, legislate and govern differently than men. that difference is essential. the difference is what is missing in our nation, and i know. as a homeless young woman who ran away from home to escape sexual abuse, i was sucked into

a very low rent form of white slavery. as a young woman, single mother, with my 3-year-old at my feet, i woke up in the night and there is a man with a shroud at the end of my bed. the sexual violence lightning struck again. as a woman running for mayor in the third largest city in my state, i went to the first debate and the moderator asked me this question. ma'am, just what are your measurements? yes, ma'am. when i ran for u.s. congress, where i earned more votes than anyone from my party had ever won before, i woke up day after day with a color photo of me on the newspaper with this quote plucked from the internet that

is so egregious that i cannot even share it with you here. happening to one woman is happening to all women. why? this nation is anti-woman, anti- pearl, and deadly to the long term prospects of our young women. the caliber of health care delivered to our citizens despite as having the heine -- the finest hospitals in the world. being ranked 80th in the world has a direct line to the caliber of education being delivered to our children despite having the finest universities in the world. the lack dramatically more women who will usher in a new era -- elect dramatically more women who will usher in a new era of growth. elected dramatically more women

who will create a culture where sexual violence and sex azzam is no longer tolerated. the sexes and is no longer tolerated. today is that day. -- sexism is no longer tolerated. today is that day. research shows that women are not running because they're terrified of what the media is going to do to them and what that will do to their families. today, what i need from you and what all of us need from you for the first project to come out of political parity, dedicated to ending the sexes and in the media against women who are -- sexism in the media against

women who are running. these nominate every single talented woman that you now and every woman in this room please nominate yourself at sheshouldrun.org. we have 2000 women in that program and growing. why? because in order to get women running, we need to have the process of thinking of running. for emily's list and the national organization of women and running start and all of our sister allied organizations, they must have women beginning the process of thinking of running. so, we need your help to do that. nominate every talented woman that you note to sheshouldrun.org today.

remember, today is the day. i am honored to be with my sister leaders in this historic endeavor, unprecedented in our nation's history. in 1948, it was seneca falls. today, 163 days later, it is political parity. thank you all of you for being here today. >> thank you. sam's organization and sam's leadership with name in it, it has been groundbreaking. when i talk to female candidates, it has made a difference. candidates, people from the party's, or people who simply observe discrimination in the media can report it and respond. ask for boycotts. write letters to the producers.

or the publishers of the offending media. this is incredibly important because one of the most difficult hurdles for women who want to enter politics is that fear of what they will encounter in the media. in the future, we hope that will not be part of the calculation. >> research is what we keep coming back to. the research says that the general wisdom is if somebody makes a sexual statement about you in a race, do not magnify it. do not repeat it. say nothing about it. hope it will go away. actually, research says if you come back and hit hard, you actually go up in the polls. that is counter to every bit of training we have been given. >> the pollster who did the research for us is part of our leadership team. she looked at the research and

said i have been telling women the wrong thing for 30 years. what blew our minds about the research was twofold. number one, everyone just assumed it didn't matter. i had no less than geraldine ferraro say do not worry about it. sticks and stones will break your bones but words will never hurt you. i said, the research says something different. even a mild focus on hair and makeup, such as hillary clinton, still endorse. it is out and now misogyny. you are much higher% correct. what all of us need to do is say no -- you are 100% correct. what all of us need to do is stand up and say no. voters will think the opponent was behind it.

>> while we are mentioning some of the more concrete examples of the collaboration we have been participating in a political parity, yours is first and foremost. we also have something called the women's appointments project which reached out to governors or people running for governor in states across the country last year and we focused on seven states where we thought, in some cases, pledges from both sides of the aisle, saying that if they were to win the race they would appoint 50% of their highest appointed positions as women. this is something governor romney and i did in massachusetts when we were in office. it is fairly easy to do if the infrastructure is in place to provide you with the names of interested, qualified women to fill the slot so it is an easy process. we reached out across the country. the person who did it best is

right here with us today, tracy under in connecticut. she is now the model for this approach around the nation. we hope to replicate that and inspire other states to follow that, and to inspire and pressure governors to participate in this, because nothing is simpler than to elevate women to appointed posts where they're qualified. we know that there are plenty of qualified women out there to fill those posts. we have a few minutes left for questions, and i know we have some questions coming off the internet. yes. >> judy woodruff with the pbs newshour. one of the things that certainly has marked this congress is the gridlock. on one issue after another, it seems that while there has been some cooperation, clearly there has also been a lot of disagreement on one issue after another.

could one or two of you speak about the difference you think it would make to have more women? what issues could change in the congress if more women were elected. for example, the debt ceiling. >> i will open a little -- i will open by talking a little about process. in massachusetts, i found it was very easy to get legislation passed if you could reach out across the aisle and ignore the fact that perhaps you have idealogical differences on every other issue, but find the one issue you agree on. people are different. you will find many different concerns on both sides of the aisle. really, if you are willing to reach out, get to know people, get to know their interests and view them as people, not as the opponent, you're very likely to be able to find someone on the other side of the aisle who shares your concern about a particular thing.

we are trying to model that behavior today. well probably the members of the leadership team disagree about just about everything, except that we are all concerned that there are not more women participating in the highest levels of government. we're trying to come together with that one issue. we're hoping the part of the learning process can be that these kinds of collaborations' can occur with dignity and respect. also that the women who come up through this process will see this and will be more open to collaboration across the aisle. but i will let others talk to specific topics. >> research shows that women, over and over again, are far more likely to reach across the aisle. the perfect example in the u.s. senate was olympia snowe and susan collins in the health care bill.

i think we would not have these gridlock situation is with more women in the congress. >> we did have the motivation is different. when women run, they often run to solve a problem or because there prompted to advance an issue. that in and of itself suggests a different approach to why they are there. so, we know, and sam is right, but i think the recent famous collaboration between susan collins and kingston chiller brand in the senate -- a houston -- kirsten gillebrand in the senate, they said if they would give it to us, we could get it done and go home. it is almost a challenge. i think they say, we know how to

do this. we know how to set the other step aside. some of it comes from comes from state legislators. the women in the state legislators will tell you that they go out in the hall, grab someone from another party and say let's fix this. they are purposeful in a different way. has to do with substance and it has to do with just getting the job done. it comes in part from women's sense of multitasking. it is not the only thing they have to do. they have to get it done and get on with the day. >> that seems like a perfect way to close this session. i would like to end with my most sincere thank you. >> sincerely. >> yes, most sincere is very strong for me. my most sincere thank you for

convenience. this is a gift for all of us and to the women of america. thank you very much. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> if anyone has any questions they would like to stay and ask, i'm sure we can answer them. we had a c-span ending time, but i do not want to cut off questions. >> i am with the voice of russia radio. talking about the issue of campaign finance and women running is always a hard problem when a lot of times women do not have the financial wherewithal that many of the men candidate to be even get into politics have. when you talk about starting a pipeline for particularly young women, women of color, some who

have not been as enfranchised as the men they're going to be running against, can you talk about the issue of money and reaching out to those who never thought that they should run. >> we have found and research has shown that women, in the same way they win incomparable races to men, they raise money -- they win in comparable rates two men, they raise money in comparable rates of two men. stepping up and asking for money for yourself is tough. women tend to come from professions that are not as many as men, so their networks are not as money to -- are not as moneied as men said their networks are not as moneyed.

i talk to women who say i cannot ask for that money. i say you're not asking to redo your kitchen or go on vacation. you are asking to go to the state legislature or washington, d.c., in order to represent the interests of your constituents and their interests when you are elected. that is an important hurdle, i think, for a lot of women, but i think it really speaks to the issue that we see and hear from women, that women who are in state legislators feel it was harder for them to raise the money than their male colleagues feel it was for themselves. >> that is why i brought up the point of being entrepreneurial. when you are a candidate, you are the business. you are the product that has to be marketed. to be entrepreneurial, you have to start off with capital.

in politics, that is money. that is when you -- that is why it is important to have women in a network like this. you can start building and financial product line -- pipeline, because as we all know, money runs politics. you could be the best candidate, but if you are underfunded, people do not think you are serious. you do not have the ability to have the same presence as others. repetition creates reality. if you have money, you can go out there and create whatever narrative you one. -- you want. in congress, people will send out mass mailings. there is a restriction now that economic do it every 90 days, but it could be an intimidation

factor to keep people from running against you. this person has already spent $100,000 and i do not even have the money to file. it is absolutely important to be entrepreneurial, and do not be apologetic. >> let me just add because people get funding from different sources, i work at the kennedy school. i teach at harvard, and there has been some important research on the reluctance of women to negotiate. it is like this. the gender gap. but as soon as you tell them, you can negotiate for more when you take this test. you could ask for more, negotiate for more, but it will go to someone who needs it, the gender gap disappears.

if you can tell women, go out and ask for money because you are asking for this cause. it will come through you as a political leader, but it comes through the causes you care about. >> you are asking people. the money is attached to people and not everybody has the same level of access at the beginning to people with money. part of the leadership development process is also really around how do we expand our ecosystem. how do we expand our network so that we actually have access to the people in a way, in addition to actually developing the wherewithal to do it. >> that is a great point. i would like to get to an on- line question. it says, is there another group

in addition to political party that might have similar interests in getting people from different parties to work together? >> we have some reorganizations. i will tell you that in your the dicks so many organizations. i will tell you that -- we have so many organizations. one of them is the head of the christian coalition. i do not know if you can get any further right. >> as a conservative, i can tell you that you cannot get for their right. >> the point i will make when we have that conversation is, i do not know what else we might agree on. do you want to increase the

number of women in politics? i have worked internationally a lot. two different women from sweden who were in their seventies told me years apart -- they were in the group that broke in in the year of the women in sweden. they were like 12%. they said that as the number increased to 20%, 30%, finally 40%, that they themselves, the same women, they said i dressed, i acted, i voted differently as that number increased. it is very hard to judge how women are ultimately going to break through. -- how they're ultimately going to break through the grid lock. that is why we have to get them in. >> we have another question that came in online. i would like to direct this to gloria if she would be kind

enough to respond. it says why is it that even countries that are not as prosperous as america have more women in office? what are the stumbling blocks? >> well, we know the stumbling blocks for women running are that they are not asked, and perhaps in many other countries where women are in on the front lines of a lot of social change >> they are put in positions where they know that they need to run. they are not asked enough. going to your question, there is an institutional perception in both parties that women are right out of the gate and not as viable as men, they will not be able to raise the money to the way men can raise money. so you have very serious institutional blockades in place for women in this country, and

that is exacerbated even more for women of color. the bias almost doubles against women of color. those are some of the most concrete stumbling blocks that we see in this country. >> there are a hundred countries in the world have a quota of some sort, sometimes constitutional, sometimes in the electoral law, sometimes the political party. in the political party, if you have a quota that at least one- third have to be women, you have to say one out of the top three has to be a woman, one out of the next three, etc. >> do you want to go first? >> collaboration at work. >> i was just going to add that

one of the things that has hurt women in this country within the state legislative level has been term limits. term limits were instituted, and one of the goals of term limits was that we were going to get rid of those incumbents and create a lot of open seats, and we would see women come flooding in. in fact, what happened is we term limited in about 15 states, and the women got term limits should just like the men, but the recruitment process did not change. the same old, same old was getting included, which did not include women. that has really hurt us. there are some advantages and other countries like quotas that have helped women, but some structural things that have hurt women here in the united states. >> this is a curious thing. when we say other countries, many of the reasons other

countries have a larger proportion of women is because they have either party requirement for a quota, or they have a constitutional requirement. in the u.s., we say that explains it, as if gender were not significant. we need to understand that 100 other countries represent the incredible bind of women's participation, so they make it a lot. it is us, we have to make that happen. we will never did that requirement here, but it is the statement of the value of what we contribute. >> we are of prescribing an issue of political will. it is the definition of political will. our country, unlike others, has

not even announced that political will. what we have to do is mechanisms like this to create the momentum, the energy, the collaboration to make it become a reality. and it does boil down to political will. the body of gender is not recognized in this country yet. >> i would like to thank our roundtable participants, the members who came so far to be with us today for this historic announcement. thank you all for coming. we do like the last word? >> always. i think i am going to repeat what i said at the beginning, that one of the differences that research shows between if you ask women or men about why to run, mins a very lofty things.

i knew when i was 10 that i could be a leader, or i have always had this dream. one of the best? do you remember those slogans? they will talk about why they can do such a good job. women have a whole different narrative. they will say, i have a child with diabetes. do you know little money is going into childhood diabetes? i work in a homeless shelter for my church. we can solve this. i think of this not in terms of go, women. i think it in terms of the united states of america, and how the whole world looks at us. when they see us failing, when they see the dropout rate in our schools, the problems we have with crime and drugs, that has a

ripple effects around the world. we can do better than that. it is not about quotas. we are alerted to quotas. it is about finding other ways. i am so proud of the people here who have joined in together. thank you, thank you, thank you. and thank you to our media friends for being with us. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

>> only those who have shown it the resolve to defend the freedom of the west can be trusted to safeguard its in the challenging, turbulent, and unpredictable times that lie ahead. [applause] mr. president, the decade and the century which opened up before us must see a lasting triumph of liberty, of common cause. the world needs britain, and britain needs us. >> named in the iron lady by the soviet media in 1976, margaret thatcher is currently being portrayed on screen by meryl streep. watch the real iron lady online at the c-span video library. more than 100 appearances, including from the british house of commons. >> some countries would like to hand over their affairs to a

european central bank. that is not our view. we do not wish to hand over for the powers from this parliament to other parties. >> it is what you want, when you want. >> president obama is the main speaker at a campaign fund- raiser at new york city's historic apollo theater in harlem. it is one of several fund- raising events the president is attending in the city this evening. performers include singer outbreed -- singer al green. >> friday on "washington journal," former pennsylvania senator rick santorum discusses his campaign platform and his strategy in the race. then i looked at the history of presidential politics in self carolina and the state's relationship with the republican party. our guest is mark tompkins, political science professor at the university of south carolina.

later, michael kranish discusses his biography of mitt romney. "washington journal," like every morning starting at 7:00 a.m. eastern, here on c-span. >> "road to the white house coverage shows you the candidate events leading up to saturday's south carolina primary. >> thetratban just came down with a policy that said that in her program, she cannot teach abstinence as a preferable way of avoiding a out of wedlock birth. and she cannot talk about marriage. she cannot talk about marriage as anything other than an alternative lifestyle that is no better or worse than any other livestock. my question is, why? >> when the president adopts a stimulus package of hundreds of

billions of dollars that nobody has read, and then discovers to his great surprise to years later as he himself put it, that the shuttle ready jobs were not shovel ready, and the stimulus fails, but leaves us $800 billion in debt, at some point he has to take responsibility. that was his plan, his proposal, and it failed. >> as candidates meet with voters to get their message out. after the polls close saturday evening, we will show you the results from south carolina, along with candidates' speeches and your phone calls. >> the conspirators plan was to have the st. lined with their guys, part of whom would create a distraction so that any police escort would be drawn away, and then the rest would close in for the kill and murder abraham

lincoln in the carriage or in the car. >> allan pinkerton uncovers evidence of a possible plot to kill the president-elect. saturday at 6:00 p.m. eastern on american history t b. also this weekend, the origins of the cold war with professor david dalton. saturday night at 8:00. sunday at 7:30, fdr's inner circle of diplomatic advisers and their role in fighting a world war. american history tv, this weekend on c-span3. >> debate on sopa and pipa continues on capitol hill. leaders of the consumer electronics association gathered today to but predicted discussed the potential impact of either of these bills is signed into law. both pieces of legislation are similar and target sites that

facilitate or permit online piracy. this is an hour and 15 minutes. >> good morning, everybody. is everybody in the back ready to go with the equipment? another -- a number of big internet brands have been engaged in the debate with sopa and pipa. we have been involved since the beginning of the commercial internet. we have a great panel here, and i think what we will do is, i will give a brief background of where i think we are and what the top level concerns are. then i will ask the panelists to introduce themselves and we will just go down the line and spend a couple of minutes talking about their different perspectives on this issue, if

that is ok. we have casey hunter, who will be talking about the impact of these bills, michael from consumer electronics association will talk about how it impacts the innovation economy. christian dawson, who will provide a perspective from small businesses and web posters, and mike will provide a view from the valley on all of this. we have had a pretty amazing couple of weeks on this. four months ago i would say that the hollywood community thought this piece of legislation was cooked, fully baked, and would be rammed it through the legislative process. we had tried to engage policymakers for about two years to give them our very serious concerns that we thought what was being proposed was quite revolutionary and remarkable and would fundamentally change the way the internet works and how

users interact with the internet. the basic reason for that is since the beginning of the commercial internet, congress has very intentionally passed laws that have allowed for this innovation without permission atmosphere of, where a venture- capital list or to people in a garage can design a compelling technology and get it to market with very few barriers to entry. they don't have to team up a set of lawyers to make sure their -- they will not be sued out of existence. the reason they don't have to do that is that our loss in the u.s. basically say that internet companies that are serving as conduits for the communications of third parties for not responsible for liable for the content of those communications. they are not treated like publishers. they are not liable for defamation, copyright infringement, or a host of issues. they simply serve as conduits and platform. that policy decision that was

made in the 1990's is the reason the u.s. internet and technology industry lead the world. most of the world regulate speech. they don't have first amendment, they have government censorship of certain kinds of speech. the fact that the u.s. does not do those things is why the u.s. internet industry has dominated the world in exporting those kind of technologies, and why the internet has become ubiquitous and fundamental in our lives, because of the fact that we can use it in every aspect of our lives. these bills change those federal policies by requiring, for the first time, internet companies to be responsible for the content of third-party using their systems. it imposes a liability on those companies and subjects those companies to potential technology mandates from judges who would be given the authority to redesign internet technologies, to require them to develop some sort of system to filter and block content that is

being directed to a site that has been determined to be illegal. parts of the bill, especially in the house, also allow for self help. on a mere allegation, internet sites can be removed from the internet without any notice to the site being accused, and without any ability to defend itself and confront its accuser. the other portion of the bill that is problematic for us is that it imposes for the first time in the u.s. code of private right of action whereby one industry gets to sue another industry who is not doing anything unlawful, and no one is alleging they are doing anything unlawful, they are simply service providers. it would allow them to sue our industry to get them to take action to help the industry that is suing us. there is no other place in the federal code that allows one industry suit isn't companies to

get them to take action on their behalf. -- allows one industry to sue innocent companies. the bills continue to have a search engine remedy that would require search engines, based on the government action, to disappear at website from the internet. aside from the very serious impact of having our government imposed censorship requirements on search engines, the way china does, these remedies will not work. you cannot literally disappear an internet site from the internet unless you go to the server and take down the side. all the resolution does is encourage people to use foreign based search engines that are

not subject to these orders, or if you delete the primary link to a site, a secondary link simply moves up to the top spot. from a technology standpoint, the solutions do not work. in any kind of legislative proposal to regulate an industry, you have to balance the effectiveness of the remedy against the scope of the problem, and what is really curious here is when congress began this debate, they jumped over an analysis of what the scope of the problem is. we have not been able to get any answer from the motion picture association or their allies about how many websites we are talking about. the mpa website says there are 19 sites that are concerned about. others say there are tens or hundreds we are worried about. they say nine of 10 pirated movies happen because they are

being stolen with a camcorder inside a movie theater. lauren not talking about how to bulk up security in movie theaters? them have a legitimate response to that, but we have never had a debate about what the scope of the problem is, where it is occurring, and how we can work with them as partners to address illegal activity on the internet. i hope we have a chance to reset the debate. harry reid still has a cloture vote on this as the first order of business when the senate returns. we think that is very unfortunate. these bills are very complex. i am going to move on. should we just go down the line? if you want to introduce yourself and give a bit of your background, and we will spend a couple of minutes for each

person and then open it up to questions. >> i will go up there. i am not as tall as you. masnick.e kn a represent the view of internet users with the way silicon valley works, it is very much user focused, and very much about providing services to users that they like. there has been a lot of talk in this debate, held this is a debate about hollywood versus silicon valley. i think that is unfair in a lot of ways, as we saw yesterday. many millions of people, most of

whom have no connection to the technology industry, spoke up and complained about this bill. i think that point is very important to recognize, because what the internet is, it is much bigger than just a bunch of companies in silicon valley. however, one of the things that has been very interesting about this situation is the fact that the startup community in silicon valley has actually got involved in this debate and discussion. silicon valley is notoriously non-political on any issue. for the most part, it is because we are working, hopefully innovating in doing stuff, and generally hoping that the government stays out of the way. i think there is a recognition that is widespread on this

particular issue, something that the startup community and ecosystem could focus on. very quickly and very organically, a large portion of silicon valley was able to come together and speak out and make their users aware of the issue, which is an important part of this. it is not just a silicon valley company issue, but very much an issue that will impact our users in terms of how we grow and build new innovations. i would just make three other quick point and then move on to christian. we all recognize again that piracy and infringement is certainly an issue that impacts all of us, many of the companies in silicon valley or producing intellectual property in different ways, whether content

itself, software, physical products with trade marks. all of these things impact us as well. what i think is important to recognize and understand is that -- this is something that we jumped into or congress jumped into perhaps without taking the time to understand what kind of solutions are necessary. if you look real history, -- if you look throughout history, law enforcement and regulation tends to not work when dealing with infringement. it is to malia service issue. comes about when companies are not providing the kind of service that users really want. the things that do work, new innovations, new services. we see this every day now with services like netflix and

spotify. what we fear from the silicon valley standpoint is that laws like this actually work against that kind of solution. we need that kind of innovation and new services to take on this issue. in regulation and creates overbearing compliance costs and regulatory issues, and the idea that the two founders in the garage will suddenly need a dozen lawyers with them becomes a really serious issue. it prevents the ability to create these new innovations and services we need. the second point is that, as mark was saying, talking about the size of the problem and the different estimates that have been put out there, part of the issue is that these bills are so broad and ill-defined, it tries

to tackle a few bigger problems and loves them together, but trademark issues -- lumps them together. the challenge to tackle each of the problems involve very different solutions. the third big concern is how it impacts overall innovation and jobs in particular. the idea of having to think about the legal issues and how much extra costs that would be means that a lot of new startups probably never get started. there has been a lot of talk about the bigger companies of silicon valley. a lot of the fear among on japan norris -- a fair amount of entrepreneurs.

the idea that the next generation of start-ups does not get started. the next twitter, facebook, or youtube. these are all wonderful companies today, but 10 years ago, they did not exist. the fear is that with excess regulation, they will not get started in the u.s., but they will find other locations around the globe where countries are already reaching out to underpin nor -- entrepreneurs. those are the really big concerns, and because the connection between this technology start of a community and the users, and the fact that this became such a serious issue, culminated in yesterday's very widespread actions on line.

>> my name is christian dawson. i want to talk about the perspective of web hosting and internet -- internet infrastructure industry. some say are fears are unfounded and reading the text should make that clear. with all due respect, we have read the text many times in all its incarnations. after reading the latest version of the bills, or problems are still to be found. explicitly stated in that text. let me take a few moments to discuss our specific concerns. first, it is hard to start and run a small business in this economy. my company is a 17-year-old business that uses its internet know how to make it possible for people to launch and manage their business online. we have helped start some of today's largest on-line enterprises and help them grow

to a level of greatness not seen before. collectively employ thousands of americans. it is because the internet itself is a dynamic, comfortably -- constantly evolving environment. the internet has allowed a trillion dollar economy to grow and thrive and enable our internet industry to create thousands of high-paying jobs. it is no exaggeration to say that the internet itself is in danger because of these bills. how will it do that? lawsuits. baseless, predatory lawsuits. lawsuits that will stop speech and commerce debt in their tracks. the authors of sopa and pipa say that is not the intention of the bill. they say they need to put in private rights to action because sometimes the courts are not fast enough. they need anti-circumvention

mechanisms to avoid fixing these real problems and they say they need to make the definitions are loose and open. the problem is that once their words become law, these words are set free from the world of good intentions and cast into the world of enforcement, and that is where they stop working. companies like mine are responsible for enforcing today's copyright protection laws. we know how this stuff works. these bills will open up a new world of profiteering. businesses will alleged copyright infringement simply to intimidate competitors out of business. lawsuits will spring up just like they have done in the patent industry. it has cost $500 billion over the past two decades. do we want to be responsible for smothering online innovation? supporters of these bills have

repeatedly asked us to point to provisions in the bill that make this happen. i will. under pipa, hosts may be considered operators of websites. injured parties can bring suits against operators of websites. let me be clear. these entities have used the same terms and other laws to bring suits against web host, and they will again. what is in the bill will expose us and our customers to unfold litigation. we are allies in the fight against piracy. we fight piracy every day. give us real tools to forever do our job, and we will use them. we know they will not work because we read them and we understand the internet at a net and bolts level. we strongly appeal congress to

simply start over. we hope they will call companies like mine, companies to understand how the internet works, it to help. we are your allies and all fight a bill that helps keep the internet safe. thank you. >> it is a lot of exercise i got walking to the podium i and the deputy director for the music coalition. we are an advocacy organization for musicians. we are musicians, a label owners, on to prisoners. over the last decade, we had worked with thousands of independent labels and song graders on a range of issues that impact musicians.

we exist to give musicians a voice. the future music cares about basic things, access and compensation for artists. in the digital realm, we're talking about letting artists participate directly so that new models can arise. i have four basic point i want to make about the current legislation. this is perhaps the most important. the trade organization's recognizing the content industry to not represent all creators. every day we hear from musicians who have questions about what this legislation means. then there is the broader art and cultural matter. yesterday, a number of organizations representing tens of thousands of our groups in disciplines ranging from music,

film, and dance sent a letter to congress outlining concerns. opera america, and theater communications groups. even the writers guild of america, the folks the wreck your tv shows, expressed concern with sopa. all of these are huge contributors to the american economy. they felt compelled to weigh in. why is that? they feel these bills have real problems. individual artists are also weighing in including comedian and tv stars including aziz ansari. ron swanson would also probably be against the bill, but that is

because he hates all government. mgmt, ok go, adam save from ."ythbusters," artists have every right to be wary when powerful conglomerate push for policies that could undermine their expression. my second point is about the market place. it is still evolving. digital's sales are up, 1000% increase. that only tells one part of the story. we're only starting to see what the legitimate marketplace looks like. increased consumer interest in

legal license services is something to be enormously proud of in industry that has had a difficult time transitioning. it is this ecosystem that could be threatened. their original definitions and sopa were so broad. we are glad that some of the most egregious aspects of the house bill have been toned down in the amendment. they're still tremendous problems. we need to remember that despite the trial balloons, the senate has not been amended. we hear from musicians and managers about these issues every single day. many are ok with a fan tweaking -- tweeting a link to the song. maybe we need to have positive find a way to deal with the bad guys about compromising all that

is great about the internet. if congress really wants to do something positive comment they should look at how artists are using the technology. chris dodd commented in the new york times article about how the massive outcry is changing washington. i agree with that. he thinks it is for the worst. i disagree. many of the thousands to have weighed in our copyright holders. they're selling music on website. their voices need to be heard, too. my last point is that some would say we are simply giving the attorney general powers to do things that are already happening under u.s. law enforcement. it is true that the u.s. is already seizing web properties.

it is not exactly a smashing success. when i sit removed one epo -- hopn i.c.e . removed a hip- blog, they returned it. infringement was coming from major labels even though the raa initial the initial take down requests. lawmakers may be trying to solve the problem without a perfect understanding withouof how the c works. it could expand the scope and potential it allow this to become a a more systematic and commonplace. we want to stop piracy. we want a legitimate music marketplace rewards creators. we need to hit pause and take the time to figure out to do it the right way.

currently, sopa and pipa are not the solution. >> can morning. when he mentioned the various artist and celebrities that were coming out, he forgot to mention kim kardashian. i think that will prove the tipping point. we represent 2000 technology companies. we are the one that put on the international consumer products show. let me make a couple of points including some takeaways. a route and walk a see standalone electronic products. nitc smart phones, smart televisions, all of which derive their value from the ability for consumers to get information

anywhere. it derives value from an innovative internet. even hardware manufacturers nine ow rely on the power of the internet. that is wide the issues of this bill is so important to us. number two, the other thing you see when you walked the halls of ces, of the 500 brand names you're probably only seeing 100 of them. we have huge issues with infringement and counterfeit. how do you deal with it? how you go after it? there are smart ways of going after this. so often they say you can either have these over broad large are let the power to run amok. that is a false choice. there is the open act that has

been introduced in the senate and house that promotes a smart way of going after pirates without doing collaborative damage. it is very clear now that these are extreme solutions to this issue. they're not politically viable. it is time to start looking at reasonable solutions. the open at is a good place to start. no. 3, yesterday was an extraordinary day in terms of psittacine engagement. i think it will change the way intellectual policy is made. usually you could cut some sort of a deal. it was non transparent. it is kind of complicated. no one noticed. on the internet, there are no longer any bad groups.

what people were protesting yesterday was not just the content of the bills but also the process. the fact of the matter is that all of these people who contracted congress where stakeholders. they are stakeholders because under the law they're also creatures and property holders. we all have a major stake in this spirit the stakeholders will want to make sure their interests are being taken into account. that is one of the virtues of the open act that was developed in the commented on. with that, i like to introduce michael, who is a silicon venture capitalist who is part

of a new silicon valley advocacy group. it yet not checked out their website, do. they are extraordinary. their presence makes an important point. they have tried to frame this as an issue pertaining to maybe one or two big companies. it is a bizarre interpretation. the fact of the matter is that big companies are big. if they have a lot of money and resources. no matter what kind of regulatory and it is, and they will be fine. they will be ok. who really gets hit 20 put these new burdens on the dax this? it is the small business and the start-ups. new companies did not have the resources for that. michael is going to see how the

startup community is impacted by these laws. come on up. >> thank you for that. i will try to live up to it. i am a stock strategist at in san francisco. i am also one of the co- founders. the reason that we are here in washington and set out in said francisco accreting the companies that create jobs is because these bills are dangers to the long-term health of our sector. the sector has treated all the net job growth in america since 1980. high tech and high growth companies create jobs. these bills will do great harm to that community. people in my field in new york and boston are worried about

this because of the chilling effect it will have. there's no way to calculate what will happen to the innovation. we're worried about the companies that may not survive the onslaught of litigation and take downs. what about the companies that have not started yet? what about the company's that will never be. two guys in a garage can make their dream come true. with 10 friend becomes harder. if i am going to give the company money to get started, we want to make sure it is not going to go dump another legal cesspool to be dried out to maybe one day come to fruition. sopa and pipa will cause great damage. we need facilitate the ability

for small business to flourish. it is going overseas. we have seen countries in chile and the netherlands. at a time when job growth comes at a premium and say where are the jobs, why rick fighting about bills that will kill innovation, a stunt job growth? we would welcome the ability to sit down and find a better way forward. no one on this panel or in this room or tom supports online piracy as an idea. we all agree on that. sopa and pipa are the wrong way to fight this. they did not solve the problem. they cause grievous harm to the

start of community that feels this economy. i think this might be today on the senate side. they're talking out some modifications to a bill. we can take out a search engines and just about anything. i said a couple of times that is a little bit like we're trying to kill a fleet. we're trying to do with a tank division and some of a fly swatter. we're sending the tank division to kansas city in some of miami. it is thought make any sense. -- instead of miami. it does not make any sense. we will lead to sit down with the recording industry and talk about how start-ups can innovate and solve this problem. we have not been given that

opportunity. this bill is going through way to fast and way too soon. this is something that means poppel debate and interjections from all sides. i hope the npa and other members of the entertainment industry you are backing this bill and a proponent in the house, give us a call. visit our web site. make a phone call. find us on there. read our art his letters. -- artist letters. we want to talk to you. we want to work for a better week forward and for a new solution. i think we're open for questions. >> mike was a last-minute

addition. he did that off the cuff. well done. it is michael, mcgeary. engineadvocacy.org. let's open it up to questions. i do not think we need microphones. it is a small enough room. >> it is not over.

yesterday was the beginning of a pretty remarkable grass-roots phenomenon. i do not know exactly how many members of congress pulled off their support yesterday. i think it was in the 10's. it was a big number. it i think that senator leahy is committed to this. he will introduce a last-minute manager's amendment that the jobs on everybody. i think at this point he way drop a ham sandwich into the process and try to passages to restart the momentum and get to a conference with the house where it is a backroom deal. i would be very suspicious of any efforts this week to try to launch or introduce the community some sort of "deal. >> yesterday was the beginning

of something. we have seen new activists come to us and say what can we do. between now and then, there will be lots of stuff going on. it is beginning of a whole series of pushes to really try to make a difference. >> clearly, this is very complex stuff. clearly, there is a will on both sides to come to some kind of solution. they said that 80's some of the problems come from 10 sites. -- 80% of the problems come from 1020 sites. we need to have a process. we need to have discussions.

a situation where a bill was dropped to the floor 72 hours later with his right back in a situation where we where that started this problem. i suggest that everybody step back and we bring the stakeholders together and may use a deliver process so we can get it right. >> two quick things. a lot of the protests yesterday and what happened online, it was about two things. it was about the process by which all of this happened and the fact that this was very much a backroom deal. i think anything that pops out today with this idea, but that's

a new one has been struck. it is not going to, the folks on-line. this was not just about this bill. this was about the way that a lot of things happened in this town. i think that people speaking up about that are not going to trust or appreciate a bill that comes out of that same process. i think they really want something that is a much more open process. the second comment relates to if they do go forward with the vote. the process itself, there is some talk about whether that is

a vote on process or substance. it will be about the substance of what is in the bill. if the pops up that they have a little, a time to understand, that is good to be a huge problem as well. it is moving forward with something people have not had time to understand. >> i think you have a question. >> do keep referring to things moving too fast. they marked of the bill last may. the center has taken credit for having opposed this concept for 1.5 years. what took you so long to get here and to be protesting?

>> just speaking for our industry when this bill was introduced, we raised very serious concerns. we were told there of a process to work out the process did get to some sort of understanding and work out the problems. in senate, the manage amendment was introduced in was 10 days later marked up of the senate floor where there is no public few of the market. it included a right of action in a search blocking provision. will we express our concerns, the manager said do not worry. the house will fix all of the issues. we tried to engage. when this failed, he moved back

over here to the senate. we did not want to have to raise the volume likely did. the process was so appalled. it left us with very little opportunity to reach outside of washington to get people to pay attention. >> a lot of people raised issues with the bill that cannot in may. there were a group of about 40 or 50 capitalist who sent a letter to over 100 law

professors. they were all related to the original bill. many of us expressed interest in engaging with congress and being involved in process. we were assured repeatedly that the house bill would address these problems. he promised that he had heard the concerns. when the bill did drop in october, at a went in the other direction. >> i have a different perspective on this. i represent small businesses that make up the backbone of the internet. the vast majority of the companies in these companies

that make between $100,000,000.999999 dollars -- $100,000 and $100 million. we have not had time to get engaged politically. this has actually been a bit of a watershed moment. we're not going now. we would rather be focused on innovation. we're trying to build up the economy. >> by sending to add to this. we are not a lobbying group. we are and education group. when this was first issued, we tried to kick the tires and what seemed unworkable and what seem

not the worst thing in the world. keep the mine, that artists want to believe that their congressional representatives have their best interests at heart. it takes a long time for people to realize that it is not the best to let them drive this train. we would like to think that we have productive relationships with all kinds of offices on the hill. who doesn't like music. the process was flawed from the outset. it to represent a sane approach to some of the issues. it turned out to not be the case.

unmentioned tunecore. it allows artists to distribute to digital music stores. there executive just told me that they distribute more music and one month than all the major record labels do combined in 100 years. these are all copyright holders. they have rights as well. there migh-- their rights may not be reflected perfectly. we have a small nonprofit, the trade industry comedy can see how the deck is stacked. >> -- trade, you can see how the

deck is stacked. likely provided jurisdiction. if they were not totally ignored, they were substantially ignored. but the house and the senate judiciary committees. >> a couple of yours have alluded to this already. can you talk about the importance of the protest yesterday? was that a tipping point? >> i will say i do not want to call it the great awakening of the internet. a lot of this here have been involved in these issues for a long time. what we saw yesterday was concentrated mass action that have immediate results. we cannot keep up with twitter

yesterday because so many senators were taking to the service to announce there were no longer supported of the bill. we are running around town trying to figure out what is going on. aesop people gathering in new york and san francisco -- you saw people gathering in new york in san francisco and everywhere else. it was heartening to see people come out. it was a great day. it was not the first day. it was not the last day. we are here for the duration and to make sure we find that better wait for word. i think all of us here and now the people that came out will .decho the comments >> what is interesting about yesterday is like most things, you will see 95% of the people that took the information and doing nothing with it. a lot of people are not going to fully understand the new once subjects. the people that are pro and

against, they're all providing arguments letters sometimes too simplistic. people are not going to be able to grasp them. we reach such a wide audience. there is going to be a core group. to be are already seeing it. they're going to say "i get to this. this is important to me." the internet does great things. we want to do what we can to protect it. we created activists yesterday. that will mean great things for this movement and the next one and the next one. >> that is an important point. as much as yesterday was actively against sopa and pipa, yesterday was for the internet. >> there is an opportunity for the npa to learn something here. chris dodd said he has a steep learning curve in the industry.

your approach to this bill should emphasize this. the studios tried to outlaw people television. they tried to outlaw the i pop. they tried to outlaw the gdr. the comments failed there also technologies that are the biggest revenue sources. in some sense, they're trying to outlaw the internet. they're scared of the internet. we understand. we have the opportunity to embrace the internet potential where the internet can become a revenue source, too. they are going to have to go through that cycle. i am hoping these last couple of weeks will accelerate the timetable for the studios as they think through their business models and legislative and regulatory plans. >> i will let you think that were true. judging from the original

canary in the coal mine, i do not have a lot of high hopes that the motion industry picture will wake up to that understanding any time soon. >> let's take some other questions. >> you all were talking about the business since the last push. it seems from your comments that you think that amendment and the bill will zip through the floor on the senate. my question as does that mean you continue your advertising campaign? what are you all going to do? >> it should be clear that i do not think the bill was on the senate. i think they will try to introduce some ham sandwich they think will pass. what you have seen yesterday with members jumping off is that the tactic will not work.

if they decide to move forward and have a debate on the floor, i think members will step up and have a debate. i hope it doesn't get to that point. >> it is important to recognize that even if in some bizarre world the senate comes up with some bill that everyone on this table agrees with, i am not sure it would work given the process of what has happened. that was the internet speaking out. that was not a group of people represented by us. there was a large group of people who are extremely concerned about the overall process that we do not concern. it is not even so much about what we do.

wasyone even if everyone said s a wonderful bill, which i do not think was likely, there is a larger concern about the overall process and how this was done. i do not think it will just go away quietly. >> while some proponents may try to tweak the existing bills, for a whole lot of members, the approaches are radioactive. you have a situation where congress' approval rating is very low. there is a perception among the left and right that somehow there are a few well-connected interests that are trying to gain the system. people love the internet. they use it. they think they own it. when people get the sense that congress is about to harm the

internet at the behest of a few well known interest comment they get upset. 1500 people were protesting in the streets of new york on the copyright issue. this is coming up in primaries and congressional races. it is coming up in town halls and south carolina and new hampshire. this is extraordinary. i do not think it is going away. the notion that somehow you can make a few minor tweaks and it is business as usual and normal notice is unrealistic. pretty and no one will notice is unrealistic. -- the notion that somehow you can make a few minor tweaks and it is business as usual and no one will notice is unrealistic. >> the first draft of the open draft was released. i was up until midnight reading through the bill with a couple

of representatives from two of the larger companies in industry. we were up until midnight reading the bill and talking. one of the companies in our industry said one of our largest clients came to us today. they are a foreign company. ever passed,so thsopa we would have to go off shores. the bill less toxic enough that if that happens, the companies will not wait to see whether the to them, they will just leave these shores and take our jobs with them. it is going to happen. >> a different way to answer that question is not what we're going to do but what is congress 22 fax after yesterday, the internet has spoken.

water you going to do? >> with all of the statements from people in congress yesterday, how many of them came out, they use tools that people were using to speak out. this is how they got the message out. i think it was very much a statement as well as some members of congress are recognizing that engaging via the internet is an important part of being an elected official. i think that we need more of that. going back to the previous question, what happened yesterday was the beginning of something important. >> what percentage of your

business do you feel as international? represent ath company. most of our business is international. about 20% of the world's band with goes through the united states. when it comes to the actual infrastructure, we still leave the industry. people from all over the world gravitate toward the united states because our band with access and our reliability are still the best of the world. it is changing every day. the more we get people the reason to go off with their

infrastructure to bypass the united states, there is a huge economy out there. i can only speak to myself and sang on a 60% of us this for business that has a real possibility of affecting u.s. jobs in my particular company. as a whole, we are seen the infrastructure and economy represents about 4.2 billion. a lot of that could move offshore. >> the 60% #is consistent with what the larger internet companies do. mark.e gone over the 50% offshore is exceeding domestic revenue. the internet represents 23% of net growth in gdp worldwide. much of that is driven by u.s.

internet companies promoting their services overseas. the biggest concern is not the revenue loss. it is the global retaliation of a precedent that starts to allow governments to determine what speech will be allowed on the internet. these are liberal european democracies that would love to see an excuse to begin regulating speech on the internet because they do not have a first amendment. they will use this precedent excuse to begin doing that. our companies as they tried to promote their services worldwide are concerned about the international retaliation. >> i will just add a venture peace. it is about the companies that are happening and being created now. it is the ones of the features

the next wave of innovation and a happen in america. you'll see it offshore. companies like ours and firms like ours will not want to just subsidize litigation. we're looking so you do it. more be looking for international investment. it is the simple fact of the matter. i agree that we do not want to be on the list of the countries that do this. we do not want to add to it. we do not want to align iran.lves with china and ro and then enter later named paul said this a while back. he said it is not that the internet will not survive this debate. it is that we will not like what it has become. that is the larger point here about moving offshore and revenue growth in all of those

things. we do not know what it will be. we know we will not like it. collect>> i have two questions. i am still getting press releases from different members saying that they're coming against the bills. i think about six coast gondar's -- 6 come members are saying they no longer support it. given that, do you still think the bills are going to go forward? is the turkey dead? the second thing i wanted to ask about was is the intention to kill the bills and start from

scratch? or are there areas of compromise for you be open to possibly some marching -- supporting something if it was tweaked? >> it is reported today that senator kyl has proposed a deal flow senator leahy to try to get this bill off life support. i think there are members that it tried to enter the race to a ham sandwich into this if they thought it would pass. we have to be careful to look at those statements as they occur. there are solutions but we need to step back and reset. we need a data driven process to look at what the scope of the problem is. we do not even know what we are talking about. we do not even of the scope of the piracy issue. we do not know how ferguson some

of these proposals would be. most of this has been by grass- roots advocacy from engineers that are not lobbyists. they need to say here is the raw data about how much traffic is going to the sites. instead of having to negotiate and put a gun to our head, but sit down and have a static driven process -- a data in your process with a lot of copyright owners. what's try to figure out a more intelligent cell -- let's try to figure out a more intelligent solution. >> no matter what comes out and even if everyone agrees with that, the people who were processing -- protesting as she will not accept it. -- protesting yesterday will not

accept it. it is not even what we would except even. it is what the public needs to see. that is a more involved process. >> our coalition is looking for something to support. we are fierce advocates against piracy. we want to support something. we think the bill has become the wrong focus. we have less than 24 hours to really delve into the open act. looking for something. >> i can definitely agree with everything marco has said. what has been interesting is figuring out how musicians are making a living in the marketplace and whether we can bring constructive of information into the policy- making process. artist revenue streams that would have that impact.

the folks who introduced sopa and pipa are so keen to bring in supporters now. where were they when alternative ones where shown? is a possible we could get a situation where we could figure out who the bad actors are? perhaps this is appropriately tailored. the fact of the matter is doing it in the 11th hour is probably not going to be the way forward. >> is it dead? no. despite people speaking as long lot as they could, they will bring it. what is really extraordinary to me is the manufactured urgency.

why can we not step back and get it right? i do not understand the rash. no. 3, what we're interested is coming up to some solution that pyresses these rogue website well preserving innovation. we believe there is a strategic way to do it. everyone agrees that piracy is the problem. some people believe the way to address that is to hobble the internet. others believe that the way to do it is simply to cut off the money and funds to the sites to do business.

you cut off the money. that is what the open act does. that has worked with the offshore gambling bills. echoed the briefly a comments. there is a vote scheduled on tuesday. we want people to make phone calls into the senate. more than that, and intellectual property law is a little boring. but it is also complicated. it is not the kind of thing you want to rush through.

we want to get it right. we want to sit down and talk to you. the open act is a great counterproposal. we love to talk about any and all avenues to combat piracy. the bill is very much alive. >> there is the changing in first section of the internet. we have to have foresight and see where we will be in 10 or 20 years. >> on top of that, in terms of building on what was said, copyright law in particular has been adjusted 16 times in the process of 35 years.

it feels like every two years or so there is a complaint. those changes have not necessarily address the problem. it is why they keep coming back. none of the potential problems that have been caused, there is never a process to go back and get a problems with existing law. the idea that maybe we should sit down and think through the impact before they go into a fact is kind of an important idea. >> i have wondered to more questions before we get kicked out. -- i have one or two more questions before we get kicked out. >> you emphasize that a lot of this opposition is not necessarily from organized groups. it is from desperate people on the internet. you have decided the process is seen as a legitimate.

is a possible the whole issue has been so tainted that even something that you decided you did like, it seem to people that it was a good approach and it could not get past because not everyone would understand that and they would see it here is another way that the back room is trying to push forward something that will do harm to the internet? >> i really think as the process becomes more open, people will throw support behind something that works. we talked about the backroom deals. i love your line about dropping in a ham sandwich. we talk about all these inside things. the entrepreneurial community, the reason we have not gotten involved is because we do not care about the issues. it is that we look at it and see

to things. it is not open. it is not honest. the more open and honest we make a comment the more support your going to find. they will, and support this. >> transparency matters tremendously. the open that has been transparent from the building. there is an attempt to amend the bill. from what i have just look at, it is a bill that if pipa and sopa did not exist, the media industry would love to have. it is because of the transparency and the process has been taken to it. >> this set up with that particular bill, whether people agree with that, was an important step. even people could not necessarily like that particular

bill, they were very impressed. they liked the fact that it was presented not just in an open fashion but it was put up some people could comment. it is a platform that let people make language suggestions. the bills that actually were introduced from that are very different than what came out first. whether or not those bills are susceptible, i do not know. i cannot say. the process itself was a lot more open. i think that people definitely recognize that. they really appreciated. i think there is a sense that more or all legislation worked with that process people would be a lot more engaged uncomfortable. >> we have a representative

government. there are representatives to establish a track record and build some good will. we have this broken into caucus in washington where senator leahy is the chair of the caucus and are supposedly looking out for the internet. they are the two of the primary movers behind this legislation. we have seen a new generation of members of congress that are stepping up to be a new internet bachus. -- caucus. i know i am leaving many others out. i think that as they fill those shoes of becoming a new generation, and they will build up some good will and

credibility with a constituency that when they say we're trying to move in constructive way to balance the interest of the internet community with the copyright community, i think that will certainly help. there is a distrust right now about what their intentions are. i think that is changing. >> even if you want to give leadership the benefit of the doubt, we have been consistent about how folks with interests in the cree communities can interact productively with all bankers, the lawmakers to hear from this community. it is a question of how it is weighted. we're going to take every opportunity, and this underscores the need to hit pause right now. it is becoming increasingly clear that it is the tech community whose interesting to be represented and the entrepreneurial community.

it is a whole coterie of copyright owners who never even had an opportunity to introduce their side of the story. all the more reason to hit pause and see if we can bring more stakeholders. >> and there is a time not so long ago when it was considered to be charming that members of congress did not know much about technology. now i think we have come to the point where it is no longer funny. to the extent where you will be making the rules that govern the internet, you have to have some familiarity. most of you are watching the house mark upon sopa. in some ways it was frustrating. there were a lot of members that clearly did not have anything close to that level of familiarity. it is also exciting because there were a lot of members who were clearly technology people.

they were quite familiar with how technology works, how the internet worked, what they needed. those memories -- those members are in the ascendancy. i think it will get better. there are lots of very young, very articulate members who are engaged in issue. they have a deep understanding of how it works and what smart policy is. i think it is very optimistic. >> let and it there. we will take your question there. this is great. the panel will stay. we just need to get out of the room. did you have additional questions, we will chat out in the hall. thank you. thank you.