who wants information can e-mail us. we will hook them up with the right information. >> the president and ceo of mobileye, here atthe ford motorn display. you have a display here. why does ford being here? >> companies really have to innovate and bring technology into their overall plans to stay with consumer demand. ford is looking to do this in a safe way. consumers are looking for information and updates. what we are demonstrating here today is working with third- party industry leaders,

company's common in the medical device field to develop systems where people can access that information. >> what are you specifically displaying are talking to lawmakers about? >> a few things. this is currently available on your iphone. ford is working with the maker of this application to provide a way to have this information right out to your hands free through a sink enabled ford vehicle while you are in the car. why is this important fact say you're driving through an area. this will be able to tell you that you might want to avoid this area and drive around it. >> the policy part of this is handsfree. >> hands free. ford is very focused on

developing things to keep your hands on the wheel and driving. if you know that people are going to want access to information, a growing trend, and they are able to do that in a way. there's another safety aspect of it particularly with people with diabetes. if their levels go lower at the have systems that might interfere with driving. we are working with a medical device company that would tell you when you're glucose levels might be dipping. you might want to pull over. >> stephanie lundberg, thank you

for your time. >> on news makers, washington congressman adam smith, the ranking member of the armed services committee, talked about sequestration, a defense spending, u.s. policy toward syria, national security leaks, and other military issues. newsmaker sunday at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on c-span. >> it was about those men and women who are almost mortally injured in war who, because of the huge advances that

have been made in medical trauma treatment. it states an incredible number. almost everybody who falls on the battlefield is being saved. i wanted to write about what life was like for these people. i started off with a question having seen some people who were pretty gruesomely maimed. would it be better off if they were dead in? don't they wish they were dead? >> a 10 part pulitzer winning series for the huffington post and david would spoke with ed veterans and their families as well as surgeons, therapists, and nurses on the daily inrtoroustruggles for those wod battle. that is sunday at 8:00. >> this weekend on american history television, 30 years of

the administrations of ronald reagan, bush, clinton, bush, and obama have confirmed the prediction of the rich getting richer and everyone else falling behind the year. . >> the lies of socialism in 20 century america. tonight at 8:00 eastern. sunday, more from our series on key political figures who ran for president and lost but changed political history. this week thomas dewey ran to fame prosecuting gangsters. that is at 7:30 p.m. eastern eastern and pacific. that is on c-span3. >> now rahm emanuel discusses the ongoing debate between tax rates and economic development.

he says once government gives businesses certainty they will create jobs. his comments came during a center for american progress and bent on infrastructure projects and the economy. ray lahood introduced him and delivered brief remarks. this is just under an hour. [applause] >> i do not want to take any time away from what the mayor will want to talk about. i'm going to get right to my introduction of him. if some of the afterword want to talk for a minute or two, i would be happy to do that. a few days before the last presidential an election i got a phone call from our rahm emanuel. he said to me brock wants me to

be his chief of staff. i said do you think we ought to have the election first before easter thinking about what your next job is? he called me a few days later and said i am going to take it. notwithstanding what i told him, i think this is a very bad idea. you have a great job. you're going to be the first jewish speaker of the house. it would be great for our state. he ignored all of that good advice. i said it will be terrible for your family because you'll never see them. then, we talked about whether i was a good enough republican to join the administration, and he said to me what do you think you would be interested in, and i said agriculture, and he said no, you will not, you are interested in transportation, always thinking long term about

what his ideas and goals are. this guy is very smart, politically and policy why is -- policy-wise. if i owe the privilege that i have to serve as secretary of transportation to two people. obviously, the president, and to my friend, rahm emanuel. he and i became president -- became friends and he called me and said i want to work in this delegation in a bipartisan way for illinois, and not just chicago, or my district, and from that time on we became dear friends and we our dear friends because we care about getting things done in solving problems. because i think we are both in these government jobs for the right reasons, to get things done than solve problems.

we call hosted by partisan bidders. he invited seven or eight democrats. i would invite seven or eight republicans, and these bipartisan dinners how to forge relationships that lasted beyond our congressional careers. for those of you that do not know, when rahm emanuel ran for mayor, he knew that he wanted to transform the city in a way that it had not been transformed, and what i mean by that is he went to every l site and station, every transit station in the city of chicago to introduce himself. i think there are 125. 147.

he went to everyone because it is a great way to feature it is herself and talk to people and also -- great way to introduce herself, and talk to people, and also to talk about transportation. a lot of people in chicago do not own cars. this is the way people live their lives in the city of chicago. rahm smart enough to know it is a good place to meet people and tell people what your agenda is. he recently announced an infrastructure plan for the city of chicago, not just trains and buses, but he brought with him to chicago a guy named dave that transformed the city that we live in into the most livable, sustainable community in america, with one of the largest by share programs, with

a community that will have streetcars, that has a very good metro system, and gave under the mayor's leadership, will have chicago had the largest but share program in the country. that is a -- bicycle sharing program in chicago. that is a terrific goal. his plan is more about transit and auto buses. it is about the whole infrastructure of the city, roads and bridges, sewers and water, aging infrastructure, but also about a vision. good policy can transform the city, because when you have good infrastructure, would you

are able to do is attract people -- what you are able to do is attack people for business, jobs, and young pete -- attract people for business, jobs, and young people that want to live in the city. it means more jobs and businesses. that is what this plan is about. the other thing that i think is a little bit surprising to people about rahm's leadership is how he has been able to work with a 50-member city council. i do not know of any other time in the city of chicago, but the 50-member city council unanimously passed his budget. i believe that is a record. to get 50 alderman to do anything unanimously, let alone passed the city budget next that talks about -- budget?

that talks about rahm's ability to work with people and his strong leadership. i could go on. you have done the homework, reading stories about how he is transforming education, transit and housing, and i know he will talk about all of these things. the reason we have that some success in our working transportation is because we of good partners in governors and mayors, and we have a great partner in the mayor of chicago for what he is done, for what he wants to do, it for his vision. it is not just about him, it is about the people, and what you do to serve the people to

continue to make chicago the great city that it really is and will continue to be. so, i am delighted to say to all of you, we have great leadership all over america, and extraordinary leadership. rahm is off to a great start. please welcome the mayor of chicago, rahm emanuel. [applause] >> thank you again, secretary lahood. >> i will let the record to show that i paid for all of those jitters he talked about. -- dinners he talked about. [laughter] we will start with questions from the moderator the universe -- moderator. recently, the university of chicago put out a report that talks about economic growth in chicago. it talks and the most significant challenges -- about the opportunities and the most significant challenges.

it discusses the opportunities in health care, manufacturing and transportation. perhaps that could provide a context for describing what the chicago infrastructure trust is about and how it works? >> the report noticed that we have the largest job creation and the biggest drop of unemployment in any major city, and a lot goes into that. on the infrastructure committee deals with the airport, the mass transit system, the community colleges, schools, roads, water and parks. it is an integrated plan. if you took mass transit, by way of example, we have more people on our mass transit in a month that all of amtrak in an entire year. 60% of the people take mass transit to get from home to work, and i see that is the key economic advantage, just taking

that one piece. every child will live within a 10 minute walk of parks, but on the mass transit, i see it as a key strategic economic advantage. companies are leaving the suburbs to come to the city because of our quality of life, and we have an advantage in moving people quickly from home to work. united airways open their operation center in chicago. i did a town hall with them. a lot of people came, and one of the things they talked about that they loved was that unlike other cities where the drive for one hour or one hour in 20 minutes to get to work, they could bicycle, or get on mass transit.

i take the mass transit system twice a week. i just took it yesterday. i get to work using it. it is two blocks from my house to the train. i take the train downtown. it is an incredibly important investment. we are replacing two/thirds of our entire trains, two-thirds of our auto bosses out of the stations. 100 of them will be repurchased, rebuild for totally new construction. near our convection center, we could get there by bus or -- convention chapter, we could get there by bus or train, and we will have a new station -- taxi, and we will have a new station. it is the huge economic advantage. we have launched a $2 billion

infrastructure investment in that mass transit system with the fundamental view that you cannot have a 21st century economy operating and the 20th century foundation. it is not sustainable. it just cannot happen. however mass-transit system is something, as companies -- our mass transit system, as companies look to relocate -- your work force is your most important investment, and after that any effective mass transit system, it is one of the calling cards to get the work force the companies want today. i see it as a huge piece of economic strategy. >> is the chicago infrastructure trust partner with that, or part of mass transit? >> it is totally separate. the community colleges -- we have 6 colleges. we are building two new campuses.

we have cut $120 million out of the central office, and we will get into the new malcolm >> campus, which will be for health care. the new airport, federal, local, working with the airlines cetera. -- etc.. goingrst project they're to look at it is retrofitting $20 million worth of work in the cultural center. -- $200 million worth of work in the cultural center. we are aggregating several things. there will be the first project at the board will look at other things people recommend. >> do you have a sense of how many jobs were created from the retrofitting project?

>> yearly estimate is 1200-to- 1500. on water, we of the largest water investment in the country. 900 miles of pipes will be replaced, if everything 100 years or older. 700 miles of sewer will be replaced. two of the largest water filtration plants in the world will be rebuilt, ok? it is decade-long work, and of the sewers, two thirds of everything that is 100 years or older will be replaced. 2,000 miles of road will be repaid. we are lying broadband. we are preparing for the future.

this summer we renegotiated something with the laborers' union. 75 jobs. we renegotiated the starting salary. we gave them certainty of work, and they came down in wages, etc. >> to save money. >> save money. >> how many people do you think applied for the labor's jobs? how much? >> 10,000. >> 10,000 people for 75 jobs. clearly, if i could find other ways to do it, we could do more, and we need it. i am proud of capital investment, but there is more work to be done then we can actually do, but the workers waiting to do this, carpenters, electrical engineers, laborers, bricklayers -- 10,000 people applied for 75 jobs.

it is a telling sign. by the way, when we head-on, we get -- when we are done, we have done studies, two years of residential water users will be saved and we lose now through leakage. we have everything mapped out by year. they pulled up a tree trunk with a water pipe, and they put a tiny little thing for me and put it on my desk because the wire reports guys and we are on track to get 69 miles, and the goal is 70. we are getting 70 miles done. i wrote 69 is not 70, remember your goal. [laughter]

they pulled up a tree trunk in the city of chicago which is our water pipe. chicago is not alone. that is all over the country. when we are done, two years' worth of residential water users will be saved that we now lose to leakage, and last year, a car driving in milwaukee fell down. there was a picture of a man climbing a lot of the 14-foot hole. >> that is this interesting question about where we are here and at the local level. water is interesting question. you can save money, you can put

people to work. there is a big demand for jobs. we know over the long term we save money when we make these investments, retrofitting, water savings. it makes us competitive over the long term. why has there been such a challenge to make these arguments, and if you want to skip over the politics of washington, one of the reasons the chicago infrastructure trust is so attractive is it is a way to make progress when washington is slowing down. >> the water thing, to the city's council credit, that was part of a 50-0. we could sell the water utility, but i think we know what happens when we do that. like the parking meter, i'm against that. we 63900 broken pipes a year.

we band-aid our way there. it will get done by 2057, or we can decide the status quo is not acceptable. we will put together the resources, all the our own water utility, and fixed it. we're not going to been made the problem away or hope it goes away. secondly, -- begin date the problem away, or hope it goes away. secondly, the states have their own issues. when we passed our infrastructure trust, there was not a highway bill. ray lahood has been a great proponent of the most innovative piece of the legislation, which is kind of the cousin of what we are doing on the infrastructure

trust. it is a different model. is a smarter capital investment. i said to the chickadee -- to the city of chicago that we will cut losses here, into the water, but we have to take our own destiny into our own hands as best as we can, and we cannot leave our own destiny to washington for the dysfunction or springfield's budget-cutting exercise. i understand what springfield is going to do, but i'm not going to let chicago become hostage to this dysfunction. no city can survive with an aging infrastructure, but chicago, the second busiest airport in the country, one- quarter of all cargo runs to the city on rail and our roads, not counting our mass transit. if it is rail, road or a runway, it is coming to chicago,

and it is part of our economic interest. given that, and i have a sustainable view based on mass transit i believe we have to set up another tool in the toolbox. the infrastructure trust is a tool. it does not mean you do not invest in new campuses like malcolm x. it does not mean that when it comes to water you do not do what you need to do or in our airport -- we are building the equivalent of another midway airport with that many runaways. it does not mean you do not do those things. you say what other tools can i get to achieve the economic objectives of our city? the trust is another tool. it brings in pension money. the labor pension money is coming in.

it brings in financial interests. they take the risks. we only asset. we get to use it, and we owned it. it is the rejection of privatization, in my view the wrong model. we still own it, but we finance it a different way. it really works when you evaluate from an economic perspective. doing the old thing, if there is a cost overrun, the taxpayers bear it. on the infrastructure projects, if there is a cost overrun, the investors bear it. would you agree that we are the most free enterprise economic system in the world? >> we agree, for sure. >> here is. we are the most free-market country in the world, it we do our it infrastructure in the

most socialist way in the world. all these other countries that are not as free market, they do it infrastructure trust type things. it is just a tool. the transportation department exist. it is another tool in their toolbox. it helps you achieve the goal and it makes economic sense. >> has there been resistance from the private sector because you own the access? >> the first thing we were looking at is in the trunk -- retrofit, but the first entity to say they were excited was the union pension, secondly the foundations, and then obviously, the third, a lot of people that have had traditional resources and money available for infrastructure want to be involved. since this time, i think

washington, oregon, and california are thinking of an infrastructure bang for their region. it is something people will look at because our economy is growing like this, and our foundation is moving at the space. >> or falling behind. >> it is clearly not keeping up. >> right. >> think of it this way. can you imagine chicago without o'hare, economically? we announced four weekly flights to beijing direct. you cannot imagine chicago. ge transportation just moved headquarters out of the erie, pa., to chicago. why? they can get anywhere in the world directly. if we do not invest in modernization, i will not recruit co..

is a direct correlation, and i am putting people to work -- correlation -- is a direct correlation. i am putting to people -- people to work. >> do you think this could be more universally applied, a mechanism for larger city mayors and small city mayors? >> well, we are doing it for chicago. i am only interested in chicago. other people can look at what they want to do. it cannot replace something. i want people to understand that. it is not like i'm going to force -- i'm not going to force my community colleges to figure out how to build a new campus. we will apply ideas, the traditional model we have for the airport. we will use the infrastructure trust where it makes sense for us. we will do we need to do on the water on our own. it is a tool, and where the

tool works you will apply it, and where it does not work, you will not apply it. you have to have the tool available. the notion to you are not going to make something available to yourself when economic needs and the vitality of the city require it -- and i do not think we could have the type of job growth and a drop in unemployment -- it is not like i'm sitting next to google. we have a diverse economy. part of it is the job growth we got through the infrastructure and investment piece of it. >> the connections to manufacturing especially. it starts with low interest rates. can the cit take advantage of that? should mayor's look at that

because you have that opportunity right now? >> let me say one clarifying thing. the trust is not for basic maintenance and upkeep. it is for transformative investments you can not do any other way. you have to have good people running the system. rosie is here also. there she is. tom runs water. those people to the infrastructure for the city. in my view, it is right for cities, regions, or states that have things of scale. obviously, you have to have a revenue stream that pays it back. >> i will get the questions.

we have some battle scars. never got out of the federal level. there are big national projects. it would be a perfect tool from the national project basis. it is beyond state. it probably makes sense for regional things. it sends a transformative statement. i think it is a great thing. i have other questions about the bill. this is a generous way of describing how i feel. other mayors will make their own

decision. i wanted to make sure the sick city of chicago is not held hostage. strategy for the city bus economic and job creation. >> how can we convinced the country infrastructure investments are crucial unnecessary? >> first of all, i called it rebuilding. i hate the word infrastructure -- that is one, james.

two, one of the things that gets lost -- and i will say this -- in the 1950's, 1960's, 1970's when we invested 4% of gdp on infrastructure, we grew at 4%. not exactly a =a because it is what happened. in the 1980's when we downshifted to 2%, we have grown on average 2%. it is the foundation that allows the economy to move. the other way -- cents a lot of people talk high-tech -- and words to matter -- infrastructure is a platform. everybody else build their apps anything off of the platform. if you're the right road, airport, the right water, the right schools, the right broadband, you have the right mass-transit, and all the other plant -- platforms that people take off of that, can go. i have never had a company or ceo come into me and not want to talk about some pieces.

even marginal -- whether it is mass-transit, airport -- we move a flight schedule because of where the other offices were. so don't tell me infrastructure does not matter to their economic decisions. again, the no. 1 -- we have the best work force in the country in the city of chicago. you have the work force and can get them to and from work efficiently, they will pick this city any time. >> the next question comes from state be at the department of commerce, manufacturing extension program. >> what are you doing out of office? [laughter] get back to work. >> that was a former world. can you talk about -- chicago's transportation renewal? a by american initiative? -- buy american initiative?

>> we have a big ford auto plant on the south side of chicago. and by way of example, the workers at the apartment across the street, so we build a bridge. we improve the rail and road access to this plan. major investment. they just added a third shift. infrastructure matter. the best exporting plants of all four in the country. 67 countries. they added a third shift, 1200 workers. they also make their police car, their intricate, there. so we will be ordering cars anyway for the police department. -- i forgot what the point is, but we gave two points advantage if it is made locally.

the ford plant won -- there were going to win anyway but it did not hurt that we had a local preference to that plant. but i also want to go back -- i think when he tallied up, close to $200 million of debt and investments to improve the efficiency of the plant and efficiency, the best exporter of the ford family of factories and the added a third shift, 1200 jobs and stamping facility with another several hundred jobs. i want to tell you how busy they are, and to organize a trip to announcement. had to come in a 10-minute window -- that is how unbelievably precise that are too literally the minute at the facility. >> a question from cheryl -- how did you get the 50 members to pass your budget? all interested. >> the chicago way.

[laughter] they saw a bright future for themselves. first, we had a healthy debate. look, it was my first budget and we had a healthy debate. we did a number of things we did that we have been discussing a long time. let me give you one example. our garbage collection is like 220 a ton and the nearest competitor is $140 a ton. i said, we got good garbage. never knew it was that good. in the past, it was picked by ward. put out a fedex-ups model, efficiency. we are implementing it now and was a 50-$20 million just being efficient. we debated this 20 years, this budget. second item -- have our city does recycling and have does not because we never had the

money. so, we set up a competition. one sector, streets and sanitation workers, one sector, waste management. both union. both the same union. streets and sanitation said we are going to go win that worked very that -- that work. that is our work. we will win it. with enough savings in the system for the same dollars we are taking city-wide. debated it, debated it, done. third example of a reform, we had seven community health care clinics. big supporter of community health care. two pilots -- one in angola and one an uptown and we showed we could get better health care and save the taxpayers $100 a visit. -- visit. now all seven clinics are going federally qualified community clinic operators.

they will get better health care and the taxpayers will save money. things like that we have done through innovation. and we were honest with people. you can't continue to do the same thing and hope for a different result. you just can't do it. and the aldermen also gave ideas where they improved the original ideas i had and we implemented them. and we used to do this to the past -- major nonprofits got free water. free. costing the city about $20 million a year. southwestern hospital. the aquarium. downtown. done. now for the smaller nonprofits, we phase out over time, but for the big institutions, we ended it. i made sure everybody got affected. i think the city council looked at it.

obviously their votes -- and this is where the water investment came from. >> we have another question with reference as acting something you said earlier, from william klein -- would be useful to add education and health care to health care? or should we think -- to infrastructure? or should we be thinking more expansively about the quality of life and what we all need? >> union beyond the building of a school? >> if i am going to interpret this question, if you think about infrastructure as the kinds of things we all need for the economy to grow, it severed -- health care, education, we think of them as human issues but maybe we should think of them more broadly. >> henry kissinger news that a great quote, do you have any questions, answers? i am not sure i understand but let me answer however like to. we have six community colleges of the city.

i appoint the ceo. we are transforming our community colleges to career- based. all of harvey will only do transportation distribution list of sticks, washington will soon become professional services. we will do culinary and hospitality industry. i.t., advanced manufacturing. we have asked industry leaders in the to the field to do the curriculum and the training of professional -- professors. the reason we picked the six growth fields we want to train the work force. the only thing i will say about education, is your work force is the most important. i love what i am talking about on the fiscal side but no one would come unless we have the both business school in chicago where the school at northwestern. we have graduates from the big tent -- the largest alumni of any city of the country, city of chicago. our work force is incredibly hard-working. the average -- national average for the four-year institution,

the population is 23%, in chicago, 34%. i want to make sure that the community college level, those kids and adults have as much a chance at the future as a kid coming out of the boose school of business school. i am glad we have booth and kellogg and depaul, loyola, university of illinois, michigan -- they come from all the schools. university of wisconsin madison. all of them, they come to chicago, and it is like a caravan of coming to chicago. i have 127,000 kids going to community colleges or returning adults. i owe them an education that gives them a career and opportunity. that is the biggest investment we will make on our kind of post high-school education. and i am fascinated about this -- i have never seen corporate america as excited about an

educational thing we're doing like the community colleges and i have never seen something work on the street as exciting. coming together -- i just made an announcement, lola institute of technology is opening its first academic investment in 40 years for the city of chicago, a new innovation for both design and software development. right now, today, on the web site, there are 4000-plus computer analysts job openings and 3800 web designers. that is on an average every month in the city of chicago. that is going to be true in new york, l.a., and the city. getting people train up is our response to the living, and i want to make sure we have the work force. i can't see the trust doing that. i don't see as paying off student loans that way. let me take that off the list. but in general, other cities may not control the community

colleges. we do in the city. we want to assure the community college grads what has a chance at the future. >> just a few more questions. given ta money can be sent on anything a state once, how do mayors around the country convinced governors and state leadership that -- programs want investments? >> let me try to figure out a clean way to say this. i will say it wrong, but here it is. a lot of times the federal government is designed to go through the states. that used to mean as a congressman, everyone would say that. of all the things i have to solve, direct funding is not on the top of my list. as a mayor, i have become a convert. i would love to see more federal government -- first of all -- and i can tell you a

telling analysis of that. capacity to stop saying, let's try a pilot project, we will directly fund x in x city. not just because we are closer but not and do what add another layer to transfer and have another box checked and another analysis going on? because the truth is, around transportation, -- we are all close. but i can tell you, getting another approval process, that is about nine months to a year, not because they are intending to do but just done. not everyone is working with the same sense of urgency and i beat you can walk away the kind of begs to the sense of urgency and they would have. can i go two live examples? why the community college thing is essential?

we just -- it is creating a facility. it to this example. we are going to build a facility near mccormick place. i want to get it done in short order. there is nothing there but to get that facility build they were talking about the requirements with the fed in the states. i said, what are you talking about? there is nothing there. there was a year for environmental studies. what is there?

there was nothing there for environmental studies. it was a layer of bureaucracy and it is not because they do not want to see it happen, it is why i have to into the same questions that the state level that i do at the federal level? it is not like the state does not have self interest in mccormick place. somebody checking a box. i would like to send them the fed application. i like to get going. as long as the standards are what the fed wants, i do not need another layer. my governor is interested in what i am interested in. i had to go through another loop to get it done. >> what city is the model for

innovative infrastructure development? >> there are 127 projects in canada. they said we are in a little shop and there is screaming and yelling. we are in canada and we have 127. i said i want to send some people to visit. i am sold. canada has an interesting model. in case you want to see it, we have daily flights out of chicago. [laughter] >> i want to close to the question. we have a link on our website.

there are transportation issues and you are trying to address them. during your career, there has been discussion about government. and how to make it more effective. from a perspective of a mayor outside of washington, our people seem that issue in the same way? it is this a solution-based approach where you are trying to help the most basic human needs? >> i have two points. i love this job. i have had great jobs. this is the best i have had in public life. i would never replace any of my

jobs. but mayor is a government that is closest to city government. it is the closest to the people. that is how they envision their lives. recycling. garbage. tree trimming. parks. it is the most intimate. you make a decision. some people are happy and some people are not. they do not hide it. [laughter] that is one. i used to congress on your corner. hear you say, i'm going to do this. it is the most intimate form of government.

they did not hear your message about the telephone. [laughter] let me say this. we are having -- this is a pet peeve so thank you. this discussion about all that matters is tax rate is ridiculous. i cut upper head tax rates by 50% and by the time my term is out, we will eliminate it. tax breaks matter. but any business person will also tell you the quality of a workforce matters. can they get goods and services efficiently? is government transparent? this year, we had 147 business places on the books. we had more than l.a., phoenix, and philadelphia combined. we massively consolidated them down to 43. i do not like you focusing on

city hall. i want you focusing on your customer. my favorite example of this consolidation was if you buy a dog, they need a license. if he so the caller, you need another license. if you want to offer the service of watching the dog, you need another license. i was just looking for a kid to by the dog. [laughter] government coming in a sense of oversight, does not mean you eliminate it for health and safety. certainty -- once you give certainty and the ability to move goods and services efficiently, all things they care about and also a workforce that is trained and ready to go, they will go create the jobs and you will leave the country.

the notion that only thing that matters and economic development is tax breaks. it matters. chicago to make it point. it did not have an income tax. o'hare is a critical platform for that operation. ford has a plant. we invested to keep it competitive.they decided what cars that produce there. we make sure they can move them in and out. we are making investments. there is a partnership for the interstate highway system and the broadband development.

there has always been this partnership and it is a good partnership. it has worked in our history. it is not one or the other. when we go over our line of 140 business licenses, nobody is less healthy than the city of chicago. we did it smartly and it gives small business a certainty. the next thing we would do is we have 8 different inspectors. we are consolidating and modernizing it. then somebody can go pull it down on the website and they do not have to bother in business with an expected. we are not doing that from a health and safety perspective

but from every other perspective. and and that is where government matters. this notion that government is bad and private sector is good, we always have a partnership. we should have a discussion about 30 doubles. i do not create jobs. the private sector does. i do create the atmosphere and the environment where they can succeed or not. that is based on the schools, workforce, airports, mass transit, water, quality of life, parks. that matters. the fact that the city of chicago went from ten to fifth in bicycle friendly, it is not an accident. we have a massive improvement in startup companies and young workers doing web design and all types of other design. there is another means of transportation. they cannot build a bicycle lane on their own. i have to do it.

>> great ending to a great conversation about chicago. [applause] and thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> ladies and gentlemen, please remain in your seat. thank you. >> tomorrow on "washington journal" dear fellow at the washington institute talks about the u.s. and u.n. roles in syria. chris cilliza talks about his new book. a round table on a 8 in dos with regan hoffman. "washington journal" live at

7:00 a.m. eastern on >> coming up tonight on c-span, a look at american foreign policy with former secretaries of state madeleine albright and colin powell. then, a forum on how women are shaping politics and the economy. first, california democrat nancy pelosi, followed by texas republican senator kay bailey hutchison. later, a panel discussing women and politics. now, former secretaries of state madeleine albright and colin powell. they talk about the importance of soft power, and how the rest of the world views america as a leader. secretary paulo also gave his views on foreign aid, the role of the private sector, and

immigration policy. this is half an hour. >> what a pleasure trip is to share this small, intimate gathering with two such amazing national servants who have done so much. i've had the opportunity to talk to both in many settings, on cnn and since, so i am very looking forward to how you and -- how you will connect the dots in terms of america's role in the world, making the case for diplomacy and development, and where you see this all going. it is hot in washington now. a strange season. you are famous for so many things. especially those pins that you wear. tell us about the pain you are wearing. >> i am wearing a frog tonight,

either because we have to leap over the problems that plague this budget, or to make sure that public assistance does not croak -- foreign assistance does not croak. [laughter] [applause] >> where is your pain? >> she has all of the painins. >> when calling and i -- colin and i were on the committee, she would walk in with all his medals, and i was in your female civilian, i realized i needed some help -- in your female civilian, i realize i wanted some help. >> a lot of pins, carter did rich the preserved. secretary albright, let's dig

into this. and when you were a secretary, there were serious efforts in congress to cut back on the foreign affairs budget and agencies. there were some members of congress who boasted about not having passports. that seems to be very different now. there seems to be a different town. there seems to be a different appreciation. do you share that perception, and so, why? >> i think an awful lot has to do with the people we are with tonight -- senator leahy and senator gramm. it makes a tremendous difference when you have leaders who can push everything forward. i do think that the leadership is a very important part. i have been fighting the battle of making sure that the foreign assistance budget or the international organization but it even gets through. i worked with another senator when they were chairman of the budget committee.

i did congressional relationships with the security council during the carter administration, when it was decided the words foreign and assistance should never go together, it was an issue as to why would give taxpayers that. >i think there is an agreement about the importance of american leadership. i think that is the important part. i think there is some disagreement about how american leadership is deployed. and under what circumstances, what leader -- what programs we really work on. i think that, thanks to the coalition, we have been pushing it. i am not sure i fully agree that there is complete bipartisan agreement on how american leaders should -- american leadership should be deployed. we have to make -- to keep working to make sure we see department -- democracy, and

diplomacy, and defense going together. >> secretary paulo -- he certainly made the case from both places -- powell, you certainly made the case from both places. it is interesting how some military leaders have spoken out in this part. secretary panetta, secretary gates, general petraeus -- why you think the military express its feelings so strongly and eloquently for this kind of expenditure? >> we have always felt that way. we have become more vocal in recent years. >> y? >why? >> i can go back to the invasion of panama in 1989 and worked for. we realize that just having a military battle you had one was not the end of the game. perhaps we should have done at the beginning to avoid that battle in the first time -- place or, having won the battle, how do we preserve the peace? >> you have to be careful when

we talk about these terms such as smart power or heart power or soft power. i'm reminded of a conversation i had with the former archbishop of canterbury in 2003. you might have been there. it was on the eve of the second gulf war. the archbishops stood up and said, general powell, why don't we just use soft power? it was a critique of what we were getting ready to do. the answer i gave him was that it was not soft power that rescue britain from hitler. it was part power. you had to have all of it. when we won with hard power in world war ii, we use soft power in germany and asia to create democracies. the importance of this coalition, what makes what we are doing tonight so important, is that we understand that we need it all.

we have been shortchanging the soft power, which really translates into smart power, for much too long. for years, i have been hearing the same thing -- less than 1% goes to this, but it does not change. enjoy have more people as well informed as lindsey gramm and pat leahy, who understand that in the world we are living in, we are competing in some any different levels, not so much military levels as levels of economics, development, what we are doing to help people in parts of the world who are wondering, is america there for us? until we start to invest in that part of the power equation, america is not meeting its values and standards to the rest of the world. [applause] >> you said something very important to us now. it would be a great challenge to senator leahy and senator gramm

when they're doing that job -- that is, we need it all. america would say, we cannot afford it all. that is a casey to make, that this is an investment, in a changed world where borders mean different things and national security means different things. how hard is that to do? >> when you put the facts out there, in terms of, first of all, it is in our national security interest that countries are able to develop, that people are able to live a decent life, that our values are translated, and, when something happens terribly in some country, it does come home to america. i see it as a national security issue. sometimes it has to be argued on that basis -- national security support. then, there are also a lot of constituencies in this country who see it differently. we talked about the religious community. i think that they have been -- the faith-based community has been supportive because they do not want to see people suffer.

we have always talked about assistance to the poorest of the corporate we have to present it to -- the poorest of the poor. you have to present it to -- in language that makes sense. it really is not that much money kerry and senator gramm was talking about how much it takes for taxpayers to generated, but the returns to america, people who can buy american goods and have a sense of security, that is something that we can afford. we are a rich country. we are richer than anybody else. we have to make that argument very clearly. >> put this in terms of investment. >> it is very affordable. one problem i had when i was chairman, it was always set up as a competition between defense spending and foreign assistance and other state department spending. >> of the competition, on the hill? >> people always wanted to say, you are taking defense money and

wasting it. when i became secretary of state, they realized that was idiotic. [laughter] >> i would have liked to have been there. >> i knew this as chairman of the joint chiefs of staff as well. i have often been called the reluctant general. i'm always trying to find peaceful ways to avoid conflict. i think we should always do that. there are peaceful ways, but critics -- it takes investment, in simple things like clean water, economic development, and helping people out of poverty so they see a better life. we are an inspiration for the better life. that is how you avoid conflict. if the conflict comes, i want to make sure we can do it right, but i would rather avoid a. >> if you think about this conversation tonight -- to the u.s. global coalition and the work that has been done, the message is clear, but there is a tremendous disconnect with the public.

a recent poll says that 83% of the american public say we should pay less attention to problems overseas and concentrate on problems here at home. maybe we that question was phrased puts that as the primary choice, which it is not. how do we address that? >> i think that we have to be smarter in terms of explaining. your previous profession does not really help. [laughter] >> what every talking about -- whatever are you talking about? >> this is not a simple subject, with breaking news, but you can explain why it is so important. i think that we have a stake in having people understand that our security depends on the security abroad. there is not such a thing on -- so far away that it is all very close. >> that paul has been used for years to suggest to the american people think that 20% of our

budget is going to foreign assistance. it is not, just 1%. but the world has also changed. when the chinese doing? they agong around the world using soft power to secure the mineral resources, to secure farm land for food for the chinese people. they are using their wealth. they are using their influence around the world to really challenge us. we are still the inspiration for the rest of the world. if we are going to be the inspiration, this is what democracy is about. this is what some rights are all about. we have to put our money behind it. the case can be made to the american people that we are a wealthy country. we can afford this. one of the major changes with respect to the pentagon and the state department accounts -- there is more realization on the part of military commanders that we need to perhaps even give up part of our so much big budget at the defense apartment, --

defense department to send it to the state's department. when we had difficulties in afghanistan, and said we need to stay department, there is not that much state department to send to these places. we ought to be doubling the size of the foreign service. [laughter] [applause] doubling the size of usaid. >> this is not incremental, this is exponential. >> exponential. there's so much work to be done. there are some things we could be doing right now to bring people up out of disease, out of poverty. presidents work with clinton, my work with president bush -- a lot has been done, but a lot more can be done to make this a better, safer world that serves our interests. >> when senator leahy was up here speaking, he spoke about

accountability. i should say for a moment, we should recognize senator leahy for youror gragaham accomplishment and work. [applause] when i was a young radio reporter in vermont, in 1977, senator leahy was then making the case that his dairy farmers, i remember, his dairy farmers in vermont or selling products overseas. >> we were introduced by caterpillar. they certainly make money and do well by exporting products. somebody on the other side has to buy them. it is not an accident that a large number of people in this audience are business people. they are doing what benjamin franklin said -- doing well by doing good. the bottom line is that, in fact, that is the best part of the coalition. [applause]

>> what senator leahy spoke about was a degree of accountability. i would like to ask you both how you feel what and -- what you feel needs to be done to make this diplomacy, this investment, more effective going for. >> we should demand accountability. it is taxpayer money, let's never forget that. >> what does that mean? >> the average citizen is paying taxes to help these people overseas. therefore, we should expect from them the rule of law, the role of commercial law, and to act in ways that are sensible and appropriate for what they are doing and receiving. >> there is no problem in my mind to demand the highest levels of accountability and stick with the rule of law. the challenge corporation, which was a major initiative of president george w. bush, said

we should invest in those companies that are committed to the rule of law and will and corruption and a sensible ideas. if people are wasting money, to heck with them. we do not need to give them that money. the american people should not expect us to give them that money. >> let me do what i enjoy doing so much -- put you on the spot a little bit. your secretary of state today. we have this fiscal cliff that we are facing. we may have sequestration of our military. we may have another downgrade of our debt. who knows where this will go. you have to go up on the hill and make the case for doubling -- for spending more. how would you do that today? >> i think that i would make it a very clear that the security of the united states depends on the fact of us having friends around the world and countries where people are able to live a

decent life and where, in fact, they -- there is not an environment terrorists can take advantage of. there is no direct line between poverty and terrorism, but does not take a lot of imagination to think that people who are completely alienated from their societies are more critical. you have to make a very hard case. the suggestion is very good, that we need to have accountability in government. easier said than done in many ways, because sometimes we have to give to countries that are on the verge of changing. i do think that corruption is the pastor of the whole operation -- the question is, how do we get the institutional structures that make these things viable? i think that we have to put it flat on the line that are -- americans are better off when other countries do not have people who are susceptible to being corrupted or taken over by terrorist organizations.

>[applause] >> the cold war is over. there is no pure competitor out there with any intent or capability to threaten the continued existence of the united states of america. we are in a different kind of competition in the world right now. but we are still the nation that gives inspiration to the rest of the world, to people who are still striving to freedom and democracy. when i see what the chinese are doing, for example, and they will not be our enemy -- they have too many of our own problems -- their own problems. when i see what they are doing with their influence, their soft power, i would say to my friends in congress, we have to be out there in that playing field. people are looking to us. what are we doing to help them with poverty, with clean water? what are we doing to help educate their children and give them better access to the

electronic revolution taking place? it is an economic model -- the most powerful political force at work today is economic. not the size of the army, but who is creating the most well for their people? we have to participate in that world. that world requires more investment in a smart -- the soft power part of smart power. >> i think we have to make an even larger argument. we're sitting in a building named for ronald reagan. inside this building is the wilson institute, woodrow wilson. is there anything more bipartisan than that combination? >> one of the largest buildings in washington, we should point out. >> when of the issues here -- you are talking about the if. this is more than foreign aid. we are completely backed up by the arguments going on in the cities that are embarrassing to the position of the united states and the world. i am chairman of the board of

the national democratic institute. we go and we talk about what democracy is about. we say that one of the major aspect of democracy is compromise. they then say, yes, like you guys? >> and you say what? >> we say, we have a problem. the bottom line is that we have a huge issue, and i agree, our issue is, what is our economic security? what is to depend on baxter depends on a street name at the budget situation. -- it depends on the budget situation, figuring it out, and people have to pay taxes. [applause] >> led the second that. when a mike consistent teams these days -- washington cannot keep operating -- this is one of my consistent themes. washington cannot keep operating this way. our founding fathers -- they dealt with some of the most

difficult issues imaginable, and get in a few months, in a hot room, they could set to those differences to compromise, a compromise that creates a consensus and creates a nation, a constitution. you are telling me that the united states congress cannot even figure out how to get out of sequestration? >> it is really remarkable. [applause] i think that most everybody in this room and most everybody who has traveled the world has had an experience like that some place. at one ever forget this as long as i live. in new-martial law poland, as poland was throwing off its communist joke, i was in a restaurant with practically no food. i was speaking english with another colleague. a man heard me speaking english, sought i was an american. he reaches into the pocket of his shirt and pulls out an old american dollar bill, kisses this dollar bill and says,

america is good, in this broken, accented english. this is a country that stands for something. this is how we follow through on that investment. i want to ask you about something you both talk about and has been discussed a lot -- the role the private sector. we've heard from several people from corporate america. corporate america is growing overseas. we are partnering with government overseas. how should that work? how should that look? how important is that? >> the private sector is essential. public-private partnerships are one of the best ways to move the process forward in terms of helping the country where we are trying to help in terms of investment. also, if i might say so, american private sector companies, in terms of their policies, their approach to environmental issues, i discovered that when i was secretary state -- they are now our best ambassadors. private-public partnerships are

very important. i am now having something called the partners for a new beginning that secretary clinton asked me to had. the head of coca-cola is a vice chair. the private sector is able to do a lot of good in partnership with the government, our government and governments overseas. there is a profit motive to doing so. corporate responsibility -- a social responsibility works along with having good business. i think it is vital. >> i could not agree more. the great wealth of our nation is in the private sector, not the government. it is the private sector that is spread through the world now. discreet and products and other countries -- creating products and moving production facilities, not to outsource, but to go to the market. >> that is what a lot of people might say. >> ise this globalized world -- i do not have a job. an elite -- i may lose that job

to of course. we are going through a period of transformation. this is a global economic situation. there is no longer a global -- an american company that is not also a global company. we have to understand what this dynamic is about. our challenge is to educate our population for a new economic system we are living in. if we do not do that -- you talk about what we will do in other countries, but if we do not fix our education system in the united states, we will get left behind. [applause] i mentioned at the outset that we are in the middle of a campaign season. i might ask you both if you miss it, if you would like to be on the road, campaigning? >> i actually am. i am trying to help everybody who believes in what this country is about, who believes

that are government can be functional, and is willing to be in congress and try to figure out how to get us out of this particular situation. poland, it is clear, -- colin, we are friends, we have done a lot together. we both agree we are wrapped around the axle at the moment. we want people who'll come to washington to solve problems, not create problems. >> if you are speaking on behalf of this party we are discussing tonight, american leadership and development and diplomacy -- what does that campaign speech sound like? >> first and foremost, let's remember that it is economic development that is the most powerful political force at work in the world today. not the size of the army. what we have to do is fix our economy and do whatever that takes, government policy, fiscal policy, corporate policy -- that will be fixed by american

businesses and corporations. secondly, we have to do something with our immigration policy. we cannot pretend that we are not a nation of immigrants. we always have been. it has been our greatest strength. we do not understand the importance of fixing this problem that we have. [applause] we need to internalize that as earlier this year, the majority of youngsters born in america were born of immigrant and minority families. in one generation, the majority of americans will be up another so-called diverse culture. we will be the only nation on earth who can handle something like this. europe cannot do it. only america has the tradition to handle something like that. we have to prepare ourselves for that kind of a tomography that is heading our way. third, we have to understand that education is key to our success. education is not just pay

teachers more, fix the schools -- education has to be driven down to pre-natal levels. it has to be driven down so that we all understand that education begins in a home of 11 people who bring a child in the world in an atmosphere of love to give that child what is necessary to be successful in life, and not as blaine teachers and schools if the entire community has a responsibility. [applause] >> a few years ago, six weeks before the last election, you gathered with three other former secretaries of state at george washington university for a conversation. i asked you, at the time, what was your advice to the next president? what was your message to the next president? everybody had an answer, but you had the best one. it was, remember, you wanted this job. [laughter] what is your message to the next

president, to what we will face, what this country will face, thinking about this changing world, is more diverse world, this more globalized world? >> i am looking at a sign that says invest in our future. i think that our next president, who is the same president that we have now. [applause] >> or the other one who is running. >> but i basically believe that that is the message. it is very important -- i agree on education. there have to be explanations on what policy is an investment in the future. the issue here, how do we make sure that america, as always, is moving forward? i do think that is our strength. that would be my message. policies that invest in our

future across the board. our future depends on the stability and security of people in other countries. that is the message. we are altogether in this. we have to invest in the future of other countries to make ourselves more secure. >> and your message to the next president? >> you tried this last time, if you recall. my message, what i try to do, i travel around the country and speak -- i talk about american values, a unique place that america occupies on the world stage. a question i did all the time -- are we still number one? my question is not like it is root -- was before. there is now a two, three, and four. china is rising, other nations are rising -- i think that is terrific. that is lifting people out of poverty. i tell my audiences that we are

still the shining city on the hill. a place to look to for inspiration it we must never lose that position. i would say to the next president -- first and foremost, before we can fully occupy that shining place on the hill, we have to fix our economy. people are unhappy because we have an economy that is not doing what we think it should do. the other thing i would point out is that, somehow, you have to find a way to get beyond the political fighting taking place in this town, and ask in a very personal way, not just policy, for the purpose of debating strong views pro and con, but for discussion. we have got to get past a politics of destruction. i do not know how you do this, but you have to figure out a way

to bring the american media system under control so that it is concerned with informing us and not just fighting for market share from the latest story of the day about what britney spears is doing. [applause] >> i will join you in that. we need to tell the story, creatively, positively, responsibly. we to engage america in the world. we'll bring this to a close. i want to thank you -- to general powell, secretary of bread, as always, thank you for the thoughtful, candid, remarkable conversation. >> thank you. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> please welcome the president and ceo of the international rescue committee and the u.s. leadership co-president, george

rhodes. >> coming up on c-span, events from a "national journal" conference on national politics. first, nancy pelosi, followed by texas center -- senator kay bailey hutchison. later, white house senior provider -- adviser valerie jarrett. >> it was about those men and women who are almost mortally injured in war. because of huge advances that have been made in medical trauma treatment, over the last 10 years, they and that being saved. an incredible number are being saved -- almost everybody who falls on the battlefield is being saved. i wanted to write about what life was like for these people. it really started out with a

question -- having seen some people who were pretty gruesomely named, would it be better off if they were dead? do they wish they were dead? >> in "beyond the battlefield, " his 10-part pulitzer-winning series and the subsequent book, david would spoke to veteran and their families as well as surgeons, medics, therapists, and nurses on the daily struggles for the severely wounded in a military operation is. the remark, sunday at 8:00 on c- span. >> house democratic leader nancy pelosi talked about the of often role of women in the economy, politics, and the challenges women face in the workplace. she also discussed her own campaigns, growing up in a political family, and the importance of affordable child care for working women. this is about half an hour.

>> are first in a conversation is with the honorable nancy pelosi -- democratic leader, u.s. house of representatives. [applause] >> our first conversation today is with the honorable nancy u.s. house of representatives. [applause] >> good to see you. >> from 2007 to 2011, served as the first woman speaker of the house. having served as the house democratic leader from 2003 to 2007. she has represented san francisco in the house since june of 1987. during the 111th congress, then-speaker policy worked to pass the american recovery and reinvestment act. she led the house effort to pass the affordable care act. other achievements have included passing the fair pay act to improve the ability of women to fight a discrimination,

and eliminating don't ask don't tell policy that eliminated gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military. interviewing her is margaret carlson, who has been a bloomberg political correspondence since 2005 she was "time's" first female columnist. [applause] i want to be honest -- i was the first woman columnist at "time" magazine and was the last. [laughter] i do not know how -- what i did, but that is how it worked out. we have successful women coming today -- i thank you. in the world of role models, you are a standout in that regard. i thought about it yesterday when yahoo announced its new ceo -- it is a woman.

not only a woman, but a woman who is at this moment pregnant. when i was coming up, you wanted to hide that you were pregnant. you just celebrated your 25th anniversary. you entered congress at age 46 or something -- do not do the addition, she is very young. [laughter] i did not wait -- i did not launch my career at age 46. i was to pretend i did not have a child, more or less, but you did it. now, madam speaker, leader policy, you went to the mountain top. tell us, how did you get where you are? >> thank you very much for the opportunity to be with you today. i feel that it is always a very special privilege when i had the opportunity to share ideas with the young women coming up -- many of them have already

arrived at some very important positions in their -- whatever, the field of endeavor. i did not set out to be speaker of the house. i did not set out to run for congress. i had five children, and the day i brought my baby alexandra home, our oldest child nancy was turning six that week. that was our fifth child. we have important work to do about the future and their children. that is what i did. i always had an interest and public affairs, having been born into a political family in baltimore, maryland. my husband is from san francisco. i think, if i can convey anything to allow you, it is that to be ready to -- for

whatever opportunity comes along. i was interested, i volunteered in politics in california to the extent that i became the chair of the californian democratic party, still a volunteer. the timing -- whatever could happen between 9:00 and 3:00, when my children were in school day. again, no intention of running for congress. i wrote about this in my little book called "know your power." that is my message to you -- know your power. i had been reading articles that said i wanted to be in congress since i was 5 years old -- absolutely not. when i was a teenager, i just wanted to rock around the clock -- that was in the 1950's. there was not any destination that i had. i waited until my children or ground -- -- were brown -- writ rown to fulfill --

was just an opportunity that came along. i valued the experience i had as a mom. it was my motivation to volunteer in politics, because i saw these advantages, including love and affection and the rest, that my own children had. i was in despair of the fact that one in five children in america live in poverty. that is what drove my engine to be involved. that continues to motivate me every morning and every night. i think of as one in five children in poverty. that is what iurgent for me. that is my passion. i think that everyone should follow their own passion, of course. to all of you -- your path is the right path. to have five children and then

have a turn of events that led to becoming the speaker of the house is a very unlikely route. he may have more focused taft, a -- task, a goal you have in mind, but every step of the way it is important to know your own power. your prospects -- to not have your prospects defined by somebody else's version of the story. >> may i recommend the book to all of you? i went to it quickly. in addition to having a father who led you into politics and a family of your own at that was very helpful, you had a great mother in law. that is one of the secrets -- she went to the phone book and wrote handwritten letters to everyone with an italian surname to vote for you. [laughter] you might not remember this. >> i do remember a few hispanics slipped in there. [laughter]

family is of course very important. i was born into a political family. as i said, this book is just a little tough, just to say, no, i was not thinking of this all my life. this is how i got to where i am. it is important -- my father, when i was born, my father was a member of congress. my mother was his -- she had had seven children, six boys, one girl. i was the youngest. when i was in first grade, my father was elected mayor of baltimore. when i went to college, he was still the mayor. that was the life we lead -- public service, responsibility to the community, and contains almost all the time. i like that. but i did not want it for myself. i wanted to be a normal person who had weekends off. >> are you not normal now?

>> not quite. [laughter] the point being, your time -- you have responsibilities and they have priority. but my mother was a very important influence in my life. when i ran for congress, which was a very spontaneous thing -- three weeks before, i had no idea. then we had an unfortunate death, one thing and another -- my mother-in-law had a brigade which my daughter christine writes about in her book. she brought all of her fellow nonnas together, and they addressed cards to of the italians who lived in the district. 3000 votes -- that was their output to me.

their point -- every resource that you have when you run for office has to be utilized. what i would like to do, though, is to change, change the environment in which women have to make decisions, will make decisions about how they go forward. for over 200 years, we have been playing with somebody else paz playing field. we have to create our own environment. we have had incrementalism, weather is democrat or republican women, and i speak about this in a non-partisan way -- we lose two, gained 5 -- kick open the door. and this incrementalism. it will take us 200 years to and not even the halfway there, to represent the american people and all the talent and wisdom that women bring to the table. not that we are better.

[laughter] you can make that decision case by case, but the diversity, the diversity of thinking at the table is essential to having experts, to having something better. what i would like to see is to reduce the role of money in campaigns, increase the level of civility, i promise you, you will elect more women to public office. and, well you do that -- [applause] you will have policies that are more friendly to women. we must, we must have affordable, quality child care in our country as a priority, as we have not had. we just have to do better to unleash the full power of women. the ballot box and the bread box, that is to say, are

connected in this way. if you want this policy, it is important to the left more women to get this policy -- to elect more women to get this policy done in the best possible way. going back to margaret -- we had women getting the right to vote over 90 years ago. our suffragettes fought for decades and decades to make that happen. very important. during world war ii, we had women in the work force helping with the war effort, getting out of the house, going to a job. that was a drastic change. then we had higher education, with women in the professions, women staying home, women having choices as to what it wanted to do. but we did not take that next step, which was affordable, quality child care so that we could unleash the full power of women. when we do, and reduce the role of money, and increase ability,

we will do better in a more civil debate. no question about it. >> leader policy, i will have to yield to the questioners, so let me ask you a couple -- ask you a couple of quick questions. when a powerful women in the audience. women in power are more normal, as you are. the civility question, which comes up -- you have broken the marble ceiling. how you deal with say, speaker boehner? [laughter] i have two questions. one, how is it to deal with john boehner? let's put that out there. the other, can you work in this very hostile, partisan atmosphere that you read about on capitol hill -- can you check to women on the other side and get things done? you have friendships? you get together for dinner?

how does that work? first, do john boehner. have you ever seen and cry? [laughter] >> not in private. in any event, i have a good rapport with speaker boehner. when he was minority leader and i was speaker. it is not the personality thing. it is a policy thing. that is where we have our disagreements. if anyone of the attendees today, and you are right, so many of them are leaders in what they do, as you work, the first woman editor at "time" magazine. that is very impressive, don't you think? [applause] >> thank you. if he wanted to run for congress -- democrat or republican? they said my necklace was

hitting the microphone. guys do not have that problem. [applause] if you wanted to run for congress, as iran 25 years ago, -- as i ran 25 years ago, you do not go there to be a street fighter. you go there to honor the oath we take to the constitution of the united states, to recognize the people are sent there from all over the country with different points of view philosophically, geographically, gender-wise, whenever it is -- and you hope to effect the decisions that are made. that is pretty much the way it needused to be. i was honored in february 20 of this year to be introduced to

his library at texas a&m of george bush 43. i was present on president's day. it was quite a lovely honor, connected to my 25th anniversary in the congress and the work we had done together. i was a junior member of congress, and he was president of the united states. we had differences of opinion. sometimes we agreed and sometimes we did not, but we were always respectful. that is what you came to do -- not to go into this kind of struggle that does not recognize many other points of view in our country and that they all have to be respected -- not only for the person elected, but for the people who sent him or her o

there. it used to be quite different. i have never been big on the dinner side of things. i have a district that is three hours earlier than i am, so 5:00 here is 2:00 there, 8:00 there, 5:00 -- you keep working into the night when you are a california rep. i cannot speak with much authority on that. one dinner that i used to go to? >> tommy, quickly. >>-- tell me, quickly. a group onasn' tuesday night that used to have dinner. most the democrats -- but did not matter. in any yvette, largely men. -- in any event, large and then. there were only about 20 women when i first came to congress. it was a dinner once a week. barbara canellid i would b,

and i were the three women. the gas would only talk -- in ever said, what you think? they would all talk over each other. you had to just jump in and speak. it did not work well when you went home and tried that. people would be like, wait a minute, that is not how we have been around here. we always used to laugh, the three of us, that they would never think to turn to us and say, what do you think of that, because we were not likely to jump in the way they were. one night, we are all at dinner. they start talking about the evenings when they had their babies. [laughter] we would have thought for sure

they will say, what do you think? [laughter] that they they said -- the doctor would not let me in, the second, i had my camera, pictures, i can show them to you. [laughter] i went in, but i did not stay long. when i saw what was going on, i went out the door. they all had their views. the three of us were thinking -- we have 11 children among the three of us. barbara has to, i have five. foreshore, tridymite a court -- surely, it might occur to them. we were later with somebody who was the leader of the era, we were talking about some constitutional issues to which

he said, what do you think of that? we thought, this is so remarkable, thank you for asking. we told them what happened the week before. all of the same people were at the table. they said, we would never have done that. we would never have done that. we thought, you do not even know what you do not know. you do not have a clue -- you were talking about childbirth and did not think that was something you could ask us, do you really want to have this conversation? it was on a par with on the floor of the house when one of them said on a debate over family planning, somebody who did not share my views stood up and said nancy pelosi thinks she knows more about having babies than the pope. [laughter] not that our expertise is confined, but the fact is that

nobody is asking you for anything. decisionmaking -- you have to go out and search it. it is very important for us to change the environment to one that is more conducive for women to be in the lead and in the mix. it is about the economy, growth, the military, the protection of our people, academics, how we educate the next generation, healthcare, all that is better served by the empowerment of women and the leadership in this field. know your power and your role. >> i have time for maybe two quick questions. i am tempted to say we have come a lolong way since you were not asked about childbirth by his men -- will we get equal pay? we have the ledbetter act -- will we get it? >> we have breadbox-ballot box

-- you have to find people who support what we believe in. we passed the ledbetter act, but ended by the repeal of don't ask don't tell, both ending discrimination. at the same time, at the leadership -- with the leadership of rosa delauro, we passed the equal pay legislation in the house. the senate requires 60 votes, so a majority was not enough. we could not pastorate. ss it.f -- past i in the next congress, we want to talk about equal jobs and equal pay. part of that will be to have the agenda of equareform in our sys. reform the system, he let people

of any party who -- i let people of any party willing to make that change. -- elect people willing ot make that change/ >> yes or no, are we going off a fiscal cliff in the lame-duck session? >> we cannot. we are not going to do it. the congress will come around and be responsible. yes, no? >> i cannot answer for mr. baker and the -- mr. gaynor and butehner and the rest, we need to work together in a balanced way to have growth, revenue, and give a message of fiscal soundness. that is a headwind to our economic growth. what is happening in europe is a

headwind. the slow recovery of the housing market is a headwind. not as much credit as people need is a headwind. one headwind we can do something about is a message of fiscal responsibility coming from the congress. that is a decision that we have to make. the president came to the table and agree on it. republican walks away -- the republicans walked away. could we take strong bipartisanship, yielding on both sides on the issues. again, just a discussion of it undermines the credibility. the stability and the credibility is a headwind for economic growth. you'll have to ask them how sincere they are about revenue. we are very sincere about the cats. >> madam speaker, you are civil, you are normal, and you are funny. i thank you very much on behalf

of the audience. >> thank you all very much. know your power. [applause] [applause] >> texas senator kay bailey hutchison also spoke about the challenges facing women and politics. she explains that, in the past, she has thought of running for president but did not feel the timing was right. from the "national journal," this is 15 minutes. >> good morning. >> good morning. >> senator hutchison, we are pleased to have you here today. thank you for joining us. kay bailey hutchison has a remarkable political lineage. her great, great grandfather was a signer of the texas direct -- declaration of independence. she graduated from the

university of texas, and went to work as a television reporter because no houston law form with -- law firm was willing to hire a woman lawyer. she started a small business, became the first republican woman in the state legislature, she was elected state treasurer in 1990, and in 1990 won a special election that opened up. she has been reelected three times and is now the senior republican woman in the senate. she is retiring from the senate when her term is up at the end of this year and i suspect those houston law firms would be glad to have you on staff at this time. [laughter] your first official office in washington was at the national transportation safety board. president ford appointed you as the vice-chairman there in 1976, and i wonder if you could describe what things are like for a woman appointed to a job

like that now, and compare it to how things have changed or perhaps not changed as much for women in washington in positions of power. >> i think there was the beginning of an effort to bring women in. susan, you and i were talking earlier about ann armstrong, who had been my mentor. she was the first co-chairman of the republican national committee, and my first foray into washington was in 1969 or 1970 with ann armstrong and it was she who promoted me to president ford for this position. i was p.m. at the time, maybe 26 or -- i was pretty young at the time, maybe 26 or something, but there was an effort. i love that experience. it was my first real experience besides an internship earlier in my college career, in

washington, and i got my feet wet. there was a small cadre of women who were appointees of the president, and i thought it was great that we were beginning to build. it was the building time. now, i think it is standard. we have seen women in the very top jobs, secretary of state, for rock the cabot, 17 -- throughout the cabinet, 17 women senators, and approximately 17% of the house and senate are women. i think things are coming our way. >> the 17 women senators now -- is the relationship among women senators, especially across party lines, different from the relationship between male senators across party lines?

>> i do not know for sure what the guys do, but we do have a bond. the women senators had dinner together last night. we all chipped in to give susan collins, who is getting married, a gift certificate to a spa. we got together and decided to do that for her. hillary clinton gave me a baby shower when i got my little daughter. it is those kinds of things. i guess what we do in our dinners and our social contacts are just talk about the obstacles we face, or the information we need. if we have children, information about schools. or, where to live, how you managed going back and forth to your home state.

we have made different choices. some choose to have their children with them here. some choose to keep their children home in their environment. it is a very hard choice, so we are always getting advice from each other. it is a great relationship. it does not usually impinge on our voting. we vote our states, our philosophy is, and we do not pressure each other to change something, because we understand our constituents is our first priority, but as far as camaraderie and the understanding not many women have about the obstacles we face, it is funny. >> i am sure the men do not get together and have made dinner to check in for a woman getting married. if there were 83 women in the

senate and 17 men instead of the reverse, would things be different enough policies enacted, or the tone that the senate takes toward doing business? >> in some ways yes, and in some ways know. we all are elected the same way. we run campaigns. usually they are tossed. we have tough budget -- tough. we have toughened up to meet those challenges. i think that applies in the senate. i would say our governing styles differ somewhat in that we really do -- i think every one of us -- want to get something done.

we want to accomplish things. we want to bring people together and hammer it out. sometimes that is not the case in the big senate. >> we know the senate, the congress generally seems frozen, hostile end polarized along partisan lines -- and polarized among partisan lines. is there a way out of that, do you think? >> first of all, the senate is a collegial place, i think more so than the house, because we have more open rules and therefore minorities have more power in the senate and they do in the house. in the house, everything is done by the majority. in the senate, the minority can stop legislation with 41 votes, and we have a great working relationship with our

colleagues, always understanding that we may differ on philosophies, the way things are done, but in the end understanding that everyone wants to do the best they can for their stayed in their philosophy. some of my best friends are -- and their philosophy. some of my best friends are democrats. i think we do have great friends across the aisle, in the senate, and we always know, as has happened in my 10 years in the senate, if you are in the majority today, you might be in the minority tomorrow, so get along. you do not break bonds. you do not burn bridges. if you lose, live to fight another day. when you win, you are a gracious winner. >> this dinner sounds interesting. how long has the dinner with women senators gone on, and when did it get started?

>> it really started when the women senators met with the women leaders of northern ireland, and we started trying to encourage them about their role in trying to bring peace. we started telling war stories about our experiences, and how we were elected, how we overcame obstacles, how we broke into those nine clubs regions men's clubs, and it was so interesting -- men's clubs, and it was so interesting. barbara mikulski and i, we were nine women senators at the time, and we went to bob barnett, who is this, sort of, book of contractor for many

people in washington, and we said we want to write a book. would you see if any publishers are interested? bottom line, we wrote a book called "9 and counting," and each of us wrote a chapter about our different obstacles, and when charity that we could agree that all of the profits could go to because most of us had the experience of being a girl scouts was girl scouts. we wrote the book. dave the -- keys the proceeds to the girl scouts. -- gave the proceeds to the girl scouts. it was to encourage girls who are trying to overcome a challenge, it sold quite well. that was the beginning. then we decided to start

meeting. we need about every six weeks or so for dinner. we enjoy each other's company. we have built great camaraderie. >> we will go to the audience for questions, but i will ask one last one. there were nine senators men of the female persuasion. 17 now, -- senators the end of the female persuasion. -- senators then of the female persuasion. net 17 now. do you think we will have a woman president? >> i thought it would happen by now. i do think we will happen because we are becoming so much more equal in our experience and credentials that is less of a factor now.

i think it will happen when the time is right for the woman's philosophy. i think we are tough enough. we are treated pretty much the same. i think people do not think of us as women candidates as much anymore. they think of the says -- as what do you want to do, what are your plans, what is your platform, and they build their own interest. that is good, i think. >> let's go to the audience cheered the somebody have a question for senator hutchison -- audience. does somebody have a question for senator hutchison? let's pretend i am a member of the audience. you interviewed a male senator after he has won his first election, and he thinks he should be in the white house, not so much for himself, but for the good of the country.

you interview women who been in the senate, and they do not seem to make that assumption. we think that perception is true? a lot of male politicians have thought they should be president in texas. have you ever thought about running for president yourself, and if so, why did you decide not to do it? >> well, yes, i have, and i would have loved to have the right timing. i adopted my two children 12 years ago, and i go home every weekend. i was not here for the sunday shows to build my name identification in the way you would if you were running for president.

i have not been able to do some of the things to prepare. also, up until really this year it was kind of a given that the person with the most seniority and the most logical next step choice would run for president. this year, amazingly, people just popped up and ran for president. [laughter] i mean if i were 15 years younger and my children were gone, and i could have run for president under these rules back then. i would have loved to run for president, but the timing was not right. i never felt, like she said, when i was elected, that i was ready to run the country, would they not be lucky, and i have

met those people in the senate, susan. i think women, generally, are more humble. all of the women that have been elected have had to overcome so much, and they have had to mostly deal with running their homes, having children, the experience of that, and also on top of that -- the experience of that, and also on top of that over come the obstacles. i felt when i wrote my book about women trailblazers the women that were in the arena of first, -- are read the first, they did not reach the level they hope, but they set the stage, and that got to the top.

i am in the first tranche, and i think the next will be the woman president. >> senator kay bailey hutchison. thank you for being with us. [applause] >> win political leaders look at challenges facing women when running for office at the "national journal" conference. we will hear from republican conference vice chairman cathy rodgers and debbie wasserman schultz. they talk about women and running for office, as well as hillary clinton's campaign in to designate. this is half an hour.

-- in 2008. this is half an hour. >> we are so glad that all four if you could join us today. thank you for being with us. look of this panel -- you would think that women already control washington. we have the highest-ranking republican women in congress, the chair of the democratic national committee, leaders of two powerful think tanks, including the think tank president obama listens to the most, and look at other numbers -- 17% of congress is the norm now. do you think the glass is half full, because look what you have done, or is the glass half- empty because progress is so incremental? >> i think the glass is half full. i think it is an exciting time to be a woman in congress. i think about my own story -- i never dreamed that i would one day run for congress. i grew up on a farm. 9 wife and mother.

i spent time in a family business. i had the honor of serving in congress -- you see people getting elected to congress today. granted, we have much more work to do, but i think the recent elections in 2010, from a republican perspective, we had a record number get elected to the house. we had nine new republican women elected to the house. it is a great story to tell. i think that that is a big part of it. as more women see others doing it and doing it successfully, looking at themselves and saying, she has done it, i can do it. >> what you think of this? is it a good story, should we keep at it? or is a disappointing? >> i agree to the glass is half full because i'm that kind of person. i agree to be optimistic about the future and, differently than

kathy, i dream of public service as a career choice. i was elected to my state legislature when i was 26 years old. in 2010, women lost ground in congress. we lost seats in congress for the first time since 1982. i think that we have to be cautious about to -- cautious about celebrating that a woman got elected to a particular office, and to make sure that we have women who are running and when you are going to champion the causes of women, that will make the agenda that is important to women, but equal pay and making sure that, when it comes to fighting for middle- class families and insuring access to birth control and making sure that health care is a priority and is affordable, making sure that access to

education and higher education is a priority -- i do not think just any woman -- that should not be the goal. in electing a woman who is going to make issues important to women and families -- that should be the focus. i do not know that we have made as much progress in that as we should. >> there was a sense in 1992 -- a lot of women got elected. a breakthrough year. the title of this program is " wittman 2020." by then, things could be different -- but just 17% of congress is fino. why do think the progress has ?een so incremental ta as he >> i think that there are challenges foreman who are running. i think there are additional burdens. i served on behalf of hillary clinton for a long time. i was on her presidential

campaign. i do think that there are issues that women face around admission and power that could be different for men. we are seeing that in the senate's races right now. questions are running why women -- women are asked why they are running. there is a basic question that women have to overcome about why they are seeking office. often women tall stories about the reason they are running is because they see and experience in the neighborhood in order community and when to change it, whereas men, people assume that men are running because men run. i worked for a special canada -- hillary clinton had a different -- candidate, hillary clinton, who had a lot of different

experiences. there ouwere questions about what her goals were. men are not asked those questions. there are a lot of similarities between 1992 and now. my first presidential campaign was 1992. we also now have an unprecedented number of the senate candidates in a presidential election year. i am hopeful that we will see more women in the senate and the house. i am hopeful we will make progress. i think we should recognize that people see women in leadership -- and in power in different ways. that is something we need to overcome. that is a challenge. >> when i ran for congress in 2004, my opponent was a woman. she actually made her whole campaign platform that i was 37

years young, had twins, and she would say, you can make a good -- you can be a good member of congress and a good mother, just not at the same time. >> one of the things i want to raise -- i am a glass is half- full person also. think about it -- women are inherently very intelligent. if you look and see what happens when you run for office, there are a lot of women who will fight with purpose, say, why would i want to do that? i always look at the 2008 campaign. hillary clinton -- you have people talking about your cleavage. sara pailin, people are saying, how will you be vice-president when you have so many children?

do you really want to run? how often is a male candidate running and you hear them say, look at that fat belly and come over. it never happens. -- and comb-over. [laughter] but when it is the female candidate, it is, is she married, does she have children, how will she take care of them? i have never read anything about anybody ever seen, how is joe biden going to be a senator and raise his children? maybe it happened -- i have not seen it in any reports. that is another factor. women decide, do i really want to deal with this tax is to the whole issue, the vanity thing that we want women to have more power because we are superior in every way? [laughter] would the policies enacted in washington be different if the proportion of women was on par

with the proportion of women in the population? if congress was half female, what policies the different? >> i think that women bring an important voice to the table. i served on the recruitment team last congress. when you talk to women about running for congress, the issues that are on their minds are just a little different. women are so often -- when you think about running for congress, they are thinking about their families, their careers, their community involvement, how it will fit congress into all of that. as you see health-care issues, the economy, the challenges of finding jobs -- i see more and more women being compelled to run for office and figure out how to fit in to their full plate. in years past, a lot of women ask -- to be asked to run.

it two years to decide to run for office. i'm excited right now that we are seeing more women to step up because they are compelled by the issues. another point i would make -- when you ask people how they view women versus man in public office, they view women as being better listeners at a time when many in congress, many in america do not think congress is listening. they stephen as been problem- solvers, being honest, -- see them as been problem-solvers, being honest, with and to get the job done. these are qualities that are very attractive to a woman candidate. we need to continue to highlight that. >> can i give an example? a report in wisconsin -- a state senator. they then were having a discussion in the spring session about the equal pay act or something similar to that. in discussing the merits or, in

his opinion, the demerits of the legislation, he thought comfortable saying, if you think about it, money is more important to men than it is to women. i cannot help thinking, if there were more women in the state legislature, even if he thought that was an intelligent statement to make, that there will be women legislators that can explain why, in this day and age, you cannot say that to a single mother who is struggling to raise a family, take care of her children, and pay the bills. look at her in the face and tell her what she earns should be less important than what her ex-husband earns. >> you have to only look at nancy pelosi. when she became speaker of the house of representatives and the first woman, the agenda and the issues that bubbled to the top, that she made a priority -- increase in access to higher education and making sure that student loans were more available, the amount of student

loans increased, passing the affordable care act -- being a woman is no longer considered a pre-existing condition and can i get charged more than a man because of your gender. that resulted in making sure that preventive care for women was available without a deductible, like mammograms and colonoscopy is. -- colonoscopies. the fact that we have nancy pelosi as the speaker drove the agenda in some ways. issues came to the top of agenda that -- the agenda that a man would not have and has not -- not that men cannot make issues important to women a priority, but when you are living through those issues every single day in your personal experience, the things did you put the top of the agenda will be different than what a man experiences.

>> you mentioned that you work for hillary clinton. you had a wonderful transition -- you were 2008 -- the 2008 policy director, then the director for barack obama in the general election. many people wonder how you did that. for hillary clinton, was a different? did she have a different kind of presence of campaign? was a different just because she was a woman? was that in defining the difference in terms of the strategy she had to pursue or how she had to be a? >> we could have like six hours of conversation about this. i think that there were a number of ways in which hillary experienced a different kind of president campaign -- presidential campaign than others. people -- her remarks will continue to be dissected

forever. i believe for treatment in the media was not totally fair every single bed, neither fair nor balanced across cable channels. i think -- the last question you ask, there have been studies that show that women leaders tend to focus, even republican leaders who may not be seen as running on these issues, tends to focus particularly on education, health care, the kinds of issues that families are concerned with. i think that we should not think that there is no difference in leadership. she had the first universal pre-

k program -- a variety of ways to wanted to make sure people to balance work and family. i think that those issues resonate and resonate with women, but also women's lived experiences help them understand that in leadership roles. >> could woman the president? >> i am fascinated by the growth i have seen in terms of what women are capable of doing. i firmly believe that we will see it in our lifetime. just as i have lived to see the first african-american press and elected, i believe that while i am still caring to die the gray out of my hair, we will see a woman elected. >> when? >> i hope, in the next decade.

setting the bar really low -- there are women leaders from the world -- germany, india two decades ago had a woman prime minister. . >> so the next decade? >> i hope. i hope the democratic women running for president in 2016. >> what kind of time and do you have? >> i think that, within the next three presidential elections will see a woman become president of the united states. >> so adding two years. [laughter] >> what will be important is that we need to make sure that we have more women into the pipeline of leadership. >> absolutely. >> all the way up the supply chain, so to speak. that is what happens.

because of past challenges and discrimination and our inability to cut through the good old boy network, that means that the default white guy who was the automatic, easy choice -- let's take a few examples of what president obama has done. we have seen his two choices both the women. that shows young girls like my daughter's that anything is possible for them in america. when you have an opportunity -- i am only the third woman to chair the democratic national committee. i'm the first woman appointed by a sitting president. it is not only women that can take care of women. we need to make sure that we have good men who have the ability when they are making choices, all things being equal, to be conscious of the fact that that bench needs to have strong win in on a it who are well-qualified and can build

their skills so that, the bigger the benches, the more likely it is that you have a variety of women who could run. until then, if it is just a couple, if you have to roll the dice and pounce on the moxie of one woman who will carry herself all the way, it becomes less likely. >> your timetable -- >> i tend to agree. we will see to it sooner rather than later. i'm very excited that on both sides of the political parties, republicans and democrats, you see women in more and more of these leadership positions. on the republican side, you see where governor romney is looking at some of the governors, governor martinez in new mexico -- look at where women are being considered seriously for the

vice president's spot. overall, those are women who are you see aitetier -- record number of women on the republican ticket in state legislatures. i was elected in 2004. i was the 200 women to serve in the house of representatives ever. -- 200th woman to ever serve in the house of representatives. that is out of 14,000 to have served. today, we're up to 250. that is still relatively new, but what is exciting to me is that we are seeing more ron, mortgage elected at all levels, -- more ron, more get elected at all levels. >> we will go to questions from the audience. we ask you to go down the line. you are all set successful women. i wonder if there is a piece of advice somebody gave you when

you are much younker that you think has been really helpful, has been advice you have kept in mind. >> growing up on the farm, my dad was a role model to me as far as being a role model to the community and giving back to the community. he challenged me to do that from as long as i can remember. he said, if you do not like what is happening, get involved. get to that position where you can actually impact what is going on. do not just complain about what is going on. that would be my challenge to anyone, to get involved. >> work hard, sees opportunity when represents itself. i was elected when i was 26 years old. i was the youngest woman ever elected to the legislature in florida. i hope a young roman be to record at some point, but when the opportunity presented itself, there were a million reasons not to do it.

that happens so often to women. seize opportunities. my parents told me my whole childhood -- reach for the stars. issue for the top of your profession. once a new public service was a career path that wanted, that advice told me, ok, so i do not have to work to elect other people, but the top of my profession, to make the world a better place, is to be a decision-maker. making sure that you work harder than anybody else. that can carry you so far. so many women, the reason we are able to advance further than we might, is because it is not hard to outwork most of the men. [laughter] >> i have to say, i -- now that i oversee a relatively large

organization, the biggest difference between men and women, when i see their evaluations, women are very self-critical. they think of all the reasons they have not performed. they almost apologize. a ranking system -- the best women are the ones who rank themselves the hardest. whereas every guy is like, i and excellent -- an excellent. my big advice is to show some moxie. it is an issue for women when you are strong and aggressive. you are seen as bitchy. you really have to show moxie. women do not have the same network -- that is a big issue

in washington. i was in the office longer than anybody else on campaigns. when i worked in the white house, i say the latest of anyone. it really showed that i was dedicated and committed. i advanced that way. that was the reason why i am here. i would say to young women, you have to take those opportunities by the horns. you have to demonstrate -- it is not like the network is always there for you. >> what advice would you give? >> the advice i would give is the advice that was given by my parents. i and the daughter of immigrants. a first-generation americans in this country. my parents came to the united states from jamaica, which is a very macho male society. their advice to me and my siblings has always been, number one, do not be afraid of competition. did in there and fight for what you deserve. work the hardest to possibly

can. always be the absolute best. the one piece of advice my dad gave us that i want to share with women here -- she always said he got three daughter's first, then the sun, to turn him into a feminist. he always said to fear no man. do not hear anybody. go for it. >> i wonder if there is somebody in the audience who has a question. >> i work -- all of you have set such high standards, but i know that you had to come at a point in your career where you had to negotiate or confront men and their thoughts. how you bring men into believing that you can do it and that you are the person who can lead your

initiatives? >> who would like to take that question? >> i would go back to leading by example, proving, in the small tasks you are giving, that you can do the job. there are many times when i have been giving assignments that maybe were not the ones that would have chosen a mayan, but going ahead and -- on my own, but going ahead and fulfilling those responsibilities, with that comes the recognition that if you do well on the smaller ones, that leads to bigger opportunities for you. in the course of my life, i can look back and see where it has just been a step by step, where one door opens and it has led to another opportunity. >> can i also address that? i went to college here, law school here, and decided to work out a old boy southern network

in washington and make partner. when you go into that type of environment, i was the second or third african-american in the history of the firm. the highest-ranking female maternity -- attorney came to the law firm and was only allowed to practice law as long as the client was her husband's business. that was not too long ago. even in that kind of environment, whether it is washington or elsewhere, as long as your work is always the best and what you are doing is completely unassailable, there will always be somebody who comes from somewhere completely and totally unexpected who will say that this is the right person for the job. even when the filter is the bleakest and you'll never get ahead, there is always somebody who is watching who understands the it is a proper business decision to ignore whatever feelings they might have about your gender and give you the job. >> one additional thing -- act

like the cool that you are. -- equal that you are. the same way every member won their elections, sitting across the negotiating table, whoever it is, the hard work that you commit to guernsey the respect -- berzins you the respect. you cannot act like you do not belong at that table. if they smell an opening in negotiation, when you are trying to get something done that is important to you, that demonstrates weakness. >> you have to have a mentor. you have to have a mentor. it does not matter if it is a woman or a man. you have to have somebody who is giving you advice who will go to bat for you. >> we have time for just one more question. >> i am a student from the city

university of new york. how you see the future of women of color in politics, especially latinas? our population is growing. what initiatives are you doing to encourage women to run for office get them involved in more educational leadership? >> thanks very much for your question. >> i think that we have issues of just lagging. look at the asian-american community. in the course of my life, for most of my life we did not have anybody running for any office. let alone win. for women of color, there is a time line. that does not mean that we

should not be pushing. one reason why we have a timeline is that, in the first generation, we are often just trying to survive and make ends meet. that means not be able to do that part of public service that you need to get to run for office. as generations progress, you can see more and more people pushing. i do think that it is incumbent. my view is incumbent on both parties to ensure that there is real mentor should. debbie wasserman schultz is a great example. she has mentored a lot of women. a lot of women of color to run. she has been a great spokesperson on this issue. -- i am sure that happens on the republican side as well. we need to have more of that leadership. we need people within our community that really push for that, push people to get out of

the sometimes traditional work force. it is often healthcare or business -- they move so that the board realize that america has a lot of different communities -- people realize that america has a lot of different communities. >> i am sorry, our time is up. i want to thank the wonderful members of the panel for joining us. thank you very much. [applause] >> white house adviser valerie jarrett called on women to be their own advocates at the national journal conference. she talked about her work on the council of women and girls, when presidentmet the and michelle obama. this is just over half an hour. >> thank you. we are pleased today to welcome

a valerie jarrett, senior adviser and assistant to the president. in her role, she chairs the white house council on women and girls, and oversees the office of international government affairs and urban affairs. she has served as the co-chair of the obama-biden transition team, and was the senior adviser to the presidential campaign. before this, she was the chief executive officer of the habitat company. she has held positions in the public and private sector, including the chairman of the chicago transit board and deputy chief of staff for mayor daley. she practiced law, with two private law firms, and served as director of corporate and not-for-profit boards, including the chairman of the chicago stock exchange and the federal reserve bank of chicago. interviewing her is a host of

"morning joe." her second book, which examines the role of women in the workplace, reached number one in in the new york times best- seller list. she also writes a monthly column about career empowerment. prior to joining and bassin b.c., she was the anchor of "wheat -- joining msnbc, she was anchor of "evening edition." >> it is great to be here. i would say valerie needs no introduction, but she just got one. it is great to be here with you. we have got so much in common in some ways. valerie has been so helpful to me. the special when it comes to putting together the barack "newlin your value, " which i hope everybody walks out of here knowing their value in little more after this year some of valerie's personal stories.

i know you do not want to talk politics. we want. except art -- we will not. except for one thing -- i want to know why the paycheck fair ness act failed. can you tell me? is there anybody in this room against equal pay -- please stand up right now. [laughter] first of all, what an amazing group of women. and men. i cannot imagine who is against equal pay. -- that is why we are so p fortunate to having a president who wants to make sure that women and girls reach their full potential. i'm so proud to chair that council. you can look at how president was raised to figure out how their bodies are. here is the president was raised

by a single mom. with his grandparents for the wild. his grandmother used to train people who leapfrogged over her many times. when she was trying to balance her career and be a good mom as well -- he wants to grow up in a world where they are competing on an even -- even playing field. he believes women should have equal pay. when you look at the work force, women are graduating from college at an interest rate. but still we are only earning 77 cents on the dollar. i can give you no good reason why congress did not support paycheck fairness, which would have given women in other tool to make sure they get equal pay. [applause] >> i will say it again and again on the show. i simply do not care if anybody

would like to challenge me or say i'm been partisan on this. i am for equal pay. i had my own situation with this. it is fixed, and i am glad about that. [laughter] ivo not stop talking about it. i urge you to as well -- talk about money, for yourselves, and what you are worth. you talk about the president's personal journey and the influence his own family, his wife, his two daughters have on his thinking. york close friend of the family. does this make him different -- you are a close friend of the family. does this make him different? tell us why the council on women and girls was treated, and why it is so important pertaining to our economy. >> personal life experiences are important. that is what makes us who we are. that would give the president his values, his integrity, his moral compass, his character. he grew up in a home surrounded by women.

his mother-in-law, his wife, his daughters -- he is the only guy in the household. not only does he live in households run by women, but he also makes sure that his administration has women in significant positions of authority. he empowers us to go forth and set priorities, programs, initiatives that improve the quality of life for women. he started the council because he wanted to make sure for the first time that every federal agency and department has a mandate that will be scrutinized each year -- what programs are you doing that improve the lives of women and girls? what legislation, programs, initiative? i want to make sure that we are challenging ourselves each and every day to make this a priority.

many of the initiatives that have come out of this administration -- these have also effect appointment. you have women in key positions of power. this will reflect the priorities of our country -- that half of our country is well represented at the table. >> obviously, you are a close friend of the president and his family's and his top advisers. what influence have you had on him in helping him evolve and recognize how important this is, in a way that no other president has? >> i am lucky that he came in in pretty good shape. i really am. his family that raised him instill these bodies in him. that is also a part of how he was raised -- there was a period in his life where his mother had to depend on food stamps to make ends meet. you have a sense of compassion. reflecting on my relationship

with the president and first lady -- i will update myself seriously. i met him 21 years ago this month. >> in the playpen. >> i was deputy chief of staff for mayor daly, and was trying to recruit the first lady to join the office. she had been a private law firm and was not necessarily enjoying it. i had gunter a similar transition moving at a private law firm -- i have had a similar transition working at a private law firm, looking out for my office and crying because i had just had a baby and i thought, i am losing this one for child every day. i want to do something right to feel a sense of fulfillment. i always urged young people to find out what their passion is. it is not always tied to money. do not let that be the sole

objective. after the dinner i had with in 21 years ago, they told their stories. they're not even married at the time. they were engaged. they were trying to figure out how to pay student loans that because the combined debt was so high. having a president who makes college affordable because he understands being burdened with debt -- that is important. i think it is more reflective of our country. >> he has to probably try to remain inside the bubble -- he has to retain, inside the bubble, walter was like to be part of the real world. we are looking at that with both canada is now -- i will leave that henning, cause we're -- with both candidates. i will leave that handing the because we are not talking about politics. >> i'm here in my individual capacity. >> what are some of the big-

picture problems with women? i would go as far as to say, some of the women in this room, when it comes to getting from point a to point b, even something like access to capital, across the board, still a problem. are we making inroads? >> travel around the country and speak with small businesses -- the number one issue is access to capital. another very powerful woman, head of the small business administration, she has expanded her ability to provide vital access to capital to so many small businesses. women are starting small businesses all over the country. it is an economic engine -- it is where the growth is. the president wants to make sure we are doing everything we can to help the small businesses thrive. everything karen mills is doing is to provide technical assistance to small businesses. many times, they then have a great idea.

they heavy interesting business plan. but they do not now have a ticket to the next level. women and small businesses could be exporting -- we have the whole export initiative to help them open up the world market. access to capital is the number one issue. that is something the president has made a big party. another thing we have done -- small businesses are on a shoestring budget. they go from invoice to invoice. the federal government has decided to do what we think can make it easier for businesses to do business with us. we are required to pay small businesses within 30 days. now we're doing it within 15. karen mills is going to require larger businesses to decent thing -- pass money onto their subcontractors. when you are trying to make an

ends meet, that makes a big difference. >> some advice for the audience -- for example, marissa mayer, the new ceo of. >> she is an amazing person. i have always been fascinated with her. she is now the ceo of yahoo.com at a terrific company. she also announced the two is pregnant. well-liked but the board -- they knew. they did not announce it until after they had selected her as ceo. i wanted to tell her, congratulations on being a ceo, but this is her first child -- my daughter just got married, so i'm feeling a little nostalgic.

there is nothing quite like it. the fact that she gets to take on these to life-changing experience is at the same time -- i said, how are we going to do it? she said, we work it out. i like that confidence. >> two good stories there -- her decision, and their decision to hire her. that has a lot of messages. i think of the women in this audience to think they have to make choices. there are many choices and sacrifices you have to make along the way. i think that that is a great example of how you can be a vibrant part of the economy and have children. it is very possible. it is not an either or any more. >> you also have to be very careful where you work. one thing we've talked about -- my theory is that you can do everything, but not necessarily

at the same time. you have to figure out, what stage of your life for you in? when my daughter was very young, i could not have a schedule with no control. i love the story about mayor daley. i was sitting in his office, looking at my watch, and he was looking at me. he finally said, what is going on? i said, the halloween parade starts and 20 minutes. [laughter] i thought you is going to yell at me. he said, well what are you doing here? the relief i felt as i tried to get to the halloween parade was immense. it was important to me to have a boss to recognize that my child -- it was important that he except that. when i finished law school, in 1981, we were so busy trying to be just like the guys. nobody was ever talking about their families, saying they had

to the to do something. when women leave to go do something, back then, even sometimes today, people go, all right, if she really committed? when men go, people say, that is so nice. give me a break. >> when you see him walking out to go to football practice with his son said, good, you should be there. do not blink. if you have to do something, make sure you work for a boss who is good. you'll be a better employee. one thing we did with a study, when we had a workplace flexibility plan -- they concluded that workplaces that are flexible are more productive. they have less turnover. people are more loyal.

it improves the productivity of the work environment if you have flexibility. the only way the environment will become flexible is that you have to speak up for yourself. >> it is always hard to see what you should do then -- when. i will say something i'm not sure where, but what the heck. i was anne marie slughter, except i made the decision to keep working. she describes having a son at home who was 13. anyone with a 13-year-old -- i am so sorry.

it has gotten better. i decided to stay working even though i was needed somewhere else. i was juggling the thought in my mind that what i'm doing here is for her, but it was a hard decision. not a popular one. her decision worked because -- her article work because he -- she had stopped. x. we will never get the long- hall got -- done. we all make different decisions. some decide to stay home and work at home. that is as good as valid and difficult. that is as good as working.

but the working part is really conflict role, if i can make up a word, it is full of conflict. also in the people for -- -- >> for high performers. being excellent and whenever she put her mind to -- there are two things that inevitably conflict. you feel like you are letting everybody down. >> if you do not make the decision at the moment, what are you? >> my daughter is mad at me right now. let's also understand, and the same note, on a different topic, there were some great stories that you told me. i am wondering if you could share them -- learning to communicate. learning to give yourself a leg up to work your -- brewster pay or your status in a company, which i do not think it is something that came comfortable to you.

>> that is an important point. we started out talking about paycheck fairness. everybody knows of the first bill the president sign was the pay act. the reason why it was so significant was that she was a terrific advocate talking about equal pay -- not because she wanted to benefit, but because her career -- case went all the way to the supreme court. her challenge was this -- she

you deserve a promotion. well, she didn't leave it at that, of course, dy not go. she came back at to me which is what mentors have to do. finally, i go in there, i have my script because i am prepared. i said, i have been here x amount of time. this is the work i am doing. i think i should be a deputy. he listened carely. he said. okay. i was like, oh, i said, by the way, up in the front suite, there is an empty office because somebody just left. i think i would like to move no the front suite. the rest of the deputies are around the whole floor. there are other deputies that are ahead of you in line. yeah, i think you need a woman up there. i took my boxes and i moved,

i moved in that office. you know what it? was fun. i am not saying everyone gets promotion when you ask for one. i am just saying, please do your own advocate. don't sit around waiting to be recognized. first, make sure you have performed. then, go in there, ask. whats the worst thing he would have said "no, you are not ready." then i would have come back in another six months or not had the front office. if you have a chance, there is an empty office, take it. take it. >> absolutely. how many think if you work really hard, like someone will notice and reward you for it? like if you work really hard and you show that. okay, you are wrong. put that hand down. don't do that. don't count on it. you have to tell them. this is what i learned from joe. i make fun of him. i have to tell you. i learned on the best lessons, you go in there to make sure they know. don't be embarrassed about it. communicate it in your own way. i tried joe. that din work for me. but i have gone boy own way

to communicate effectively and elegantly what it was that i was doing and exactly the value that i brought to the table. and you have to learn to do that for yourself. i urge all of you to speak in front of people to get up here on the stage to be able to do what i am doing. by the way, i am sweating bullets. i don't like doing audiences. camera, i can handle. this makes me nervous, which is why i am here. >> does she look nervous? >> no. i got to be able to do it. you have to be able to communicate effectively for yourself. no one else will. and think about how you are doing it. like, for example, be honest, you can raise your hand again because i am sure it happened. all of you will raise your hand if you think about it. how many in the past week have used the words "i am sorry" oh mo god, all of you. it is a bad time. >> merv. >> you are lying first of all. you are not sorry. so don't do it.

you have got to come to the table looking directly at who you are talking to in the eye. completely confident. your shoulders back, centered, from there, the rest comes out of your mouth. don't come in there all covered up and worried. by the way, worried whether the person sitting across from you likes us. valerie, do you like? he. >> i actually do like you. i know you do. >> i don't have to like her. what is most important, i respect the job she does on television every day. >> and that ultimately i promise you that most incredible friendships will come out of that. starting point. you will get everything by the way everything you want out of a relationship and fit starts with respect. the money thing, the negotiating thing, the acts, whatever you are doing. you are starting your own business. you got to be able to establish that when you walk in the door. you got to commend with it the way you look, feel, talk, and what you say. you can do it. you just have to. we need to step up. we need to step up.

so if everything valerie is doing doesn't mean anything unless we step up and take the horn. >> to put the dot on the story, when i mentioned the i was trying to recruit her to come and join, the first time we met, i thought i was interfering her like ten minutes in, it was clear she was interviewing me. she was asking me tough and exact questions. she was not trying to sell her shelf. she wanted to mick sure she was going to perform well and thrive in this environment and of all the choices, this was the best one for her. at in the of the interview, i or offered her the job on the spot which i probably shouldn't have done without checking with the mayor. i knew. >> you said let the think about it. she goes home and talks to foe on say. well you be shall, i am not sure. who is going have your back. are you going go into this when you have been racktition law? he said, l's sit down and

have a meal with the person who i am going to be expecting to take carve you. out of that meal, really was the beginning of a relationship and so, it is worth taking the time to get to know your team to make sure your team knows you. and 21 years later, that was a really good meal i had. >> yeah. that worked. >> it worked. >> yeah. it worked. we got time for two more questions. i am wondering given the amount. power you have to put it bluntly at this point having the presence here, probably like unother womenefore you that i can think of in any administration. tell me about the sacrifices and the price you had to pay along the way because valerie makes it look easy. i make my job look easy. that is our job. it is not to be, oh, god, i have been up since 3:30 in the morning, which is what dow, by the way. it is hard. there are sacrifices. big ones along the way. it not easy.

>> well, everybody looks at the finished product. i used to be painfully shy. mika was right, you have to keep doing things over and over again. that is how you get better at it. believe me, there is no way i could have spoken to an audience like this when i started out. you grow. i would say, now what i am doing nows the perfect time in my life. my daughter is married. i am single still. so i don't have a lot of other demands on my time that i am trying to balance. i am sensitive to the people on my team, men and women who work in the white house who do have young children because our lives are totally unpredictable. the hours are extremely long. what i sti them. look. don't care which hours you work. make sure you take care of your family responsibilities because you will be miserable, and i need you at the top of the game and but it is really difficult and there are many times where you know the plane gets back late. you miss the halloween parade because we don't have as much control as i had working for

the city. you do make sacrifices. i also say, i say this to myself every day. you know, i grew up on the south side of chicago. i was think first woman -- the first lawyer, not just woman, but first lawyer in my family. my parents made a lot of sacrifices in order for know have a good education. the president joked about how his mother used to get him up at 4:00 in the morning. people talked about walking five miles to school, he would come palestinian. she would say this is no picnic for me either, buddy. part of what we shared were coming from families that valued idcation where the parents were willing to sacrifice so the children could do better than they did. the president's whole vision is that no matter where you are, no matter where you come from finish you work hard, you act responsibly, everybody plays by the same set of rules, you will get the fair shot. he wants to make sure his administration is committed to doing that. and so, yes, i had to make tradeoffs along the way, and it looks easy when you are at

this stage of the game but there was a lot of balancing and struggling and you know, let's face it. we are on high wire right now. i mean, who knows this evening, i don't know -- i hope you are tweeting good things. who knows what you are tweeting. who knows what one three sentences or three words could be taken out of context. that high wire is stressful. on the other hand, i pinch myself every day for the privilege of serving our country in this white house for somebody who i consider not only a great president but my friend. >> and finally, if this president does get four more year, what will the direction of the white house council on women and girls take and where will the focus be? still on the money? >> well, every single agency makes this a priority. i only give you one concrete example where women and girls are really playing into our priorities and everyone has heard of race to the top.

an important initiative. and so, as part of our criteria is we are looking at this competition around the country. we said, demonstrate to us that you have new innovative way of getting girls involved in interesting and rigorous technology and engineering and math courses. that is the job growth of the future. we want to figure out how can we set policy at thele from level to create incentives for girls to go to the very very important fields. that is a way the government can really i think help support and nurture. implementation of the affordable care act is very important. that is something we are going to be beginning now and wilton the future in august. it is a very important date for all of you women and men in the audience because insurance companies are going to start to provide preventative care for free. and that is everything from screenings for any kinds of diseases, wellness visits, domestic violence counseling,

breastfeeding, and contraception. and this is extremely important. [applause] my daughter, at 26, when she was 24 between school and starting work, she came on my insurance. that is another important provision of the affordable care act. my mom a senior citizen, who receive an average of $600 to help them pay for prescription drugs. anyone who has been a sick child or has a sick choild, you understand when you are dealing with a sick choild, i remember sasha was very very ill. the president said, i can't breath. unfortunately, she got ek lent care. she recovered away. we have a lot of children around the county that don't have access to affordable health care to know pre-existing conditions are out going to prevent them from getting the kind of insurance coverage they need is also very important so we are looking forward to implementing the rest of the affordable care act in the

months and years ahead. we have a lot of work ahead. we have energy policy, clean en nerby, the president's tragedy. continuing to invest in science and making sure that government does what it is supposed to do. you had the conversation a little bit on your the so morning, mika, mika, was stick up to the president. the point the president was making yesterday. the government has a very important role. we celebrate entrepreneurship. we celebrate the system. that is country where you should have the american dream which is to have an idea and work hard and turn it into the apple of tomorrow. but it doesn't happen would you tell government providing you the infrastructure you need whether it is the initial technology that led to the internet or whether it this is roads and bridges you take your commerce across or whether it is schools that educate our children. there is not. it is an appropriate role for government. we are looking forward to having this conversation. there are two different

visions for america, one that is hopeful, believes we should have a smart government. it is not a matter of a big government or small government but a government that is investing in a way where the pliv vate sector can thrive and grow and that is, has been the american dream. we are concerned about it. for the first time, people are wondering whether their children will actually be better off than they are and we are determined. we are determined they will. particularly our girls. >> ladies, one gentlemen right here. >> okay. >> thank you so much. >> valerie jarrett, everybody. [applause] thank you. >> thank you. our thanks, our thanks to national journal for having us. valerie, thank you so much. >> connie. >> big round of applause again for everybody today. great job. thank you. [applause] >> i would like to say google, the american beverage association, our distinguished panelist and your audience for joining us this morning. for video of today's even go to national journal.com/events and join

us for upcoming programs also if you are going the conventions we'll be there with our events so thank you you very much for coming today. bye. it was about those men and women who are almost injured in war who because of the huge advances that have been made in medical trauma treatment over the last ten years, that being saved an incredible number of them are being saved. almost everybody who falls on the battlefield is being saved. i wanted to write about what life was like for these people and i really started off with the question, having seen some people who were pretty, pretty gruesomely maimed. wouldn't it be better off if they were dead? don't they wish they were dead?

>> in "beyond the battle field" the ten-part pulitzer winning serrieors the huffington post and the subsequent book, david wood spoke with vets and their families as well as surgeon, nurses on the daily struggles for those severely wounded in military operations. learn more sunday at 8:00 on c-span's q & a. >> today marks the second anniversary the dodd frank wall street reform act and on this second pirth dave sorts we are joined by financial times reporter shahien nasiripour. mr. nasiripour, describe for us what kind of impact the law has been for the average household consumer over the past two years. >> thanks for having me on.

i would say, probably the biggest impact, the thing that most people can see most readily would be the consumer financial protection bureau. the agency solely created to proeffect bo borrow others from abusive enders and the first time an agency has been dedicated to this purpose. then past it was regulated to bank regulator and now there is one agency so they are look at everything from the credit bureaus who produce the credit scores to looking at mortgage lending, credit cards, overdraft fees on the bank accounts, student loans and the rest. that would be the most easily thing to eye department pie for the average household. >> and that board that got set up has been around for about a year now even though ththe wall street reform act is now two years old. this is the first birthday of the consumer financial protection board. >> exactly. they prn the treasury department for the first year. now they have been an independent agency and celebrate their birthday today, the 21st. >> they actually recently came down with the first major action, if i am correct, that is right? >> that is correct. >> who was this son in it was against capital one, a joint action with the bank regulator. basically, the occ and this

consumer agency, they found that capital one was engaging in deceptive marketing practices so combined they ordered refunds to consumers totaling about $210 million. >> so you say, the consumer financial protection board is the biggest impact for the average consumer. what about the impact of this law on the financial system in general? what has been sort of the biggest impact area over the past two years? >> well, two ways to look at it you can look at it from the perspective of the average household. so you have various rules that are designed to ensure that people get loan products that they can afford to repay that they have an ability to repay you know credit cards and mortgages that they get and then that kind of filters up to the banks and then to the overall banking system where you have rules that are designed to make sure that banks engage in you know less risky active that is they are not as connected as they were prior to the crisis and that they hold more cash aside. to guard against unexpected losses so the way i kind of

make it easier for mo self to think about is you want to protect that borrowers, then you want to protect the banks from making bad decisions, then you want to protect the overall system so everyone a. has enough cash to set aside to guard against. if one of phlegm to fail -- it would not impact the piers and you have more folks holding more cash aside. >> against, again, shahien, a reporter for the financial times covering these shall issues. if you want to ask him question on the second birthday of the dodd-frank wall street reform act, gives a call on the democratic line. 202-737-0001. the pent line 202-628-0205. two years in, how far along are we in sort of implementing all of the different thing that's the

dodd-frank act called for? >> it is hard to say. i mean, the biggest rules i degrees the banking industry's perspective is how much cash they are supposed to set aside to guard against losses. the reason why this is an issue for them. the more cash they set aside, the less profit they can generate. i mean, else that i the easiest way to look at it. in term fuss look at the actual rules and the requirements there is close to 400 of them that the regulator are supposed to implement. they are a third of the way through. much of the law is yet to be actually put in force then the industry knows it is coming so they are starting to moderate their behavior in advance of these rules becoming final. so there is prepretty much two ways to look at it. >> a helpful graphic her on this that we found from david. the actual act itself was 848 pages when it was signed into law on july 21st, 2010, but the rules and the reeling lation process who put the act into effect has actually

tack been ten pages of regulations for every one page of the law. so as of today, it is 8843 pages of rules and regulation and like you said only about 30% complete. >> exactly. >> what is the -- what is the biggest part of the act that is still yet to come down in terms of rule making and reeling regulations? >> god, that is a hard question to answer. well, there is a lot of rules proposed that have yet to bized. from the industry's perspective, there is just, there is so much to cover. i guess, it would be how much cash they are supposed to set aside. it is called capital. how much they are set aside? i would say from the industry, from their perspective, that is the biggest remaining issue. then also for the largest, firms on wall street all the rules regarding derivatives which are financial instruments whose value is derived from interest rates

or mortgages or what have you. where the rules are still coming down the pike and yet to be finalized and the way in which they are implemented will affect the bottom lines for banks ranging from goldman sachs to j.p. morgan and citigroup, so i mean, the most contentious would be the rule, i would say. explain what the rule is? >> the rule is this, it is this part of ty law this was called for. it essentially tries to ban, it attempts to prohibit banks from engaging in trading which is then trading for their own profit as opposed to facilitate by their customers that seeks as well as you know large investments in hedge funds and private equity firm, and so, folks who are pushing for a more radical reform of wall street they wanted to have the banks separate out. the investment banking units from the retail deposit, you know, units, so if you take

the positive, you have access to kind of the taxpayer guarantee, you should not be engaged in so-called risky activities on wall street. >> folks couldn't get that. they got think voelker rule to the next best thing. this is the most contentious part of the law now. >> how close is it? it was supposed to be implemented by today, correct? >> it now it is close at all. the federal reserve a couple of months ago or several weeks ago essentially told the industry that because we don't have a final rule in place yet, you have another two years to comply. and so the industry essentially has to convince regulators that it is doing its best to get ready so when the rule is final that they will be in compliance but the party is still on for another two years. >> again. we are talking to financial times financial and regulator ry correspondent shahien nasiripour and we go to buffalo new york.

carl is waiting on the democratic line with the question on the two-year anniversary dodd-frank. >> caller: yes, we flow previous studies that regulators and investigators for the securities and exchange commission. many of them end up taking a very much higher paying job on wall street with banks and so forth. so my question is: under this newer dodd-frank law, is there any requirement built in the law or the proposed regulations you see coming that would ban, that would ban the regulators or investigators of this organization from accepting for two or three or five years curby higher-paying jobs on wall street, fit is not built in there, should it be? >> thanks for the question. there is nothing -- to my knowledge, there is nothing in dodd-frank that attempts

to restrict employment for government regulators and officials after their time is served or after they served their time in the government. no i that some of the agencies do have rules which eventually try town city toot a cooling off period for some of their officials where, for example, if you work on particular issue you cannot work for that bank for -- until a year after the term in the government has expired. >> the same sort of idea the law makers. >> essentially the same thing. a lot of age beensies have similar rules in place. but if one from the sec wants to work for goldman sachs tomorrow, there is really not too much of a restriction on that kind of activity. whether it should be, i mean, that is a good question. it is hard to say. at what point do you try to restrict an individual's ability to gain employment if someone in the government and they are making let's say $120 a year, a comfortable living, but they have throw kids who are going

to college, they are tired of working for the government, they want something more exciting or something more comfortable, where do you draw the line in terms of restricting their option? it is tough question for me to answer. i really don't have an opinion on it? let's go to aaron on the pent line from portland, oregon this morning. you are on with shahien nasir ry this morning. hi, good morning. >> one of the things that i wanted to get your comments on this is that 6:00 you know you look at alan greenspan and his policies and derivatives and his view on them and borne and, you know, she was at the cfpb and multiple warnings to greenspan and his crew, and then, you have this meltdown, and now we are in the heavy regulation, so you know, you

go from greenspan, oops, and then, heavy regulation and you want to get your comments and your thoughts on this. if you were previously unregulated or unregulated, obviously the new regime is not going to work in your favor.

you are subject to various regulators. you were competing with other financial firms that were not as heavily regulated -- from your perspective, the new regime may be a new thing -- good thing. nobody can try to skirt the rules by offering products that are cheaper or less regulated and try to put you out of business. it depends on your definition of what is regulation. host: why not austrian state class sticklebacks a question from twitter. -- why not just reinstate glass- steagall? guest: that was a depression-era law that sought to prohibit main-stream deposit taking banks from investment activities. the best way i can describe it

-- take bank of america. bankamerica absorbed merrill lynch during the crisis, which was an investment bank. if he brought back glass- steagall, you would have to remove merrill lynch from bank of america. they can no longer engage in wall street activities. they can only make loans and take deposits. it is a fair question to raise in terms of whether we would need that kind of -- whether it is there to have that kind of system and get rid of all these other roles, versus the current regime we are in. congress had opportunities to do this. during the dodd-frank debates -- two senators, one from ohio and one from delaware, who is no longer office, they were both pushing this provision which would have essentially forced the larger banks to break up because they were getting, in their view, too big for the system overall. that provision failed in the senate. at this point, i do not see

congress taking this up. the banks of the size that they are. regulators hope that they will shrink in time due to the influx of roles that are coming into place and higher capital requirements and the rest. regulators' sincerely believe the largest institutions will eventually shrink. in terms of breaking them up forcibly, i just to not know if that will happen. talking about the reaction -- host: what has been the response from members of congress that they are trying to solve this? >> they are trying to -- i think the general consensus was that dodd-frank was the wrong solution for the problem that faced the financial system in the country. a variety ofat iand

things -- i did there is too much government involvement in the industry, or too much regulation when the industry is still weak. layering in these requirements could impede credit and lending. if anybody has tried to get a mortgage or a loan for a small business recently, they no it is hard to get a loan right now. folks who are critical of dodd- frank blame the law, saying that this is making lenders reticent to lend money. on the democratic side of the aisle, a they look at dodd-frank not as dodd-frank, but as wall street performs. it is their answer to the wild times on wall street that produced the most punishing crisis, the most punishing recession since the great depression. they have data that suggests that the law is overwhelmingly popular with average household's.

the consumer bureau is overwhelmingly popular. from their point of view, if you look at the past two years, they have a health care law, the so- called wall street reform law. those of the two biggest legislative accomplishments. they are reticent to not stand behind it. a release from the republican head of the financial services committee in the house on the two-year anniversary of the dodd-frank act -- when president obama signed into law, he promised to provide certainty from everything from bankers to farmers. today, we look at the shape of the economy and see that dodd- frank has had the opposite effect. supporters sold it as wall street reform, but the committee has learned that it is main street that is getting crushed under the 400 new rules and mandates. layers of red tape that dodd- frank calls on our economy

causes more uncertainty for american businesses and said -- and their ability to grow and create jobs. that again, spencer bachus on this second anniversary of the dodd-frank act. we want to show you a bigger -- the deputy director of the campbell -- consumer bureau talking about the crisis. >> sometimes it is my own fault for not being as clear about this as maybe i can be. the cftb does not supervise or enforce the law with respect to small banks. there are 15,000 banks or credit unions within the country. our supervision authority extends to the biggest 105 out of 15,000. second, any putative burden associated with abiding by regulations that are promulgated by the cftb, although

conceptually i understand that notion, the fact of the matter is that we have finalized two one of whichve rules, kept in place the status quo but the alternative transactions that would make, and the other is not yet in effect. we have publicly said we are considering means by which to provide exemptions for smaller providers. the burden argument on small institutions -- i think we have been quite attentive. host: we talk about some of the folks who are against this. is there actually a chance that the cftb could be dismantled, or dodd-frank could be repealed? >> gueguest: absolutely. if the romney takes the presidency and republicans hold the house and take the senate. i am not so sure -- there are

elements of dodd-frank that are popular. there is a lot of noise about dismantling the cftb. whether people follow through on that, i have doubts. they may try to weaken it and weaken its power. they might try to make it more subject to the will of congress, taking away its independent funding stream from the fed. >> i can see that happening. i see that as a more likely possibility. host: gary is on the republican line. thank you for waiting caller:. my question, will this new law prevent homeowners from using the house like an atm machine? host: that is a good question. i cannot think of anything in this law that would prevent folks from taking a out home equity loans -- home equity lines of credit on their house and using it like an atm

machine. i know that it does make banks think twice about lending money to folks in terms of heightened requirements, more things that they have to keep in mind -- they have to make sure the bars have an ability to repay the loans to take out. but somebody has good credit and can afford the loan, they can not afford to take equity out -- i cannot think of anything that would prevent that. host: a question on twitter. does the dodd-frank act stop, in any way, for investment banks putting low-risk investments into very high-risk investments? guest: i do not know, to be honest. i do not know of anything that would restrict that. dodd-frank, what it does do, is it potentially deletes any references to credit ratings in

banking rules, banking laws. you could see a regime in which the so-called triple-a no longer means what it says. perhaps you could see something where some kind of similar activity continues to take place and there are no restrictions, but i cannot think of anything of the top of my head. host: we're talking with a guest in the financial times. [video clip] host: before that, where were you? >guest: i was at the center for investigative reporting. host: ted, you are on. caller: i have been an observer

of this since 2008. i have never had a loan. with me, cash is king. as far as glass-steagall, that was a 34-page document that worked flawlessly for 70 years until the repeal by the architect, senator phil gramm of texas. with this, we get 2000 pages of dodd-frank which does not seem to want to be applied to wall street, the bankers, the money changers that were the architects of this downturn. i want to know -- what is the difference between dodd-frank and glass-steagall? why can we not bring that document back? thank you. guest: that is a good question. the easiest way i can describe it is that glass-steagall, at the time, you could define it as

a meat cleaver. you basically sought out a separate -- banks' access to the taxpayers see tonight, at separate risky activities from that. if you want to engage in trading or other kinds of risky activities on wall street, you would not have access to the taxpayer safety net. because of that, the thinking goes, you would think twice about taking extreme risks because nobody would bail you out. dodd-frank did not take that approach. it was more of a scalpel. they then tried to limit certain activities and curb others, just put more rules and requirements on banks to incentivize them not to take these tremendous risks. whether it works or not, people are split. it is tough to sit while lawmakers went for this approach as opposed to a more simplified approach. i do not have an answer.

host: a couple of comments on twittered. one writes, dodd-frank is a jobs program. look at all the lawyers who will be needed. another one on twitter -- wall street is a complete fraud. how can you regulate a complete fraud? that would be silly. atlanta, ga. -- independent mind. you are on. caller: my question, as far as the jobs at -- jobs that, is there anything in the volcker rule that addresses this sort of content and the form of advertising to accredited investors? >guest: i do not believe there is anything that restricts advertising. you are referring to part of the jobs act, which was just passed recently.

overwhelmingly in the house. it was signed by the president into law. it makes businesses -- it easier for businesses to raise capital. it allows for hedge funds to advertise to accredited investors. before, they then were restricted in how they could advertise. there is nothing in the volcker rule but as any kind of limitation on what kind of advertisements can be made. host: as i understood it, it was an advertisement that citibank was doing that got caught is that right? guest: capital one. it was the payment protection plans, and essentially, they're marketing practices were deemed unfair and deceptive. host: did say it knowledge wrongdoing? what was the outcome? guest: they agreed to refund

consumers. they apologized for bad behavior. whether they admit to anything, i do not recall. but they did apologize and pledged to reform their practices. host: was calling them? -- costing them? guest: $210 million. the interesting thing, and the consumer that was, will get a full refund. -- and the consumer that was harmed will get a full refund. normally, they do not always get their entire money back. in this case, everybody will. host: california, mike on the republican line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i wanted to ask you a question -- we have a caller a few moments ago who said that phil gramm was responsible for removing the glass-steagall protection for the consumer. it turns out that also bill clinton and, ironically, dodd an

d frank were involved. how come they are allowed to help destroy the system and make laws later that protect it? i think it is really tragic. when i look at it, it is a disgrace. they are the people who are really responsible for opening the chicken coop up to the foxes. they get a free pass on this. could you please comment on that? guest: it is a fair criticism to raise. a lot of folks -- as you described, glass-steagall was nullified by a act of congress and signed by the president. the present at the time was bill clinton. some of the folks who were the most ardent champions of repealing glass-steagall where folks like larry summers, who then became president obama's first head of the national economic council.

other folks at the treasury department were also involved in the clinton administration back then. this did come up with a few years ago when dodd-frank was gearing up and those deliberations were happening. you had officials who had pushed to deregulate the system who were now in positions of authority in which they were pushing for reforms that would pre-regulate the -- re-regulate the opinion. -- the system. in terms of my opinion, people's minds change. they learn from experience is carried it is hard for me to judge whether somebody is particulate able or has any credibility with respect to the positions they are pushing. i can only trust they are doing the right thing. host: did not having dodd-frank leads to the financial collapse in 2007? guest: that is a good question.

i do not know, to be honest. i think that there is a fair point to the race in which, if the regulators were properly enforcing the laws that were on the books, perhaps they could have occurred the worst of activities that eventually lead to the downturn and near collapse of the financial system. as regulators in the -- if regulators were more corrected early on in the crisis, we would not have experienced the worst of it later on. if dodd-frank was in place, what all of this had been avoided? i believe the administration believe so. they say so publicly. i do not know if i think that is the case. for those who were pushing dodd- frank after the collapse, two is on, are they satisfied? do they feel as if they should have asked for more? where is chris dodd and barney frank -- where are they today? guest: barney frank is very

proud of dodd-frank. he says there are positions he wished he could have pushed for more. there are others that he says that lawmakers got wrong. regulators need to moderate them. mr. dodd has since left the senate and is now working for the motion picture association of america, if i am not mistaken. he is still a champion of the slot. the administration still supports it. they are still very sensitive to criticism about the klan. -- the claim. whether it creates uncertainty. from the left, whether it is tough enough. they are very ardent champions of the law. host: sheila bair is a former chairman of the deposit

organization and the current chair of the nonpartisan group. she wrote in this past week. she writes at the end of her column "we need regulators to write rules that the public can understand and examiners can enforce. they need to stop listening to lobbyists to come in with special perk -- a special interest provisions. they need to finalize treaties of an effective rules that are targeted at problems in our financial system. congress needs to support them. it is time to stop working around the edges and get the job done." host: we go to jacksonville, florida. bob is on the democratic line. caller: i would like a gentleman to address my question, or my statement, about how banks should go back to banking and not deal in equities or day trading period if they want the

stock market, let them deal with long-term capital gains. it -- if i were a banker, i would be having 82. there is a need to the banks back to banking and let firms deal with equities, stocks. banks are having a heyday with the stock market, and that is the -- that is horrible, horrible results. what you think? thank you very much. guest: i think the data shows that, trading in equities is not conducted by the big dealer banks. it is by the small firms that are set up simply to day trade. to try to find price distortions. a long story short, it is pretty much the specialized firms to do a lot of day trading, as opposed

to the banks. but there's still an argument to be made the banks should just be banks. if you want to be an investment firm, he should not have access to taxpayer subsidies for a safety net. there are faults in government who feel that way. one of the members of the board of directors of the federal deposit insurance corporation, who, prior to this was the head of the kansas city fed, he believed for years that banks should the banks. he believes in glass-steagall -- if you want to be a player on wall street, you should not have access to the fed's discount window. you should be able to accept -- you should be completely on iran. if you are a bank and have access to taxpayer safety nets, you should not be engaged in these risky activities. you are not alone in feeling that way . host: a couple of comments on

our twitter feed. dodd-frank is just like its namesake -- overblown, verbose, and useless. one of the comments from james on up twitter. bankers' own the politicians. there is no stopping them anymore. going to florida -- thomas on the independent mind. caller: a comment. i spent a decade as a compliance officer in banking, so i'm very intimately familiar with the topic we are talking about today. we could talk all day long about -- capital ratios, all that. let's get to bra tacks. they mentioned gramm -- i

thought it was very interesting that dodd-frank, the one thing that was not cut off was the connection between banks and insurance companies. that is one point that i had. another thing -- in regards to whether or not dodd-frank would have prevented the crisis, i think the problem with that was that mortgage fraud was actually going on, and especially in subprime lending. i do not think it was a secret. in fact, i remember vividly that in 2003, 2004, people were worried about fannie mae and freddie mac. the fact that they were government-sponsored. now --

guest: i'm not sure what the question is. host: about fannie mae, freddie mac? guest: it is a fair point. dodd-frank does not address them. they are stalwarts of the state and there is no plan of exit. they then had an implicit government guarantee -- everybody who bought into them thought it would go continually up. everybody who bought the debt assumed they would be made a hole in case there was trouble. there were really no restrictions on their activities. they had a lot of influence in washington. it has changed since then. at the time, they then were able to engage in whatever activities they wanted. now there are curbs on that. they then are still words of the state. host: the boston globe notes that only 120 of the 398

regulations enumerated by the law are actually in the fact today. is it going to take to ban more years before we get to that? how long will it take for all of those lost to go into defect? guest: there are deadlines for a lot of these rules. at the end of the day, they can extend past them. given how some annuals are very contentious, that requires the regulators to get on the same page. they have different interests and our concern at different things. it is not easy to reach consensus. it could very well take another few years. caller: note that "the "washington journal" back in june did a series on the financial agencies, some of those that were created by this law, including the consumer financial protection bureau. you can find that all online at c-span.org on our video

library. we will go to a caller from tempeh, arizona on the arizona line. caller: i am a small-business owner. let me tell you something, as soon as this went into effect, the money freeze for small businesses has literally gotten caught off. you are talking about fannie mae and freddie mac -- is it not amazing that, i watch on cnn constantly, they caps, the republicans wanted to do something about fannie mae and freddie mac, but he said that would be too hard. barney frank did not want it either. here is the thing that got us into it. the other thing -- how can they do anything about it? mr. dodd -- the vice president

has been there since he was 29. they do not have the economy works. these are the guys in charge. nancy policy and harry reid are screaming for ron nepos tax record -- show us yours. she said, that is a different thing. she gets to be the first ipos and all these things -- we need to see their tax records. these are the people making these laws, just let these laws and health care. their staffers and putting what goes in them. when they passed, they did not know what was in dodd-frank. host: talk about some of the criticism that has come down on mr. dodd and mr. frank in the two years since this has gone into effect. >> where can i begin? senator dodd was a longtime member of the banking committee. he was part of the group that did push for deregulation of wall street and free it of capital.

in hindsight, whether that was a good thing or not remains to be seen. it is not for me to answer. congressman frank has come under severe criticism by republicans who argue that, when there was an operation -- opportunity to curb fannie and freddie, he was among the most ardent champions. it is a little bit unfair, only because it was not just democrats supporting fannie and freddie. it was also the republicans, also the bush administration, the clinton administration. there were concerns, but the truth of the matter is that nobody in this town really had enough juice to curb fannie and freddie. that is the bottom line. democrat or republican, nobody had the authority -- nobody had the power to do it. that is the bottom line. with respect to the criticism of small businesses giving access

to credit, others argue to made about whether or not dodd-frank restricts funding, but i think it may have something more to do with the general economy. as opposed to looking at the rules coming down the pike, i think that foxy to be mindful of that banks are hesitant to land because a lot of them are not in good shape. interest rates are supremely low. if they then have to make sure, if it will make a loan at 3% or 4%, when interest rates invariably rise, what kind of position will that put them in? there are a lot of different factors. not just dodd-frank. it is the economy. host: one last comment on twitter. dodd-frank was the best law they could muster given the heavy influence of big banks on the gop. one last note from that "boston globe" story -- barney frank, who is retiring at the end of the year, will spend his final months in washington defending his namesake law and protecting funding for this regulatory

agencies writing the rules and overseeing firms. he told the "boston globe" this egregious effort to kill it -- there are potential cost to the commodity futures trading commission and the sec. that is in "the boston globe." we would like to thank you for coming in to talk about barney frank and chris dodd and their legislation on the second anniversary. appreciated. >> sunday, on ""washington journal." a look at the u.s. situation with regard to the continuing situation in syria. andrew taylor joins us. then, the washington post political managing editor talks about his new book, which is a guide to the of coming

election. after that, a roundtable discussion on aids and the u.s. as the 19th international aids conference begins this week. we're joined by regan hoffman. then, international aid society president-elect. "washington journal," live at 7:00 a.m. eastern. tomorrow, after "washington journal," join us for "newsmakers" with armed services committee ranking member adam smith. they will talk about sequestration, defense spending, and u.s. policy toward syria. 10:00 a.m. eastern, here at c- span. >> this weekend, president obama and house speaker john boehner addressed the shootings in aurora, colorado. the offer price to those infected, and thanks to the

first responders. -- prayers to those infected, and thanks to the first responders. >> early on friday, at least 12 people were killed when a gunman opened fire in a movie theater in colorado. dozens more are being treated for injuries at local hospitals. some victims are being treated at children's hospital. we are still gathering all the facts about what happened, but we do know the the police have one suspect in custody. the federal government stands ready to do everything necessary to bring whoever is responsible for this crime to justice. we will take every step possible to ensure the safety of all our people. we will stand by our neighbors in colorado during this extraordinarily difficult time. even as we come to learn how this happens, who is responsible, we may never understand what leads anybody to terrorize their fellow human beings. such evil is senseless, beyond reason, but while the bill ever know -- never know what fully cause somebody to take another

life, we do know what makes life worth living. the people we lost love and were locked. there were mothers and fathers, husbands and wives, sisters and brothers, sons and daughters, friends and neighbors. they had hopes for the future and dreams that were not yet fulfilled. if there is anything to take away from this tragedy, it is a reminder that life is fragile. our time here is limited and is precious. what matters, in the end, are not the small and trivial things which so often consume our lives. it is how we choose to treat one another and love one another. it is what we do on a daily basis to give our lives meaning and to give our lives purpose. that is what matters. that is what we are here. i am sure many of you who are parents had the same reaction i did when you first heard this news. what if it had been my daughter's, doing what young children enjoy doing every day? michele and i will be fortunate enough to hog our girls a

little tighter this weekend, as i am sure you will do with your children. to the parents who may not be so fortunate, we need to embrace them and let them know that we will be there for them as a nation. this weekend, i hope that everybody takes time for prayer and reflection. for the victims of this terrible tragedy, for the people who knew them and love them, to those who are still struggling to recover, and all the victims of less- publicized acts of violence that plagues our communities on a daily basis, let's keep all these americans in our press. to the people of aru, maybe lord bring you comfort and healing in the days to come. >> my plan today was to share thoughts with you about the economy. but life, they said, is what happens when you are busy making other plans. there is still so much, too much to sort out about the tragedy in aurora, colorado.

words cannot capture the horror of something so senseless. i will not try. this much i know. when confronted with evil we cannot comprehend, americans pulled together an embrace our national family. we join president obama in sending condolences and prayers to the top ones of those who were killed and wounded. we all say, thank god for the police, first responders, doctors, nurses whose swift and heroic efforts save lives. as recounted blessings, we come to be reminded that the debt of our fear also shows the depth of our love and results. scripture tells us that the faith that sustained this is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen. we may not yet seen or thought and comfort for those morning, but we sandia as one nation in the difficult hours that lie ahead. may god bless the grieving

families, and yours, and may god continue to bless the united states of america. thank you. >> coming up tonight, next, a look at american foreign policy with former secretaries of state madeleine albright and colin powell. then, a forum on how women are shipping politics in the economy. first, california democrat nancy pelosi, followed by texas republican senator kay bailey hutchison it later, a panel discussing women and politics. ♪ watch book tv and american history tv the weekend of august 4 and 5 as c-span's local content vehicles explore the culture of louis -- louisville ky, including its oldest

independent bookstore. >> a lot of stores i have seen failed were stores opened by people interested in having a business, not that they had an attachment to books or a love of books, but they were business people. i think you really have to have a gut attachment to books to care enough about them. your customers are like that. they come because they then really care about books. >> watched american history tv in louisville, august 4 and 5 on c-span 2 and c-span 3. now, former secretaries of state madeleine albright and colin powell. they talk about the importance of soft power and how the rest of the world views america as a leader. secretary paulo give his views on foreign aid, the role of the private sector, and immigration policy. this is half an hour.

>> what a pleasure it is to share this small, intimate gathering with two such amazing national servants who have done so much. i've had the opportunity to talk to both in many settings, on cnn and since, so i am very looking forward to how you and -- how you will connect the dots in terms of america's role in the world, making the case for diplomacy and development, and where you see this all going. it is hot in washington now. a strange season. you are famous for so many things. especially those pins that you wear. tell us about the pain you are wearing. >> i am wearing a frog tonight, either because we have to leap over the problems that plague

this budget, or to make sure that public assistance does not croak -- foreign assistance does not croak. [laughter] [applause] >> where are all your pins? >> she has all of the pins. >> when calling and i -- colin and i were on the committee, she would walk in with all his medals, and i was in your female civilian, i realized i needed some help -- in your female civilian, i realize i wanted some help. >> a lot of pins, carter did rich the preserved. -- richly preserved and hard earned. secretary albright, let's dig into this.

and when you were a secretary, there were serious efforts in congress to cut back on the foreign affairs budget and agencies. there were some members of congress who boasted about not having passports. that seems to be very different now. there seems to be a different town. there seems to be a different appreciation. do you share that perception, and so, why? >> i think an awful lot has to do with the people we are with tonight -- senator leahy and senator gramm. it makes a tremendous difference when you have leaders who can push everything forward. i do think that the leadership is a very important part. i have been fighting the battle of making sure that the foreign assistance budget or the international organization but it even gets through. i worked with another senator when they were chairman of the budget committee. i did congressional relationships with the security council during the carter administration, when it was decided the words foreign and assistance should never go

together, it was an issue as to why would give taxpayers that. i think there is an agreement about the importance of american leadership. i think that is the important part. i think there is some disagreement about how american leadership is deployed. and under what circumstances, what leader -- what programs we really work on. i think that, thanks to the coalition, we have been pushing it. i am not sure i fully agree that there is complete bipartisan agreement on how american leaders should -- american leadership should be deployed. we have to make -- to keep working to make sure we see department -- democracy, and diplomacy, and defense going together. >> secretary paulo -- he certainly made the case from both places -- powell, you certainly made the case from both places.

it is interesting how some military leaders have spoken out in this part. secretary panetta, secretary gates, general petraeus -- why you think the military express its feelings so strongly and eloquently for this kind of expenditure? >> we have always felt that way. we have become more vocal in recent years. >> why? >> i can go back to the invasion of panama in 1989 and worked for. we realize that just having a military battle you had one was not the end of the game. perhaps we should have done at the beginning to avoid that battle in the first time -- place or, having won the battle, how do we preserve the peace? >> you have to be careful when we talk about these terms such as smart power or heart power or soft power. i'm reminded of a conversation i had with the former

archbishop of canterbury in 2003. you might have been there. it was on the eve of the second gulf war. the archbishops stood up and said, general powell, why don't we just use soft power? it was a critique of what we were getting ready to do. the answer i gave him was that it was not soft power that rescue britain from hitler. it was part power. you had to have all of it. when we won with hard power in world war ii, we use soft power in germany and asia to create democracies. the importance of this coalition, what makes what we are doing tonight so important, is that we understand that we need it all. we have been shortchanging the soft power, which really translates into smart power, for much too long.

for years, i have been hearing the same thing -- less than 1% goes to this, but it does not change. enjoy have more people as well informed as lindsey gramm and pat leahy, who understand that in the world we are living in, we are competing in some any different levels, not so much military levels as levels of economics, development, what we are doing to help people in parts of the world who are wondering, is america there for us? until we start to invest in that part of the power equation, america is not meeting its values and standards to the rest of the world. [applause] >> you said something very important to us now. it would be a great challenge to senator leahy and senator gramm when they're doing that job -- that is, we need it all. america would say, we cannot afford it all. that is a casey to make, that

this is an investment, in a changed world where borders mean different things and national security means different things. how hard is that to do? >> when you put the facts out there, in terms of, first of all, it is in our national security interest that countries are able to develop, that people are able to live a decent life, that our values are translated, and, when something happens terribly in some country, it does come home to america. i see it as a national security issue. sometimes it has to be argued on that basis -- national security support. then, there are also a lot of constituencies in this country who see it differently. we talked about the religious community. i think that they have been -- the faith-based community has been supportive because they do not want to see people suffer. we have always talked about assistance to the poorest of

the corporate we have to present it to -- the poorest of the poor. you have to present it to -- in language that makes sense. it really is not that much money kerry and senator gramm was talking about how much it takes for taxpayers to generated, but the returns to america, people who can buy american goods and have a sense of security, that is something that we can afford. we are a rich country. we are richer than anybody else. we have to make that argument very clearly. >> put this in terms of investment. >> it is very affordable. one problem i had when i was chairman, it was always set up as a competition between defense spending and foreign assistance and other state department spending. >> of the competition, on the hill? >> people always wanted to say, you are taking defense money and wasting it. when i became secretary of state, they realized that was idiotic. [laughter]

>> i would have liked to have been there. >> i knew this as chairman of the joint chiefs of staff as well. i have often been called the reluctant general. i'm always trying to find peaceful ways to avoid conflict. i think we should always do that. there are peaceful ways, but critics -- it takes investment, in simple things like clean water, economic development, and helping people out of poverty so they see a better life. we are an inspiration for the better life. that is how you avoid conflict. if the conflict comes, i want to make sure we can do it right, but i would rather avoid a. >> if you think about this conversation tonight -- to the u.s. global coalition and the work that has be done, the message is clear, but there is a tremendous disconnect with the public. a recent poll says that 83% of the american public say we should pay less attention to problems overseas and

concentrate on problems here at home. maybe we that question was phrased puts that as the primary choice, which it is not. how do we address that? >> i think that we have to be smarter in terms of explaining. your previous profession does not really help. [laughter] >> what every talking about -- whatever are you talking about? >> this is not a simple subject, with breaking news, but you can explain why it is so important. i think that we have a stake in having people understand that our security depends on the security abroad. there is not such a thing on -- so far away that it is all very close. >> that paul has been used for years to suggest to the american people think that 20% of our budget is going to foreign assistance. it is not, just 1%. but the world has also changed. when the chinese doing? they agong around the world

using soft power to secure the mineral resources, to secure farm land for food for the chinese people. they are using their wealth. they are using their influence around the world to really challenge us. we are still the inspiration for the rest of the world. if we are going to be the inspiration, this is what democracy is about. this is what some rights are all about. we have to put our money behind it. the case can be made to the american people that we are a wealthy country. we can afford this. one of the major changes with respect to the pentagon and the state department accounts -- there is more realization on the part of military commanders that we need to perhaps even give up part of our so much big budget at the defense apartment, -- defense department to send it to the state's department. when we had difficulties in afghanistan, and said we need to stay department, there is

not that much state department to send to these places. we ought to be doubling the size of the foreign service. [applause] doubling the size of usaid. >> this is not incremental, this is exponential. >> exponential. there's so much work to be done. there are some things we could be doing right now to bring people up out of disease, out of poverty. madeleine's work with president clinton, my work with president bush -- a lot has been done, but a lot more can be done to make this a better, safer world that serves our interests. >> when senator leahy was up here speaking, he spoke about accountability. i should say for a moment, we should recognize senator leahy and senator graham for your accomplishment and work. [applause]

when i was a young radio reporter in vermont, in 1977, senator leahy was then making the case that his dairy farmers, i remember, his dairy farmers in vermont or selling products overseas. >> we were introduced by caterpillar. they certainly make money and do well by exporting products. somebody on the other side has to buy them. it is not an accident that a large number of people in this audience are business people. they are doing what benjamin franklin said -- doing well by doing good. the bottom line is that, in fact, that is the best part of the coalition. [applause] >> what senator leahy spoke about was a degree of accountability. i would like to ask you both

how you feel what and -- what you feel needs to be done to make this diplomacy, this investment, more effective going for. >> we should demand accountability. it is taxpayer money, let's never forget that. >> what does that mean? >> the average citizen is paying taxes to help these people overseas. therefore, we should expect from them the rule of law, the role of commercial law, and to act in ways that are sensible and appropriate for what they are doing and receiving. there is no problem in my mind to demand the highest levels of accountability and stick with the rule of law. the challenge corporation, which was a major initiative of president george w. bush, said we should invest in those companies that are committed to the rule of law and will and corruption and a sensible ideas. if people are wasting money, to

heck with them. we do not need to give them that money. the american people should not expect us to give them that money. >> let me do what i enjoy doing so much -- put you on the spot a little bit. your secretary of state today. we have this fiscal cliff that we are facing. we may have sequestration of our military. we may have another downgrade of our debt. who knows where this will go. you have to go up on the hill and make the case for doubling -- for spending more. how would you do that today? >> i think that i would make it a very clear that the security of the united states depends on the fact of us having friends around the world and countries where people are able to live a decent life and where, in fact, they -- there is not an environment terrorists can take advantage of. there is no direct line between

poverty and terrorism, but does not take a lot of imagination to think that people who are completely alienated from their societies are more critical. you have to make a very hard case. the suggestion is very good, that we need to have accountability in government. easier said than done in many ways, because sometimes we have to give to countries that are on the verge of changing. i do think that corruption is the pastor of the whole operation -- the question is, how do we get the institutional structures that make these things viable? i think that we have to put it flat on the line that are -- americans are better off when other countries do not have people who are susceptible to being corrupted or taken over by terrorist organizations. [applause] >> the cold war is over.

there is no pure competitor out there with any intent or capability to threaten the continued existence of the united states of america. we are in a different kind of competition in the world right now. but we are still the nation that gives inspiration to the rest of the world, to people who are still striving to freedom and democracy. when i see what the chinese are doing, for example, and they will not be our enemy -- they have too many of our own problems -- their own problems. when i see what they are doing with their influence, their soft power, i would say to my friends in congress, we have to be out there in that playing field. people are looking to us. what are we doing to help them with poverty, with clean water? what are we doing to help educate their children and give them better access to the electronic revolution taking place? it is an economic model -- the

most powerful political force at work today is economic. not the size of the army, but who is creating the most well for their people? we have to participate in that world. that world requires more investment in a smart -- the soft power part of smart power. >> i think we have to make an even larger argument. we're sitting in a building named for ronald reagan. inside this building is the wilson institute, woodrow wilson. is there anything more bipartisan than that combination? >> one of the largest buildings in washington, we should point out. >> when of the issues here -- you are talking about the if. -- cliff this is more than foreign aid. we are completely backed up by the arguments going on in the cities that are embarrassing to the position of the united states and the world. i am chairman of the board of the national democratic institute. we go and we talk about what democracy is about. we say that one of the major

aspect of democracy is compromise. they then say, yes, like you guys? >> and you say what? >> we say, we have a problem. the bottom line is that we have a huge issue, and i agree, our issue is, what is our economic security? what is to depend on baxter depends on a street name at the budget situation. -- it depends on the budget situation, figuring it out, and people have to pay taxes. [applause] >> led the second that. when a mike consistent teams these days -- washington cannot keep operating -- this is one of my consistent themes. washington cannot keep operating this way. our founding fathers -- they dealt with some of the most difficult issues imaginable, and get in a few months, in a hot room, they could set to those differences to compromise, a compromise that creates a

consensus and creates a nation, a constitution. you are telling me that the united states congress cannot even figure out how to get out of sequestration? >> it is really remarkable. [applause] i think that most everybody in this room and most everybody who has traveled the world has had an experience like that some place. at one ever forget this as long as i live. in new-martial law poland, as poland was throwing off its communist joke, i was in a restaurant with practically no food. i was speaking english with another colleague. a man heard me speaking english, sought i was an american. he reaches into the pocket of his shirt and pulls out an old american dollar bill, kisses this dollar bill and says, america is good, in this broken, accented english. this is a country that stands

for something. this is how we follow through on that investment. i want to ask you about something you both talk about and has been discussed a lot -- the role the private sector. we've heard from several people from corporate america. corporate america is growing overseas. we are partnering with government overseas. how should that work? how should that look? how important is that? >> the private sector is essential. public-private partnerships are one of the best ways to move the process forward in terms of helping the country where we are trying to help in terms of investment. also, if i might say so, american private sector companies, in terms of their policies, their approach to environmental issues, i discovered that when i was secretary state -- they are now our best ambassadors. private-public partnerships are very important. i am now having something called the partners for a new

beginning that secretary clinton asked me to had. the head of coca-cola is a vice chair. the private sector is able to do a lot of good in partnership with the government, our government and governments overseas. there is a profit motive to doing so. corporate responsibility -- a social responsibility works along with having good business. i think it is vital. >> i could not agree more. the great wealth of our nation is in the private sector, not the government. it is the private sector that is spread through the world now. discreet and products and other countries -- creating products and moving production facilities, not to outsource, but to go to the market. >> that is what a lot of people might say. >> ise this globalized world -- i do not have a job. an elite -- i may lose that job to of course. we are going through a period of transformation. this is a global economic situation.

there is no longer a global -- an american company that is not also a global company. we have to understand what this dynamic is about. our challenge is to educate our population for a new economic system we are living in. if we do not do that -- you talk about what we will do in other countries, but if we do not fix our education system in the united states, we will get left behind. [applause] i mentioned at the outset that we are in the middle of a campaign season. i might ask you both if you miss it, if you would like to be on the road, campaigning? >> i actually am. i am trying to help everybody who believes in what this country is about, who believes that are government can be functional, and is willing to be in congress and try to figure out how to get us out of this particular situation. poland, it is clear, -- colin, we are friends, we have done a lot together.

we both agree we are wrapped around the axle at the moment. we want people who'll come to washington to solve problems, not create problems. >> if you are speaking on behalf of this party we are discussing tonight, american leadership and development and diplomacy -- what does that campaign speech sound like? >> first and foremost, let's remember that it is economic development that is the most powerful political force at work in the world today. not the size of the army. what we have to do is fix our

economy and do whatever that takes, government policy, fiscal policy, corporate policy -- that will be fixed by american businesses and corporations. secondly, we have to do something with our immigration policy. we cannot pretend that we are not a nation of immigrants. we always have been. it has been our greatest strength. we do not understand the importance of fixing this problem that we have. [applause] we need to internalize that as earlier this year, the majority of youngsters born in america were born of immigrant and minority families. in one generation, the majority of americans will be up another so-called diverse culture. we will be the only nation on earth who can handle something like this. europe cannot do it. only america has the tradition to handle something like that. we have to prepare ourselves for that kind of a tomography that is heading our way. third, we have to understand that education is key to our success. education is not just pay teachers more, fix the schools -- education has to be driven down to pre-natal levels.

it has to be driven down so that we all understand that education begins in a home of 11 people who bring a child in the world in an atmosphere of love to give that child what is necessary to be successful in life, and not as blaine teachers and schools if the entire community has a responsibility. [applause] >> a few years ago, six weeks before the last election, you gathered with three other former secretaries of state at george washington university for a conversation. i asked you, at the time, what was your advice to the next president? what was your message to the next president? everybody had an answer, but you had the best one. it was, remember, you wanted this job. [laughter] what is your message to the

next president, to what we will face, what this country will face, thinking about this changing world, is more diverse world, this more globalized world? >> i am looking at a sign that says invest in our future. i think that our next president, who is the same president that we have now. [applause] >> or the other one who is running. >> but i basically believe that that is the message. it is very important -- i agree with colin on education. there have to be explanations on what policy is an investment in the future. the issue here, how do we make sure that america, as always, is moving forward? i do think that is our strength. that would be my message. policies that invest in our future across the board. our future depends on the stability and security of people in other countries. that is the message.

we are altogether in this. we have to invest in the future of other countries to make ourselves more secure. >> and your message to the next president? >> you tried this last time, if you recall. my message, what i try to do, i travel around the country and speak -- i talk about american values, a unique place that america occupies on the world stage. a question i did all the time -- are we still number one? my question is not like it is root -- was before. there is now a two, three, and four. china is rising, other nations are rising -- i think that is terrific. that is lifting people out of poverty. i tell my audiences that we are still the shining city on the hill. a place to look to for inspiration it we must never

lose that position. i would say to the next president -- first and foremost, before we can fully occupy that shining place on the hill, we have to fix our economy. people are unhappy because we have an economy that is not doing what we think it should do. the other thing i would point out is that, somehow, you have to find a way to get beyond the political fighting taking place in this town, and ask in a very personal way, not just policy, for the purpose of debating strong views pro and con, but for discussion. we have got to get past a politics of destruction. i do not know how you do this, but you have to figure out a way to bring the american media system under control so that it is concerned with informing us and not just fighting for market share from the latest story of the day about what britney spears is doing.

[applause] >> i will join you in that. we need to tell the story, creatively, positively, responsibly. we to engage america in the world. we'll bring this to a close. i want to thank you -- to general powell, secretary albirght, as always, thank you for the thoughtful, candid, remarkable conversation. >> thank you. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> coming up, events from a national journal conference on women and politics. at first, and nancy pelosi followed by kay bailey hutchison. a panel on a whim and political leaders and later, valerie jarrett. >> it was a about those men and women who are almost mortally injured in or who because of the huge advances that have been made in trauma treatment are being saved it. an incredible number of them are being saved. almost everyone who falls on the battlefield are being saved. i wanted to write him about what life was like for these people. i started off with a question of having seen some people who were

pretty gruesomely maimed, would it not be better off if they were dead? do they not wished they were dead? >> the 10 at par to pulitzer winning series for the post, david woods spoke with vets and their families as well as combat medics and nurses on the struggles for those severely wounded in military operations. learn more sunday at 8:00. house democratic leader nancy pelosi talked about the evolving role of women in the economy and the challenges woman face in the work place. she discussed her own campaigns, growing up in a political family and the importance of affordable child care for women. this is half an hour.

>> our first conversation today is with the honorable nancy u.s. house of representatives. [applause] >> good to see you. >> from 2007 to 2011, served as the first woman speaker of the house. having served as the house democratic leader from 2003 to 2007. she has represented san francisco in the house since june of 1987. during the 111th congress, then- speaker policy worked to pass the american recovery and reinvestment act. she led the house effort to pass the affordable care act. other achievements have included passing the fair pay act to improve the ability of women to fight a discrimination, and eliminating don't ask don't

tell policy that eliminated gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military. interviewing her is margaret carlson, who has been a bloomberg political correspondence since 2005 she was "time's" first female columnist. [applause] i want to be honest -- i was the first woman columnist at "time" magazine and was the last. [laughter] i do not know how -- what i did, but that is how it worked out. we have successful women coming today -- i thank you. in the world of role models, you are a standout in that regard. i thought about it yesterday when yahoo announced its new ceo -- it is a woman. not only a woman, but a woman who is at this moment pregnant. when i was coming up, you wanted

to hide that you were pregnant. you just celebrated your 25th anniversary. you entered congress at age 46 or something -- do not do the addition, she is very young. [laughter] i did not wait -- i did not launch my career at age 46. i was to pretend i did not have a child, more or less, but you did it. now, madam speaker, leader policy, you went to the mountain top. tell us, how did you get where you are? >> thank you very much for the opportunity to be with you today. i feel that it is always a very special privilege when i had the opportunity to share ideas with the young women coming up

-- many of them have already arrived at some very important positions in their -- whatever, the field of endeavor. i did not set out to be speaker of the house. i did not set out to run for congress. i had five children, and the day i brought my baby alexandra home, our oldest child nancy was turning six that week. that was our fifth child. we have important work to do about the future and their children. that is what i did. i always had an interest and public affairs, having been born into a political family in baltimore, maryland. my husband is from san francisco. i think, if i can convey anything to allow you, it is that to be ready to -- for whatever opportunity comes along. i was interested, i volunteered in politics in california to the extent that i became the

chair of the californian democratic party, still a volunteer. the timing -- whatever could happen between 9:00 and 3:00, when my children were in school day. again, no intention of running for congress. i wrote about this in my little book called "know your power." that is my message to you -- know your power. i had been reading articles that said i wanted to be in congress since i was 5 years old -- absolutely not. when i was a teenager, i just wanted to rock around the clock -- that was in the 1950's. there was not any destination that i had. i waited until my children were grown to fulfill -- it was just an opportunity that came along. i valued the experience i had as

a mom. it was my motivation to volunteer in politics, because i saw these advantages, including love and affection and the rest, that my own children had. i was in despair of the fact that one in five children in america live in poverty. that is what drove my engine to be involved. that continues to motivate me every morning and every night. i think of as one in five children in poverty. that is what is urgent for me. that is my passion. i think that everyone should follow their own passion, of course. to all of you -- your path is the right path. to have five children and then

have a turn of events that led to becoming the speaker of the house is a very unlikely route. he may have more focused taft, a -- task, a goal you have in mind, but every step of the way it is important to know your own power. your prospects -- to not have your prospects defined by somebody else's version of the story. >> may i recommend the book to all of you? i went to it quickly. in addition to having a father who led you into politics and a family of your own at that was very helpful, you had a great mother in law. that is one of the secrets -- she went to the phone book and wrote handwritten letters to everyone with an italian surname to vote for you. [laughter] you might not remember this. >> i do remember a few hispanics slipped in there. [laughter]

family is of course very important. i was born into a political family. as i said, this book is just a little tough, just to say, no, i was not thinking of this all my life. this is how i got to where i am. it is important -- my father, when i was born, my father was a member of congress. my mother was his -- she had had seven children, six boys, one girl. i was the youngest. when i was in first grade, my father was elected mayor of baltimore. when i went to college, he was still the mayor. that was the life we lead -- public service, responsibility to the community, and contains almost all the time. i like that. but i did not want it for myself. i wanted to be a normal person who had weekends off. >> are you not normal now? >> not quite.

[laughter] the point being, your time -- you have responsibilities and they have priority. but my mother was a very important influence in my life. when i ran for congress, which was a very spontaneous thing -- three weeks before, i had no idea. then we had an unfortunate death, one thing and another -- my mother-in-law had a brigade which my daughter christine writes about in her book. she brought all of her fellow nonnas together, and they addressed cards to of the italians who lived in the district. 3000 votes -- that was their output to me. their point -- every resource that you have when you run for office has to be utilized. what i we to do, though, is to change, change the environment in which women have

to make decisions, will make decisions about how they go forward. for over 200 years, we have been playing with somebody else paz playing field. we have to create our own environment. we have had incrementalism, weather is democrat or republican women, and i speak about this in a non-partisan way -- we lose two, gained 5 -- kick open the door. and this incrementalism. it will take us 200 years to and not even the halfway there, to represent the american

people and all the talent and wisdom that women bring to the table. not that we are better. [laughter] you can make that decision case by case, but the diversity, the diversity of thinking at the table is essential to having experts, to having something better. what i would like to see is to reduce the role of money in campaigns, increase the level of civility, i promise you, you will elect more women to public office. and, well you do that -- [applause] you will have policies that are more friendly to women. we must, we must have affordable, quality child care in our country as a priority, as we have not had. we just have to do better to unleash the full power of women. the ballot box and the bread box, that is to say, are connected in this way. if you want this policy, it is important to the left more women to get this policy -- to elect more women to get this

policy done in the best possible way. going back to margaret -- we had women getting the right to vote over 90 years ago. our suffragettes fought for decades and decades to make that happen. very important. during world war ii, we had women in the work force helping with the war effort, getting out of the house, going to a job. that was a drastic change. then we had higher education, with women in the professions, women staying home, women having choices as to what it wanted to do. but we did not take that next step, which was affordable, quality child care so that we could unleash the full power of women. when we do, and reduce the role of money, and increase ability, we will do better in a more civil debate.

no question about it. >> leader policy, i will have to yield to the questioners, so let me ask you a couple -- ask you a couple of quick questions. when a powerful women in the audience. women in power are more normal, as you are. the civility question, which comes up -- you have broken the marble ceiling. how you deal with say, speaker boehner? [laughter] i have two questions. one, how is it to deal with john boehner? let's put that out there. the other, can you work in this very hostile, partisan atmosphere that you read about on capitol hill -- can you check to women on the other side and get things done? you have friendships? you get together for dinner? how does that work? first, do john boehner. have you ever seen and cry?

[laughter] >> not in private. in any event, i have a good rapport with speaker boehner. when he was minority leader and i was speaker. it is not the personality thing. it is a policy thing. that is where we have our disagreements. if anyone of the attendees today, and you are right, so many of them are leaders in what they do, as you work, the first woman editor at "time" magazine. that is very impressive, don't you think? [applause] >> thank you. if he wanted to run for congress -- democrat or republican? they said my necklace was hitting the microphone. guys do not have that problem. [applause]

if you wanted to run for congress, as iran 25 years ago, -- as i ran 25 years ago, you do not go there to be a street fighter. you go there to honor the oath we take to the constitution of the united states, to recognize the people are sent there from all over the country with different points of view philosophically, geographically, gender-wise, whenever it is -- and you hope to effect the decisions that are made. that is pretty much the way it used to be. i was honored in february 20 of this year to be introduced to his library at texas a&m of george bush 43.

i was present on president's day. it was quite a lovely honor, connected to my 25th anniversary in the congress and the work we had done together. i was a junior member of congress, and he was president of the united states. we had differences of opinion. sometimes we agreed and sometimes we did not, but we were always respectful. that is what you came to do -- not to go into this kind of struggle that does not recognize many other points of view in our country and that they all have to be respected -- not only for the person elected, but for the people who sent him or her there. it used to be quite different. i have never been big on the dinner side of things. i have a district that is three hours earlier than i am, so

5:00 here is 2:00 there, 8:00 there, 5:00 -- you keep working into the night when you are a california rep. i cannot speak with much authority on that. one dinner that i used to go to? >> tommy, quickly. -- tell me, quickly. >> there was a group on tuesday night that used to have dinner. most the democrats -- but did not matter. in any yvette, largely men. -- in any event, large and then. there were only about 20 women when i first came to congress. it was a dinner once a week. barbara boxer, barbara canelli and i were the three women. the gas would only talk -- in

ever said, what you think? they would all talk over each other. you had to just jump in and speak. it did not work well when you went home and tried that. people would be like, wait a minute, that is not how we have been around here. we always used to laugh, the three of us, that they would never think to turn to us and say, what do you think of that, because we were not likely to jump in the way they were. one night, we are all at dinner. they start talking about the evenings when they had their babies. [laughter] we would have thought for sure they will say, what do you think? [laughter]

that they they said -- the doctor would not let me in, the second, i had my camera, pictures, i can show them to you. [laughter] i went in, but i did not stay long. when i saw what was going on, i went out the door. they all had their views. the three of us were thinking -- we have 11 children among the three of us. barbara has to, i have five. foreshore, tridymite a court -- surely, it might occur to them. we were later with somebody who was the leader of the era, we were talking about some constitutional issues to which he said, what do you think of that? we thought, this is so remarkable, thank you for asking. we told them what happened the week before. all of the same people were at the table. they said, we would never have done that. we would never have done that.

we thought, you do not even know what you do not know. you do not have a clue -- you were talking about childbirth and did not think that was something you could ask us, do you really want to have this conversation? it was on a par with on the floor of the house when one of them said on a debate over family planning, somebody who did not share my views stood up and said nancy pelosi thinks she knows more about having babies than the pope. [laughter] not that our expertise is confined, but the fact is that nobody is asking you for anything. decisionmaking -- you have to go out and search it. it is very important for us to change the environment to one

that is more conducive for women to be in the lead and in the mix. it is about the economy, growth, the military, the protection of our people, academics, how we educate the next generation, healthcare, all that is better served by the empowerment of women and the leadership in this field. know your power and your role. >> i have time for maybe two quick questions. i am tempted to say we have come a long way since you were not asked about childbirth by his men -- will we get equal pay? we have the ledbetter act -- will we get it? >> we have breadbox-ballot box -- you have to find people who support what we believe in. we passed the ledbetter act, but ended by the repeal of don't ask don't tell, both ending

discrimination. at the same time, at the leadership -- with the leadership of rosa delauro, we passed the equal pay legislation in the house. the senate requires 60 votes, so a majority was not enough. we could not pastorate. pass it. in the next congress, we want to talk about equal jobs and equal pay. part of that will be to have the agenda of reform in our system. reform the system, he let people of any party who -- i let people of any party willing to make that change. -- elect people willing ot make

that change/ >> yes or no, are we going off a fiscal cliff in the lame-duck session? >> we cannot. we are not going to do it. the congress will come around and be responsible. yes, no? >> i cannot answer for mr. baker and the -- mr. boehner and the rest, but we need to work together in a balanced way to have growth, revenue, and give a message of fiscal soundness. that is a headwind to our economic growth. what is happening in europe is a headwind. the slow recovery of the housing market is a headwind. not as much credit as people need is a headwind. one headwind we can do something about is a message of fiscal responsibility coming from the congress.

that is a decision that we have to make. the president came to the table and agree on it. republican walks away -- the republicans walked away. could we take strong bipartisanship, yielding on both sides on the issues. again, just a discussion of it undermines the credibility. the stability and the credibility is a headwind for economic growth. you'll have to ask them how sincere they are about revenue. we are very sincere about the cats. >> madam speaker, you are civil, you are normal, and you are funny. i thank you very much on behalf of the audience. >> thank you all very much. know your power.

[applause] >> texas senator kay bailey hutchinson also spoke about the challenges facing politics, women, and the work force. from the national journal this is 15 minutes. >> good morning. >> good morning. >> senator hutchison, we are pleased to have you here today. thank you for joining us. kay bailey hutchison has a remarkable political lineage. her great, great grandfather was a signer of the texas direct -- declaration of independence. she graduated from the

university of texas, and went to work as a television reporter because no houston law form with -- law firm was willing to hire a woman lawyer. she started a small business, became the first republican woman in the state legislature, she was elected state treasurer in 1990, and in 1990 won a special election that opened up. she has been reelected three times and is now the senior republican woman in the senate. she is retiring from the senate when her term is up at the end of this year and i suspect those houston law firms would be glad to have you on staff at this time. [laughter] your first official office in washington was at the national transportation safety board. president ford appointed you as the vice-chairman there in 1976, and i wonder if you could describe what things are like for a woman appointed to a job

like that now, and compare it to how things have changed or perhaps not changed as much for women in washington in positions of power. >> i think there was the beginning of an effort to bring women in. susan, you and i were talking earlier about ann armstrong, who had been my mentor. she was the first co-chairman of the republican national committee, and my first foray into washington was in 1969 or 1970 with ann armstrong and it was she who promoted me to president ford for this position. i was p.m. at the time, maybe 26 or -- i was pretty young at the time, maybe 26 or something, but there was an effort. i love that experience. it was my first real experience besides an internship earlier in my college career, in washington, and i got my feet wet.

there was a small cadre of women who were appointees of the president, and i thought it was great that we were beginning to build. it was the building time. now, i think it is standard. we have seen women in the very top jobs, secretary of state, for rock the cabot, 17 -- throughout the cabinet, 17 women senators, and approximately 17% of the house and senate are women. i think things are coming our way. >> the 17 women senators now -- is the relationship among women senators, especially across party lines, different from the relationship between male senators across party lines?

>> i do not know for sure what the guys do, but we do have a bond. the women senators had dinner together last night. we all chipped in to give susan collins, who is getting married, a gift certificate to a spa. we got together and decided to do that for her. hillary clinton gave me a baby shower when i got my little daughter. it is those kinds of things. i guess what we do in our dinners and our social contacts are just talk about the obstacles we face, or the information we need. if we have children, information about schools. or, where to live, how you managed going back and forth to your home state. we have made different choices.

some choose to have their children with them here. some choose to keep their children home in their environment. it is a very hard choice, so we are always getting advice from each other. it is a great relationship. it does not usually impinge on our voting. we vote our states, our philosophy is, and we do not pressure each other to change something, because we understand our constituents is our first priority, but as far as camaraderie and the understanding not many women have about the obstacles we face, it is funny. >> i am sure the men do not get together and have made dinner to check in for a woman getting married. if there were 83 women in the senate and 17 men instead of the reverse, would things be

different enough policies enacted, or the tone that the senate takes toward doing business? >> in some ways yes, and in some ways know. we all are elected the same way. we run campaigns. usually they are tossed. we have tough budget -- tough. we have toughened up to meet those challenges. i think that applies in the senate. i would say our governing styles differ somewhat in that we really do -- i think every one of us -- want to get something done. we want to accomplish things.

we want to bring people together and hammer it out. sometimes that is not the case in the big senate. >> we know the senate, the congress generally seems frozen, hostile end polarized along partisan lines -- and polarized among partisan lines. is there a way out of that, do you think? >> first of all, the senate is a collegial place, i think more so than the house, because we have more open rules and therefore minorities have more power in the senate and they do in the house. in the house, everything is done by the majority. in the senate, the minority can stop legislation with 41 votes, and we have a great working relationship with our colleagues, always understanding that we may differ

on philosophies, the way things are done, but in the end understanding that everyone wants to do the best they can for their stayed in their philosophy. some of my best friends are -- and their philosophy. some of my best friends are democrats. i think we do have great friends across the aisle, in the senate, and we always know, as has happened in my 10 years in the senate, if you are in the majority today, you might be in the minority tomorrow, so get along. you do not break bonds. you do not burn bridges. if you lose, live to fight another day. when you win, you are a gracious winner. >> this dinner sounds interesting. how long has the dinner with women senators gone on, and when did it get started?

>> it really started when the women senators met with the women leaders of northern ireland, and we started trying to encourage them about their role in trying to bring peace. we started telling war stories about our experiences, and how we were elected, how we overcame obstacles, how we broke into those nine clubs regions men's clubs, and it was so interesting -- men's clubs, and it was so interesting. barbara mikulski and i, we were nine women senators at the time, and we went to bob barnett, who is this, sort of, book of contractor for many people in washington, and we said we want to write a book. would you see if any publishers are interested? bottom line, we wrote a book called "9 and counting," and each of us wrote a chapter about our different obstacles, and when charity that we could agree that all of the profits could go to because most of us had the experience of being a girl scouts was girl scouts. we wrote the book.

dave the -- keys the proceeds to the girl scouts. -- gave the proceeds to the girl scouts. it was to encourage girls who are trying to overcome a challenge, it sold quite well. that was the beginning. then we decided to start meeting. we need about every six weeks or so for dinner. we enjoy each other's company. we have built great camaraderie. >> we will go to the audience

for questions, but i will ask one last one. there were nine senators men of the female persuasion. 17 now, -- senators the end of the female persuasion. -- senators then of the female persuasion. net 17 now. do you think we will have a woman president? >> i thought it would happen by now. i do think we will happen because we are becoming so much more equal in our experience and credentials that is less of a factor now.

i think it will happen when the time is right for the woman's philosophy. i think we are tough enough. we are treated pretty much the same. i think people do not think of us as women candidates as much anymore. they think of the says -- as what do you want to do, what are your plans, what is your platform, and they build their own interest. that is good, i think. >> let's go to the audience cheered the somebody have a question for senator hutchison -- audience. does somebody have a question for senator hutchison? let's pretend i am a member of the audience. you interviewed a male senator after he has won his first election, and he thinks he should be in the white house, not so much for himself, but for the good of the country. you interview women who been in the senate, and they do not seem to make that assumption.

we think that perception is true? a lot of male politicians have thought they should be president in texas. have you ever thought about running for president yourself, and if so, why did you decide not to do it? >> well, yes, i have, and i would have loved to have the right timing. i adopted my two children 12 years ago, and i go home every weekend. i was not here for the sunday shows to build my name identification in the way you would if you were running for president. i have not been able to do some

of the things to prepare. also, up until really this year it was kind of a given that the person with the most seniority and the most logical next step choice would run for president. this year, amazingly, people just popped up and ran for president. [laughter] i mean if i were 15 years younger and my children were gone, and i could have run for president under these rules back then. i would have loved to run for president, but the timing was not right. i never felt, like she said, when i was elected, that i was ready to run the country, would they not be lucky, and i have met those people in the senate, susan.

i think women, generally, are more humble. all of the women that have been elected have had to overcome so much, and they have had to mostly deal with running their homes, having children, the experience of that, and also on top of that -- the experience of that, and also on top of that over come the obstacles. i felt when i wrote my book about women trailblazers the women that were in the arena of first, -- are read the first, they did not reach the level they hope, but they set the stage, and that got to the top. i am in the first tranche, and i think the next will be the

woman president. >> senator kay bailey hutchison. thank you for being with us. >> woman political leaders look at challenges when running for office. we will hear from cathy rodgers and debbie schulz. they talk about women in congress and running for office as well as hillary clinton's campaign in 2008. this is half an hour.

>> we are so glad that all four if you could join us today. thank you for being with us. look of this panel -- you would think that women already control washington. we have the highest-ranking republican women in congress, the chair of the democratic national committee, leaders of two powerful think tanks, including the think tank president obama listens to the most, and look at other numbers -- 17% of congress is the norm now. do you think the glass is half full, because look what you have done, or is the glass half- empty because progress is so incremental? >> i think the glass is half full. i think it is an exciting time to be a woman in congress. i think about my own story -- i never dreamed that i would one day run for congress. i grew up on a farm. 9 wife and mother. i spent time in a family business. i had the honor of serving in congress -- you see people getting elected to congress today. granted, we have much more work to do, but i think the recent elections in 2010, from a republican perspective, we had a record number get elected to

the house. we had nine new republican women elected to the house. it is a great story to tell. i think that that is a big part of it. as more women see others doing it and doing it successfully, looking at themselves and saying, she has done it, i can do it. >> what you think of this? is it a good story, should we keep at it? or is a disappointing? >> i agree to the glass is half full because i'm that kind of person. i agree to be optimistic about the future and, differently than kathy, i dream of public service as a career choice. i was elected to my state legislature when i was 26 years old.

in 2010, women lost ground in congress. we lost seats in congress for the first time since 1982. i think that we have to be cautious about to -- cautious about celebrating that a woman got elected to a particular office, and to make sure that we have women who are running and when you are going to champion the causes of women, that will make the agenda that is important to women, but equal pay and making sure that, when it comes to fighting for middle- class families and insuring access to birth control and making sure that health care is a priority and is affordable, making sure that access to education and higher education is a priority -- i do not think just any woman -- that should not be the goal. in electing a woman who is going to make issues important to women and families -- that should be the focus. i do not know that we have made

as much progress in that as we should. >> there was a sense in 1992 -- a lot of women got elected. a breakthrough year. the title of this program is "wittman 2020." by then, things could be different -- but just 17% of congress is fino. -- female. why do think the progress has been so incremental? there were more women and the 111th congress and there will be in the 112th. >> i think that there are challenges foreman who are running. i think there are additional burdens. i served on behalf of hillary clinton for a long time. i was on her presidential campaign. i do think that there are issues that women face around admission and power that could be different for men. we are seeing that in the senate's races right now. questions are running why women -- women are asked why they are

running. when men are not asked those questions. there is a basic question that women have to overcome about why they are seeking office. often women tall stories about the reason they are running is because they see and experience in the neighborhood in order community and when to change it, whereas men, people assume that men are running because men run. i worked for a special canada -- hillary clinton had a different -- candidate, hillary clinton, the first lady, who had a lot of different experiences. and her senate race and even her presidential race. there were questions about what her goals were. men are not asked those questions. there are a lot of similarities between 1992 and now. my first presidential campaign was 1992.

we also now have an unprecedented number of the senate candidates in a presidential election year. i am hopeful that we will see more women in the senate and the house. i am hopeful we will make progress. i think we should recognize that people see women in leadership -- and in power in different ways. that is something we need to overcome. that is a challenge. >> cannot tell a quick story? >> please. >> when i ran for congress in 2004, my opponent was a woman. she actually made her whole campaign platform that i was 37 years young, had twins, and she would say, you can make a good -- you can be a good member of congress and a good mother, just not at the same time.

>> one of the things i want to raise -- i am a glass is half- full person also. think about it -- women are inherently very intelligent. if you look and see what happens when you run for office, there are a lot of women who will fight with purpose, say, why would i want to do that? i always look at the 2008 campaign. hillary clinton -- you have people talking about your cleavage. sara pailin, people are saying, how will you be vice-president when you have so many children? do you really want to run? how often is a male candidate running and you hear them say, look at that fat belly and come over. it never happens. -- and comb-over. [laughter] have you ever seen it happen? but when it is the female

candidate, it is, is she married, does she have children, how will she take care of them? i have never read anything about anybody ever seen, how is joe biden going to be a senator and raise his children? maybe it happened -- i have not seen it in any reports. that is another factor. women decide, do i really want to deal with this tax is to the whole issue, the vanity thing that we want women to have more power because we are superior in every way? [laughter] would the policies enacted in washington be different if the proportion of women was on par with the proportion of women in the population? if congress was half female, what policies the different? -- with the policies being enacted for the country be different? >> i think that women bring an important voice to the table. i served on the recruitment team last congress. when you talk to women about

running for congress, the issues that are on their minds are just a little different. women are so often -- when you think about running for congress, they are thinking about their families, their careers, their community involvement, how it will fit congress into all of that. as you see health-care issues, the economy, the challenges of finding jobs -- i see more and more women being compelled to run for office and figure out how to fit in to their full plate. in years past, a lot of women waited to ask -- to be asked to run. it two years to decide to run for office. i'm excited right now that we are seeing more women to step up because they are compelled by the issues. another point i would make -- when you ask people how they view women versus man in public office, they view women as being better listeners at a time

when many in congress, many in america do not think congress is listening. they stephen as been problem- solvers, being honest, -- see them as been problem-solvers, being honest, with and to get the job done. these are qualities that are very attractive to a woman candidate. we need to continue to highlight that. and the highlight what we bring to the table. >> can i give an example? a report in wisconsin -- a state senator. they then were having a discussion in the spring session about the equal pay act or something similar to that. in discussing the merits or, in his opinion, the demerits of the legislation, he thought comfortable saying, if you think about it, money is more important to men than it is to women. i cannot help thinking, if there were more women in the state legislature, even if he thought that was an intelligent statement to make, that there

will be women legislators that can explain why, in this day and age, you cannot say that to a single mother who is struggling to raise a family, take care of her children, and pay the bills. look at her in the face and tell her what she earns should be less important than what her ex- husband earns. >> you have to only look at nancy pelosi. when she became speaker of the house of representatives and the first woman, the agenda and the issues that bubbled to the top, that she made a priority -- increase in access to higher education and making sure that student loans were more available, the amount of student loans increased, passing the affordable care act -- being a woman is no longer considered a pre-existing condition and can i get charged more than a man because of your gender. that resulted in making sure that preventive care for women

was available without a deductible, like mammograms and colonoscopy is. -- colonoscopies. the fact that we have nancy pelosi as the speaker drove the agenda in some ways. issues came to the top of agenda that -- the agenda that a man would not have and has not -- not that men cannot make issues important to women a priority, but when you are living through those issues every single day in your personal experience, the things did you put the top of the agenda will be different than what a man experiences. >> you mentioned that you work for hillary clinton. you had a wonderful transition -- you were 2008 -- the 2008 policy director, then the director for barack obama in the general election.

many people wonder how you did that. for hillary clinton, was a different? did she have a different kind of presence of campaign? -- presidential campaign? was a different just because she was a woman? was that in defining the difference in terms of the strategy she had to pursue or how she had to be a? -- how she had to pay the -- the hague -- behave? >> we could have like six hours of conversation about this. i think that there were a number of ways in which hillary experienced a different kind of president campaign -- presidential campaign than others. people -- her remarks will continue to be dissected forever. i believe for treatment in the media was not totally fair every single bed, neither fair nor balanced across cable channels. i think -- the last question you ask, there have been

studies that show that women leaders tend to focus, even republican leaders who may not be seen as running on these issues, tends to focus particularly on education, health care, the kinds of issues that families are concerned with. i think that we should not think that there is no difference in leadership. she had the first universal pre-k program -- a variety of ways to wanted to make sure people to balance work and family. i think that those issues resonate and resonate with women, but also women's lived experiences help them understand that in leadership roles.

>> could woman the president? -- linda you think all women will be elected president? >> i am fascinated by the growth i have seen in terms of what women are capable of doing. i firmly believe that we will see it in our lifetime. just as i have lived to see the first african-american press and elected, i believe that while i am still caring to die the gray out of my hair, we will see a woman elected. >> when? >> i hope, in the next decade. setting the bar really low -- there are women leaders from the world -- germany, india two decades ago had a woman prime minister. >> so the next decade? >> i hope. i hope the democratic women

running for president in 2016. >> what kind of time and do you have? >> i think that, within the next three presidential elections will see a woman become president of the united states. >> so adding two years. [laughter] >> what will be important is that we need to make sure that we have more women into the pipeline of leadership. >> absolutely. >> all the way up the supply chain, so to speak. that is what happens. because of past challenges and discrimination and our inability to cut through the good old boy network, that means that the default white guy who was the automatic, easy choice -- let's take a few examples of what president obama has done.

we have seen his two choices both the women. -- and his two choices for the supreme court both be women. that shows young girls like my daughter's that anything is possible for them in america. when you have an opportunity -- i am only the third woman to chair the democratic national committee. i'm the first woman appointed by a sitting president. it is not only women that can take care of women. we need to make sure that we have good men who have the ability when they are making choices, all things being equal, to be conscious of the fact that that bench needs to have strong win in on a it who are well-qualified and can build their skills so that, the bigger the benches, the more likely it is that you have a variety of women who could run. until then, if it is just a couple, if you have to roll the dice and pounce on the moxie of one woman who will carry herself all the way, it becomes less likely.

>> your timetable -- 10 years, 12 years? >> i tend to agree. we will see to it sooner rather than later. i'm very excited that on both sides of the political parties, republicans and democrats, you see women in more and more of these leadership positions. on the republican side, you see where governor romney is looking at some of the governors, governor martinez in new mexico -- look at where women are being considered seriously for the vice president's spot. overall, those are women who are that next tier -- you see a record number of women on the republican ticket in state legislatures. i was elected in 2004. i was the 200 women to serve in the house of representatives

ever. -- 200th woman to ever serve in the house of representatives. that is out of 14,000 to have served. today, we're up to 250. that is still relatively new, but what is exciting to me is that we are seeing more ron, mortgage elected at all levels, -- more ron, more get elected at all levels. that will provide the pipeline so that you see more looking at the highest office moving forward. >> we will go to questions from the audience. we ask you to go down the line. you are all set successful women. i wonder if there is a piece of advice somebody gave you when you are much younker that you think has been really helpful, has been advice you have kept in mind. >> growing up on the farm, my dad was a role model to me as far as being a role model to the community and giving back to

the community. he challenged me to do that from as long as i can remember. he said, if you do not like what is happening, get involved. get to that position where you can actually impact what is going on. do not just complain about what is going on. that would be my challenge to anyone, to get involved. >> work hard, sees opportunity when represents itself. i was elected when i was 26 years old. i was the youngest woman ever elected to the legislature in florida. i hope a young roman be to record at some point, but when the opportunity presented itself, there were a million reasons not to do it. that happens so often to women. seize opportunities. my parents told me my whole childhood -- reach for the stars. issue for the top of your profession. once a new public service was a career path that wanted, that advice told me, ok, so i do not have to work to elect other

people, but the top of my profession, to make the world a better place, is to be a decision-maker. making sure that you work harder than anybody else. that can carry you so far. so many women, the reason we are able to advance further than we might, is because it is not hard to outwork most of the men. [laughter] >> i have to say, i -- now that i oversee a relatively large organization, the biggest difference between men and women, when i see their evaluations, women are very self-critical. they think of all the reasons they have not performed. they almost apologize. a ranking system -- the best women are the ones who rank themselves the hardest.

whereas every guy is like, i and excellent -- an excellent. my big advice is to show som moxie. it is an issue for women when you are strong and aggressive. you are seen as bitchy. you really have to show moxie. women do not have the same network -- that is a big issue in washington. i was in the office longer than anybody else on campaigns. when i worked in the white house, i say the latest of anyone. hikeit really showed that i was dedicated and committed. i advanced that way. that was the reason why i am

here. i would say to young women, you have to take those opportunities by the horns. you have to demonstrate -- it is not like the network is always there for you. >> what advice would you give? >> the advice i would give is the advice that was given by my parents. i and the daughter of immigrants. a first-generation americans in this country. my parents came to the united states from jamaica, which is a very macho male society. their advice to me and my siblings has always been, number one, do not be afraid of competition. did in there and fight for what you deserve. work the hardest to possibly can. always be the absolute best. the one piece of advice my dad gave us that i want to share with women here -- he always said he got three daughter's first, then the sun, to turn him into a feminist.

he always said to fear no man. do not hear anybody. go for it. >> i wonder if there is somebody in the audience who has a question. >> i work -- all of you have set such high standards, but i know that you had to come at a point in your career where you had to negotiate or confront men and their thoughts. how you bring men into believing that you can do it and that you are the person who can lead your initiatives? >> who would like to take that question? >> i would go back to leading by example, proving, in the small tasks you are giving, that you can do the job. there are many times when i have been giving assignments

that maybe were not the ones that would have chosen a mayan, but going ahead and -- on my own, but going ahead and fulfilling those responsibilities, with that comes the recognition that if you do well on the smaller ones, that leads to bigger opportunities for you. in the course of my life, i can look back and see where it has just been a step by step, where one door opens and it has led to another opportunity. >> can i also address that? i went to college here, law school here, and decided to work out a old boy southern network all car and -- law firm in washington and make partner. when you go into that type of environment, i was the second or third african-american in the history of the firm. the highest-ranking female maternity -- attorney came to the law firm and was only

allowed to practice law as long as the client was her husband's business. that was not too long ago. even in that kind of environment, whether it is washington or elsewhere, as long as your work is always the best and what you are doing is completely unassailable, there will always be somebody who comes from somewhere completely and totally unexpected who will say that this is the right person for the job. even when the filter is the bleakest and you'll never get ahead, there is always somebody who is watching who understands the it is a proper business decision to ignore whatever feelings they might have about your gender and give you the job. >> one additional thing -- act like the cool that you are. -- equal that you are. the same way every member won their elections, sitting across the negotiating table, whoever it is, the hard work that you commit to guernsey the respect -- berzins you the respect.

you cannot act like you do not belong at that table. if they smell an opening in negotiation, when you are trying to get something done that is important to you, that demonstrates weakness. >> you have to have a mentor. you have to have a mentor. it does not matter if it is a woman or a man. you have to have somebody who is giving you advice who will go to bat for you. >> we have time for just one more question. >> i am a student from the city university of new york. how you see the future of women of color in politics, especially latinas? our population is growing. what initiatives are you doing to encourage women to run for

office get them involved in more educational leadership? >> thanks very much for your question. >> i think that we have issues of just lagging. look at the asian-american community. in the course of my life, for most of my life we did not have anybody running for any office. let alone win. for women of color, there is a time line. -- timie lag. that does not mean that we should not be pushing. one reason why we have a timeline is that, in the first generation, we are often just trying to survive and make ends meet. that means not be able to do that part of public service that you need to get to run for how office.

as generations progress, you can see more and more people pushing. i do think that it is incumbent. my view is incumbent on both parties to ensure that there is real mentor should. -- mentorship. debbie wasserman schultz is a great example. she has mentored a lot of women. a lot of women of color to run. she has been a great spokesperson on this issue. -- i am sure that happens on the republican side as well. we need to have more of that leadership. we need people within our community that really push for that, push people to get out of the sometimes traditional work force. it is often healthcare or business -- they move so that the board realize that america has a lot of different communities -- people realize

that america has a lot of different communities. >> i am sorry, our time is up. i want to thank the wonderful members of the panel for joining us. thank you very much. they tend balearic called on when and to be their own an advocate at the national journal conference. if she talked about her work on the council of human and girls when she first met the president and michelle obama. this is just over a half-hour. >> thank you. we are pleased today to welcome a valerie jarrett, senior adviser and assistant to the president. in her role, she chairs the white house council on women and girls, and oversees the office of international government affairs and urban affairs. she has served as the co-chair of the obama-biden transition team, and was the senior adviser to the presidential campaign. before this, she was the chief

executive officer of the habitat company. she has held positions in the public and private sector, including the chairman of the chicago transit board and deputy chief of staff for mayor daley. she practiced law, with two private law firms, and served as director of corporate and not-for-profit boards, including the chairman of the chicago stock exchange and the federal reserve bank of chicago. interviewing her is a host of "morning joe." her second book, which examines the role of women in the workplace, reached number one in in the new york times best- seller list. she also writes a monthly column about career empowerment. prior to joining and bassin b.c., she was the anchor of "wheat -- joining msnbc, she was anchor of "evening edition."

mika. >> it is great to be here. i would say valerie needs no introduction, but she just got one. it is great to be here with you. we have got so much in common in some ways. me. the special when it comes to putting together the barack "newlin your value, " which i if hope everybody walks out of here knowing their value in little more after this year some of valerie's personal stories. i know you do not want to talk politics. we want. except art -- we will not. except for one thing -- i want to know why the paycheck fairness act failed. can you tell me? as a residence tinkle play?

-- as against equal pay? is there anybody in this room against equal pay -- please stand up right now. [laughter] first of all, what an amazing group of women. and men. i cannot imagine who is against equal pay. >> that is why we are so -- fortunate to having a president who wants to make sure that women and girls reach their full potential. thato proud to chair council. you can look at how president was raised to figure out how their bodies are. -- their values and priorities are. here is the president was raised by a single mom. with his grandparents for the wild. his grandmother used to train people who leapfrogged over her many times. he watched his wife. when she was trying to balance her career and be a good mom as well -- he wants to grow up in a world where they are

competing on an even -- even playing field. he believes women should have equal pay. we are nearly half the workforce. when you look at the work force, women are graduating from college at an interest rate. but still we are only earning 77 cents on the dollar. women of color, it is even less. i can give you no good reason why congress did not support paycheck fairness, which would have given women in other tool to make sure they get equal pay. [applause] >> i will say it again and again on the show. i simply do not care if anybody would like to challenge me or say i'm been partisan on this. i am for equal pay. i had my own situation withit is fixed, and i am glad about that. [laughter] ivo not stop talking about it. i urge you to as well -- talk about money, for yourselves, and what you are worth. you talk about the president's

personal journey and the influence his own family, his wife, his two daughters have on his thinking. york close friend of the family. does this make him different -- you are a close friend of the family. does this make him different? tell us why the council on women and girls was treated, and why it is so important pertaining to our economy. >> personal life experiences are important. that is what makes us who we are. that would give the president his values, his integrity, his moral compass, his character. he grew up in a home surrounded by women. his mother-in-law, his wife, his daughters -- he is the only guy in the household. he has got bo. not only does he live in households run by women, but he also makes sure that his administration has women in significant positions of

authority. he empowers us to go forth and set priorities, programs, initiatives that improve the quality of life for women. he started the council because he wanted to make sure for the first time that every federal agency and department has a mandate that will be scrutinized each year -- what programs are you doing that improve the lives of women and girls? what legislation, programs, initiative? i want to make sure that we are challenging ourselves each and every day to make this a priority. many of the initiatives that have come out of this administration -- these have also effect appointment. you have women in key positions of power. this will reflect the priorities of our country -- that half of our country is well represented at the table. >> obviously, you are a close

friend of the president and his family's and his top advisers. what influence have you had on him in helping him evolve and recognize how important this is, in a way that no other president has? >> i am lucky that he came in in pretty good shape. i really am. his family that raised him instill these bodies in him. that is also a part of how he was raised -- there was a period in his life where his mother had to depend on food stamps to make ends meet. you have a sense of compassion. reflecting on my relationship with the president and first lady -- i will update myself seriously. i met him 21 years ago this month. >> in the playpen. >> i was deputy chief of staff for mayor daly, and was trying to recruit the first lady to join the office. she had been a pri