people for the future. those are the things we can never go back to. people need to keep that alive as we go to the polls this november. >> congressmen james clyburn is joining us from his hometown of carolina. thank you for being with us on this program. >> thank you so much for having me. >> let me take up on one of the points that the congressman made earlier. the sound bite. one of the reasons we have that in washington. is that the problem or just part of the problem? >> i think it is only part of the problem. congressman james clyburn said today that these contingencies account. that would be the area that democrats and republicans can agree on. that is simply not the case. they have said that is not

something they consider a serious area of budget cutting. there would have to cut $170 billion. i think these sound bites are part of the deal. certainly when it comes to the presidential space, it helps them make up their minds, but there's still a lot of gridlock on capitol hill. that is just as much of their problem. >> have been focusing on the results in south carolina. the president has been marking on his state of the union address. what can we expect it? >> the need to bring back jobs, manufacturing jobs, and staying on the same course. the jobless rate is decreasing, which it has been. its working in his favor. he will be talking about the need for congress to work with him. the president wants to move the country forward.

this sets things up for the coming year which will be nothing but gridlock in congress. it would give both things that they need passed otherwise nothing will happen. it works in obama's best interest to say, "i have a vision, i have a plan." republicans will not work with him on any big plans other than the must pass bills i mentioned. that sets himself up verses what they called a do nothing congress. >> two final points. congressman clyburn, i asked if the president will win

carolina? >> he needs to get out there. he's lost the independent voters in droves. where can he win support? his base. he needs to get his base in south carolina out excited about what he's doing, getting them registered, and turning out. >> romney will release taxes on tuesday moving into florida. >> we were just talking about that. that is part of the problem that romney cases. for weeks and weeks he said he would not come out with them in april. suddenly, he has a big loss and all of a sudden, they will be

out much more quickly. the electorate and polls have shown he has not done a good job of responding on this. it is basically up to him now to make the case to voters as to why he was dragging his heels. >> thank you for joining in on the questioning and your perspective on "newsmakers." we will have live coverage of the president's state of the union address tuesday here on c- span. thank you for joining us. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> you can see "newsmakers" again with representative james clyburn tonight at 6:00 p.m.

eastern. >> if you have a saudi prince, part of the royal family of saudi arabia that has bought into one of the largest news franchises in the world, you have to look at what his motives are. >> diana west about culture, politics, and the spread of islam in the western world. >> i think fox should have to register as a foreign agent given the role of the prints in their corporate structure. >> more with the editorial writer and syndicated columnist diane west tonight on "q&a." >> tomorrow on "washington journal," a look at the private tax rate with kevin hassett of the american enterprise institute. then a discussion about the recent shutdown of websites in protest of the stock online piracy acts. later, catherine gallagher on

funding like that 7:00 p.m. -- live at 7:00 a.m. mr. speaker, the president of the united states. >> tuesday night, the president will deliver his state of the union address beginning at 8:00 p.m. eastern including his speech, the republican response, and your phone calls live on c- span and c-span radio. on c-span2, watched the speech along with tweets from conagra's. then after, more reaction from senators. live reaction and add your comments using facebook and twitter on c-span.org. >> former senate majority leaders tom daschle and trent lott discuss leadership and politics. the talk about possible solutions to the current partisanship and gridlock in

congress. this is one hour, 15 minutes. >> a good morning. terrific to welcome you here to this first event here in 2012. we had about 70 last year, and i think we will be voting many of you back in the future. bipartisanship is a challenging space and we are happy have as many new friends as we can get. today's session is about leadership. i'm thrilled to have tom daschle and trent lott with us, a vital role in creating and shipping

the work here at the bipartisan policy center. they know a little about leading a divided government. i want to situate this a little bit in the broader context here at the bpc. we of three dimensions to the challenge. the first as polarized issues with longstanding challenges and people get stuck in this lithology, very little meaningful engagement. we strive together to bring diverse groups of experts to work on not just substance solutions but pragmatic solutions, and whether it is health, energy, in every case we worked together to bring together the political engagement to try to put together the proposals for 2013.

the second ever worked on is to try and address the core constitutions. i want to state the obvious that many of the structures and traditions that we have come to rely on are really under tremendous strain right now. through that project, we are having a series of forums, research firm and activities to help beleaguered boston site. finally, we are here to talk about leadership. ultimately what we praise are not act of god but fundamentally human problems created by people the have to be sold by people. -- solved by people. as we look back to the magnitude of problems we face today, you can always find leadership. we need to educate the public.

we're really going to try to understand the forces and actions that are reputable back to be brought back. this will enable the country to realize the problems. 2012 is the 100 anniversary of senator jackson's birth. he has a profound legacy of leadership on stimulating discourse and a bipartisan efforts, so we are pleased to be affiliated with you. there are some books on the senator's life out on the table that we encourage you to look through. as i reflect on centuries, we will be honoring tribute to the

100 years of service that two of our members have given, and we welcome you to learn all about that. with that, let me welcome john. thank you for your support and i asked you to introduce our speakers. >> thank you, jason, for partnering with us. our executive director and myself join in with jason to welcome you to this discussion. the henry m. jackson foundation was founded 30 years ago after senatorimely death of thes jackson and this is to continue the legacy of his good work. one of the core missions of his foundation is pursuing continued

bipartisanship. it is on this occasion, as jason said come on the centennial that we are so pleased to be partnering in with the bipartisan policy center in discussing these important, challenging issues. we have a very distinguished panel of the two former senate majority leaders to know all about bipartisanship and follow in the spirit that senator jackson exemplified. he was in the congress for over 44 years and he was known for his ability to solve problems by working with people on both sides of the aisle. the fact and he could cross the aisle and work with his republican colleagues was considered to be one of the keys of his influence in his extraordinary legislative success. many, many important pieces of

legislation were offered, co- authored, are sponsored by the senator. -- authored, co-authored, or sponsored. one of his key allies was jim/under, who you may remember as the secretary of energy -- jim schlessinger. he reached out to build coalitions. he did this with extraordinary stability, even with his irascible colleagues. that is how you become a great legislator for. i had the great fortune of working for him in the 1960's and 1970's and it was an extraordinary time of civility and a huge accomplishment. i told senator lott and senator daschle that i hope this session today will give us some hope

that we can come at some point in the non to distant future, return to that time of legislative stability and cooperation. as a part of our interest in sharing is a short and very legacy, we have produced a book called, "the nature of leadership -- excerpt from an exemplary statesmen." we wanted to capture the words of those who knew him best, the qualities that he exemplified such as integrity, vision, determination, honesty, scholarship. those are essential qualities of any effective leader. we ask you to take a look at this little book. there are lots of pictures and a big print. it's a fast and fun read. take these with you. they are out on the table.

give them to your friends. give them to the younger leaders. hopefully they can see this as the kind of leadership that they want to aspire to. those qualities should apply to today's leaders as well, not just the futures leaders. we hear the word demand all the time. we should not demand, but insists, that today's leaders follow the spirit of bipartisanship that senator jackson was known for, and also senators daschle and lott. if you do not want to carry it in your briefcase, you can download it from our website. it's a wonderful little piece. let me now proceed to introduce former senate majority leaders tom daschle and trent lott. most of you know them better than i.

i will not go into great detail. a couple of very interesting points that i did not know was that senator lott is only one of a handful of people who have held elected leadership positions in both the house and senate. senator daschle, we know, one of the longest serving majority leaders in the senate, but i thought it was remarkable that he is the only senate majority leader, as i understand it, that served not once but twice as majority and minority leader. talk about two men who knew the need for bipartisanship. trent lott and tom daschle. thank you both for being a part of the bipartisan policy center, jackson foundation program today. with no further ado, senator

jostldaschle? [applause] >> john, thank you for that generous introduction. more importantly, thank you and the foundation for being our partner in this project. i look forward to reading the book, but as a young staff person, i had the good fortune to see senator jackson in action and to see the degree to which he epitomized the qualities that we hope we can talk about today, his leadership, his extraordinary willingness to find comedy with his colleagues, his prioritization of bipartisanship is all historic and we are very, very grateful that he continues to inspire arrested them with his deeds and words. there are others that i want to

call attention to for their presence today, and my gratitude to them for being here. dirk camp pharma, dan glickman, charlie stenholm. it's a real pleasure to have them with us, as well. from thes inspired lessons of leadership of our american heroes of the past. john quincy adams once said, "if your actions inspire others to dream more, to learn more, to do more, to become more than you are a leader." i think that definition describes most leaders, even those in congress.

lincoln had a lot to say about leadership. he once said, "nearly all men can stand with -- adversity. if you want to test immense character, give him power." to thatso much truth sense of what leadership is all about. you find out about a man or woman by giving them power. it is a real pleasure for me, once again, to share this stage, this dais with a very special friend, trent lott. he and i shared power in the united states senate for many years. while we have two powerful positions, we endured a great diversity as well.

was farsure whether it more or diversity that defined the matter in which we lead, but we had to deal with the first impeachment in over 100 years. 9/11, the anthrax attack, the first 50-50 senate in u.s. history. clearly, it was a historic, very challenging time. while leaders can all be aptly described by adams definition, i think there is a big distinction between an executive leader and a legislative leader. a legislative leader rarely makes a unilateral decision like an executive leader does. he has far less ability to execute that decision. even more true of a senate

leader than perhaps in the house of representatives who, as a result of their role making, processed cheese, and procedures, for greater autonomy in making decisions and senate leaders. -- there will making, processes, and procedures, the have greater autonomy and authority. our former colleague george mitchell used to lament that he did not lead a caucus. he negotiated with 57 independent contractors. a majority leader, it seems to me, has four primary roles. first, he must set the agenda in consultation with the other leadership as well as his caucus. he must manage the legislative body, again in consultation with at least the other leader.

he must be the central person with whom the president and speaker work. and he certainly must provide leadership to his caucus. those four roles are very, very critical, regardless of circumstance, regardless of the makeup of the senate at any one time. regardless of roles, a think a leader must first and foremost always remember the state that elected him and reflect the concerns, the interests, the values of his state. every senator brings his own experiences and personality to the role of leadership. always a that it's function of a time in which a leader this sends to a majority leadership role that dictates to a certain extent was that role

is. when i was elected leader in 1994, there was a sense within our caucus especially that we needed a bill to improve inclusion, create more opportunities for members to have a role in the decision making and agenda setting process. there was a far greater need for out reached. i ran for majority leader, we lost the majority in 1994, and i was elected as minority leader. this sense was that we had to reach out to our constituency groups and the rest of the country in a more effective way. this was, as i said, the mid 1990's when technology was just beginning to become paramount to members communicated and saw their roles with regards to the opportunity to project to their constituencies.

we put a real emphasis on technology by creating the technology committee, studio, putting the emphasis on the internet in ways that had never been done before. as i said, to a large extent, the circumstances dictated many of those priorities. regardless of the agenda, priorities, experience, or any other factors, it seems to me that a modern day legislative leader as he or she attempts to constructively and beat his caucus, they are faced with a number of challenges that transcend party, transcend almost any other aspect of the senate life. one of those is fund-raising. there is an extraordinary pressure on every member to raise money these days. as a result, the time consumed, the preoccupation with fund- raising becomes an even greater

challenge as we attempt to manage the senate. the airplane. in my view, it is one of the single biggest factors in the way that the senate conducted business today. because the airplane has made it so easy for people to leave how they do. they leave and giving us virtually nothing more than a full wednesday to conduct a lot of the senate business with. that presents serious challenges with the extraordinary agenda that we face. the media, the blogs, the extraordinary hyperbolic wave in which so much of what the senate does is reported on today is another challenge that we have yet to grapple with successfully. unfortunately, partially because

of the way elections are held today, the polarization has become so much a part of the character of the senate and that, too, is something that we all have to a knowledge and address. some qualities in leadership transcend these times. as i said, i take inspiration from people who have proven themselves to be the visionary leaders that we have needed so badly in times of peril. a leader, first and foremost, must ever strong inner compass. i like what churchill said about that. "it is sometimes said leaders keep their eager to the ground. all i can say is that the nation will find it hard to look up to leaders that are detected in that ungainly position."

leaders must know that their followers. lincoln had graded vice in that regard. he said, "leadership is staying a little bit ahead of those who are led, but not too far ahead or you lose contact with them." third, a leader must be able to persevere. i've always liked this, " determination can accomplish almost anything and therein lies the distinction between great man and the little men." finally, a leader must listen. "the best way to persuade is with your ears." a good leader is always learning. i learned a good deal from my friend trent lott, as i did from my colleagues who are here today. i mentioned some of them.

i did not mention chet edwards earlier, but i appreciate very much the leadership there brought to work every day. i learned a lot from my friend trent lott. i would strongly urge you to read, "herding cats," because it's a reflection of how one leader lead in these times of diversity and turbulence. we did a lot of cat herding, and i'm pleased to have the opportunity to talk about leadership with trent today. [applause] >> thank you, ladies and gentleman, for being here this morning. thank you, tom, for your comments and our friendship, one that continues to grow and develop as the years go by. i must warn you in advance, as

tom has indicated, we became not only companions in a lot of difficult times and leaders, both minority and majority, but begun to be really, truly good friends. if you are looking for partisanship, you will not for find it here. thank you, john, and to the henry m. jackson foundation for this centennial celebration. it's hard to believe he would be 100 years old. this is something i have fought an awful lot about when i was in the congress and even cents. i talk to young people a good deal about leadership. we have a leadership institute at the university of mississippi. tom has been there. i came to realize over the years that leadership is not something you are just born with, a visceral thing. it is something you can learn. you can learn from others.

new study history and the leadership of men and women, you can learn a lot of techniques that will help you as a leader. these are difficult times, obviously. everyone is trying to figure out how we do something about being a more bipartisan and getting things done. that's what i am so pleased to be a part of the bipartisan policy center. jason does a great job. they founded this institution. it was at a time when we really needed it. they are doing great route -- great work whether it is in housing, our leadership. anne is working here on a regular basis. i think it is really needed now more than ever. it will point the way to getting some solutions to problems. it is not just about

bipartisanship. it is about how do you get an energy bill? how do you get transportation reform? real thoughts about how you want to achieve this goal. what are the metric to measure what you are doing. i am delighted to be a part of the bipartisan pause in center. i will not quote lincoln or adams. my predecessor in the senate so many of you knew. he was known as the conscience of the senate. i figured out early on that it would be a good idea to talk to him about being a senator and the job of a senator. one of the things he said to me at the beginning was, i hope you will really think about how you develop as a senator. a number of people who come to the senate grow. most of them just swell. [laughter] i see the historian over there probably reported this.

it was one of his favorite quotes. when he retired, i went to mississippi state university and sat down with him. i said, you have had such a fantastic career. you meant so much to our state and our country. i am looking for your best piece of advice. what would you advise me to do? he thought about it for a few minutes. he said i will give you two pieces of advice. by your house. do not rent. they do not buy a house. they rented for 40 years. for a long time, that was the only equity i had in my portfolio. then he said, the other thing is to travel. do not just go back and forth to mississippi. see the country and see the world. he was chairman of the appropriations committee and president of the senate. he never let the continental united states.

if you meet with world leaders, you will learn from them and you will have a better understanding of foreign policy, which you will be intimately involved in because of confirmations. that was great advice. i took his advice and did that. that was referred to in the be as john gets = = junkets. simple things, -- referred to as junkets. simple things, but great advice. we talked to each other. i did not have a problem crossing the aisle. i did not mind coming through the back door of his office when i had done something dumb or had made him mad or had not told him what we were planning on doing. we kept that door open, that communication. he would do the same thing. i remember him coming and sitting with me in my office and

pouring out his heart about some things he was dealing with. we had that kind of relationship. we had a hot line. i had a phone on my desk. when it ran, i knew it was tom daschle. we also found out -- no offense -- sometimes you needed to get around your staff. [laughter] they would do a little blocking or tackling to keep us from talking directly. we had that. on more than one occasion, he would call me or i would call him and i would talk to him. on the morning of 9/11 when i realized we were under attack, he was the majority leader. i picked up the phone and said, i think we should get out of here. about that time, my door burst open and the security people came and we were gone. we spent an interesting day, 1 we will never forgets. he was so good at promoting my

book, i will promote his book. "a time like no other." he talked about the challenges we had as leaders. when i think about the journey to leadership, it is not something you just leap to. our former colleagues are here and they will remember and recall this. i served 16 years in the house. the house has a tendency to make you a partisan warrior, particularly if you are a minority. i did not have the privilege of going back and forth from the house to the senate. i was the republican whip in the house for 8 years. i sat on the back row not quite ready for primetime. we sat back there and grumbled about what a ridiculous place it was.

no rules. i finally was a parliamentarian. i spent my life working on the roles and understanding the rules. it was a southerland edition. he who knows the rules controls the body. i was on the rules committee. i yules the rules in the house in my partisan warfare. what i got to the senate, i tried to figure out the rules. finally, i went to the parliamentarian. i do not get it. what are the rules here? he said, there are only -- there are only two rules to see shed its -- the senate. there is unanimous consent. you will agree unanimously to anything. i found out of the years that there was a lot to that. i told my son, who is here this morning with me, i will either

leave this place or i will change this place. i kept my options open. i said, maybe i should try to change its bank. one of the ways we did that was to try to apply common sense. people would give me a hard time sometimes. we would have dinners for our spouses. the secretary of defense in a democratic administration wrote a poem. i wrote an ode to tricia. we had been seeing -- the singing senators. we were pathetic. we listen up the senate a little bit. we try to make it quartet bipartisan. one night we sang with tom baxter -- tom daschle and

barbara boxer. they could not harmonize. that is why i wore a kilt for the first time before the senate. i asked my wife is my knees looked as good as sean connery's. she did not even laughed at that. the idea was to get us to loosen up a little bit. the most important thing was human relationships and contacts. to be respectful of your colleagues. after sitting on the back row as a partisan warrior, i could keep the attitude and get nothing done, or i could find a way to go across the aisle and work together to get some things done. that is the journey to be a leader. you learn the rules and you enjoy the process and you wake up and say, i am here to make a difference. i will find a way to work with

the democratic secretary of agriculture. i will be as fair and honest as i can with everybody. i will try to find a way to do bipartisan things. a lot of it depends on personalities. three-time we were there, bill clinton was president. he was a challenge and he was an opportunity, too. the way we got tax reform and balanced budgets and welfare reform and safe drinking water and portability of insurance is that we were to find a way to get a solution. i went to mississippi one time and gave a speech to the rotary club and talked about how i had worked with ted kennedy on the education for children with disabilities program. i did not get to been much of a response from the crowd. when i got -- i did not get too much of a response from the crowd. someone came up and said,

senator, that was a good speech. that part about kennedy, did not say that anymore. [laughter] you get a little flack for that. it was a great time. it was a difficult time. that is why we became such good friends. when you go through the things we would be together, you bond and we did that. times have changed. personalities have changed. tom touched on something. the 24/7 news media coverage. people leave their families back home. tom and i did not do that. that helped an awful lot. i do not think you can be a good senator or a good congressman did you do not work on monday. that is when you plan the week. if you we -- wait until tuesday,

the week is half over before you get anything done. the worst thing that happens every week was the tuesday conferences and caucuses. you call them conference meetings, we call them conferences. we get into a room and we would always come out on fire. democrats come out all fired up. we come out with the same attitude. tom and i would wait half of the day until we tried to get back to serious business so that back down.ould, ban calm you make a mistake and you get hammered for days. you cannot shake it. it takes its toll. that is a big part of the problem. i do believe things have changed. the majority position is the toughest leadership position in this city. harry reid has that title now. it is not a partisan it.

the president has the whole administration. the speaker has the rules committee. the majority leader in the senate has only the power of persuasion and respect for the position. it is not a constitutional position. it is one of leadership where you have q3 warts and no sticks. -- few rewards and no sticks. on the republican side, i tried to emulate the system. -- to manipulate the system. you start with the most senior republican. this is a very challenging position. it is more important that he be able to communicate with the leader on the other side. what we are seeing in the gridlock and the politics is that it is the personalities. without being critical of any of them, when i look at the next

generation of leaders, i do believe it will be different. i hope it will be better. i believe it will be different. they are going to get the message -- a pox on both of your houses. be favorable rating is about as low as it has ever been. do you know what the highest rating of the senate has ever been? 72% approval. it was after 9/11. between that date and the end of that year, the american people saw the congress -- republicans and democrats -- working together to do the right thing for the country. it was not always easy. one time i was in the conference having a hard time with phil gramm and all of my buddies over there. tom was in the is conference having a similar hard time. i caught him on his cell phone and he answered. i said, we have a problem. you know we have to get this done.

let's do it bang and do it now. he said, i will meet you on the floor of the senate. it was done that day. all the power conferences were saying nay. i will not tell you what the bill was. you will say, yes, you should not have gotten that done. that is called leadership when you are willing to step up. tom mentioned the 50-50 senate. that almost cost me my job. i negotiated deal with tom that my conference thought was too good a deal with tom. we shared 50-50 in the committees and so forth. we need to do more of that. i believe the american people will demand that we began to make some changes and friday way. so many of these things are not partisan. the national energy policy? we agree or disagree on environmental stuff. we can work that out. highway bills?

and her structure is good for everybody. that was not a -- infrastructure is good for everybody. that was not a partisan thing. we can lubricate the process. the majority leader position is a challenge. it is a great honor. it is a position that we enjoyed. we switch back and forth two times and we never missed a beat. even after impeachment, i remember when it was all over and we met in the center aisle and shook hands. we said we fulfilled what the constitution requires. both of us were criticized along the way. the next week, we were back in business. on as the, bill clinton called about a bill and never mentioned what we had just -- the next week, bill clinton called about a bill and never mentioned what we had just done. that is called leadership. [applause]

>> i am director of the democracy project. my role is twofold. i am here to hawk some more books and to lead a discussion with the senators before we open it up to the audience for more questions. you mentioned the henry jackson foundation and the nature of leadership. you can find us online. hearding cats -- herding cats, trent lott. on senator daschle's book, my first question is, put yourself back to that time, 2001. it began with the bush versus gore election and the delayed election of a president. you had a 60-50 senate and the

negotiations you -- you had a 50-50 senate and negotiations over power. several of those periods were different. you were both in the rooms at the same time. can you say something about how you came to an agreement about sharing power and what the challenges were doing that and what the senate looks like and what leadership was like after the switch of power? and finally, the extraordinary time after 9/11. a model for tragedy to bring us all together. what was it like to be leaders in those times? >> i think i would describe it as difficult professionally -- one of the most difficult challenges i have faced in my life. you realize mistakes were barry hi. our country was underdressed politically and from -- you realize mistakes were very high.

there were deep divisions about how we should proceed. it drew on of the emotions one might expect and requires your best ability to first listen to the different approaches that were being proposed and then try to be as innovative as you possibly could. ultimately, you had to show some strength. you had to say, this is what we are going to have to do and persuade others to join you in doing it bank -- doing it. is required what everyone would expect of leaders. history and time will judge what we did it right. i look back with pride and satisfaction about how we did it. i think we accomplished what we felt we needed to do with all of the things you mentioned.

the what you didn't was the end iraq's attack on my office one month later . -- anthrax attack on my office one month later. everyone made the speech in one way or another that they were no longer republicans or democrats, they were americans. everybody felt a need to rise to the occasion. i do not know what it is about americans in crisis. at least in that kind of crisis. we were facing other crises with that sense of determination to be an american first does not seem to be as evident. in this case, i remember singing god bless america on the steps of the capital. reaching out and grabbing hands on both sides. i looked and i was holding tom delay's hand and i thought, this

is a first. [laughter] but we did it because we were all americans. prices elicited that kind of response. certain extent elicited that kind of response. >> maybe i can explain a little bit about telling a few stories. i think a lot of the solution is for congress and senators to do more things together, both parties. the day that i was let did majority leader bob dole, we elected our leadership team with don nickles and connie mack, bill graham, mitch mcconnell as i recall. the first thing we did a site called taman said tom, can we come to your office and meet with the leaders? euratom sophistry betook the republican leadership team and went to tom's office and said a prayer together. to give his guide and to pray for our country. that was our first at what we had our leadership teams together.

the next thing is i think, you know, the day of 9/11, we wind up in a conference somewhere in west virginia or virginia. i was never quite sure where we were, tom. when the helicopter together with tom and harry reid and others have gone different ways to get there. they were the rest of the day, altogether talking to our respective conferences. they were here and wherever they are in a cavern that and that was that popular 13. where are you guys? we are over here any bug her. we will fill see you later. i talked to jake cheney a couple times and then a sudden a day, we like to go back. some helicopters. he said no. i didn't appreciate that very much, but he basically said no, we don't know if it's safe yet. later on he said the helicopters on the way. we went around to the front and tom's boat, denny hastert spoke

and none come extemporaneously it wasn't planned at all. we sang god bless america. that kind of day and those kinds of emotions. when tom and i flew together right over where we could look into the pentagon literally on fire. and then, in other examples -- well, the anthrax issue. after that happened come you can imagine how that affects you, too. we had staff people exposed to it. it was tom's office, pat leahy's office. we met together, republicans and democrats in the dining room and the capitol talking about the threat, what does that, how to do with it in everything. i guarantee there is no partisanship. we're trying to figure out what to do with the situation. the other one that is a little later one of favorite one. i called tom christmas after the house had voted for another sick to my stomach thinking about what would have to go through and not knowing how to do it because it had been done in a long time. so i called tom and said we've

got a little problem here. we've got to figure out how we are going to do this. he said i agree. we asked joe lieberman and slade gordon to get together and try to help plan a way to deal with this. they came up with a magnificent plan, which my conference immediately stabbed in the throat and throughout the window. i had to start over. i didn't know what we were going to do. we came up with an idea we would meet in the old senate chamber and we would begin by having danny akaka opened with prayer. we were that senator byrd to give his sister perspective of what we're about to do. and then, we open it up for discussion to figure out how we're going to proceed? we really did how we would go forward. i can't remember exactly the order, but phil graham got up and gave an impassioned pitch of course to move forward with impeachment to get it to

actually remove it from office i'm sure. and ted kennedy got up and gave an impassioned speech. then when we listen to it, it sounded like they were coming to an agreement. i remember connie mack nodded at me we basically said, if dead. we have a deal. we have an agreement. as graham kennedy agreement. we left the chamber and had this great agreement. tama to the press gallery and had a joint press conference. and then we said, what was the agreement? [laughter] i said, we've got to put this as some sort of writing. so we put in my conference room -- i guess kennedy was in the room. i post lakeport and there've been very few others who are really thoughtful numbers and they put something on paper it would have forward. i am not sure to this day what we actually agreed to psg remember that? >> i remember that we didn't. i don't remember what it was we

did. [laughter] but that's leadership. there was a moment that everyone knew would have a constitutional challenge and we had to do it. we did a how to proceed. if you had kennedy and graham saying what sounded like an agreement, good, that's it. and we said that was it and we went forward with it. now, i still get criticism to this day. people say you could have removed him from office if he really wanted to do it. but my favorite job, actually in congress is not theater. it was way up. with in-house and with in the senate twice. minority and majority was about 10 years between the two. i counted the votes. he was never going to be removed. so we have to do is figure out how we could do it, comply with their constitutional responsibilities, but do it in the way the american people thought we had done the right thing the best they could without embarrassing the institutions. i think we got that done, tom.

>> you know, trent has taught us a couple of times now that at those times of greatest crisis, we came together. we came together in the old senate chamber during impeachment as we were beginning to figure out what we're going to do. we actually came together. we came together right after and tracks in the senate dining room. the reason we picked the senate dining room as it was the only room large enough for both caucuses could be together. i think there is a message there. the consistency with which we found our need to come together around christ as brought us together and we were successful as a result of the fact that we did. you via maize at how rarely the two caucuses come together. i mean, if i had one regret today is that we didn't do that at times when you're in a crisis, we didn't find what times we came together.

he also said something else that is exactly right. you know, caucuses and conference meetings become at rallies. you are out there. you threaten me. you're just really pumped up and you can't wait to sink your teeth into the other guys. you know, and that kind of emotional fervor really have a profound effect on the way the senate operates. so, if i could do one thing over, it would be to find ways to bring the caucuses together more frequently, to be together, especially now when sa said the airplane brings us to a circumstance where it is so rare that we are ever together anymore. so it just seems we have to be doing more of that and not waiting for a crisis to trigger the next meeting and the senate dining room for the old senate chamber. >> let me ask you a senate institutional question. it has many distinct features,

but one is a supermajority requirement, differs from the house. that has been under great challenge recently, specially as they become more polarized in the houses were able to pass things in the senate is seen as a robot. can you say something about the challenges that the leader with a supermajority requirement in many cases? and sakic, what do you see in the feature? whether the senate is going to be under fire for this, given the polarized nature of politics. is that something will see the featurette with that survived? >> i'm a little schizophrenic about that. first of all, i was frustrated many times with the unique features of the senate, the power of the individual senators, the whole. tom and i try to make some changes on that a couple times. we had written agreements and try to change some. my worst one was the ruling holds. and by the way, would hold his face and those for nomination by

democrats at the time as republicans. i would get one senator and find out who it was and get him to pull off an infinity also put a hold on it. so, i don't think you should take that away, but i do think that there should be some requirements connected with that. the supermajority -- i would change that, but again, i'm out of that comes back i think the leadership. i remember the first time i filled the tree, tom was irate and save. but it was not unprecedented. it'd been done before and i was trying to get something done. tom and him have 100 or so and so i just though that the tree where they could offer any more minutes. tom returned the favor as the years went by [laughter] but we didn't do that much. everything that tends to frustrate or block or tie up the senate is done more and more and

more often. i do think that they need to back away from that a little bit. i said something a while ago with what they've heard a few murmurs of the room. i do think the earmark should come back. maybe because at one point they actually reach the level of print support. i could never be number one, but i was number two. i don't think the congress should give up the power, but i do think it got out of control. too much, too many, too many people involved. it needed to be a process. when i first went to congress you had to have an authorizing committee, look at it with the core engineering project. you had to get it out there as a venue to go get an earmark. i do think there is a place in the need for that, but there needs to be reformed, needs to be a definable process you go through and then allow that to happen under different circumstances or better circumstances. but there are some things that

need to be addressed. tom and i have talked about this. i think we need to take a whole week at the confirmation process and we ought to do it now, before the next election. it doesn't make difference whether it's a democrat or republican. they need to have their appointments confirmed in nice to be somewhere sensible process. we're losing many good men and women. i'm not going to the meat grinder. i've got a job here. and to the credit of the leaders and to lamar alexander and chuck schumer, dated tape 230 some denominations that were just lower-level agency things that have to go through the confirmation process, take them on at the confirmation process. so there are some reforms that clearly should be considered. the senate is unique. and i guess one of my problems, but maybe one of the big sister and another 50 years, i was and

is to to show us. i didn't like it when we attacked the house of representatives and try to tear down. i like that. this was supposed to be a great institution to represent people. if you attack it every day, that's not good. same thing with the senate. the unique taste and i wouldn't take the uniqueness of way. but i do think it's not good for the leadership in not good for the country when it's always been attacked or torn down by people inside the institution. i think most of his colleagues here know that tom and i didn't do that. we try to make it better, not words. >> i just couldn't agree more radically with what trent just that. i would add just one thing and that is that there is a reason why we only have one cloture vote on the 20th of 30s and 40s for congress. unless congress had 100 to cloture votes. the reason we went from one to 102 is wave we changed the way

filibusters are addressed in one of two days. one of the name of reform and expediting the work of the senate. we started a process that we call dual tracking, where we sent a bill aside and take up another bill. and while that sounded logical, and it is logical in so many ways, what it did was make the filibuster much less painful. it made it much more accessible. well, we'll put the bill aside and maybe come back to it. and then we triple track to quadruple tracked and quintupled track. for while they were set in a repost of what the subject to filibuster that of filibuster that we set aside. but he was in the name of reform that we started to do that. but the unintended consequence was that filibusters then became much more palatable. the other big difference is they no longer required members to hold the floor. if you don't have to hold the floor, you don't have to really pay the price. and you know, used to be cots

were brought out during the night. you had to sleep on cots and you really have to suffer. well, we don't suffer anymore. there's nothing painful about a filibuster. we just push it aside. you don't have to hold the floor. because we made them so easy and so routine and so procedural, they have to note the frequency at him like anything you've ever seen in the history. i do know that lucy to be changed to much is packed this. around the rose regard to god. i would think that if something both leaders today had to look at. >> one will ever change and ensure mitch mcconnell would like to hear me say this with hairy latest minority leader like it, but i've always had a problem with filibuster the motion to proceed. it's the filibuster even taken up the bill. it defies a little bit of common

sense there. now, it is part of the dilatory process if you want to block a bill or if you want to tie you up as fun as you can say they can't get to the next bill. that's part of the process. but you know, again talking about the importance of leadership, i remember in 1996, right after i took him into office, ted kennedy was blocking going to conference. one senator can block a senate bill that is passed from going to conference. and i don't know if i'd ever seen that before and as i read about it. i kept telling elizabeth letchworth, who was before us, we've got to stop this. and she says you can't. i said what do you mean you can't quite she said it would take seven days. you know, it will demand that they read the bill. you'll have to have all these hurdles you have to get over. and i said, let's do it. she looked at me incredulously

and said you can't do that. i said yeah, we're going to. let them read the bill. so i went down to the dining room and started having a meal. about 20 minutes until 9:00 i got the message that kennedy decided we did have to read the bill. ..

>> this question about working with presidents. you served as majority and minority leaders honor -- under clinton and bush. what is the role of the minority or my -- or majority leader? >> i have to tell one of my favorite stories to that question. i had just got elected. as with so many of my races, i was elected by one vote. chuck was that one vote.

i really look back with great satisfaction at how well the caucus came together so quickly. i remember being invited that afternoon to come down and meet with president clinton. i thought, i will go as senator byrd for his advice. what should i say to president clinton as leader for the first time on the basis of one vote. i went in and ask senator board for his advice. he thought about it for a minute -- senator byrd. he says, tell him you will work with him and not for him. that is exactly the role of a leader. you work with a president. he never worked for him. there are times president would like to forget that. they think the leader of your party is obviously working for

you. that is not always the case. you are coequal branches. you are coequal leaders in many respects. you are the leader of one of those branches. you should represent that and reflect that in your actions in your words and relations with the president. >> i have many stories i could tell about the experiences as the whip in the house with reagan. tom and i had breakfast almost weekly with george w. bush after 9/11. i remember distinctly because he always wanted to stay -- he always wanted it to be at 7:00 and i hated it. in terms of smiles on my face, the relationship i had with clinton was more interesting. he was engaged. he would call you all hours of the night or day. he had a congressional relations

team, but he did his own work. the senator's unique role with nominations and on treaties -- i went through a crucible on the weapons treaty. i concluded it was the right thing to do for the country. i had to figure out a way to get it done. clinton would engage you on a one-on-one basis. i remember reagan would meet with the republican leadership every tuesday morning. i think it was 930. maybe it was nine. sometimes it was the leadership of both parties. most times it was just republicans. i do think that the majority leader does have, in effect, a co-equal will the president. he/she has a leadership position which is critical in the whole process. i think he needs to be able to be our cities to be able to be honest with the president of the united states of what the options are.

the problem is, if you're too honest with the president of the united states, of either party your own party will be the one that is level to cut your throat. i have experience that, too. if i have one piece of address for majority leaders, i agree with tom. remember, you have to roll. you have, you know -- you have to work with the president, but i also have the supplies for the president's. meet with the leaders regularly, weekly on a personal basis, not just groups. i used to, you know, plead with president bush to get harry reid to come down and set out on that back portico and looked out over the washington monument and think about the roles that they had and what a great thing america is and what they can do. have a drink. then i realized, i guess these you will have a drink. [laughter] of course terry, you know, a mormon. bush is a teetotaler. so then never met like that and

they just goes to show how little lubrication can be helpful. if those two have had a drink no telling what would have gone gun -- done. [laughter] >> go here. if you could have stand to the stand up and identify yourself. >> hello. the executive director of the henry jackson's stand it -- foundation. we are so glad to be a part of this forum today with the bipartisan policy center. thank you so much for these revealing remarks. so many aspects of leadership that you talk about are intangible, but i remember senator jackson was known for a his, obviously, his policy views, but over the years on some important policy issues his views evolved. he was not afraid to a minute. he was someone who wanted to learn both from history and from colleagues and other intellectuals and policy people's. do you think that is possible

today? that is civilly in central part of reaching compromise in a bipartisan manner. the think it is possible? are people too afraid of being referred to as the poppers? thank you. >> i think it is possible. it back, that is partly what the bbc is designed to do. try to find ways which to bring people to an evolution on issues you know, always from a polarized position more to a position that would accommodate common ground. you know, and i think you have to address issues today with an open mind. you have to, obviously, do what churchill said. you cannot keep your your to the ground and simply vote whenever the wind may dictate, but at the same time i think you have to find a recognition about the importance of good governance. good governance requires finding common ground. but evolution is harder today. finding that consensus is harder

today because we are so much more polarized debate and we have been some time. pretty much harder, but people can still do it. >> de roadie's well? do you become a partisan warrior are all about your own position and prevailing in the wake @booktv winning or do you grow and mature and learn? i would like to say this is a republican form of government. your elected by the people, come to washington, study issues, led the details, come and vote on the behalf. it is not my referenda. and i used to ask myself, you know, everybody always referred to the statesman. i had a few people that i really thought they were statement. jackson was one of those. one of the areas where i changed was the area where jackson was always a leader. you know, he really lived up to the vandenberg phrase.

politics ends at the water's edge. and he was very much, you know, a leader. he fought when it came to foreign policy, an area where i changed. i came from the house for our was, you know, congressman whip, but i was protectionist basically, reflecting mike, i guess, bringing. the son of a blue-collar shipyard worker. my state. then i get to the senate. whether you like better not you're involved in foreign policy and start meeting with world leaders, kings and queens and presidents and prime ministers. you have to be involved. and i wound up being very much a free trader. i vote for the free-trade agreement that we voted on in the senate. i have never voted for a foreign relations appropriations bill in the house in my entire 16 years. i voted for everyone but one when i was in the senate. you know, you are supposed to learn. i still consider myself a very solid conservative, but in my

last year the senate this society gave me their teddy bears -- teddy roosevelt award, a beautiful gun, which my son thinks he is going to get, but i'm going to give it to my grandson instead. they give you know, level me moderate. i gotta been set, i don't know exactly when i became a moderate, but if that has what had happened to the ag said the monitor with pride. i am so thrilled with it -- so those of the very conservative, but i am also practiced. more than anything else i am an optimist. i believe that you can get things done in america, you can't get things done in the senate, and if you have to moderate your position, tom and i used to do that. there were times when we were actually would say to each other in effect, we got the vote. we're going to whip you, but this is something we can do to maybe modulate this a little bit

wary ruby's year to go down with you and your team more me and my team? i remember one time john mccain was blocking a bill that involve tom. i had to track down. i said, this is the bill from tom daschle, really important to tom. you can't do that to the democratic leader. he said, okay. we got it done. tom was my friend from then on. [laughter] >> that is where it all started. >> we have a question right here. the microphone. if you could identify yourself. >> el colton with the hill this paper. i just want to get your thoughts on president obama's region to appointments of richard scored ray in the apartment to the nlrb during a 2-day break in between pro-forma sessions. demonstrations argues that they are a sham sessions.

was that -- were those justified under the constitution? >> you may find a difference here. >> i think the president is entirely justified. for two reasons. one, because, as was said earlier, we're making it harder and harder and harder for nominees to go through this incredibly laborious and painful and time-consuming process, and there is no end. it gets worse by the year. and so that alone seems to me to be a factor in where do you draw the line. the second part of it is that constitutionally as i understand it there is not any clear direction with regard to what is a real session, but these are bogus sessions. we know that. it does violate, to a certain extent certainly past precedents , but that is that the first time president has been

altered in the course of doing the right thing. alternately add think we have to, as was said earlier, addressed the home of many process. short of that, because you had to institutions that the truly could not function without these nominees -- this was not just a nomination. this had to do with whether these agencies could even function, and i think in the name of creating enough virginity for the agencies to do what they were, by law, required to do, he had no choice. >> i guess the courts will decide. i think it was wrong. i think maybe there is a good chance the courts will rule the way. amtrak jar rubber who perfected the technique of having these pro-forma sessions. i don't think i did that. i think terry actually really remember it -- turned it into a fine art. these to have the struggles. my chief of staff.

when we would have these sessions, there be hundreds of nominees, and we woodworker the list. it would go through and say to clinton's people and the congressional relations people tell look, you can go ahead and do these hundred or so, but these six we have a problem. this one in particular if you do with the rueful blowoff. and for the most part we get most of what we needed to get done that way. i remember one time he did do one where he said don't do that and he did it and all hell broke loose. it caused bad feelings, but i do -- there is a reason for that. i do think advise and consent, i would be interested in what senator byrd, now he would react to what happened here. the senate does have a role. if the senate is abusing the rules call warheads should sit down and say, look, how can we

improve this process. but the main thing that i would say about it is get away from the constitution, the people, the personnel that are involved. it does really exacerbate the ranks between the president and the congress and senate leaders when they do that. and we need to think through it. i think you're working on a project in this area. we need to make it a bipartisan project to help the leaders of the will to deal with this confirmation process problem. >> well, the senate has a tradition of unlimited debate. we have strong rules here and unfortunately we're at the end of our time. i would like to think very much senators trent lott and tom daschle for their time. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> if you have a saudi arabian prince who is part of the royal family in saudi arabia who has bought one of the largest new franchises in the world, you have to look at what are his motives. >> diana west writes about culture, politics, and the spread of islam in the western world. more with former washington times editorial writer and syndicated columnist, diana west tonight at 8:00 p.m. on c-span's "q & a."

>> david cameron talks about the latest unemployment figures. that is at 9:00 p.m. eastern. >> mr. speaker, the president of the united states. >> tuesday night, president obama delivers his state of the union address. live coverage begins at 8:00 p.m. eastern including the speech and republican response. live on c-span and c-span radio, on c-span 2, watched the president's speech along with tweets from members of congress. go on line for a live video and add your comments. >> former house speaker newt gingrich was the winner of south carolina's republican primary, the first southern contest of the presidential campaign

season. he joins us on today's "washington journal." this is about 15 minutes. guest: what i want to focus on in this florida is big solutions for a big country. the speech on the space coast about the future of man in space and the future of the united states in space. i will deliver a speech -- a speech on help contrasting obamacare and romney-care.

i have a speech on cuba and latin america. i hope, once a day, to do something positive and clear about what -- positive ways of moving forward as a country to get back on the right track. the florida debate can become an interesting and positive dialogue about what would be best for the american future. host: our viewers and listeners enjoyed talking with us. caller: good morning. we are working for you and i have friends in florida who are already passing out fliers to support you. the question. the keystone pipeline. it should be coming through central illinois. it has the largest of oil refinery next to texas. we deliver oil to nine different states. right now, we are out of oil. i would like you to reply on

that. how bout an import tax we can get out of jobs that? guest: you raise a good point. the fact that the president vetoed the keystone pipeline, canadians will produce enough oil to pay -- to take care of central illinois. it makes no sense for president obama to have vetoed that. he is forcing canada into a partnership with china. how can our next door neighbor- china to be a more reliable partner to be united states? the answer is barack obama. your point is well made. every time we turn around, we find another way that barack obama is killing jobs. thank you for your friends in florida. i hope everybody watching will facebook or e-mail or call anybody they know in the florida. we need people power to offset

governor romney's money power. get on facebook an e-mail and we will do just fine in florida. host: next we have mary in wisconsin. good morning. caller: i would like to make some points. with this country is broke. we have absolutely no means to rebuild our country. we cannot even see to create jobs. can you please address how you plan to put this country back together with our pockets are absolutely empty? host: thank you, mary.

guest: i have a sudden loss from sheboygan and my wife is from western -- i have a son in law from sheboygan and my wife is from western wisconsin. we have to go back to the basics. do exactly what any family or any business would do in this kind of circumstance. i want to imply -- apply a new management system that would save $5.20 billion per year. i want to apply new payment systems for american express and mastercard that will save between $60 billion and $110 billion per year in fraud that we are paying to crooks. we send that to slow stamps and stood alone and that will save us billions more -- to boot stamps and student loans and that will save us billions more.

we do not need a department of energy. we need an energy policy. if we have an energy policy -- you heard the previous caller talked about the need for oil in central illinois -- if we have an energy policy we will be in a position to increase revenues. if we have oil on federal land, we have revenue. i have an aggressive jobs plan. go to newt.org and you will see a number of steps i would take to create jobs. if we can get unemployment at 4.2%, a number of people will be taken off all food stamps, medicaid, public housing, unemployment compensation and welfare and put into work paying for their families and paid taxes, that would be an enormous

step toward a balanced budget -- balanced budget. we have a number of plans at newt.org. i am methodically and systematically determined to get america back on track. host: and health care is the number 1 driver of our national debt, how would you reform health care? it i helped found the center for health transformation. first of all, you want to go back to the doctor, the patient, the pharmacist.

>> that speech at the world science fiction convention when i outlined a chapter on space, and i will be in florida this week giving a visionary speech on the u.s. going back into space in the john f. kennedy tradition, rather than the current bureaucracy. you really brought back some memories of that. we need an environmental solutions agency to replace the entire e.p.a. the e.p.a. is filled with people against local jobs, against local communities. they believe in a radical

opinion of the world. last year was the most expensive year for gasoline because of president obama's policies. now we discovered that the environmental protection agency has a proposal that would raise the cost $1.25 even more. you have to be totally out of touch with the american people to think of these ideas. i think we need to replace the e.p.a. with a brand new environmental solutions agency. host: mark from germantown, good morning. caller: my name is marc zimmerman. i met you twice. i said to you, newt, if you were going to run for president, you know, i started lecturing you

zsh it is amaze -- it is amazing to me that we have gotten to this point where you actually do want to be president of the united states. i believe and i pray and wish that we have change. i see immorality everywhere. you are so smart. i wish i could give you 20

million dollars. i'm -- guest: you don't have to have 20 mill hill dollars. i am grateful for your support and environmentment i'm grateful for yir support and your comments. i am -- i think that was a very, very good phone call you just had, marc.

host: mit romney saying his campaign made a mistake by not releasing tax returns. he said his returns will be released on tuesday. your reaction? guest: i commend governor romney for doing it. i think it is an important step in the right direction. as far as i'm concerned, that issue is behind us and we ought to go on to bigger and more important issues. i did think it was important to set the precedent. his father first said in 1967, and which should become a tradition, and i think his agreeing to do it on tuesday is a good thing. he said there is only one reference in his book toward you and that you were not as deeply involved as you claim to have been in the reagan resolution. guest: this is one thing i don't understand about the romney campaign. they pick fights in stories they don't know about.

he said in 1984 he did not want to go back to the reagan bush years. tony doland was ronald reagan's speech writer for eight years. he will be glad to explain how involved i was with the campaign. craig shirley knows the reagan library material very well. he will be glad to explain how often i worked with the reagan team. i think if you were to talk to the national security advisor during that five years he will tell you how closely i worked with him for the whole five years. this is another area where governor romney has a problem. he doesn't know what he's talking about. someone gave him a clever line, but they depn look at the larger truth. the larger truth is i first met with ronald reagan in 1974. he talk todays me about how to give speeches. i was on his side in the panama canal fight in 1976, 1977. i introduced him at a republican

party dinner in georgia in 1979. i campaigned with him in 1980. i helped organize the capital steps event in september 1980 which david broder wrote about as the first time ever that a presidential candidate was on the steps. the white house asked me to form a special task force to reach out to democrats in 1981 to pass the reagan program. the list goes on and on and on. i think for governor romney deciding to pick a fight over which of us understood reagan and which of us didn't, this would be a guy who in 1992 and voted in the democratic primary for paul tsongus. he should not get involved in a night he does not know anything about. host: newt gingrich, thank you for being here on c-span.

>> mit romney spoke to supporters about his policies for free market and criticized president obama for what he called his attack on free enterprise. from the south carolina state fair grounds in columbia, this is about 20 minutes. [cheers and applause] >> you should hear them when we win. this race is getting to be even more interesting. thank you for all of your help over the next days and months going across this great state. i appreciate your support.

i want to say thanks to all the people that have helped. let's begin with your governor, governor nic -- nikki haley. i thank her for her help. [cheers and applause] >> there have been a number of state legislators -- nate valentine is one who has been with me since the beginning. and of course the people of south carolina who helped this campaign, i owe you so very much. thank you for this great night tonight. [cheers and applause] tonight i want to congratulate, of course, speaker gingrich and my fellow republicans on a hard fought campaign here in south carolina. we're now three contests into a long primary season. thaze hard fight because there is so much worth fighting for.

[cheers and applause] we have a long way to go. tomorrow we will move on to florida. [cheers and applause] it is a state that has suffered terribly under the failed policies of president obama. now three years ago, we had nothing but promises and slogans by which to judge this president. today we have a record of deficits, declines, and death. president obama wants to reminus elections have consequences. today the consequences are clear and the stakes have never been higher. i said this before, and i firmly believe, that this election is a battle for the soul of america.

it is a choice for two very different destinies for america. president obama wants to fundamentally transform our country. we want to restore america to the founding principles that made this country great and the hope of the earth. [cheers and applause] he is making the federal government bigger and bloated, and i want to make the federal government simpler, smaller, and more effective, and we'll do it. he has raised the national debt time and time again to astronomical levels. i will cut the budget, cap the budget, and finally balance the united states budget. [cheers and applause] crout: we need mit!

>> he has enacted job-killing regulations. he passed obama care. i will repeal it. the president has adopted an apeasment strategy. he believes that america's role as leader of the world is a thing of the past. i believe in a strong america. i believe that america must lead this world and be the leader of the free world, and the free world must lead the entire world. [cheers and applause] in the recent weeks our party has come into star focus. president obama has no business running a state. our party cannot be run by someone who has never run a business and never run a state. [cheers and applause]

our president has divided the nation, engaged in class warfare. we cannot defeat that president with a candidate who has joined in that very assault on free enterprise. [cheers and applause] when my opponents attack success and free enterprise, they are not only attacking me, they are attacking every person who dreams of a better future. he's afacting you. i will support you. i will help you have a better future. i will make sure that america is a place of opportunity. [cheers and applause] i'm passionate about our economic leadership as it creates prosperity for all in this great country. over the past three weeks we've seen a frontal assault on free

enterprise. we expected this from president obama. we didn't anticipate some republicans to join him. that's a mistake for our party and our union. ours is it the party 6 -- ours is the party of free enterprise! [cheers and applause] the republican party does not demonize prosperity, we celebrate success in our party. that's one of the big differences between our party and our president. he leads the party of big government. he believes in ever-expanding entitlement. he's wrong, we're wright, and this is a battle we cannot lose. those who pick up the weapons of the left today will find them turned against us tomorrow. that's the party our -- that's

the choice our party gives america, or else we don't offer them any choice at all. we offer a choice between prosperity and success or big government, and i think they will choose us. [cheers and applause] by the way, if president obama thinks he can pair his record of job losses with my record of job creation, that's a battle we're going to win. [cheers and applause] if he thinks he can compare his record of croney capitalism with my record of free -- that's a battle we're going to win. if they want to demonize

conservative values, they are not going to be fit to be our nominee. our campaign has fought hard here in south carolina. and in the coming weeks and months i'll keep fighting for every single vote. i will compete in every single state. [cheers and applause] we're going to win this nomination and we're going to defeat president obama in november. kyrgyz cheers [cheers and applause] our campaign will champion the founding principles of liberty, opportunity, and economic freedom. i don't shrink from competition. i embrace it. i believe competition makes us all better. i know it is making our campaign stronger.

and in the coming weeks, the ideals of free enterprise and economic freedom will lead a very strong defense, and i intend to make it. [cheers and applause] the american people -- >> we need mit! >> why thank you. the american people will be looking for a real choice in this campaign. the plan offers freedom, and our blueprint is the constitution of the united states of america. [cheers and applause] if you want to make this election about restoring

american greatness, i hope you will join us. if you believe the disappointments of the last few years are a detour, not a destiny, then i'm asking for your vote. we still believe in the america that's the land of opportunity and a beacon of freedom. we believe in the america that challenges each of us to be better and bigger than ourselves. we still believe in that shining city on a hill. this election, i'm asking for your support. we need you to join in the fight. thank you and god bless the united states of america. [cheers and applause] thank you so much! [cheers and applause]

>> thank you, guys, thank you! [cheers and applause] [crowd chanting "we need mit"]

♪ ♪ ♪ [cheers and applause] ♪ [cheers and applause] [cheers and applause] ♪

♪ i was born free i was born free born free and i will god's grace on me i was born free ♪

[cheers and applause] ♪

♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ dance to the music ♪

♪ force

♪ ♪ only in america dreaming in red, white and blue

only in america ♪ ♪

♪ only in america ♪ dreaming in red, white and blue only in america we all get a chance everybody gets to dance ♪ >> more campaign 2012 coverage now with a recap of south carolina's primary results. con. host: running as now is ralph reed, the founder of the fate and freedom coalition. thank you for being with us on c-span. let's talk about the results from south carolina last night and what it means for newt

gingrich, mitt romney, and this republican field. guest: it was a very impressive when. to carry 43 of the 46 counties when he was all but given up for dead one week or 10 days before that election is pretty impressive. i think if you look at the exit polls that we have, it is clear that while he won across the board, men, women, every income group except those over making $200,000 per year which voted for romney, every education subgroup except for those with post-graduate degrees. he won the catholic vote, tea party, independent. it was an across-the-board victory. if you know south carolina, and i have worked there in ever cycle since the 1980's, what

really drove this were the evangelicals, who were 65% of all voters, even higher than four years ago when mike huckabee was on the ballot and they voted for nuking rich by a 44% -- newt gingrich by a 44% margin. what's fascinating to me is that romney came in second. within the margin of error, he got 22% and rex santorum got 21%. the tea party has a huge overlap with the evangelicals and they voted for gingrich by about a similar margin. the tea party group, the fiscal conservative tip of the spirit among the grass roots of the

party, and the evangelicals, this was an overwhelming, across the board win. we have now for the first time, since the rise of the modern we have had970's, three different winners in the first three primaries. host: let me go back to some of the candidates in an event to organize in myrtle beach. you introduced rick perry and rick santorum. you called senator santorum, " the most effective legislature of this generation." why has not not been able to -- he had not been able to get more of the evangelical vote? guest: he got 33% of the evangelical vote in iowa, and i cannot explain why he did not do better.

he not only came in third among evangelicals but among roman catholics. not a big group of voters in that state compared to the northeast dermot atlantic, but still an important group. in the end, what happened, i guess we will have to go back and wait for the history books. i was in the audience in myrtle beach when gingrich had that exchange with ron williams. and in my career, i have never seen a reaction from the audience like a did at that debate. it was not only a spontaneous standing ovation, but they were standing on their chairs chanting his name. what people are looking for is a fighter. rick santorum want to be authentic to who he is. he said, "if you're looking for the guy with the best one- liners, the best skilled debater, that's not meet."

me."at's not i'm very proud of the job that santorum has done in this. host: you can join the conversation on our twitter page. on the phone, a supporter of mitt romney in ohio. conservative supporter of romney, and one of my good friends is a supporter of gingrich. i've been trying to get him to make the transition and he keeps telling me that when gingrich talks, my head is nodding up and down. his big bet on the other night was when gingrich took on the media. if i were romney, i would call for a press conference and i would discuss tax returns. i would give the five years of

tax returns, my passport, my college transcripts, my birth certificate and require the media to have anyone running for high office to do the same thing with the same documentation. thank you. host: ralph reed, your response? guest: the tax return issue i think caught the romney campaign a little flatfooted. they always intended to release them as past practice has dictated. if/when romney was the nominee. i think they got a little ruffled when the game rich people release their campaign. it will take them time to get ready for release. whenever he is going to do, he ought to say it, be

unapologetic. he should not be defensive. with the larger question of his personal wealth, he should say, "look. america is great because anybody can rise as by a -- as high and as far as you want. i will not apologize for becoming a person of wealth and means because that is what makes america great. i want to reserve that for everybody else." the best thing he could do it is to use this as a jujitsu move, take the course of the blow and push it back on him. when he was questioned about his previous marriages and divorces

by john mccain, he used that to hit back and the best defense in politics is a good offense. host: after winning the iowa caucuses, george bush lost in new hampshire to 19 points and then won the south carolina and that became his fire wall. is there a page that met romney can take to apply for florida? guest: i was part of that campaign, as you know. we lost new hampshire very big. south carolina became the tiebreaker. i think this time, you have had three different winners in the first three primaries. interestingly enough, and memory tends to be short on this, but this nomination did not wrap up four years ago after south carolina.

even though mccain had won at new hampshire and south carolina, guiliani was very strong in florida. florida became decisive. that could very well happen again. florida could play the kind of role for romney that south carolina played for bush in 2000. it to play the kind of role for him that it did for mccain. florida was too close to call four years ago until on the friday before that tuesday, charlie crist was overwhelmingly popular not only among all floridians voters but all republicans and he endorsed john mccain and catapulted into a critical victory. if romney were to win, he would be very hard to stop. at romney were to lose florida, all bets are off. host: a gingrich supporter on

the phone. good morning. caller: it's interesting the discussions that are going on about gingrich's marital problems, oratory styles, and so forth when people should be painted the substance of what these people are saying they're going to do. the thing that is compelling about gingrich's message is that he has specific actions he plans to put in place to start decreasing the size of the federal government and putting power back to the states which is what a lot of people think needs to be happening and that the problem with the obama is used doing exactly the opposite. his administration has been one on abetted huge spending bill passed, a power grab for the presidency, and passing laws to

try and force immigration laws that they're not doing anything to enforce. how a particular candidate is able to give up and -- get up and give a tory speech means nothing, and in my opinion. gingrich's plan is the one that will bring us back to a viable state and not continue us down the destructive path that obama has clearly set us on. in my opinion, the rise of the tea party has been a direct reaction to his outrageous auctions. host: thank you for the call, mary. ralph reed? messageewt gingrich's has been a threefold. number one, look at what he accomplished as speaker, the

deepest and broadest tax cuts and the only four balanced budgets since 1969 under his tenure as speaker. everyone knows that did not happen because of bill clinton but it happened after multiple clinton vetoes. the most sweeping reform of entitlements since the great depression with welfare reform moving to million people from welfare to work and from dependency to independent. that's his message, he's done it before. the second message that the caller was on to is his very forward-looking reform agenda if he became president. i was at the march 2011 forum for the faith and freedom coalition which kicked off the iowa caucus campaign. it was one of the largest evangelical maggot churches in

west -- megachurches in west des moines. he said as soon as he took the oath of office, he would walk into an anteroom and these executive orders that he would sign. he started ticking through them. restore the mexico city policy that prevents the use of tax dollars to promote abortion overseas. an executive order moving the u.s. embassy in israel from tel aviv to jerusalem. that is the capital and that is where our embassy should be. thirdly, revealing and revoking every part of obamacare that he could. he went through like seven executive orders that he would do on the first day. when i mentioned earlier, it was demonstrated through his debate

performance, but he's not afraid to take on the media, take on obama. that very much captures where the grass roots are. the challenge for romney is to try and channel that kind of intensity being felt that the grass roots, but to do it in a way that is authentic to who he is. i do not think you can go out there and just rip off somebody else's lines, but he needs to tap into that more than he has. host: 1 question of the facebook, in light of citizens united, how you deal with the amount of spending in 2012? guest: this is the first presidential cycle that we're going through dealing with the new reality of the citizens united decision and the emergence of the so-called super pac.

the law stipulates that they cannot be in coordination with the candidates but can give unlimited amounts of bonds in order to find advocacy independent of the actual campaign on that candid its behalf. we saw northward of $3.50 million spent by the romney super pac, most of it attacking gingrich, and it was very effective. chose not tongrich spok respond. i think that was a big mistake and it caused him to come in a distant are the field in iowa. c was up inh super pa south carolina, and i predict we will see it continue. what is interesting to see that, as often is the case, you can

reach a point of mutual assured destruction. if they have to dollars or $3 million in florida and the gingrich pac users a same amou nt, they cancel themselves out. i do not think any reading of the florida early voting result would say that this would really be a decisive factor. host: ralph reed is a familiar face to our c-span viewers. he was the chair of the georgia republican party. he is the founder and chairman of the faith and freedom coalition. we have covered many of your events over the years and it's available on our website at c- span.org. all of twitter, a lot of reaction.

reaction? guest: i do not agree. republicans have the type of year that they are capable of, and certainly nine or 10 months is a long time in american politics, but if they told the house and gain control of the senate, and a mathematical odds of that are pretty good today, and they are able to elect a president, i think it's that only likely but almost certain that no matter who the republican nominee is, maybe not on the first day, but in very short order, they will restore the mexico city policy and romney has said he will grant an immediate waiver to every state in the country to the provisions of obamacare. i have said, as i have moved around the country not only update and freedom of dense but

others, but if there is a republican house and republican senator, which is a very strong likelihood, that before the new president is ever sworn in, the congress comes in on jan. fit than the president is not sworn in until january 20th. they could pass legislation but in the first several days repealing obamacare because the house has already done so. the house has already repealed it. they will only need 51 votes to do it because the democrats, in order to pass it, because they did not have the 60 votes as a result of scott brown winning massachusetts, they had to pass it under reconciliation budget rules. it passed with less than 60 votes summit can be repealed with less than 60 votes.

it's possible that the new president could walk off the platform of the inaugural parade, go into the white house, on and signed a bill repealing before they go to the inaugural ball that night. host: from "the weekly standard ." he says gingrich will stay in the race matter what. guest: the rules make it more possible. for the first time, the republican party has adopted the proportional delegates, so this was an attempt, a largely failed attempt, by the way, to try and encourage states outside the traditional early voting states of iowa, new hampshire, and south carolina, to put their

primaries back later. it did not really work. florida, as you know, is being denied half of its delegates as a result of having theirs when they will. anybody who goes in february or march will be awarding their delegates proportionally. it is mathematically impossible to have someone get to the required number of delegates, something along the order of 1441, or in that range, prior to april. having said that, jimmy carter's press secretary once said something that i think remains true today. he said he did not be presidential candidates. you bankrupting them. a candidate, whether it is romney, gingrich, santorum, if

they fail to win anywhere in florida, michigan, nevada, colorado, if someone could win all four of them, the other candidates even though they have technically stayed on the balance, if you are not winning, you run out of oxygen in this business. ego from a nice private jet to driving around in a minivan. you may be on the ballot, but you will not be viable. they will have to win somewhere. that was the case for ragan in 1976 when you is challenging gerald ford. if he had not won the north carolina primary, he would have run out of gas. host: john from kansas, and ron paul supporter. caller: i have a question and comment. i have been hearing that ron paul is having the iowa delegates taken away and they're

being split between romney and santorum. i was just wondering if that was true and how they could justify it. host: there not selected until june or july in iowa, correct? guest: the actual delegates are selected as you move through the caucus process. who the process -- who the delegates are will be determined later, but by law they will be in awarded proportionally as to who won in the caucus. i had not heard that about ron paul being denied delegates. host: i want to this next sound bite into perspective because it came part of the story went abc interviewed marianne gingrich. when newt gingrich telephone looking for a was

divorce, around may 1999, when he delivered a speech on faith, religion, and values to a republican crowd. i want to get your reaction in a story that will likely to mount in the days ahead. [video clip] >> we have had an experiment in a secular assault on the core values of this country. we should not be surprised that eventually they will appeal the back for it because they are bad seeds. they make no sense as a society. for 35 years, god has been driven out of the classroom and we have seen the result in a secular atheistic system in which god is not allowed. host: newt gingrich talking

about values and religion at the same time he was asking his wife for a divorce. can you put that in perspective in your reaction? guest: i do not think my reaction is much different than what newt gingrich's has been. he and knowledge and he made terrible mistakes in his life and at the end of his marriages have been the biggest mistake of his life. it is one that he regretted, what he needed to go to god for forgiveness. as rick perry's in the of the day when he was endorsing him, he is not perfect, but none of us are. subsequent to that time in his life, and he has obviously converted to catholicism. i am not his pastor, priest, or rabbi, but we have been friends for over 30 years and i've seen a real change in his life. i've seen a remarkable

development of a christian character. i think the message of yesterday in south carolina, and message that is more than political, i think it is a spiritual message. it is one of redemption, one of forgiveness, one of second chances. ironically enough, 73% of all the boats that gingrich received yesterday came from born-again evangelicals. contrary to the stereotype of this constituency, they do not judge others. they recognize that everyone, as the bible says, falls short of a glorious god. we all need a savior that will forgive us and have mercy on us. this is not new in american politics, by the way. .

caller: i would like to make a comment on the caller's credentials for the presidency. i think he was from rockford, illinois. i would say here, here to that. then, the other thing is i'm sure you will enjoy the comments that were made last night on fox news by brett bare and megan kelly in regard to santorum should be dropping

out. this is steering the american public through the news media. what's your comment on that? host: i'm not sure if you were watching fox last night. hopefully you were watching c-span. but your reaction to what he heard. guest: i was going back and forth between the two. host: safe answer. guest: look, i would not be critical of somebody else who calls on somebody to get out of a race. it's a free country. i guess anybody can say anything they want in a campaign. but i have never been in the business of telling people that they ought to get out. i've spent my entire adult life certainly since i became a very committed christian in the early 1980s but even before that encouraging men and women of strong moral character, of faith and conservative beliefs to run.

and i'm glad rick santorum ran. he's been a friend of mine for over 20 years. i urged him to get into this race. i urged newt to run. i urged a lot of people who didn't run to run. i urged mike huckabee to run. i thought sara palin ought to give it a shot. so i'm in the business of trying to get people to run. i think we're better off if we have more quality men and women of strong faith in god, conservative convictions, core beliefs, and experience in the ability to lead to run. and i think the more of those people who do, the better off we are. so i guess other people can do that. but i would never get up and tell somebody to get out of a race. i think that's between them and their spouse and family. and their -- you know, their campaign team. >> zphroo let any go to another issue of religions and another number of comments on our twitter page.

your response. guest: i think it's out there. but i think it's kind of like what we've been talking about, a very different issue of course with newt gingrich's personal past. i think there are some women voters who are not going to vote for newt gingrich either in a primary or general election because of that past. there's nothing that he or the party can do about that. you can't go back and change what happened. and romney is a member of the church of latter day saints. that's not going to change. and there are some voters who will not vote for him because of that. everybody knows that. just as there were some voters who wouldn't vote for john f. kend by because he was a roman catholic. john f. kennedy was elected regardless. and i think if romney is the nominee i think he can win regardless. and i think it was a cnn poll,

it might have been a ppp poll. they asked voters in south carolina again 65% of whom were evangelical born again christians whether or not romney's mormmon faith was an issue for them. and 83% said it was not a factor at all. i think this election is going to be determined based on the economy, jobs, and the abysmal and failed record of this president and his administration to create jobs and get this economy moving again. i think there will be a lot of other issues, national security, particularly with a run on the threshhold of having a nuclear weapon. the moral i with play in. there will be a lot of issues. but i think overall it is going to be a referendum on the failed policies of this administration to create jobs and generate economic growth and opportunity. and i think if romney is the nominee he is very well positioned between his record

in massachusetts, cutting taxes, and creating jobs. and his record in the private sector creating jobs to be a strong advocate for conservatives on those issues. and i do not believe that the issue of his faith is going to be either a disqual fir or a major factor in the campaign. host: the running meat will be determined based on who is on the top of the tibet. but as you look at this race, whoever it is, who do you think would be on your list for running mates? who would be acceptable to the evangelical vote? guest: well, i think there's really an embarrassment of riches. at the top of everybody's list, if you were drafting, if you were an n.f.l. general manager and you were the political equivalent of that and look forg a number one draft pick, at the top of everybody's list is senator marco rubio in florida. i'm a big fan and friend of his. he's somebody who would

resonate among conservatives, among tea party voters, among social conservative voters and evangelicals, among catholics and among hispanics. that's a lot of appeal. but there are many others. governor bob mcdonald of virginia who is also a great friend and i think one of the most effective and successful governors in my lifetime in virginia. chris christie of new jersey. sue sana martinez in nume. either john or rob in ohio. i think the list is going to be pretty long. so we'll just have to see what happens. i know it's going to be a big par legislator game, steve, but i'll just say this. i can't speak for the democratic side of the aisle though this may be true there, too. there's never been a time in my career where there haven't been surprised and i've been shocked. this is a very personal decision. remember that you're choosing somebody who is going to be a full partner in governance.

the vice presidency, which used to be in the words of john garner who said it wasn't worth a warm bucket of spit, as a result of first mon dale and then later quail, gore, and especially cheney, this is a full partner in governance. this is a very important office. you're one heartbeat from the presidency and you're choosing somebody if you're the nominee if you want to be at your side fully engaged in governing the country for hopefully eight years. so it's a very personal decision and it's not a game. it's really hard to figure out as an outside observer sometimes. >> and some his attorneys just said you just cleaned up his quote about the vice presidency. but we'll leave it there. >> well, it is a family show. >> we'll go to mike joining us from north carolina, support of newt gingrich with ralph reed. good morning. caller: always, as is the case

when i call this program, i have so many thoughts in my mind, i can't articulate them. i would like to say that as far as everybody criticizing gingrich about his past, we need to look back -- and this is not going to be a sermon because i'm not qualified to do that. but as we look back at the bible and see what jesus said to the woman who was caught in the act of adultry and the one she was living with was not her husband, whatever, he proclaimed who is without sin cast the first stone. what i want to say is the fact of the matter is we need somebody that will take the fight to obama, that's not an establishment, pre-picked candidate that i feel romney is. we need somebody that will get down in the dirt and get dirty. and i don't mean physically. i think this president as i've stated before long ago is a diabolical agenda. i don't think he has meark in his heart of heart. i don't think he's american

based. he loves america like he should or could. we need a true american and not a european to discussed president. host: i'll stop you there. thanks for the call from north carolina. guest: well, i think that call rear really captures what i was talking about earlier when i talked about the reaction that newt gingrich got in myrtle beach on monday night. when he had the exchange with williams about obama being the food stamp president and he wanted to be the jobs president. and juan's point of his question, which i thought was a legitimate point, was -- it was a perfectly legitimate question to ask, is do you think by saying somebody's the food stamp president, do you not feel that's racially insensitive? now, what newt didn't say and what he could have said is a majority of food stamp recipients in the country are white. and so the answer is no.

it is in no way a racially insensitive comment. it is a comment -- this was said about conservatives during the welfare debate. imple when we were trying to reform welfare and we were going to take people into the street and take food out of the mouth of infants and we were racists and we wanted people to lose digget and self-worth. i think what newt does is he not only pushes back but he lays out a very strong case that what made america great was not having more than half of all the households in america seaving a monthly check from the government. what made america great was faith in god, the centrality of family, hard work, risk-taking, entrepreneurship, self-reliance. this is what made america great. and we've got to rediscover that ideal. so the caller is expressing that. and i don't know who the nominee is going to be. this is going to be -- this is

the most spirited, the most wide open disaggregated fluid process that i've seen in my career. and i don't know who the nominee is going to be, but i'll tell you this. whoever it is, they're going to be a better candidate against barack obama for having gone through the rough and tumble. host: we have about a minute left. can you imagine a scenario in which this could go all the way florida is going to determine that. i think if romney were to win florida, he's going to be very hard to stop. he's going to michigan. that's home cooking for him. nevada where he's very strong. and colorado where he was strong four years ago and remains strong. so if rick or newt gingrich wants to stop him, and wants this to go all the way to tampa, florida in a way is sort of a new south carolina. host: the founder and chair of the faith and freedom coalition joining us from atlanta on this sunday morning. thanks for your time.

>> for more resources in the presidential race, use the c- span 20 to website. see what the candidates said on issues important to. -- important to you. >> tomorrow, a look at the current tax rate for private equity income earned by executives with kevin hazmat of the american enterprise institute. then a discussion about the shutdown of recent websites for the poor receive and the intellectual property act. catherine gallagher on federal government funding. that is live at 7:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. >> mr. speaker, the president of

the united states! [applause] >> tuesday night, president obama delivers his state of the union address. live coverage begins at 8:00 p.m. eastern, including the president's speech, republican response mitch daniels. on c-span 2, watches speed along with tweets from members of congress. throughout the night, go online for life and video and to add your comments using facebook and c-span.org.c-spa >> now a discussion on how to double the number of women in congress. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] they will talk about sexism, campaign finance, and obstacles that may dissuade women from running for office. this is one hour 10 minutes.

>> welcome everyone. thank you for coming today for this round table discussion sponsored by political parity. i am the co-chair of political parity. ambassador hunt is the chairman and founder and the original inspiration for this project. we are here to announce and kickoff 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 to see here today, many of them are involved in this effort. they will explain how this is a ground-breaking approach. for the first time, we have women together from the full

political spectrum to work on one common issue and that is electing more women to the top offices across this nation. we are nonpartisan. we do not endorse any candidate or woman. but we look at the top opportunity to participate in these elections. i want to introduce swanee hunt. >> i particularly want to thank you for coming off the campaign trail. we are working for opposing candidates. [laughter] that probably gives you a sense of this whole endeavor. >> yes, we are modeling cooperation. >> that is right.

and we have talked -- we have sides before.site the idea is to double the number of women in congress. to do that, we realized that the democratic effort has not made it. the republican efforts have not made it. people in the middle are stagnant. so we have to come up with a new breakthrough appeared so the hunt alternatives fund -- it is a small, private foundation that we have. it is not too small. [laughter] we are putting $750,000 a year in it for 10 years. we are figuring out how it is

that women will make the decision to run. we know that women run at about the same proportion. between the research behind it, we are funding the research. that will help us figure out strategy. and then we have this whole idea of wider weaving. let's get the word out. it is people at the municipal level who are also wanting to increase the number of women. some before the democrats. some for the republicans. that is cool. some say any kind of woman. we want to get them in. we're focusing on the u.s. congress and the governorship. even though other people who are working with the sec, no, let's focus on the pipeline getting younger women -- working with us are saying, no, let's focus on the pipeline getting younger women.

but we are doing this. when we found out that somebody like to gloria and other women were interested, too, we had this wide group of other women leaders who were interested, who have fabulous bios. we said, let's this together as an advisory group. we call them the leadership team. this is not a coalition of organizations. these are individuals. look at their bios and you will see the wide expanse of organizations that they leave. thank you so much for being here 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

bewe 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 -- you actually end up with less funding for 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 elected 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 states, 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. -- thank you for bringing us 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

parities first collaborations, 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.

-- of political parity. >> 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] political 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. women's political parity is not 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 it/change 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. -- still endures. 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 %