that really speaks to how expensive it is to run a nationwide campaign, how expensive it is to go state-by- state, i primary by primary, caucus by caucus across the country and be successful in a presidential campaign such as this. this is not a cheap endeavour. this is not a cheap operation. doing it on the fly is very difficult to do. rick santorum is warning that first hand, how difficult it is. he is doing better now, raising more money than before, because he has to. host: our last call comes from the democrat line. caller: i am wondering if all of this money they are wasting and spending, why not putting it into lower the deficit? host: we will leave it there. we have an article that unfortunately i am not able to

find, but the super pak that was supporting herman cain, now that he is out of the race, what can the super pac it with that money? guest: we have a group called the 9-9-9 fund, which supported him, and it gave the balance of their money this past week to another super pac which is supporting herman cain not the presidential candidate, but herman cain's 9-9-9 plan. they did not necessarily have to support a specific candidates. that could support just the broader idea. herman cain is out of the race, they give it to another group that is focused on the philosophy that herman cain is promoting, as opposed to the candidacy that he is no longer running. >> sunday morning on "washington journal," the detroit news

editor. they will discuss his paper's endorsement of mitt romney for president. in 2008, the detroit free press endorsed john mccain. then, gov. bob mcdonnell, who is participating in winter meetings. he changed his position requiring women to get an ultrasound before having an abortion. at 8:40, celinda lake on women voters in past presidential elections. "washington journal," live sunday at 7:00 a.m. eastern, on c-span. >> this particular phone only rings in a serious crisis. it relies on the hands of the person proven himself responsible. >> bush and dukakis on crime. bush supports the death penalty

for first-degree murderers. dukakis not only opposes the death penalty, he allowed first- degree matters to have weakened passes from prison. one was willie horton. >> accusations by john kerry was just devastating. >> randomly shot at civilians. >> we can all point to an outrageous commercial or four, but on average, negative commercials are more likely to be factually correct and that negative commercials are more likely to talk about issues. >> will 2012 be the most negative campaign cycle in history? a look at current and past. a chill campaigns and their impact on american culture. watch this on my at the c-span video library. search, watch, clip, and share. it is what you want, when you want. sunday on "newsmakers," john

leibowitz talks about the obama administration's proposals to create new privacy protections for internet and smart phone users. he will be interviewed by andrew greeley of bloomberg. the nation's governors are in washington, d.c., for their annual winter meetings. next, their opening news conference, with the chairman of the national governors' association, and the vice chairman. they lay out some of the key issues they plan to discuss during the course of the three- day meeting. this runs half an hour. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> good morning, i am delighted to be here with jack markell.

is a good friend, and we first met each other about 10 years ago when you're boast -- both surge in s state treasurers. the unique bipartisan nature allows us to have candid conversations with colleagues from across america. >> as governors, we face similar challenges, and our meetings offer us an opportunity to discuss the challenges we face governing our states. every day, governors work with legislature's to find real solutions to real issues. we are redesigning state government to work more efficiently and effectively. we are finding ways to do more with less, and to deliver better services to our citizens. our citizens expect us to find common sense solutions to their everyday challenges.

inaction is unacceptable. we still have our challenges, our differences, do not get me wrong, but our citizens expect us to work together to resolve our differences in a manner that keeps our states going forward. the overall fiscal condition of states has improved, but governors are concerned about the growth of medicaid as it consumes an increasing share of state budgets. medicaid's rapid growth could result in less funding for education, transportation, where public safety. the governors have made significant progress on several fronts. to the council of governors, the nga, and the department of defense, we were able to resolve long-standing concerns regarding the coordination of

state and federal military forces during disaster response. the passage of legislation codifying the dual status commander makes it possible for states to effectively coordinate with federal troops operating within their borders when responding to a natural disaster. we have also worked with the public safety committee to advance an issue that was first raised by the 9/11 commission -- the creation of a nationwide communications network for first responders and public safety. currently, first responders must rely on commercial networks for mobile services, dedicating a portion of the spectrum, providing our first responders with a single communications network and a device that works seamlessly anywhere in the country. governors and first responders are pleased congress has passed legislation and the president has signed into law.

the most important issues for us as governors are economic growth and job creation. it is fundamental to our future. my initiative as chair of the nga is growing state economies. our goal is to provide governors and policymakers with better policy options to assess the economic environment in their state, and create strategies that foster business growth. hi-growth businesses are a driving force -- force of the economy, and a primary source of job creation, prosperity, and economic competitiveness. forovernors, we're looking the best strategy is to strengthen economic performance. we want to help the private sector growth and create new opportunities for our citizens. we have held three regional economic development summits on

this initiative in hartford, connecticut, national, tenn., and seattle, washington. i will host the final summit in april. they have provided the opportunity to learn from experts and business owners about the best strategy is to create an environment focused on the importance of high- growth businesses of all forms, scale-up enterprises, and corporations. it is my pleasure to ask governor jack markell, vice- chair of the association, to say a few words. >> thank you, and i want to say thank you to governor heineman. we have been friends for 14 years now. he has done great work. we expect to have really productive conversations. for most governors, you do not care where policy comes from, as opposed to where it can take you.

we all need bhajans balance. people are looking for work, and they're looking to us as governors for answers. kids in public schools are asking what we will do to give them a better opportunity to have a great future. they could care less which party we come from. they do not care what part of the country we come from. all they care about is that we get the job done. thankfully, a lot of really good answers start with the work governors do with each other, conversations we have with each other, and the work of the national governors' association center for best practices, and i have the opportunity to serve as chair the ideas -- chair. the ideas drive a lot of the discussion we will have this weekend, and from a lot of work the governors across the country have been doing.

the work of the center is funded through federal grants and contracts, as well as private and corporate foundation contributions and the nga's corporate fellowship program. the reason we come to these conferences is because we want to get things done. we want to figure out what might be working in other parts of the country that could work in our states. i will give you a couple of examples. the governor of west virginia helped the state tackle a dropout prevention and recovery legislation. we supported efforts for governor bob mcdonnell in virginia to help dislocated adults remain competitive. in delaware, we have the opportunity to participate in a three-branch initiative focused on adolescence in foster care, including people from our

executive, legislative, and judicial branches, learning models to connect people in foster care with relatives, be adopted, and the like. this is the work government is supposed to do. when we can come together, we can make a real difference. while this particular meeting in washington, and the annual meeting we have every summer in july are the ones that are best-attended, there are more than 70 formal summits and meetings across the year. there are countless opportunities for cooperation and collaboration. if u.s. than any governor what three issues drive them the most, you would probably get the same answers -- building stronger economies, as governor heineman is working on, improving our schools, and been

good stewards of our taxpayers' money there are probably one dozen ways to do that -- money. there are probably one dozen ways to do that, or probably 50 or more of thinking about that. what is so great about this weekend and the opportunities we have with each other is to share those ideas. that is why we are here. i look forward to a productive set of conversations with governors from both parties because we do not care of the good idea comes from the democrat or the republican so long as it put people to work, increase education, or helps be good stewards of taxpayers' money. >> thank you. we will try to answer your questions. if they're really tough, we will give them to jack. >> does a block grant that grows slower at the rate of

inflation help you with medicare problems? >> from my perspective, the answer would be yes. i would prefer more flexibility on a variety of programs in general. other governors may have a differing opinion, but i just would like to have the congress that, as we do in our states, get budgets passed on time, so we know what we are dealing with. >> one of the great things about the weekend when we are great -- together, is we have an opportunity to meet with the president, and last year, the issue of medicaid flexibility came up because the president

brought it up. he said high hear a lot about wanting additional -- he said i hear a lot about wanting additional flexibility. he said all we have to do is say what kind of flexibility we are looking for. we have to understand that not all of the answers are at the federal level. governor patrick of massachusetts, a leader on this, has legislation focusing on getting away from the fee- for-service model. it is something the number of us are following closely. it is about finding the right partnership and recognizing that we have irresponsibility in our own states -- a responsibility in our own states. in my state of the state speech, i spent time talking not just about medicaid, but about the fact that if you think about the number of people in delaware covered with health insurance, taxpayers pick up 40% of them. we have to do a better job in our state leveraging our roles

as been the major procurer of health services. >> yes, sir. >> thank you, governor heineman. just as a follow-up question to that, under the welfare reform legislation pioneered by the governor, and later president reagan, and signed into office by president clinton, welfare was treated as something there was to be a cap put on, and states would have to work within a certain framework on funding it. has anyone discussed, when the president asks what your flexibility is, why not use the very model for welfare and medicaid? >> i think you will see a variety -- welfare on medicaid? >> i think you will see a variety of discussions on that. who knows for sure.

from the governor's perspective, we want more flexibility. local governments do not want one-size-fits-all within the state. we are only asking the federal government to do what most governors tried to do in their state. what you might need to do in a state like nebraska or delaware is different than massachusetts, texas, or california. they have different needs, different demographics. we need the flexibility and we believe in states' rights. >> the issue of flexibility is an interesting one that comes up all of the time. as i said a moment ago, the president said to the governor's directly tell us what kind of flexibility you are looking for i have also heard him talk about it in the -- and i have also heard him talk about it in the case of education. 10 states have flexibility in the note child left behind waiver. he has said you can get that flexibility, but that should

not be understood to be relaxing expectations in terms of what we expect in student achievement. so long as we continue to make progress in doing things the actually lead to student achievement, we will find the flexibility that we seek. [unintelligible] >> the same with medicaid. >> the schools that have been most under-performing, it will not be good enough if we let them continue to under- performance in generations not live up to their potential. >> let me address education for a moment. it is primarily a state and local responsibility, and in my state, i chair our p-16 effort, preschool through 16 years of

schooling, and one of the goals is to eliminate the african- american achievement gap, or the hispanic achievement gap, wherever that might be. more rigorous expectations are critical. parental involvement is important. those are the things we can best do with the state and local level. >> california, the governor is smarting a little bit because the obama administration rejected their waiver request. did that come up at the meeting, or can you characterize how the president is looking at that? >> i did not think it came up in the meeting yesterday. i think the president and secretary sibelius for that matter, have been very forthcoming in meeting with governors in what they are looking for -- what kind of

flexibility we need, and how we are going to make sure we continue to take care of people? if we're just going to drop people off and they're no where to go, that would be a problem. they've been very open and continue to look to governors for our best ideas, republican and democrat alike. >> was there a discussion yesterday about changing the way the nga works with the agenda throughout the year [unintelligible] >> yes. >> can you tell us more about it? >> one of the things jack and i are trying to do is getting governors to decide policies, not the staff. we want governors to make recommendations.

we began the process yesterday. it really started last fall when we had our first executive committee meeting, and we asked the various committees, what your priorities are, and we decided these would be the priorities for the nga, based on what we heard for the governor's -- from the governors, and i think you will see the results of that monday when we vote. >> the people in our states are not all that interested in the policies, committees, and the internal work of the national

governors' association, but here's what they care about, and governor heineman mentioned it a few moments ago. one of the best examples of how we can come together across party lines is what happened with the d-block spectrum. it has to do with the airwaves spectrum. there was uncertainty with what would happen with this block of airwaves. it could have been used for other things, but democratic and republican governors came together with a talented staff and public safety teams and we recognize that if these airwaves could be allocated to public safety, it could mean profound things for the people of our states. for example, imagine if a loved one is injured, in an ambulance, and a medic in an ambulance can have a video camera and can be showing the wound directly to the doctor at the emergency room who was waiting for the ambulance to get to the hospital? that could save somebody's life.

they could be that ready. these are the things that our folks care about. the change in the process that governor heinemann talked about is not a change for the sake of change, but it is to make sure that we are focusing on the things that will make a positive difference in the lives of the people that we serve. [unintelligible] >> say that again. >> will this new approach allow using the directors to lobby? >> first and foremost, we would use our own staff at the nga, but this will give and the staff a clear direction of where the governors are at -- what are the general principles we stand for? secondly, almost every state is going to employ their own people to effectively persuade congress, relative to a particular issue and how it affects their individual state. to the extent that we can coordinate state and nga staff, i think we can be more effective.

it is a little hard for us to see. i'm sorry -- the lights. [unintelligible] >> job creation could be a top policy, and a concern for chinese prudential -- provincial leaders, so you think there are opportunities at the state and provincial levels? thank you. >> i believe the answer is yes. in nebraska while i have been governor we have had a focus on education and jobs. i've been to china, about a different trade missions and i'm probably going back to asia this fall. we try to work with a variety of countries relative to the

opportunities to export more of our goods and services out of nebraska and other states, and have had significant investment for chinese companies into nebraska. i've learned this from another governor. governor markell was talking about how we learn from each other. early on, when i was governor, i learned from another governor, a reverse the trade mission. i've done two of them where we have invited the world to visit nebraska. they have been successful. we have had over 125 business and foreign officials come to nebraska to learn firsthand what we have to offer, and as a result of those visits, many companies decided to invest in the state of nebraska, and we were very pleased about that. >> absolutely right -- huge opportunities for us to work together, and when we last met as a group in july, there were

a number of governors or party secretaries from china that were part of that meeting. we think about that as an opportunity to promote exports, and to attract for investment, like the governor mentioned. i had a chance yesterday to talk with secretary of commerce john bryson, so the u.s. commerce department has recently kicked off a new mission called select usa, and if you think about what the president has talked about with the idea of in-sourcing, and more companies coming back to invest here, select usa is an opportunity for companies around the world were thinking about expanding outside of their home market to make sure the u.s. is on their radar screen, and we as governors want to make sure our states are on

the radar screen. >> governor heineman, there have been some governors, especially republicans, that have voiced concerns that federal government is getting too involved in education through the race to the top program, stimulus funding, and even no child left behind. what is your view on federal and state roles? >> state and local governments have the primary role for education in our country, ok? it goes down to local school boards. the federal government has a limited role. i want to be careful here. most school districts welcome their funding. they would like a little flexibility in how we use that.

i would argue that what massachusetts wants to do with that money is different than what nebraska would do. i think we can all work together when it comes to academic achievement. that should be the focus. more rigor, higher expectations, increased parental involvement -- that is what i have fought for in nebraska. i want the very best teachers i can heavy and the classroom. my wife has been a former elementary school principal and teacher, so this is one i understand well. i lived for over 30 years since we have been married. the commitment we need from teachers, administrators, and parents is critical. i have always said the formula works best, good teachers, plus good parental involvement, = good learning. we appreciate the funding with as few strings attached as possible. >> to his credit, secretary duncan has been clear about

that line, and one of the area's most dates have been involved in is the common core standards. there are some people that say this was a federal initiative. it was absolutely not a federal initiative. secretary duncan could not have been more clear that these were not national standards. this was an effort by states superintendents of education, by governors to work together across state lines to make sure the kids in our state have higher standards for them to meet that are also clear. i think secretary duncan gets a lot of credit for putting forth policies. in delaware, for example, the state government funded about 70% of education. we have 19 separate school

districts, and each of them has an independently-elected school board. it is our view that the people that are closest to the kids generally have a good sense of what is in the best interest of those kids. >> one more question. >> go ahead, sir. you were pointing to someone that i did not see. ok. go ahead. >> one year ago, governors were dealing with severe budget challenges that were controversial. do you feel you have stepped back from the cliff in terms of some of the budget pictures? >> i think jack and i can remember that when your a new governor, you are trying to learn the process, and all of a sudden you are presented with a significant budget issue. by and large those are

addressed by governors across the country, differently, increasing taxes, controlling spending, but at the end of the day i get the sense that governors are feeling a little better that their budget pictures have been proved. i will say this, i've gone through it for seven years, controlling spending is critical, but invest in priorities. education and jobs allow your state to move forward. i think most governors are feeling a little bit better. is the new governor's it probably just the fact you have a year under your belt and that does help. governor markell? >> of the last 23 months in this country, 3.7 million new jobs have been created, so when governor heineman says the governors are feeling a little bit better, the way we feel generally has a lot to do with the way our people are working

or not working. that is what is driving all of us today. that is why governor heineman's initiative was about growing state economies. i have now finished three years. the first year, i came in 2009, and you talk about looking at an abyss, things were in absolute free fall. i think we have stepped back from that. i would not say any of us are feeling great, but things are feeling better. we are moving in the right direction, and we also recognize that we cannot afford to just wait for things to get better. everyone of us is interested in doing what we can to put more people back to work in our states. >> thank you very much for being here this morning. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> all this weekend, live coverage from the national governors' association winter meetings in washington. we continue tomorrow morning at 9:30 eastern with discussions examining efforts to end childhood hunger. among the guests, the agriculture secretary tom vilsack. at 2:30, the special commission on homeland security and public safety explore the changing role of the national guard. joining the governors will be

the chief of the national guard bureau. watch live coverage beginning at 9:30 eastern, sunday on c- span. sunday morning on "washington journal," the editorial page editor of the detroit news. he will discuss his paper's endorsement of mitt romney for president. into the senate, they endorsed john mccain. then we will speak with bob mcdonnell, participating in this weekend's in g a winter meetings. he recently changed his position regarding a bill and his state requiring women to get an ultrasound before having an abortion. at 8:40, celinda lake on on the history of women voters and how women are trending and 2012. "washington journal," live sunday at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. in his weekly address, president

obama calls for the development of the new energy sources in addition to increase oil production in the united states. then, kay bailey hutchison talks about energy policy, citing high gas prices and urges legislation passed by the house she says would help boost job growth. >> hello, everybody. in the state of the union, i laid out three areas we need to focus on if we're going to build an economy that lasts -- new american manufacturing, new skills and education for american workers, and new sources of american-made energy. these days, we're getting another painful reminder why developing new energy is so important to our future. just like they did last year, gas prices are starting to climb. only this time, it's happening earlier. and that hurts everyone -- everyone who owns a car, everyone who owns a business.

it means you have to stretch your paycheck even further. some folks have no choice but to drive a long way to work, and high gas prices are like a tax straight out of their paychecks. now, some politicians always see this as a political opportunity. and since it's an election year, they're already dusting off their three-point plans for $2 gas. i'll save you the suspense -- step one is drill, step two is drill, and step three is keep drilling. we hear the same thing every year. well the american people aren't stupid. you know that's not a plan -- especially since we're already drilling. it's a bumper sticker. it's not a strategy to solve our energy challenge. it's a strategy to get politicians through an election. you know there are no quick fixes to this problem, and you know we can't just drill our way to lower gas prices. if we're going to take control of our energy future and avoid

these gas price spikes down the line, then we need a sustained, all-of-the-above strategy that develops every available source of american energy -- oil, gas, wind, solar, nuclear, biofuels, and more. we need to keep developing the technology that allows us to use less oil in our cars and trucks, in our buildings and plants. that's the strategy we're pursuing, and that's the only real solution to this challenge. now, we absolutely need safe, responsible oil production here in america. that's why under my administration, america is producing more oil today than at any time in the last eight years. in 2010, our dependence on foreign oil was under 50% for the first time in more than a decade. and while there are no short- term silver bullets when it comes to gas prices, i've directed my administration to look for every single area where we can make an impact and help consumers in the months ahead, from permitting to

delivery bottlenecks to what's going on in the oil markets. but over the long term, an all- of-the-above energy strategy means we have to do more. it means we have to make some choices. here's one example. right now, four billion of your tax dollars subsidize the oil industry every year. four billion dollars. imagine that. maybe some of you are listening to this in your car right now, pulling into a gas station to fill up. as you watch those numbers rise, know that oil company profits have never been higher. yet somehow, congress is still giving those same companies another four billion dollars of your money. that's outrageous. it's inexcusable. and it has to stop. a century of subsidies to the oil companies is long enough. it's time to end taxpayer giveaways to an industry that's never been more profitable, and use that money to reduce our deficit and double-down on a clean energy industry that's never been more promising. because of the investments we've already made, the use of wind and solar energy in this

country has nearly doubled -- and thousands of americans have jobs because of it. and because we put in place the toughest fuel economy standards in history, our cars will average nearly 55 miles per gallon by the middle of the next decade -- something that, over time, will save the typical family more than $8,000 at the pump. now congress needs to keep that momentum going by renewing the clean energy tax credits that will lead to more jobs and less dependence on foreign oil. look, we know there's no silver bullet that will bring down gas prices or reduce our dependence on foreign oil overnight. but what we can do is get our priorities straight, and make a sustained, serious effort to tackle this problem. that's the commitment we need right now. and with your help, it's a commitment we can make. thank you. >> hello, i am senator kay bailey hutchison. as spring approaches, the super bowl is history, basketball is

in high gear, spring training begins to open. there are 13 million americans who will not be talking sports at work. they are the unemployed workers who have not been able to get to first base. earlier this week, at any event to highlight the extension bill passed by congress, " said, "my message to congress is, don't stop here. keep going." we have six months before the elections. there is much we could accomplish, much on which we can agree. the president should send his message to the senate democrat leadership. for example, three of my colleagues and i reiterated our

call to have the senate consider four bills that would make it easier for smaller companies to expand and hire. the key to moving from a monthly trickle of jobs to a tidal wave of growth is getting obstacles out of the way of our small businesses. they are our job creators. the measures we have brought forward would remove outdated barriers truitt expand and new hiring. each of these bills has already passed the house with more than 400 votes, large majority of those republicans and democrats. each bill has also been endorsed by the president. yet, these bills have been bottled up for months in the democratic-controlled senate. " both also noted that americans are concerned by the rising costs of gasoline.

they certainly are. gasoline prices have almost doubled in the three years and it is getting worse. last february, the average cost of a gallon of unleaded was $3.17. the highest february ever. this february is $3.57 per gallon. forecasts are for prices to go above $4 a gallon during the summer season. families and businesses will be devastated. president obama's energy secretary has said, "somehow we need to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in europe." this administration is trying their best to do it just that. we cannot slowdown in global

demand for oil and gas so we can do more at home to insure we have the energy we need and to halt skyrocketing costs. but, president obama's policy has resulted in a slowdown in new exploration and production of oil and gas. offshore drilling permits are being issued at less than half the rate of the previous administration. the average number of leases issued on public land is less than half that during clinton's term. not only will the slowdown in domestic production drive up prices, it also takes away jobs from tens of thousands of oil industry workers. the same is true for the keystone pipeline. it would produce thousands of construction jobs and tens of thousands more at u.s.

refineries and suppliers. that pipeline would insure the united states 830,000 barrels of oil daily. not from around the world, but from our friends to the north, canada. after four years of environmental review and approval, the obama administration is still stalling. if we wait, the canadians have indicated they could shift their oil to china and a huge opportunity will have been lost. our message to the president is, we can keep going. 13 million unemployed cannot wait until after this year's election or next year's baseball season. we ask a president to help get a bipartisan jobs bill through the democrat senate and for an energy policy that puts american workers and families

first. >> nascar driver danica patrick spoke about her decision to switch from indycar racing to nascar. she will participate in her first date, 500 on sunday, and the third woman in the 54 year history. this is one hour. >> danica patrick has evolved to a racing sensation whose appeal it about every demographic. her 2010 nascar debut at daytona resulted in a 35% increase in television viewership. she is considered to be the most successful woman in the history of american racing. she is the only woman ever to win a race and holds the

highest finish by a woman at the indianapolis 500, third place. she has been named the most popular driver four times. she was raised in illinois and began competing at an early age. she won three world grand national chip -- national championships. she moved to europe to compete on the european road racing circuit. in 2000, she finished second in the formula for in england, the highest ever for an american. she returned to north america to race in 2002, becoming the first woman to have a top three finish in the first woman to win a major league open will race. most people probably first eric of her in may 25 -- 2005 -- heard of her in may 25, 2005,

where she hit many records. it was the fastest by any woman in the history of the speedway. she qualified for the race, the best ever starting position, and led the race for 19 laps and finished in fourth place, and other first for a woman. she received rookie of the year honors for her efforts. in 2010, she made her nascar debut, erasing part time in the nationwide series. -- racing part time in a nationwide series. this year she will go to a full time stock car schedule, competing in the nationwide series for j r motorsports.

her first sprint cup series will be this sunday daytona 500. today, she will discuss her transition from indycar series two full time nascar racing and share her thoughts and how she plans to become the first woman to win a nascar-sanction even to. please join me in welcoming danica patrick. [applause] >> thank you for having me here today. this is an honor. i crossed out all of my note cards after all of that. that was all i was going to cover. [laughter] i will have to add more detail. i am honored to be here. dynast nascar driver to speak was jimmy johnson. -- the last nascar driver to

speak to the press club was jimmy johnson. he is up to five now. his situation has improved. i heard on the way here that the last driver to speak to the press club in this format was dale earnhardt senior. this is some pretty steep company given the fact i have not done a sprint club race. thank you for showing up and showing some confidence in me. i appreciate that. i thought i might start from the beginning and start from, how did i get into racing. once upon a time, there was a family with my mom, my dad, my sister and myself and we were just looking for a way to spend time together as a family. my mom was lucky enough to stay home with my sister and i

carried my parents recognize that i did not know my dad very well. he was gone at work before i got up and he got home after we went to bed. their first thought was to explore the option of buying a pontoon boat and floating down the river. when they found a boat they liked, and they called a certain fellow, i have no idea his name, and he did not call us back. no talk -- pontoon boat. what do we do? my dad has a lot of history and racing. he raced motor cross, all kinds of motorsports. there was somebody in our neighborhood that raced go- karts. he took a trip down the street and went into their shed then

check them out. he went to our local track and watched them race. actually, it was a sugar river raceway. they love it when i say their name. [laughter] it looks like fun. there were a lot of kids and my dad was into it. it was my sister who wanted to do it. if any of you have kids, you cannot let the one and do it and not the other. i was the other one in this situation. i did not want to get left out. i said i would do it, too. i was a go kart number 10. that was the number i picked from day one which is why i picked it in the sprint cup. that is the significance of there. we got a go karts -- the go

karts together. we took every can we can find. we set it up in a circle. my sister and i went out for a ride. we are going around and going around. it is really fun. all of a sudden, i went to hit the brake and i had no break. without boring technical details, given my inexperience, what did i do? i went straight. when i decided to not continue to turn or spin. i went straight. i was headed for a trailer. it would have taken my head off. it -- the cart was up in the air, a twisted, bruises all over. if there was any. i could have said i was scared, that would have been a good one. i did not want to quit.

i wanted to keep going. dad bought another go kart. that is where my mom picked up racing. anyway, i got out there and we started racing right away. i was terrible. my sister and i could not keep up on the ones were you go-slow at the beginning. i kept practicing and practicing. my dad tells me the story now. there was a wednesday practice. i wanted to go out every wednesday and go testing. i loved to see the improvement. it is very easy because it is a lap time. you're getting better is obvious. that is probably why i like to have instant gratification like ironing and cleaning up. not like dieting. that is not instant gratification. i got really good. by the end of my first year, i

almost won a championship. even with those first few of races, which i'm sure were spectacular. that progression continued. by the end of seven years, you actually found some statistics i could not find on the internet. i was trying to find out how many championships i want. i had to make a guess. i figured, one year almost 40. i was betting over 100. so, i had some incredible success. something that also started to happen was i got media attention. it was fun for a kid to have cameras following her down the halls of her high school.

the first program by was on was a show for abc. it was myself, 14 years old, a figure skater, and a carol named -- girl name anna. i remember having day sunday party. all of my friends came over. there i was on sunday afternoon prime-time tv. not far after that, and tv was following me downhauls of my high school -- mtv was following me down the halls of my high school. never did i think it was because i was a girl. i was taught about being the best. that is what i was doing.

i wanted to be a professional race car driver. i wanted to get moving right away. at 16, based on some of the people i had met, i had the opportunity to move to england and race cars. how this was where all of the best drivers came from all over and europe. i could learn more in one year than five years in the state. you mean i have to leave high school tax sign me up. [laughter] my parents are not going to live with me? sign me up. that novelty wore off. it became really hard. when i first moved, i was sleeping on a couch and racing on the weekends. it was not going that well. why, why? was it because i was the newest

and driver? was it because i was an american? or was it because i was a girl? a girl in a voice sport. .- boy's sport it was the first time that i started to feel at of place. it really started to make me doubt myself, i doubt my abilities. it made me sad and depressed, as if the lack of sun was not enough. it was a difficult time for me. it was very character building. i stuck with it. you touched on it, but the race in england held every year, there are over 100 or so entries every year. it is the best formula drivers from all over europe, not just the ones racing in the british championship. they all come together for this event.

i had the ability -- i got a great hand me down. the guy who won the championship was on our team. he was getting a new car. i acquired the championship car. i went out and finished second in the festival. that was the highest for an american and a girl. the previous owner of that title was a guy named danny sullivan. things had started to turn well for me. i came back the next year for the championship. everything fell apart. i ended up leaving the u.k. and coming back to the states. i did not have a ride. i thought, i have accomplished so much. it should be straightforward to get a ride.

i have been gone for three years. that task to earn me something, right? my dad and i would pound the streets and walk around every race track and talk to every owner and every mechanic. anyone who would talk to us. we used to take field trips to the bathroom for something to do. i am not kidding you. we were pretty lost. it was a tough time but we kept working hard. it is something i am used to doing. one day and put a guy named bobby on the spot. he is a past in the 500 champion. i put him on the spot and said would you be willing to run me on your team? would you be willing to start a team for me?

he said yes. i should have tried that earlier. he started a race team for me. we started to have some success. to make a good impression. what really started to kick into high gear was the media. all of a sudden, what seemed to be something i did not notice, something that might hurt me was now helping me. being a girl was an awesome thing. i am glad i was patient. the media started asking me about my idol or role model. that was a weird question because i never had one. i want to do be the first me, not the next somebody else. i always knew i was

different. i was finally grateful to be a girl. i was able to use it to my advantage. in the second year of the championship, i finished third and my boss moved me up. i was going indycar racing. my dreams were coming true. we started off this season fairly well. the third race was that japan 300, which i would go on to later when. i found myself vying for the pole position. i lost it just a little bit. i went on to finish fourth. then we pick up at the indy 500. it really was like a fairy tale mont. every single time i came in

from the track, including rookie orientation, where there was five cars running, there was a huge cheering section. i could see them cheering when i went inside on the pit lane. everybody pumping their fists in the air. i would come in and, it has about 700 horsepower. it is pretty loud. if people ask if i heard the crowd, i heard them when i stopped the car. i got such a warm welcoming. the media blitz started. and they followed me everywhere. the opportunities kept popping up every single day. it was very exciting. to nearly have the pole position, i saved it.

to keep that going and to lead until the final lap of the indianapolis 500, if it would have been warmer and if i had another gallon of gas, maybe i would not be here today. that would not be good either. i believe that everything happens for a reason. the indy 500 came and went and danica-mania was born. everything i do is broken down. i have learnt to embrace all of it. embrace all that i am. being a girl, being different, let's face it, if somebody is different, it is a story. just ask jeremy lin.

it is really great. i am very fortunate. i was no longer danica patrick the driver, i was the girl driver. that is okay. you are saying all of the same words and you mean the same thing. it is about intention. if you say it in a mean way, i cannot help you. i encourage everyone to embrace all that is different about them. you need to use it and take advantage of it and give all you have to offer. i have never ask for special treatment along the way. i am never going to hide the fact that i am a girl, never.

that is obvious. as i moved into my new chapter of racing being a full-time nascar driver, i am going to do it with the same will and energy and the same danica i am. i am going to be the best i can be. thank you. >> did you realize all of your goals in open wheels racing? >> i think as an athlete you are always, you want to win every single time you take part in any event. that is natural to want. my goal was to win in indycar and i did. >> what changes would you make?

>> that is such a loaded question. i do not drive there anymore. i will talk about the positives because there are some. indycar has a new car and i thought for them to create competition within manufacturers is something that is good for the sport. it generates new money and story lines. from a racing perspective, which is the product you have, to look at the shoot out to the other night was awesome racing. the fans loved it. that is what keeps people coming back. when you can create competition, that is good for the sport. i think they are on a good track. i think the new car is going to serve them well.

>> to you ever plan to compete in the indycar 500 again? >> i do plan to. whether it will happen is another thing. i planned to this year but in the future there is going to be more opportunities and more time to plan for it. i love that race. it is the greatest race. it is where i came from. it made me who i am. the brand that i am. i would love to go back and when that. i felt like i was going to win the indycar 500. i would love to have another shot at it. >> what is the difference between open wheel and nascar racing? >> where do i begin. obviously the cars are different. the wheels are exposed.

it took me a while before i learned that one. sad, right? stock cars look like road cars. the cars are different. indy cars are low and fast. nascar, the cars are bigger. that produces the close racing we are able to have, bumper-to-bumper. it took some adjusting to be used to being really close to somebody. to coming to daytona and having my spotters say, one car back, halfback, i must be underneath him at this point. that ability to run close is a product of the fact that they work to keep the car on the ground. and you have the difference in language, the way we describe the car.

in nascar, it is tight and loose. perhaps even the way it is said. southern accent? i enjoyed it. nascar racing reminds me of growing up and being a kid. we used tight and loose so i feel at home. >> which driving skills and do you need to improve on to accomplish your goals? >> of the most important thing is seat time. i have obviously been involved in nascar for the last two years. i still have not done enough races that would equal one whole season. i just need seat time. i need to go to the tracks. i feel like a learning process will be quick to start with, to

get going on the season. it is tougher when you get to the top. i think that the learning curve will hopefully be pretty quick, being able to be in the car every weekend. i need to work on getting familiar and comfortable with the car. getting up to speed fast. for you guys that watch and think we go out and do an ordinary laptop, and they do things that make the car handled in a way that has not done all we can. for me to beyond the limit of that level and have the faith in that car, the first lap, that takes some confidence. that takes some faith in the car and a trust. and some history with a car. so i know what it is going to do. >> for the last two years, was a challenge to transition?

>> i definitely got this question a lot. my first answer is no. it is like driving a van in driving a lamborghini. i like driving the van. i chose to drive the van. do not take offense to that. but i did not think it was very different. i did not think it was hard. it was a lot of scheduling and things like that but more than anything, my nascar ventures suffered. i would not say my indycar racing suffered. in nascar, i would do a couple of races in february and no other racing until june. then one a month until the end of this season. it was very spread out. i am glad i did it the way i did it.

it allowed me the opportunity to say yes or no. i had never driven a stock car when i said yes. i am glad that i took that time and started slow. >> if you had never driven stock car before, why make the transition and do that full-time? >> well, we worked in his deals. i had a two-year deal to do nascar part time. after those two years, it had proven to me that i love driving stock cars. i get excited. i look forward to racing. i am nervous but i would say it has gone from this much excited to this much nervous and this much excited.

it is a much more excited feeling. the racing is all lot of fun. i feel like i am tapping back into my childhood. when i could get aggressive. i feel like it gets my blood boiling in a good way. >> what is the difference between a lead in weekend to the daytona 500 and the indianapolis 500? >> they are very similar. they are both enormous events. the indy 500 is not the, we did not start with a bunch of media like we do here. there was a lot of media throughout. there was probably more track activity at the indy 500. but we get more opportunities to race in nascar. that is nice because that is what we will actually be doing.

what you feel is still long tradition. you feel the history. the significance. it gets every driver to a point that they really want to win the race. more than showing up on a thursday or friday. whenever you put a lot into something, i feel like i want to do well even more. this is one of those events. >> how you prepare physically and mentally for the rigors of driving in a race? >> i just sleep a lot. sleep is good. i am pretty good at it. eight or nine hours minimum. you are going to say that is why i look young. it is always important. a diet and working out is important. i was in the gym this

morning. it is part of my life. i never want to get in the car and get tired. there is so little that we can control as a driver is that the last thing i want to do is let myself down in an area i am able to control. i do it to feel good about myself. it makes me feel better to be healthy and fit. it makes me look better in that go daddy commercials. >> what is an example of your everyday workout routine? >> i lift weights and three or four days a week. anywhere from 20 to 45 minutes of cardio everyday. this morning i did 30 minutes of cardio and i did a lower body left. it was pretty quick. about 10 minutes. if you keep after it, it keeps the heart rate up. i needed to hurry and get

pretty for you guys. >> how much weight do you lose in a typical race? >> not enough. i hear from some drivers then they get the suit off and they are lean and ripped. i do not get that. maybe i am drinking too much fluid. i know you sweat a lot. these cars are hotter than what i am used to. if you go outside and go running around, working out, you are going to sweat. in a stock car, i have heard it is 140 degrees. does anyone know the status? can i get a thermometer? my watch as a thermometer. is that right. i think it has been at least 200 for me.

140, fine. >> you mentioned looking good for the commercials and you are a woman and you want that to be known. is it hard being taken seriously in a man's world when you are using your sex appeal to promote your career? >> in this day and age, i have said this for a long time, it is about the package. >> it is about the package. can you drive? can you speak? i am sure the jury is out today. can you talk to the media? can you meet sponsors? can you be featured in advertising campaigns and commercials? it is a package deal. i am going to use the package for all that i can and all that i am. the things i do are never outside of my comfort zone. if they are, i say i am not doing it. for me, i am it able to show

different sides of my personality through the different kinds of things i am able to do as a race car driver outside of the car. i very much enjoy shooting commercials and being made up all pretty. it takes the time at least two hours, but it is something that i'd like to do. i enjoy being a girl. what people do not know about me is how much i like being a girl. at the track, i am pretty minimal. i am there to drive a race car. i am not there to show you my pretty mascara. >> you have broken into a male that dominated sport. what lessons have you learned? >> i never set out to break any ceilings.

i was taught from a young age to be the best and to work hard for that. i never set any of those intentions of being the first girl to do things. about the only stat i ever knew it was that no woman had ever won an indy car or a nascar. i would like both. other than that, things just tend to happen as i go along. i had no idea when i finished fourth in las vegas last year that was the highest finish for a female in history. i find out these things afterward. >> are you friendly with any other women drivers that are currently racing in nascar's other divisions? >> yes. i think some girls are friendly. some are less friendly. i might be one that is less friendly. i do not know sometimes there are girls you get to know.

there are not a ton of them. when you go to the racetrack on weekends as a driver, i show up when i need to show up at the beginning of the day and then i get in the car, go out and race, and talk to my crew chief at the end of the day, talk to my boss, and get ready for the next day. i have a hard time sometimes getting to see my teammates. there are a lot of drivers i get along well with, be it a guy or a girl. it is nothing uncommon or difficult for me to begin with. >> of all the nascar tracks you have not raised on, which one do you look most forward to competing on and why? >> i can tell you one i am not looking forward to and that is darlington. apparently that is a really tough to track.

i am looking forward to going to end the in stock car. that will be roughly cool. i am really excited to see how it feels versus an indy car. i am looking forward to going to talladega. apparently it is a pretty great fan of fast. i might have to throw a hat on and drive the golf cart around outside. it is always fun to be a part of big events that have lots of fans of there. at the end of the day -- as i learned from my visa to go to japan -- we are entertainers. so we are entertainers. i hope you're entertained. [laughter] >> your racing career has taken you to some incredible places. do you have a favorite? >> i am it always loved japan. my husband goes with me every race. we love the culture and the people. the food even.

not all of it, but most of it. obviously, i had great success there. i love japan. i love indy and daytona. big events bring out an extra something in me, just knowing how much is on the line that weekend. >> indy cars are much faster than nascar. will you miss that speed? >> when i am side-by-side with someone and cannot pull away, heck yes. i think there are other things. i have never raised for speed. some people -- i think is a common answer -- like to go fast. i like to go faster than the rest of them. speed has never been my thing. i do not mind going past, but my goal is to be faster than

the rest of the pack. >> what would constitute a success for you in nascar? >> winning. hopefully you did not think i would answer any differently on that one. i know i have a lot to learn and i will make plenty of mistakes, i am sure, but it is about getting to victory lane, running up front, gaining the respect of my peers and those around me. as i learned from a young age, they do better when i have more fun. >> you talked about the other drivers. who do you think are the three most talented drivers you will compete against this year? >> there are a lot more than three. the first name is tony stewart,

who is my boss on the sprint cup side of things. if you watch the championship, i doubt you would be bored. kyle busch is pretty good. he won on the shoot out. he almost crashed a couple of times and came back. i guess -- there are lots of them. obviously, karl edwards is pretty good. he ran tony stewart for the championship last year and came up short. >> you talk about your experience of crashing into a concrete building. what other experiences of crashing have you had? >> i purposely left it out of the story of my first year in indy car.

my first race in indy car, i had quite a big accident. i was running in the top 10 and things were going fine. it turned into quite a bit of crashing. i was going underneath the accidents and missing. a car with a broken suspicion was slowly coming up and shot me into the wall headfirst. i do not really remember much. i remember waking up in the medical center to a blaring a bright light, looking up. my mom came up over my head and a priest came up over my head. i said, mom? what happened? she said i had been in an accident and i would be fine. i checked my legs to make sure i could feel them. i was very redundant. i was asking the same question over and over again on the

right to the hospital. >> how do you decide which sponsors to accept? >> good question. there are lots of factors that come into a partnership with somebody. first and foremost, there are plenty of times i have said no to brands that do not fit. they are just not me. it is unfaithful to my fan base that i would be partners with them. some people what the moon and they want you toot work lots and lots of days for them. sometimes there is not time to do as much as a sponsor needs to justify the partnership. for me, i have always found,

and i learned this through experience, having partners that are ready to do and ad campaign, print campaign, and commercial -- if they are not ready to use me, it is a waste. you do not get r.o.i. they do not have any return on their investment and all the sponsorships go away. the best ones are those who have a plan for the media and for advertising and then they start to get some return from their investment based on my platform and my following. having great partners is very important. >> do you have any funny stories to go with your godaddy.com commercials? >> it is all funny. i do not know. these girls are troopers that

are not wearing what jillian and i are wearing. we always have a good time. the person who owns the company recently had investors involved. i said we should do a funny thing where we find bob. he is in every commercial at some point in time. the commercial where we were doing a contract -- it was not the first contract one last year where we had these big godaddy balloons on us and had to do a funny dance. it was the one after that where there were tried to get me into a bikini. the really funny thing, i could not stop laughing. that guy was so funny. i have a lot of fun with the people who get involved with

their commercials. >> have you and jillian become friends? >> yes. she is a pretty nice girl. she is really nice. my husband and i recently went to south africa. she had just come back from south africa. she went to all the places we went so i got some advice on where to go and what to do. she is a good character. we play well together in the commercial. we recognize the ability -- how great it is. we have fun with it and try to get people to laugh a little. >> you talked a lot about the media role in your career. do you think they have been fair or unfair in your career? >> a lot of both. i think that is probably typical of every company and every brand with any kind of situation, anything you need. there are always going to be

people who focus on something positive and people who focus on the negative. people are going to try to break it down. i think that is exciting. i do not mind it at all. freedom of speech. if you want to write an article that is negative, i might not give you a one-on-one interview, but i recognized it is part of what is great about our country and part of what makes it interesting for the general public to read. not everyone is a fan of me. that is fine. you do not have to be a fan of me. i'd like to see somebody with a danica patrick shirt on up in the stands standing next to a carl edwards or tony stewart shirt. that is what makes it interesting. >> do you hope to go into film or tv one day?

>> well, i'm not really funny and i'm not super dupre pretty. i think i would like to be on the other side of the camera. i mostly get exposed to commercials. i love being on the other side of the camera, seeing it from their perspective, looking at the image and the whole set together, the balance of it, the delivery of lines. i probably get too involved according to some, but i enjoyed that part of it. what i would like to do is a walk-on part or something like that. yeah, sure. i was in "csi: new york." last year or the year before i played a race car driver. it was nice. there's a lot of standing around. there are long days. i think the more things we are

exposed to it as people, the more well-rounded we are in the better perspective we have. >> did you play any other sports growing up? >> a lot of different sports. i was a cheerleader. i played basketball, volleyball, band, choir, track, tumbling, t-ball -- i have played a lot of different sports. i think that is part of what got me to wear i am today. my parents were open to trying new things. they were not scared for me. they could have been scared for me being a race car driver, right? there are kids mothers who do not want them to be out there. they think it is dangerous. i am really fortunate i came from a very open-minded family and a family that bought it was good to try new things. i am sure that is part of the reason i am 8 race car driver. >> there are some questions

about whether nascar drivers are real athletes. what do you have to say to that? >> are we trying to see who can lift the heaviest dumbbell? no. are we trying to see it can spread of the fastest? no. but do we need to be in shape? yes, absolutely. obviously it is very hot in the car. your heart rate is elevated the whole time you need to be on your toes. you need to be sharp and you cannot let anything take away from that. i have heard stories about drivers in nascar having their power steering going out. i fear for that day. that would be hard to deal with. indy car has a different physical demand. there is no power steering. everybody runs out of gas.

we know what that feels like. power steering going out is a handful. there is a little bit more physical strength needed in indy car. in stock car, you need more endurance. these races are at least three days long sometimes, i think. they will be anywhere from 2.5 hours-4.5 hours. maybe even five. >> after a race, which part of you aches the most. >> usually my ego. that takes the biggest hit first. after that, i suppose you could always go to the back. we obviously have a -- i hope that does not get taken out of context.

i should stop doing it. we have a lot of repetitive motion. obviously it is arms from the death grip. you do have to take care of those things. >> do you feel you have an unfair advantage because you are smaller than your male racing counterparts? >> do you see how small i am? they say it makes you a better race car driver. it is a pain in the butt. i am a little bit too small that the pedals do not quite reach me at the gear shift does not quite reach me and i cannot see over the wheel. when i get into a car -- a

rental or anything -- i put it about as high as you can go and about as far forward as you can go. if there was really an unfair advantage to being lighter -- we would have won every race in indy car and that did not happen. it comes down to how you are on restarts, getting through traffic, how your team performs with a pit stop. having that fire to get through the pack at and try to win the race. >> how involved are you in outback racing? >> very involved. i hope that i am is one of those athletes that was to be involved. my agents probably no better.

some athletes do not want to know anything. some want to know a lot apparently i am want to know a lot. i pride myself on authenticity and being real. for me, if i am not doing things i believe in, partnering up with the right people and doing the right type of event, to me, it is not doing any favors for my brand. i like to be very involved. i probably bother my agents to much. >> how are you preparing for sunday's's daytona 500? the you have any pre-race rituals? >> i'm usually always nervous before a race. i do not want to eat. think about eating when you are nervous. it is not good. i used eat eggs and toast.

that is the most common meal before a race. it is easy on the stomach. for the most part, it is a pretty similar routine. i try to not break it. i sleep the same amount every night. i do not go to bed any earlier. i drink my favorite two cups of coffee in the morning, have my nutritional breakfast or lunch, and get out there. for me, it is about preparing throughout the weekend, working with my crew chief, or watching some old races to see what it looks like from the driver's perspective. i think when you are not prepared is when you get the most nervous. i just try to prepare as best as possible. >> do you have a prediction for sunday? >> i sure as heck hope i am one. it is my first sprint cup race. i do not want to set expectations too high, but i think it will be

interesting. for those of you who watched last year -- never mind. we are bringing back some all-style racing. it will make it exciting for you. go ahead and watch this sunday. lots of cars packed into a small amount of space. you are more than likely to have bigger accidents when that happens because you cannot get the heck out of the way quick enough. on race day, it is out of your control and you cannot avoid it. you might have been the fastest car in the race, but it is over. on these kinds of races where a lot can happen and a lot of drivers have the opportunity to do well, you never really know who is appointed do it. last year we had a surprise win from trevor baines who had his

21st birthday the other day. that is what is so exciting about this race. anything can happen. >> before we get to the last question, we want to present you with our official national press club coffee mug to help you get started in the morning before your races. >> this will be my new coffee cup. thank you. >> i want to let you know about upcoming speakers we have coming to the national press club. on april 4, we have deepak chopra. on april 19, alec baldwin. i want to thank the national press club staff, the broadcast center and the national press club institute for their help in organizing this luncheon. i do have one more quick question for danica patrick.

i want to know if you have ever had a speeding ticket or if you find it difficult to drive slowly on the interstate. >> i have gotten this question a couple of times lately. i was doing some events are nationwide insurance. they were my insurance carrier so i found it a difficult question to answer. the answer is yes, obviously. i think it qualifies me for the job even more. [applause] >> thank all of you for joining us today. i want to thank danica patrick and wish her good luck on sunday. we are adjourned. national captioning institute] national cable satellite corp. 2012]

>> we got started because there are a lot of conservative thinking that work across issues. but before this, there had been no progressive organization that worked on economic policy, domestic policy. neera tanden on the mission of the washington based on the think tank. >> part of our jobs is to make the argument and the factual argument. i do think that sometimes you know, when the facts done argue

for our position, we re-examine those positions because we believe the most important thing is to be right about what you're views are. >> a look at the center for american progress, sunday night at 8:00 eastern and parving on c-span's q&a. >> the supreme court heard on whether to turn down the stone-stellar act. javier alvarez introduced himself as a retired marine and recipient of the congressional medal of honor. he has lied about both. they struck the stolen valor act. of the first amendment. >> the united states versus au revoir is. -- alvarez.

>> the military applies exacting criter in awarding honors. congress has a long tradition of legislating to protect the integrity of the honor system. the stolen ballot at continues that tradition by prohibiting knowingly false -- valor act advances a legitimate, substantial, compelling governmental interest that shows no protective speech. >> during the vietnam war, the signstors would hold up that say, i won a purple heart for killing babies. he did not win the purple heart. as a reader, i cannot be sure

whether he did and is a combat veteran who opposes the war, or what he is a citizen protesting the war. is that pursuant if he is not a veteran having received the medal? is he liable? >> it would depend on whether that expression was reasonably understood by the audience as a statement of fact or as an exercise in political theater. it is the latter, it isot within the scope of the statute. >> suggesting speech to the absolute rule of no protection. there are circumstances where this speech has value. i believe that is your bottom line. >> this court has said in

numerous context, that it calculates its actual osgood has no first amendment value -- contexts that it has no first amendment value. >> i do not know if that is correct. it is well understood that that speech can enter defamation. you think there is no value in all city. -- falsity. i think there is no -- falsity is a way in which we contrast what is false and what is true. >> i want to respond with precision. the court has drawn a line. false statements of fact have no

first amendment value. that does not automatally mean a false statement of fact lacks first amendment protection. >> you want to take the gertz case where it is understood that the definition is actionable and say that as a general matter, the government can in bay what is false. -- can invade what is false. >> with respect to that delays false statements, the government can recognize that factually false statements have no intrinsic first amendment value. there are substantial constraints that are satisfied because the stolen ballard act --radiate stolen valor act

relates to a verifiably false claim that a soldier has gotten an honor. that punishes speech about yourself. it is these that is uniquely within the individual. >> supposed the declarations were left out and congress had peoplee don't like saying they were in the mane corps for 25 years when they ner served for one single day in any armed force. they have a statute like this one. it is directed to the false claims tt what has served in the armed forces. i do not see in your argument that there is something special about the declarations.

>> i suppose your argument is that there is harm, not just all said. it is falsehood conjoint would harm just as liable is. in the example that justice ginsburg just gave, there is harm to those courageous men and women who recede to the declaratns. in the example that justice ginsburg gave, there is harm that -- to be people honorably served in the armed forces. >> that is what i w trying to get at. >> out of the breathing space principle, congress would have to articulate an interest.

>> where do you stop demo there are many things people know about themselves that are -- where do you stop? there are many things that people know about themselves that are verifiable. is it a crime to stage you have a high-school diploma if you know you do not? congress can say, we want people to finish high school. we want to make sure nobody goes around saying they do and they don't. >> it is an objectively verifiable fact as a state legislature might enact and the state could articulate a substantial interest -- >> some states do have laws respecting false claims to have received a diploma -- >> that is for submiting resume is. that is broad. >> if i could get back to your

pot about the nature of the harm. you have the particularized harm. the common characteristic that allows the score to move from declaration to privacy to intentional infliction of emotional distress in the call- up case to a baseless lawsuit -- distress in thought to a baseless lawsuit, it is not an analysis of the particular harm that existed in a defamation context. it is the calculated actual all stood. the harm here is different. >> they were in a context of infliction of emotional distress. here it does seem to me that you could arguehis is something dal in trademark, a meta which the government and armed forces had a particular interest

and we carved ou andt -- out a narrow exception to that. to say there is no value of all speech, i cannot agree to the extent of that broad proposition. there is a recognized tort. >> that is true. this is a case in which one of the harms that justifies this statute is the misappropriation of the government-conferred honor and his team. that was real hard and significant harm. there is particular harm of the erosion of the value of the military honor conferred by our government. those are particular harmon's that are real. the kind of speech -- particular harms that are real. anchoring this argument in the

tradition of this court's presidents --precedents, this is particular harm. >> i took time going through the multiple pieces decided in your brief looking at the statutes that impose penalties for impersonation of some sort. virtually in every one of them except perhaps one, there was either an economic interest that was harmed by the impersonation either by the face of the statute or by the nature of the claim. a dilution of a trademark by taking on someone else's valuable property rights. i went back reading our cases. a juice said many years ago,

falsehoods have no value. as such. but the breatng space concept is defined by those balsas -- falsehoo which cause harm to people's rise, the interest they have or the reputation -- rights, the interests they have or the reputation of others. there is a harm concept being permissible for recovery. please tell me whais wrong with justice story's view, number one. number two, how does the definition of harm -- what is the harm here that fits within

that? >> if i could just make a general point in response to your honor's question. as i read this court's cases, this court has never held or suggested in any context in which the government wants to regulate a category of copulated falsehood that it would have to meet such scrutiny -- calculated falsehood that it would have to meet such scrutiny. >> justice story said, if you want to regulate a falsehood, it has to cause harm this way. >> i want to respond to the point about justice story in the following way. there are a series of statutes -- the impersonating federal officers statues -- those

are designed to protect the integrity of government statutes. >> they are intended to protect the rights of the government to obtain truthful information. the government has a right to force you to tell the truth. that is a right that i's within story -- fits within story's definition. >> he was talking about private citizens. there is a category of long- recognized government regulation of calcute it actual falsehoods that serve systemic interests. with respect to the stolen valor act, it was built on a statute enacted in 1923 that was related

to the wearing of medals. the reason the congress ted in 1923 was out of concern for the misappropriation that would cause substantial harm. that has been on the books -- >> is your argument limited to statements a person makes about himself or herse? >> yes. that is the category that the statute regulates. the statute is limited to actually verifiable information. the person is -- actually verifiable information. -- ftually arab bible information. - factually varverifiable information. >> what if someone said a spouse

or a parent or a child was a medal recipient? >> that would be a case that under the breathing space principle that this court applies when talking about actual falsehoods, you have to answer a question. -- factual balsa, you have to answer a question. -- factuall calculated all stood -- falsehoods, you have to answer a question. >> in punishing some all stood -- falsehood, you risk deterring truth. >> you have to answer the

question of whether there was a material risk. under the breathing space principles, that is the question the court would have to anser. -- answer. wered yes that it is only self. could be making a false statement of ft. just in service, leaving out the declaration, false statements.

like i deny the holocaust ever occurred. >> a statute seeking to regulate that would have disimination statutes. you would want to exercise care. this is a specific verifiable statement of falsehood. >> there is no value in a false statent of fact, a statement

intended to be understood as true. there is no first amendment value in that statement. it may be protected because of the breathing space argument. in whatever context, there is no protection in that false representation as such. >> that is the position we have taken in this case. we meet the court's precedents. false statements of fact are harmful to first amendment interests because ty impede e search for truth. calculated falsehood is no part of the expression of ideas or the expression of truth. >> what about the state

statutes? no demonstrable balsas by eye clinic -- by a political candidates -- falsehood by a political candidate in a political race. >> those would have a rd time getting through the court's breathing spacerinciple. >> demonstrable falsehoods about yourself, your qualifications, what you have done in your life, whether you have been in military service, whether you have been to college. any demonstrable statement that a political candidate makes about himself. >> under the breathing space analysis, those statues will pose a particular risk of chill.

this is a statute about verifiable -- >> i do not understand why one statement would be more chilling than another. >> in a situation like that one, the government also power and authority is being trained on the political process, a statement in the political process. >> in e case of the state statues, the case -- the state feels it has an interest in maintaining the political sphere free of lies. >> the chilling effect seems to be materially different than a situation like this one where we are talking about a specific pinpointing of one thing. have you been awarded a military honor or not to? statements about yourself only,

not about someone else -- have you been awarded a military honor or not? >> even in the commercial context, we allowed a decent amount of lying. it is called puffing although making false representations to sell a product is unlawful, we do allow puffing, don't we? you will not buy it cheaper anywhere else. maybe we allowed certain allow of -- amount of puffing in political statements. >> the court's breathing space analysis would call for that. >> in a political campaign, you

have the deputy district attorney filing a prosecution two weeks before the election saying about this or that. maybe there has to be a deposition or a trial. nothing like that is involved here. >> it seems to me your best analogy is the trademark analogy, the olympics case. you put that in as an afterthought oa secondary argument in your brief. it is the strongest one. the whole breathing space thing is almost backwards. it presumes the government is going to have a ministry of truth and breathing space around in -- it. this does diminish the medal i

many respects. >> there are a lot of slippery slope type questions here today. i would urge the court not to decline to make a sound decision about this statute based on concern about not being able to draw the line. this statute is as narroas you can get. >> i have a problem. it is not as narrow as it can get. congress said it was protecting against fraudulent claimof receiving a medal. the example it used was someone who used be fraudulent claim of receiving a med to get money. what harm are we protecting here? i thought the core of the first

amendment was to protect even against it spends less speech. we have a legion of cases -- offensive speech. weave been legion of cases that say your reaction to offensive speech is not enough. what i hear and what i think the courts below said is that you cannot reallyelieve that a war veteran thinks less of the battle -- the medal that he or she received because someone is claiming fraudulently that they got one. they do not think less of being medal. we are offended that someone is claiming an honor that they did not recede. = = reci -- receive. outside of the emotional reaction, where is the harm?

i am not minimizing it. i take offense wn someone makes this kind of claim. i take offense when someone i am dating makes a claim that is not true. [laughter] >> i have a 20 year old daughter and i agree. [laughter] no soldier charges up a mountain thinking, i will do this because i will get a middle - medal when i get to the top. that is not what the honor system is about. it is about identifying the essence of what we nt in our service men and women, courage, sacrifice, love of country, willingness to put your life on the line for your comrades. the medals say to our military, this is what we care about. it is what george washington

said when he set up the honor system. it is designed to terrorist bay -- cherish the valor of military service. the point of these medals is that it is a big deal. you get some you get one -- you get one for doing something that is a big deal. to stand by when someone makes a false claim to have won the medal thus devalue the battle -- the medal in the face of the soldiers. >> this gentleman was publicized. his public position was compromised, as is the case of almost everyone who is caught lying. >> this is a category of

copulated actual all stood up -- falsehood. >> did the military ask for this? you are claiming special interest in seeing that the miliry honor is not be based -- debased. >> it did not. congress has substantial authority to regulate our arm forces. it is not unlike the statute in the fairer case. >> did the commander in chief sign that legislation? >> yes, did. >> thank you, mr. verrilli.

>> thank you, mr. chief justice. the stolen valor act criminalizes pure speech. it does not matter what did the lie was told in public meetings or in a private conversation with a friend or family member. the law punishes all claims regardle of whether harm resultsr is liky to result. >> what is the first amendment value in a lie, 8 shoreline? -- a pure lie? >> the value of personal autonomy. >> what does that mean? >> we get to exaggerate. we are often making up things

about ourselves that we want people to think abouts. about. samuel clemens created mark twain. >> no one is saying you cannot write a book or tell a story. it seems to me very different. >> when people tell lies, it allows us to appreciatto is better. >> do you really think there is first amendment valuen a lie about a statement that a person makes about himself gemm? i was a rhodes scholar. the first amendment protects

that? >> as long as it does not cause harm. >> that is not a statement about one's self. >> the stolen valor act is more narrow than that. in that situation, you would not describe what the individual in justice breyer's hothetical was telling a false statement about himself. it is not about someone hiding in the attic. it is not about himself. >> if a grandfather were to make up a story that he had won a medal to persuade a grant child--

>> that is missing the limitation be government has read into the statute. not for damage or for parity or parody.order -- for it is a purely false statements about oneself. >> the purpose of the first amendment was a limit on government power. our founders lieved that congress does not get to tell us what we can and cannot say. >> they do in countless areas. whether you are talking about defamation, trademark, perjury, all sorts of things. it cant adopt that as a general principle. he must not apply it regardless of the situation. >> those are examples where we

have harm attached to the falsehood. >> sometimes harm is for governmental purposes. how it justified criminalizing making a false statement to a government agency. making a false statement and there is a government investigation. this type of false statement in paris the government also ability to honor -- impairs the government's ability to honor valorious actions. >> you have suggested to us that we should apply strict scrutiny to all of these cases. almost nothing passes strict

scrutiny. -- should 1001 - pass strict scrutiny? >> all statement laws do have a history in this country. the court could recognize a historical category of eminent harm or potential risk of eminent harm to vernment functions. perjury falls into that category. 1001 make it into that category. since the beginning of our nation, congre has passed false statement laws. when congress ssed this legislation, it did so because it thought the value of the award that these courageous members of the armed forces were

receiving were being diminished. by charlatans. that is what congress thought. is that on reasonable? >> it is not entirely clear what congress thought on this. made a broad, general finding that false statements -- >> it is a matter of common sensthat it demeans the medal. what did you do to the statute that prohibits the wearing of a medal that has not been earned? >> you are dealing with conduct. >> i am not so sure. if you prevail here, the wearing prohibition must also be in serious doubt. >> it may be in doubt under

certain situations. congress has an interest in protecting non-expressive purposes. >> the purpose of the person who puts the middle on his tuxedo is expressing a purpose. that is pure expression. >> it may be, your honor. we few -- we view it under a different prism? >> but why? if you wear the medal, you are saying, i am in medal of honor winner. >> if the court finds it is unconstitutional -- >> you think the wearing of a

military declaration you have not earned it is quite simple consistency with the first amendment? >> it would depend on the circumstances. >> most circumstances. you go out into the street with the memedal on you. >> if congress does not have a non-speech purpose or prohibiting the wearing of the medal of honor, there would be a significant first amendment problem. >> don't you think thais the case? there is no non-expressive purpose i can think of. >> that may well be. in this case, what we are dealing with is a content based regulation of speech. >> it first amendment allows the regulation of false speech if it

causes certain kinds of harm. the problem i have with your argument is determining which harms count and which do not count. would you say only to carry harm counts -- picuniary harm counts? going up to someone and saying, your child has just been run over by a bus. how do we determine which harms are sufficient? >> we believe the right way to look at this is to determine if there is imminent rm or the risk of eminent harm to any individual or to a government function that would result from the speech. >> when you say imminent, what do you mean by that. >> am suggesting the

brandenburg standard. >> if that is the standard, most of the prosecutions or making false statements to a law- enforcement officer are not going to survive. >> the issue of 1001 and those false statements is a substantial risk to them unharmed could result from the falsehood. it may not result in a particular case. the substantial risk of eminent heart -- >> you are not talking about immine harm. you are talking about harm. >> presumably, you are doing it to send them in be wrong rection. the heart may not be there. there is significant risk of harm that the govement has the right to protect itself from.

that is where you would draw the line. that is where the court appears to have drawn the line in those categories of speech that are unprotected. >> mr. libby, let's pretend i agree with gertz and that there is no protection of false statements of fact. if that is so, how is it that this statute would show any -- would chill any truthful speech? >> it is not clear that it would chill in truthful speech. we could see that one typically knows whether or not one has won a metal or not. we can -- we can see that point. >> that is a b concession.

you are saying you can only win this case if this court decides that the gertz statement was an olver exaggeration. -- over exaggeration. >> weelieve the statute cover someone that could be prosecuted for parody. >> the government has said that is not how we read it at it. the court reads statues to avoid a constitutional commission. let's assume we are not going to cover performances, a satire. it is just a lie. >> it is still o position that

all speech is protected unless we go back to one historical category of speech that the court has found that is historically unprotected. that has never been recognized by this court as being an unprotected form of speech. >> i understand them to argue that it can be limited under its breathing space rationale. it is not within one of the categories of unprotected speech. you have to analyze it under the first amendment. you analyze its according to its it chills protected speech -- it according to whether or not it chills protected speech. >> the government starts from the presumption that it is not

fully protected speech. we should be starting with the presumption that it is fully protected speech which this court has previously said it is in one of these historical categories of unprotected speech. >> you are saying, historically, we have not protect false statements that cause harm. i think that is your argument. >> that is correct. >> the historical exception like defamation are those thacause harm. i go back to justice alito's question. you really have not answered his question. you have dealt with the government process cases. we could argue if that is protecng a process or protecting the government to the right to prove -- truthful

information. the question is, how do you deal with the additional -- intentional infliction of emotional distress. the damage requires injury and it is defined what kinds of an injury. tell me how you define harm in the non-governmeal situation. then tell me why this situation does not fit that definition. >> in the situation with intentional infliction -- and infliction of emotional distress, you are dealing with the stress that results from the false statement. there is imminent harm that results in the intentional infliction of distress. >> what distress do the did

medal middle winners feel in seeing false medal winners. >> people are entitled to be upset by these false claims 3 i am upset by these false claims. -- by these false claims. i am upset by these false claims. what we are dealing with is a non-instantaneous harm. the government has suggested there is no harm that results from a single claim. falsehood did not cause harm to any individual. >> we should determine there are

certain harms that are sufficient to allow prohibition of a false statement their respective of what judgment congress made -- irrespective of what judgment coress may. >> there needs to be imminent harm. there needs to be targeted harm to an individual or to government functions. it cannot be the type of diffuse harm. >> why not? we are willing to protect t olympics committee when it falls person says he is the olympic committee when it might deprive the olympic committee of a pin. to win this great medal, the congressional medal of honor, the highest award a nation can give, it deserves the grandest possible respect.

we do not even want you to have to think about somebody having taken that name falsely. we will criminalize its, -- rich criminalize -- criminalize it. in my mind, there is real harm. i can think of instances where we want to protect false information. i want you to accept that as a given. that is not my question. [laughter] my question is, if i am writes that there are first amendment reasons the four. --acting -- if i am right that there are certain reasons for protecting false information, there are particular ways of going about it. what and why? >> there is time to fix the

problem. there is time for them to be exposed. >> the government is going to hire people to follow? is that realistic? when there is a sanction in place, you think twice before you tell a lie. if there is no sanction on the then you might be exposed, who is going to expose you? there are a lot of people who tell a lie. do you expect the government to hire investigators to go around the country outing people who falsely claim military honors? >> isn't that exactly what is happening with this law right now? the government is sending fbi investigators out to investigate these allegations. individuals here the statemen and they think they might be false. e it and conduct

their own investigations. >> the threat of criminal prosecution might discourage from lying, who would never be caught? exposure won't work. you have a less restrictive alternative that helps some, but not completely. are there othe? >> it you are never caught, then under the government also theory, no one has been harmed individually. >> not under my theory. my theory is that it does hurt the medal, the objective, the honor, for people to falsely go around saying they have this medal when they don't. i might be wrong about that. i asked you to assume that for

purposes of argument. i want as big a list i can think about of what the less restrictive alternatives are or might be. >> the military could redouble its efforts at binary those who are entitled to the awards. there was a hearing that suggested the military has been lax in identify true heroes and identifying -- and awarding them medals. the government could publicize the names of true winners. the government could get people know who has won them. >> how about giving been medal of shame to those who have falsely claimed to have earned the battle of valor. -- medal of valor. >> that is something that the government could do. >> what you get six months for a middle of shame -- or a medal of

shame does not matter under your theory. >> exposing them for what they are, which is a liar. mr. alvarez, whether or not he committed a crime, he was exposed for what he was, which was a liar. >> suppose the statute was amended to require an intent to obtain anything of value? >> that would turn the law into a trot statute. fraud is an unprotected category of speech. >> that would not reach this speaker. that would not reach alvez because he did not obtain anything of value. >> mr. alvarez did not obtain

anything of value. >> how do we know that he was politically active. does it help a politician to have a medal of valor? >> there are a lot of people who would consider that a great thing. there are also a lot of people who doot know what that is. >> your willingness to say the statute is valid as long as there is some benefit to the person who dies is an awfully big concession. >> if congress were to amend the law to require tt it be done with the intent to obtain something of value, it becomes fraud. ron is something that the government does have the right to prosecute. -- fraud is something that the government does have the right to prosecute. >> praise and the higher esteem

of your citizens is not enough. you are not going to get a penny out a bit, -- out of it, right? >> how that is ultimately interpreted -- could it be a non-monetary thing of value? yes. >> if he makes this statement at a debate and he is running for office, he can be prosecuted. getting into office is something of value. >> perhaps, yr honor. it may come down to how the court ultimately interprets a thing of value. it is not clear that try to obtain 8 voted from somebody is necessarily anything of value -- obtain a vote from somebody

is necessarily a thing of value. >> what if it is the cheers of the crowd. they give him a parade down main street. is that something of value? >> it could be. it will come down to how that ultimately gets -- >> would the first amendme permits and that? -- permit that? >> that is a difficult question. >> that is sort of the question we have to answer here. [laughter] >> what if he gets a date with a potential which spouse? would that be enough? >> when you get into a situation where you are getting something like a date, i would not

consider that of value. >> some people might have a different opinion. >> that may be. should that become the law, we have to look at that closely. >> we have similar statutes. does it add enough to make it not your speech and to ward off the things we are worried about in the first amendment? powers duties and privileges. those are ways statues have of limiting these things. how does that work?

>> when you get into the issue of impersonation, the court would have to assess its under the amount of individual armed to an indivial. >> it is a way of walling off things that are of concern to the first amendment. you know the language. it is written about in the brief. i just want to know how you would think about a statute that afforded that kind of language, which is limiting language. >> it would be important to limit the language as much as possible. you want to make it as narrow as possible. we are supposed to start from the presumption that we have the right to say pretty much what we want to say. then we start to limit where'd. -- where.

it goes back to, is it one of these unprotected types of speech that is not entitled to constitutional protection? >> thank you, mr. libby. mr. verrilli, you have five minutes. >> my only question is the slippery slope problem. could you address that? >> there is a substantial degree of work in controlling what your honor is describing as the slippery slope problem. the statute has to be narrowly drawn. as i said in my opening statement, i think that is a case in which you could argue

either way. the government articulate its substantial interest -- >> government has a strong interest in the sanctity of the family, the stability of the family. we are going to prevent anybody from telling lies about their extramarital affairs. >> in addition to the governmental interest, it has to be tailored in a way that avoids chill . >> the person knows everything about it. you either had one or you did not have one. >> that is a hard case. with respect to the chilling effect analysis, you would have difficulty sustaining that statute. that is not the kind of statute we have here. this is a target this statute designed --

we do not know what will come up, but i can easily think of an example. if this is lawful and constitution, then you have people in political campaigns suddenly worrying the u.s. attorney is going to come in. that is part of the chilling effect. >> i think the analysis requires that it not have that type of killing effect. this state does. that is the key. >> it seems to meet you are asking us to value the speech in context. we are not talking about the effect of the speech. you are asking us to say a college can did it in a political campaign could be political speech. in that sense, you cannot

sanction. but you can sanction that in a different contact. -- context. if it does not show political speech, it may cause someone to date someone they think is more of a professional. >> the respondent has conceded that this statute shows nothing. that should be a sufficient answer to your honor's concerns that with respect to other statutes in the future that can be evaluated to determine whether or not they propose a chill that could lead to a conclusion. the respondent concedes there is no chill here that this statute is constitutional.

girls are smart, for any of you that have not figured that out yet, so why do we not see them

starting out companies? in my research, i will say it is really hard to find companies that a skilled over $100 million in revenue in five years that have had women as founders. stella and dot is a phenomenal company. rapid growth businesses. there is another example called the guilt group, an online sales, luxury group in new york. they might be industries thought of as hourly industries, but they are crackerjack companies that have scaled up. they are hard to find. why are women not doing this? access to capital is one thing. a report is out that said if

women have equal access to capital as men that would create 6 million jobs in less than five years. 2 million jobs in the first year alone. theseget some capital to women, right? another reason -- the university of wisconsin has done research on self-perceptions for women. they can work 15 years in an industry and not think they are ready to start a company on their own. some of that is women having to change the self-perception. another piece is the network piece. they do not have the access to mentors, and that becomes the importance of accelerators. there is a group in silicon valley championing women in particular. four governors, there are things you can do. you can give the more

visibility, put them on science and technology boards -- that is a great way to expand networks. you can champion them, because seeing women examples the a lot to get other women to go out and do the same thing. so, those are some ideas to try to get that going. now, places, shifting to not the people, but the place's -- largely university- based. there are three recommendations. this is the mad scientist. we want to coordinate this research out of the universities. there are suggestions. speeding commercialization of faculty innovation is important. more than half of nano- technology companies have a faculty founder.

i was at a conference, and they feel the market can pass them by what they feel the university system is not commercializing their idea. that can be frustrating. as governors or leaders of states, you can encourage universities to adopt a standardized licensing agreement for a spin out of the company, for example, where a free agency model, where faculty can go anywhere to license. those are great ideas because there is great innovation happening and not getting to the market. another idea is an innovation voucher. here is the coupon lady. the idea is a voucher of

$5,000, $7,000 -- not really large amounts of money, going to a small, or medium-sized enterprises, and they can cash it in at a university, and that leads to immediate collaboration between a small growth company, and a university faculty member that could prototype an idea, feasibility test an idea, or do some other research of a value to small and medium-sized companies. the netherlands voucher program is a really good example of this. there are phenomenal results. i will tell you a tiny bit of results of those kinds of programs. 80% of the research and development investments in the netherlands have come out of this small and medium-size voucher program. 60% of these enterprises say they will continue to do

knowledge transfer-type businesses, even when the voucher is expired. if you have a one-year budget, it establishes the relationship, and they continue to talk and work together. another idea, then this might be controversial, but i hear it talked about, and that is realigning incentives, especially for state universities. they aren't necessarily on the cutting edge of technology, but they do that people start businesses. mobil maybe they would get a little bit more of a budget directed towards of them.

clearly metrics are pretty important on how you measure that. it could be cash receipts. it could be licensing and cumbria in there would have to be quite a bit of discussion about that possibility. it is something i hear talk about. finally, we talked of about about policy. three real simple things to think about a one-stop shop for registering your business. lots of of entrepreneurs -- on a trip and doors are not policy wonks. they do not like paperworks. they do not like getting registered, how long it takes. it is a different kind of pressure starting up a company and a streamlining the process or trying to make it a lot easier for people is something

that leaders across states could be getting together to do. i like to think of it like the turbo tax. if everyone can do their own taxes, why is it so hard to register a business? it really does not need to be that hard. it seems like you could call and get a solution and tweak it or individual states and make it a website where people can come and quickly register not only for some of the business -- they could have an add-on legal services we should be trying to make it as easy as possible. an example is portugal. portugal does have an online program. i do not necessarily think of portugal as being massively efficient. but in this way, they have done

an amazing thing for registering small businesses. the results are very visible. 60,000 new portuguese companies have registered in less than two years. it is something to think about. it is something that hopefully would not be that hard to stand up. a web mentor matching program. as mentioned this morning, mr. ships are really key. this is part of the learning process. i intrapreneur score on their own. many of them in small teams are trying to figure out how to make this happen. having somebody to call, having an experienced person who has done these things before, or they can just bounce ideas back- and-forth to try to improve the thinking before you invest your own money. the metric system is really important. having an online system would

facilitate membership in your state. you could have executive is that our retired and living in one part of the state and someone else on the other part of the state. you do not have to live locally right next to somebody to be their mentor. i think this potentially would unlock a lot of values. you do not want to waste anybody's time. you would have to make sure the start up is the real deal. experienced people trying to do important work there. you have to have experienced mentors. you do not want someone to give bad advice. there would have to be some thinking through to make that work, but i think it is potentially important. finally, tax policy. this is somewhat inconclusive. we probably need to study this more. there are lots of different approaches. the foundation is making the

recommendation of the simplicity and wide base income tax structure is the way to go. with that said, across the state, 41 states offer at tax exemptions. 45 offer incentives for job creation. 49 are using sales tax exemptions on new equipment. it is really complicated. everybody has different ideas about how to make this work. if you are an entrepreneur, you want transparency. you want to have some visibility into what it will look like in the future in order to plan your business. the simplicity is probably the way to go. the new paradigm -- i will close by saying it is possible to build on entrepreneurial ecosystems. i grew up just south of seattle seattle was not a thriving

placed 30 years ago. in fact, there was a sign on interstate 5 that said with the last person out of seattle please turn out the light. it was tied up legendary in the pacific northwest. it was when boeing was leaving. between timber and boeing, those with the industry's driving seattle. it was not an easy place necessary to eat -- necessarily to grow up. there was not a huge amount of opportunity. that is the point. today seattle has gotten microsoft. it has nordstrom's. it-starbucks, costco, amazon not co.com. that has happened in the last 30 years. i think it is a pilot and it is something to look at and try to see what exactly happened in

seattle and how can other regions do that. in some cases, people will say it is technology. microsoft has driven a huge amount of innovation. so has amazon.com. the examples i like to point to our costco and starbucks. this is not attack. this is a high skilled, maybe in the terms of -- this is not how tech. high this is a high skilled. i think it is something to. 2. something to look at. i will close by saying i hope the governors will be very entrepreneurial themselves and will attacked some of these ideas in the local states. [applause] >> thank you, amy.

thank you for joining us today. >> thank you, governor. i thought, what am i going to talk about? i promised my public affairs people i would not turn this into a commercial, but i have to say c-span -- i have to see which of you used a gillette razor this morning in which of you did not. amy and i are going to talk about some of the same things, but from a slightly different perspective. i hope you will find the comments i make pragmatic and practical. the goal, which you can tell me afterward if we achieved it, is to give you two or three steps you can focus on that maybe you can start using on monday. i am going to start with a ".

i like this quote. "small companies are the greatest creator of new jobs and the greatest destroyer of new jobs because small companies fail so often." our job at proctor and gamble and your job even more so is how can we help these small companies grow and not fail. procter in gamble is committed to helping foster at entrepreneurial growth. small companies are the source of great ideas, innovation, energy. a vibrant and healthy economy creates more consumers, so more consumers can buy tide and by gillette. i am passionate about this personally and professionally because i think the government and businesses can do more.

i have been working on this for a number of years, more than i care to admit. my hair was black when i started. i want to focus on three key opportunities i think state governments can do starting on monday and you will see some overlap in terms of the things you did. one is help university research institutions be more business friendly. number two, held entrepreneur is and start-ups connect with a potential partners, including large enterprise. small companies staying small are not going to be sufficient. we want them to grow big. last of the three things, how do you help support development of capital funding to foster and support start-ups? all three of these were highlighted. we recently in the greater cincinnati region, we started a

project. we said how do we create an entrepreneurial economy in the cincinnati area? we did not know what was going on. we actually went outside and hired mckinsey and company to support us on this effort, to help us build a fact base. we talked to a lot of of intrapreneur is. angel ked to a lot abovof investors. these collectively helped us form a view of the landscape and also helped lead as to what we needed to do. frankly, this is not just about cincinnati. i think it plays out in every city and every state in the country. the areas of focus were three areas -- ideas, people and environment, and capital. i do not have time to go through

all of these today. i have a road map to show where the gaps are in our region, but i expect each of your states and regions have gaps in different areas. we are going to focus on the three or four highlighted there. seed investments later. we did not compare notes beforehand, did we? researchniversities' institutions more business friendly. it takes too long to build relationships and partnerships with your universities. we have talked to many around the states and also across the globe. there is too much red tape. it is too focused on i.t. and metrics on how much licensing revenue. we think that it's in the way. the u.s. is getting beaten by local competition. from my procter and gamble

experience, it is easier to work with a university in the u.k. than it is in the states. i want to explain why that is. they are more competitive, more aggressive, more forward- thinking. let me talk about what is working and give you some examples. we have a relationship with durum university -- not the one in north carolina. i am a graduate of a big desk in university. i made some basketball, it's there. we believe we are the birthplace, but i will leave that alone. this is the durham in the u.k. they have an institute that brings together the multi disciplines so when a business engagement occurs, we do not have to go department by department, they do it for us. we invested money in that universe to the to do applied

research. do you know what? they bring those things together. i am a business guy. an entrepreneur is to not have time to go department to department. it is simple. we do not have to do that work internally. we also go to singapore. a-star, a government agency, also includes a their national and regional labs. when we have a need, they can call. we can call them and say do you have anything in this space? they bring these parties together. that -- technology transfer offices. we work with a lot of them. we prefer to work with business engagement offices. technology transfer offices are largely held accountable for meeting the needs of the professor -- hard to do. how much revenue they generate?

that means they want to negotiate and negotiate and negotiate. ok? this is about creating businesses, solving needs, making connections. whether it is an entrepreneur or a big company. michigan and ohio -- nixon mentioned this -- we have statewide agreements. we have a state university system in those states. ohio -- it was interesting. one of the members of the administration said we are going to do this. i lost a bet because i said we would have it done by may. -- he said "in -- he said they would have been done by may. i said two years. michigan did it in 90 days. we negotiated a 85% of the boilerplate, but there are still things that have to happen beyond that. i didn't -- i do not think it

went far enough. it does not go far enough because it does not have things in it that says if you create jobs in our state or if this does create jobs, you are going to get preferred licensing rights. we still have to negotiate those kinds of things. did i mention that is what we already have in the u.k., singapore, and things like that? this is not about more revenue, it is about more business engagement. i am very pleased. i am not being critical, that is a good step in the right direction, but it need to go further. connecting start-ups with potential partners, including large enterprise? it is hard for startups to knock on the right door in big companies or even small companies to represent themselves. it is hard for big companies to see all that is out there. last year, my department had

over 4400 unsolicited ideas come to us. that is from around the globe. i know how many on to open doors at -- from your state -- all entrepreneurs from your states have registered on our website. i do not want to have to see and talk to everyone associated with that. we say no think you do the vast majority. we develop networks. do you know something that would help us with this problem? we send those out to at university networks, alumni networks -- we try to build networks because we are looking for at solutions. what we tend to look for is how, in fact, do we make the connections? we like smart agents. i mentioned the u.k.

the engineering and physical research council. this is a government agency. when we now have something we need solved, we go to them. they have similar departments for the other scientists. do you have something that would solve this kind of surface technology? that organization does not say why do you not talk to durham or leeds? they say we will get back to you. when they come back, they say it does this meet your needs? the hit rate is phenomenal. we say, we want to work with that university. the university puts in capability. procter and gamble puts in capability. that is the kind of competition we are facing in the u.s. what comes out of that is

technology that we have to put in our field of use, but it overlaps that university educational mission. it is a wonderful recruiting tool. when we are working with the university, we are seeing their students. our hiring gives preference coming out of those places. we also look for smart agents. we have a company in boston we are eight tiny investor in. when the principal calls and says here is something you want to look at. guess what? i looked at it. they understand our needs. i want to ask you -- does your development organizations, do they know what these entrepreneur's needs are? i'd like website. it is necessary. it is not sufficient. this smart agent piece is a full

contact sport. it is a big 10 basketball. you have to understand the needs of the entrepreneur, the capabilities that exist, and make the match between those and help drive it through. you have to have one place to a go and someone to drive it. help the development of capital funding sources. upsay's reality -- start- cannot secure financing. and underfunded of intrapreneur is a risk for a big business. i might be addressed it in your technology. can you develop -- deliver that to our business in europe or latin america within the next 90 days? of course they cannot. we need capabilities to come from other places to help this kind of funding. a lot -- they have to have the

capital to grow. as much as you like big business, medium businesses cannot be the sole anchor. i think you have a role to play here. capital funding development, i think government can help, but you should not be the sole banker. you do need to provide incentives so that people can co invest with slabs, universities, private sector. you have to incentivized seed capital. when we did a survey in cincinnati, we found our seed capital was overdevelop. there were seedlings' being grown. if they have the yield rate of most start-ups, we do not have early stage capital. you need to find ways to incentivize early stage capital. remember this chart that i showed you? in terms of the seed investment, we concluded that --

we did not have to do anything to help the seed capital. the state of ohio had a program -- i saw in a paper that kentucky is doing more to incentivize are investors who invest in see businesses. we concluded that we would need to put together a fund that would be targeted against early stage. what happens with those yields? you can incentivized businesses to do that, investors to do that. for us, it is about creating an environment where entrepreneurs can grow and become local institutions. small companies are the greatest creators and small companies are also the greatest destroyers -- procter and gamble is committed to supporting small business growth.

we believe we can get there by partnering, incubating, coaching. i say to the small companies, i have something better. i may be a customer. as a customer, we pay our bills. that is important for a startup. helping them to grow to create jobs, stay in the community, and improve our communities is something we think is important. we believe there is a strong role for your state governments to do the same thing -- to support small business growth. i think there will still be losers. this is a marketplace. not all start-ups make it. but getting it to be a good marketplace where they are not failing because they do not have access to the embedded capabilities that exist within your state is a good thing. we have to make that connection. we want more winners and we want bigger winners. that is my comments. i appreciate your time. thank you.

[applause] >> thanks, amy and jeff. i appreciate your comments. they're good and useful. i will throw out the first question, go to the governor of misery, and open it up to the floor. -- missouri, and open it up to the floor. amy it raised the issue on university incentives. this is something i think all of a struggle with and work with. each of us try to fund universities pretty aggressively and want to get as much back out of it as we can for the state and the people of our state. last year we took a portion of our funding and ran it to the department of commerce instead of through the board of regents

as a way to create a job creating atmosphere, saying maybe if we go this route and put some metric with thick, that would be a better way to go. do any of you have ideas on how to use the budget process to create a more entrepreneurial environment in our universities? >> i can relate what i have been hearing, years -- what i hear entrepot north talking about is could the state budgets haven't -- of entrepreneurs talking about is that could the state budgets have -- men like >> may be in addition to journal articles, you give marks. >> universities and faculty at

universities, they are all tenured. they are interested in what they are interested in, which may or may not have anything to do with regional or economic goals. can you get faculty interested through these incentives? can you reallocate a portion of the state budget by saying to whatever the state university is, the metrics are more companies spun out into our region in fields that mattered to this region. then we will give you a larger portion of our budget. it will work in bigger states that have three or more state- funded universities. i do not know if it worked that well in smaller states. it creates competition what -- with universities at the state level because they want more of the state budget. >> jeff? >> i think that -- i get worried

about licensing revenue because it empowers technology transfer offices to focus on each individual deal. i think you should be focused on a broader economic footprint. here are my qualifying questions when i show up at a university. every university tells me they are world-class pretty much everything. how many new companies have you started? how many spinoffs have happened from york faculty? by the way, it is publish or perish. it is not part of the rewards system in starting up companies. it allows professors to benefit or even get tenure. taking on university cultures is an interesting new challenge. the second question i asked, which most fail, is how many of those businesses were started by your students? the culture is such that you saw want toy of the gen y's

start their own business, let them start it at their university. they are more likely to have a better education. number two, if it works, their roots are there. you want to get your europe -- keep your universe the kids home, i suspect. >> do you think we have the wrong incentives in place for our state universities to create better economic development, a better job creating machines? do we have the wrong incentives in place presently? >> i do not believe the incentives are in place to do that. inside a universe today, i do not see people talking about let's create jobs. i do not think it is happening. with one exception, mit is a powerhouse. there is research that out --

engineering, science, and technology faculty are involved there. that would be a good model to look at. stanford is obviously another one. m.i.t. has done a very good job. in the part of that is internal culture. they have set up collaboration across departments. that is something that should be encouraged. stanford has championed a big initiative on that. get your faculty to talk to each other. not only do they not talk to the regional players, they do not even really talk to each other. changing the culture inside the university is very difficult to do, but there are some models. i would point to the mit example as one that works. >> while i respect stanford and

mit, many of us have in our states organizations like committed the colleges and regional colleges that are not necessarily on the cutting edge of technology, but due at the book that start businesses. one idea is you have to make connections at the community college levels that could and gender business growth you have t those community college levels that could engender business growth without necessarily inventing something brand new that requires significant research dollars. >> i have not done a lot of work with community colleges and things like that, other than i have had some of those administrators, and visit with us. in a lot of ways, and i do not know if this was uniquely our region, but some of those the administrators were oversubscribed on service curriculum. they sell out every one of their cosmetics licensing

classes, welding, climbing, they cannot get enough. they do not have enough money. there are some things that can be done at the community college level. i would also say, you are not stanford, but we see really cool and it's a test at other universities and departments within the universities around the globe. what is the world class department? do you have a lot of small manufacturing? can you combine that? can you incentivize prototyping so you can draw more to that? i get a little worried when i hear people talk about changing the incentives. the politics of universities car something that are amazing.

their time frame are semesters. the young faculty, they get it. do not make it a peanut butter program that spreads across everything evenly. if you started asking the question, how many start-ups have come out of your university, you will get some shocking data. see how old the examples are they give you. >> i would like to add one thing. a launchpad program, this is university of miami, this is the model program right now. it has been replicated in two different colleges in detroit and one in north carolina. it is new and in a university or community college could be

looking at this. the university of miami is out in front on collaborative in terms of getting alums together with their students. it has great results. if you want to look at a program that is not mit or stanford, look at this university of miami program. it will do a lot of great things in the future. >> let me give you another example. take a look at the university of michigan. michigan lost a really big business there, a drug company. michigan has a program where they have an entrepreneurial institute. i serve on the advisory board. i am blown away. these are students started companies. they are building relationships with universities across the globe.

you can get consulting help. students who were going through their business programs can start their own company. they even have one of the few investment funds that it is student run. we would be happy to follow up and give you where we see these pockets around the globe of things that are doable. >> that sounds good. >> thank you. we have the theme of college rivalry week going. i would like to note that six years ago, we started a very aggressive program with working with research and development and startups transitioning to the private sector.

we just passed, in the last two years, at mit. it is a good model and we are proof that it works. if you set your mind to it, you can make a change. i want to welcome you to utah. we are glad to have procter & gamble there. my question is for you, amy. i have heard about the fact that we need to have the students coming to the united states, getting degrees in engineering, we ought to attach a visa or a green card. maybe that is something we should consider doing. the more important question is why is it we cannot grow our own? why did we not have enough of our own students going into science, technology,

engineering? why can't we grow from within? >> i think we need to do both. we need to attract the world's best talent into the united states. we had a history of being able to do that in the past. the question on why we are not growing our own talent at home? i think our education system is broken. i do not think it is working. i am sure all the governors are spending a lot of time working on k-12 education. there are different conversations. we need to inspire people in a different way. i think there are plenty of people who see technology as cool. google, facebook, twitter, technology is pretty sexy these days.

it is changing our k-12 education system. maybe high schools that are targeted for that education. that is where i think we need to attack it. it is carrying the message that nerds into a rule the world. honestly, if you look around, it is crazy. it is a different way of thinking about things. >> i think it is something that we really need to address seriously. i do not know of the education system is broken, whether we are not channeling people into the right courses, and the alignment necessary for the market demands. if it is cultural, if we are just lazy. the economic rewards seem to be

there. you would think it would compel people to get people into a line of work that would pay a great dividend. i am puzzled. we certainly have seen that with steve jobs and bill gates. why we're having to import is a puzzlement to me. >> i will make one more comment. he is the segway inventor. he is the founder of first robotics. he attacks this very problem. our culture -- we have made sports really cool. we talk about sports, we pay athletes an enormous amount of money. right? the other thing we worship is

celebrity. we make hollywood unbelievably interesting. we pay actors a whole lot of money. the model behind first robotics is to try to make building a robot cool. trying to make technology and engineering the sport we would all talk about. instead of talking about basketball, let's talk about, let's build a robot. let's get the robot to play basketball. it is kids in junior high school and high-school building robots. i encourage everybody to go to one of these things. it is amazing to see. i watched the regional championship here in washington, d.c. it is like a carnival. everyone is eating food, there

are cheerleaders. the u.s. patent and trade office has scouts. it is crazy. it is just like sports. how do you turn it around? you look at models like first robotics. you try to make math and science really exciting for kids. >> sorry for talking about sports earlier. [laughter] i feel really bad now. i am glad you were talking about nerds. we have a lot in the room. governor walker, you ask for the next question. >> i do not think talking about sports is bad. in terms of job impact, that is much greater than the score of the game.

we should be applauding both. thank you for being here. one thing that you said that struck me, you mentioned the university of wisconsin report on barriers to women. i am curious in all of your interviews, you mentioned access to capital. why is that? the people you were talking to -- how did they get access to capital? what are the barriers? that would enlighten us in some ways. >> this is just starting to be researched.

different people will have different data sets. this is a problem with entrepreneurship data. it is hard to get it and it seems to be some much anecdotal. what i see in my research is networks. women do not know as many angel investors. people tend to fund those they know. people tend to fund those they have heard about. it is not a gender based issue. it is -- if i do not know you, i do not even know how to ask you to fund my business. if i do not have a friend of a friend of a friend -- the way women are funding their companies, a lot of it is on credit cards.

it is their own money. access to networks that would even make the introductions for women is the real driver of that. it is less of a gender issue and more of a network issue. >> those that you found that were successful, was it because they had personal networks? things that were driven to drive them into those sort of networking relationships? >> they came out of stanford university business school, harvard business school. that is due to a network. that is a nice stamp to be able to say i was educated at this place. it gives to alumni to call. it puts you in touch with

people. the other thing i see is women who were successful at ebay early. they have gone on to start tech businesses themselves. it is either networks of having been at a company that succeeded or it is networks out of the university that gave them connections. if you are looking to try to support women, it is some of the things of trying to tie them to people who can help them. i like the point of big companies. another thing for women is and who you sell your product to. it's great to have a connection to a big company as a client. you could be facilitated a lot of these introductions, it getting visibility to women's companies, or just inviting some of the women founders to

participate at events where they might lead people. it sounds kind of basic, but that is what would stimulate more women to be entrepreneurs. it is the connections. >> you mentioned the kauffman foundation. they are located in kansas city, missouri. >> thank you, governor. my question is for amy. could you expend on your web mentor matching? do you know of any examples? >> there is an initiative, it is one year old, and it is

targeted towards energy. there is not a whole lot of data it to lead us know if it is working or not. that is a model that the federal level government has just stood up for the same thing. that is the best model i know about of the government level. there are plenty of models through alumni associations. i would be looking to emulate university alumni that does produce solid mentoring. >> on the sports analogy, i cannot remember if it was last year, one of our speakers was the president of mit. she really made the same point. she was talking about the importance of celebrating the inventors and the like. and she mentioned the robotics

program. there are others. my son participates in something called odyssey of the mind. you go to the world competition, 10,000 kids. kids getting together. it is very much a competition. to see these kids get excited about science, about the invention being celebrated. the second thing i wanted to follow up was the issue about women and access to capital. amy is right about the networks. this is something we have looked at very extensively in delaware going back several years. years ago, there was a big move around the country on financial literacy. back in 1999, we put together a one-day conference called every women's money conference. we ended up creating something

called the delaware money school. we offer about 600 class as a year on a variety of financial topics. 90% of the participants are women. women face an unbelievable number of disadvantages when it comes to money. they spend less time in the workforce than men do. they earn less. they invest more conservatively. they live longer. the first step is to get them connected with more of the basic financial literacy said they feel like they are ready to start taking some of the risks. there are so many marks against them before they start. we have found starting at a basic level, we have more than tens of thousands of women participating in this program.

you can see the stories as they learn more and have developed more confidence. you see them taking more risks. they have the know-how and the confidence and they have the networks to seek the financing. >> good comments. good discussion on around the room. a lively discussion. and excellent points. amy and jeff, thank you very much. i have already sent a couple of notes to different people. before we adjourn this meeting, i want to remind the people in the economic development committees that in december, this group adopted 3 interim policies as part of the policy development process. commerce, transportation infrastructure, and public

finance. i want to thank everybody who served on the committee. we have consolidated 17 existing policy statements, totaling 25,000 words. we made them into three principal based policies. less is more. policies i hope will advance caught will move this forward on monday. do any members of this committee have any other business items they want to bring up or suggest we bring up prior to the monday meeting overall? if not, i will declare this session adjourned. we look forward to reconvening on monday.

>> we are bringing you live coverage from the national governors' association winter meeting. we continue at 9:30 on childhood hunger. among the guests, the agriculture secretary, tom vilsack 2 akaka 30, of the committee on homeland security and public safety and the role of the national guard. during the governors will be the

general gregg mckinley. watched live coverage beginning at 9:30 eastern today here on c- span. this morning on washington journal, our guests include detroit news editorial page editor nolan finley. in 2008, the detroit news in 2008, the detroit news