host:we appreciate the census bureau and the national disability rights network. we got the statistics with americans with disabilities and the things that have been enacted. >> next, white house reaction to the latest economic reports. later, remarks by newt gingrich. commerce department reports economic growth slowed to 1.5% in the second quarter, as consumers cut back on spending. j kearney responded this -- to this at the daily briefing. >> i would say on the issue of gdp, what we have seen is the 12

straight quarter of economic growth. we have seen an economy that has expanded by 6.7% overall, and the private components of gdp have grown nearly 9.9%. yet, as we say consistently, this is not enough, and this growth is not fast enough. this is job creation that is not substantial enough. that is why congress needs to act. that is why the president insists that the proposals he has put forward that would have an immediate impact must be pass by congress. we will continue to make that case. in terms of -- we obviously, despite sustained growth, despite private-sector job

creation, we are in a position where we are pulling ourselves out of the deep hole caused by the great recession, and there is a great deal of anxiety in the country about the economy. that is why we need to take these steps. that is why it is unacceptable to say people wait until next year to take action on economic growth and job creation. we should do it right now, because the things that are in the american jobs act, would create a million jobs, firefighters, teachers, construction workers, and every one of those jobs carries with it not just the benefit for those individuals who are employed, but outsized positive benefits to society to the building of roads and bridges and forts and schools and through the placement of more

teachers in classrooms that has obvious positive effects on education, and the president believes that education is a key element of our economic picture. we will keep pressing for action. the president will continue to do everything he can do administratively to create jobs and he will continue to hammer the point that we know what we can do right now to spur growth and job creation and congress needs to act. >> now president obama signing the u.s.-israel enhancedact. >> i wanted to welcome outstanding leaders to the oval office. i want to acknowledge

congressman berman and senator boxer who have done outstanding work in shepherding through this bipartisan piece of legislation that underscores our unshakeable commitment to israel. i have made it a top priority for my administration to deepen cooperation with israel across the whole spectrum of secrete its shoes -- intelligence, military, technology, and in many ways, what this legislation does is bring together all the outstanding cooperation we have seen, at an unprecedented level between our two countries, that underscore our unshakeable commitment to israel's security. i am pleased this week are quite to be able to announce $70 million in an additional spend

, $70 billion, excuse me, in an additional spending for iron dome. this is a program has been critical in terms of providing security and safety for israeli families. it is a program that has been tested and has prevented missile strikes inside israel. and it is a testimony to the leadership of the folks sitting here that we will be able to block in that funding to ensure that program continues and that we are standing by our friends in israel when it comes to these kinds of attacks. let me just close by saying that the tragic event we saw and bulgaria and this size to the degree to which -- emphasized the degree to which this continues to be a challenge, not just for israel, but for the entire world, preventing terrorist attacks and making sure that the people of israel are not targeted.

and i hope as i sign this bill once again everybody understands how committed all of us are, republicans and democrats, as americans, to our friends and making sure israel is safe and secure. leon panetta, our secretary of defense, will travel to israel to further consult and find additional ways that we can ensure such cooperation at a time when frankly the region is experiencing heightened tensions. with that, let me sign this bill, and i want to thank all of those standing beside me for their outstanding leadership and an outstanding work on this issue. i will make sure i am using enough pens so everybody gets one.

there you go. >> thank you, mr. president. >> thank you so much. [unintelligible] >> thank you so much. >> thank you, guys. had a great weekend. >> link the signing, barbara boxer and congressman howard berman of california talked with reporters outside the white house. >> hi, everybody. i am senator barbara boxer from california, and this is congressman howard berman, and we're so pleased and grateful to this president for signing what i consider to be the most comprehensive american-israeli

cooperation agreement that we have ever had in this nation. it is very broad, far reaching, very bipartisan. i wrote it with johnny isaccson in the senate and others in the house. howard will go into the details of it a little bit tell you what is. some of the main issues that we addressed here, an extension of loan guarantees for israel, an increase in our stockpiling of weapons to well over a billion, it pledges cooperation on every single front and really stand strong with israel at the u.n., trying to work on relations with nato and israel, so we are very excited, and i am ever so grateful to this president for standing with israel as such a loyal and dependable friend.

congressman burr men. >> thank you, senator, and basically, what the senator has said is this bill is a manifestation of the president's word, now repeated a number of times, that the bonds between united states and israel are unprintable. this codifies the extension of the loan guarantees. it provides the statutory basis for the iron don't support, which is critical to deal with the missiles coming out of gaza and southern lebanon and has proved effective and it creates another framework for ensuring israel's quality military edge against enemies in the region, in terms of the weapons we are willing -- and a security assistance we provide to israel.

it authorizes the provision of aerial refueling tankers and a whole apparatus of areas. senator mentioned a number of them. these are all adjusted for aspects of demonstrating once again that the u.s.-israel relationship is a close, unbreakable bond between two partners, two allies, in the fight against terror, in the pursuit of peace and stability in that region, and on so many other issues. >> we are happy to take questions. >> when governor romney -- [unintelligible] >> that is not true at all, because john boehner and eric cantor he said the timeframe for this over in the house -- >> the president has a certain

number of days to sign the bill, and the bill just got to him last week. >> you could talk about what's time to sign the bill. let me tell you something. this president loves israel, cares about is real, stands with israel, not just with words. words are cheap. but with actions, and you should seek his pride as he signed this legislation. this bipartisan legislation. >> obviously there is nobody from the other party here. were they invited? >> johnny isaacson wanted to be here, but his granddaughter was in a swimming meet and he promised her. >> i would not read too much into that. the session ended yesterday. >> senator collins said she was invited and wanted to go, but once the session ended, she

caught a plane. [unintelligible] >> will that money accomplish? >> it will allow new batteries. here is a system, 90% of the time, has been able to shoot down rockettes coming out of gaza and that populated areas in southern israel. there are only an up batteries now to protect certain areas. this is part of a major push, israeli efforts, and substantial american support, to expand the number of batteries so that a greater part of israel can be protected against these missiles. [unintelligible] this is the next installment of

a larger optimization. >> [unintelligible] >> this provides a statutory basis -- defense bill that is going through that has not been enacted also as this authorization. this president was committed to this project. we did not need this legislation to do this. the next president will now have the authorization and he essentially tells the next administration, which we will see who that is going to be, but we have our preferences, keep it going. >> does this send a message to iran? >> absolutely. there is other legislation that is more directly related to iran, but this gives meaning to

the notion that iran must stop its nuclear weapons program, iran must stop its support for terrorism, and so long as it continues, israel and the other countries of the middle east count on our support against violations of the treaty obligations and against proliferation of nuclear weapons. >> this president has gathered support in the entire world -- be the last comment -- this message -- i am sorry, this legislation sends a message to the entire world, including every country, including iran, that this relationship that we have with israel is unshakable, as the president said. this legislation is in my opinion the most far-reaching israeli-american corporate of

legislation that i have ever seen in my life. as far as the sanctions on iran, this president has garnered the support with a strong sanctions against any country. if you look at the president of iran, he complains this never happened before. this president deserves some of crescent grass credit, and bringing work together against iran. another point i would say is that in this legislation, it's as the u.s. will oppose any anti-israel resolution at the united nations. this is one copperheads a piece of legislation. i am very excited. i think we should be cheering in israel today. in every corner of the world that supports the right of israel to thrive, in peace and security. thank you very much. next, remarks by former house

speaker newt gingrich and fox news picture mary katharine ham. tomorrow, discussion of gun- control laws in the u.s. and other countries. a look at the possible effects of budget cuts on education. and then the growing abuse of prescription drugs in america. "washington journal," that 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> it was clear when that eight and then the amendment -- when the eighth amendment was ratified, and the death penalty existed in all the states and was the only penalty for a family. for somebody today to say that

somehow the american people have prohibited the states by ratifying the constitution, they have prohibited the state from applying the death penalty, i do not know where this comes from. the american people never voted for any such thing. >> and peninsula and reflects on over 25 years on the bench. >> newt gingrich predicts fast economic growth based on energy and manufacturing. it was one of many topics in his speech at the clare boothe luce seminar in washington. he talked about foreign policy, calling pakistan and saudi arabia the most dangerous countries in the world. this is 50 minutes.

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> good afternoon, everyone. i am the lecture director for the clear blue close policy institute. our mission is to promote a leading conservative women and prepare women for leadership. we do this through a variety of unique programs like this one to expose young men and women, college students like you, to some of their conservative heroes. we also helps kids bring conservative ideas to campuses. our speakers include great women. some of these people you get to hear from this afternoon. if you are interested in

hosting a conservative speaker or would like any other information on how the institute can help you fight the left on your campus, please give us a call. visit our web site. i know you all are looking forward to our afternoon of speakers today, so i will not hold you up any longer. we will have the opportunity to do some questions and answers. we have two of our student in turns holding micra fronts. if you will please line up behind them they will hold the microphone for you to ask your question. with that, i will have the end to erin -- the in turn it is our first speaker.

>> good afternoon. i am honored today to introduce our first speaker. he was inspired from an early age by his experiences as the son of a career soldier to dedicate his life to his country. the was the arctic that cuts architect of the contract for america. one of that numerous accomplishments that the place under his leadership was congress passed the first balanced budget in a ginger and ash -- in a generation. "time magazine" named him a man of the year for 1995. he received his bachelor's degree from emory university. before his election, he taught history at west georgia college.

he represented georgette in congress for 20 years. he served on the defense policy board under a bush. in 1999, he was appointed to the united states commission on national security. gingrich has committed to developing free-market health care reform. in 2003, he founded a center for health transformation. he and his wife produce award- winning documentary's together. they also record audio books. he is the author of 22 books. during his recent run for national leisure, he was one of

the strongest and most compelling and innovative conservative leaders. please welcome newt gingrich. [applause] >> thank you all. some housekeeping. i will give you a very brief talk so we can spend most fun -- most of the time questions you want and at the very end we will take two or three minutes to take pictures. i noticed several of you kept jumping up and taking pictures. and those of you trapped of the year could not do it. i am delighted to be here and i am very interested in sharing

ideas. the reason i agreed to come because i think developing the next-generation of conservative activists and leaders is very important. i just got a note today from the young america foundation, i think i have spoken in 19 out of the last 20 meetings. and i do that because i do think the education matters and i do think getting people committed matters. i want to give you three or four big jumps -- think of it as an outline. first of all, my younger daughter jackie and i wrote a book of "five principles for a successful life." it is aimed at people younger than you but the principals our universal. these are things i actually develop out of trying to think of what i had done in my life that was successful. the first is to dream big. the second is to work hard. the third is to learn everyday. the fourth is to enjoy life. and the fifth is to be true to yourself. let me tell you why i say this. you are at the right age to dream big. and if you don't have the courage to dream big at your current age you will not acquire it at 45. it can be anything. it could be having a family. i have a 12-year-old granddaughter who wants to be a

ballerina. i have a 10-year-old grandson who will be 11 on saturday who thinks he wants to either be a chess player or a sniper. he is not sure. at nine years of age he read -- "seal team 6." think about who you want to be a and b the courage to not leave with your teacher tells you are parents or friends. understand -- and this is where i disagree so deeply with president obama -- the key to success is to work hard. his comments the other day verged on irrational. or just left-wing academic -- verged on the irrational or just left wing academic. tenured faculty -- nobody

actually creates the money but they are happy the alumni showed up for you show up with the federal government pays -- shows up to pay them. a slightly distorted view. people who are successful all work hard. this is the primary thing to get locked in your head. if you want to play a big game, you are going to get to practice, and in ordera slightl. people who are successful all work hard. this is the primary thing to get locked in your head. if you want to play a big game, you are going to get to practice, and in order to practice you have to put in the time. it gets me to my third point. enjoy life. i learned many years ago -- i did a course and as part of the course we had one of the most famous inventors of restaurants in america. norman brinker and then it tgi friday's, steak and ale, the salad bar -- the waiter walking up and in introducing yourself. we interviewed him and he said, when people come to ask him for career advice, no matter what their age, the number one question is, what do you like doing. the reason is, to do anything

really well you have to do it so much that you got to like it. nobody can will themselves to do something consistently they don't like. so, i really encourage you to think about it. life is not mean it is always fun, but that you have some deep sense of satisfaction that this is a good way to spend your day. i spend virtually all of my time either learning or teaching. i teach in speeches, in books. i just wrote an e-book called "no taxation by misrepresentation" taking on the tax bite. we did it as an experiment to see how e-books work. i just did a paper that was submitted to politico an hour ago arguing it was legitimate to ask questions about national security in terms of the muslim brotherhood. i am constantly either reading, listening, writing, speaking, doing media.

and that is probably 90% of what i do. obviously i am half irish -- i like talking, i like reading. i like learning. all this kind of works pretty well for me. then, i think, you have to recognize -- you got to learn every day. the reason you have to learn everyday is twofold. first, the world is really big. i am 69 years old. i have worked at politics since august of 1958. and i learn stuff every day. i traveled a fair amount of the planet, and i am looking forward to my next trip. because there will be things i'd never seen before. i am currently working on a novel and potentially a movie about george washington as a young man. and i am back real engaging and rethinking about washington -- somebody probably first

encountered when i was 9 for 10 years old. i have a grandmother who taught me american history when i was very young. now at 69, i have a whole new set of questions and a whole new set of understanding and back trying to learn again. you've got to say to yourself, if i going to achieve a big dream, i have to work hard, learn every day, and i have to enjoy it. if you find attractive something where you say, i don't enjoy this, you have to have the courage to change. it is very important. which gives me -- gets me to my last point -- you have to be true to yourself. the fact is, if you are not true to yourself, you'll just crumble. you can't be true to somebody else. thean't say, they get to fine for me whether or not i am ok. adam smith in his first great book which proceeds -- proceed to the wealth of nations talk about the idea of looking in the mirror.

when you look in the mirror, and you see the person you want to be. if not, candidly, the person who has to change is you. not other people who validate you. it is a very hard thing to do. i've done things in my career that absolutely involve people thinking that i was not. some of the time, by the way, they were right. which is one other point i would make about working hard. it doesn't always work. i just lost a presidential nomination. you probably know this. i ran for congress twice and lost, in 1974 and in 1976. i had a project starting in december -- in 1970 to create a house majority. we have been in the minority since 1954. i thought 21 years was long enough. the project i was running, we lost in 1981, 1982, 84, 88, 90, in '92. there were people -- the week before the election were election day of 1994 that we were nuts.

i just saw a guy the other day who said to me that the two great surprises of his life was you actually could have a republican speaker of the house and that the berlin wall fell. he put them in the same league. i had to be willing to endure two losses in congressional campaigns in order to finally win. i had to be willing to endure a losing year after year, getting back up and say, what didn't quite work, and going back added. i coined a phrase in that period called cheerful persistence. both words are important. anything you really want to achieve, you have to persist. if you want to be effective, you have to persist cheerfully. in a free society, you attract people by being cheerful. if you are persisting but you are grumpy, people hide from you. if you're depressed, they ignore you. if you're angry, they try not to

get near you. but on the other hand, if you are cheerful, they will tolerate you. think about people you know personally. cheerful persistence is a disciplined behavior. i want to -- a couple of books i want to recommend. i would urge all of you to buy a copy of peter drucker "the affected executive." his argument is in the information age, every worker is an executive. knowledge workers by definition are about executing. it is about 160 pages long and it is an astonishing book. i urge -- 168 pages long and it is an astonishing book and it is the best single book about being effective i have seen. he starts with a very important point, which i believe deeply having spent my whole time studying it. effectiveness is a learned have it. it is not about genetics, it is not about i.q.. it is not about personalities. learning a set of patterns that

work. and then being disciplined about resupplying them and resupplying them and learning in the process -- re-applying them and re- applying them and learning in the process. let me talk briefly about where we are as a conservative movement. i think we are in the middle of a tremendous amount of change and i don't frankly know how quite we will get the where we are from -- to where we are going. the conservative movement really began in its modern form in a reaction against the republican establishment and against the national establishment, which are parallel but not identical. if you go back and you look at the rise of goldwater, it is really taking on both the national system -- the welfare state, lyndon johnson, etc. -- and it is taking on the republican establishment -- nelson rockefeller, the northeast. it had a huge impact.

there is no question that it changed the underlying pattern of the republican party decisively in ways that are still true to this day. at the same time, it created the framework within which reagan could rise. but it is important to remember, if you go back -- this is why i am a historian and not a political scientist. any social science that has three lines is inherently unlike the real world. because the real world does not have street lines. in 1972, when richard nixon one a decisive election -- won a decisive election and carried virtually every state, there was the zeroth reason to believe ronald reagan would become president -- there was zero reason to believe ronald reagan would become president. the vice president with spiro agnew. there was ever a reason -- every reason to believe after nixon that spiro agnew would be the republican nominee. there is a great book, i think it is called "a heartbeat away" about the discovery that iran

agnew was a crook and about getting him out of the presidency, which led nixon to pick gerald ford. nixon then resigned. ford becomes president. ford then makes to the huge mistakes. he treats the reagan with contempt -- which just makes reagan irritated -- and he picks nelson rockefeller to be the vice-presidential nominee. had ford picked ronald reagan to be the vice-presidential nominee, history would have been totally different. reagan probably would not have ended up running for president. he would have been on a ticket and the ford that either would have when they were lost, and if it had one ford would have served as president. the guy who tells the story beautifully is one of the leading analyst of american polling. he always says that he learned

about campaigns being real because he was convinced to leave his job and go to work for teddy kennedy and kennedy was like 30 points ahead. and the week after he left to work for kennedy kennedy david interview with roger mudd in which roger mudd asked a to a -- ask a trick question. kennedy is running against jimmy carter. roger mudd asked this very unfair trick question -- why you want to be president? kennedy couldn't answer. he couldn't answer him so badly -- you could probably google this -- that his campaign just started to collapse. charlie cook is the guy who tells the story. charlie cook is the one who left his job to be a field organizer for kennedy because this is going to be the winning campaign. he watched it disintegrate. but there was no point in 1979 where you would have said reagan is inevitable.

at this stage in 1980 reagan with nine points behind carter. i am just giving this as a way of thinking. you don't know how the movement is going to be bold and to the next phase. you don't know what will happen decisively. but let me tell you what i think the three great needs are. first, we have to win the cultural fight to take back the campuses. we have allowed the left to develop a bizarre domination of american intellectual life, much of that reinforce the by course of behavior. -- reinforced by coercive behavior. how many of you are on a campus where it is the size of a painful to be conservative? ok. why should it be true? conservatism is the dominant dog you structure of the american people. why do we tolerate academics who are not -- nuts imposing their view and false history. teaching stuff that's not true. you want to understand why barack obama has such wacked out

ideas, he is the perfect representative of the academic class. he really believes this stuff. he thinks he can get there on your own. he thinks government is the magic thing that should work. i thing he was genuinely shocked to discover the shuttle ready jobs were not shovel ready. to live in america and not figure out bureaucracies are not exactly agile is truly being out of touch with reality. but he lives in that world of people -- they have nice cocktail parties and talk about the latest weird book they read -- [laughter] and excited because a highly esoteric poet is coming by hill was last read by 11 people but who hates america and has this wonderful new crop -- problem called "why i hate america" which is filled with a deeply powerful meaning. my describing the world some of you know? ok. one of the great challenges of

the conservative movement of the next generation is a had gone all out fight for the academic world. those of you who are attracted to that, i would urge you to get a phd and find a campus and start a war. you don't have to argue for a countervailing bias but just argue for facts. a fact-based society destroys modern liberalism because modern liberalism is based on such a large number of fantasies and highly inaccurate things. second, we desperately need a generation of innovation. one of the sad part about my not being more competent as a candidate is that we really need a whole range of new ideas. let me give you a quick examples. brain research -- alzheimer's, autism, parkinson's, mental- health, traumatic dream -- a traumatic brain injury, post- traumatic stress disorders -- the research is the biggest area

of break through in the next 25 years. it will have more impact on human lives, the federal budget. we have all of this effort on aids, and i understand the importance of aids and i understand the political power, but the fact is alzheimer's is massively bigger, autism is massively bigger. why is it we don't have the same level of focus and investment and why aren't we having the kind of breakthroughs we are having in brain research, which covers all of these aspects? second, we got into a brawl about it -- i meant what i said about going into space. the weakness we got into was my opponents probably said, well, nasa is so incompetent, how could you possibly throw so much money at it? that was the right question, but then they cut off the answer. what we need is a new model for going into space that uses the private sector, it uses prizes and entrepreneurship. my guess that the people pretty knowledgeable about this, those with 30 years of experience, they believe a private sector

effort to get to the moon would cost about 5% of what the federal government plans to spend. the model i tell people are the right brothers -- wright brothers. a practice five years, spent a total of $500 in 1900's money -- they actually had 500 flights that failed. december 17, 1903, the first four flights failed. they flew on the fifth flight. so, they discovered how to fly. for $500. the smithsonian got a $50,000 grant from congress to build an elaborate fancy airplane, launched its offer of a boat of potomac and it went into the water and sank. $500 private sector, two guys who are passionate and a $50,000 bureaucratic project. and the smithsonian was so mad at the wright brothers were succeeded that relations were so bad for 37 years the wright

brothers when i give them the original plane. -- would not give them the original airplane. some of you interested in doing this, we need a generation of innovation. we need to apply a six sigma for the federal government. it would say trojans. we need to fundamentally overhaul the congressional budget office which is a disaster. it is a bastion of liberalism propping up models that don't work. we don't have the intellectual horsepower of engaged in these kinds of fights. the third thing we need is something we have a fair amount of the probably need 10 times as much -- we need a lot more noisy people.

we need people who are prepared -- there are so many fronts to have fights on right now. and of course, some of it is cultural and some of it is dealing with the changing real world, and some of it is dealing with the obama administration. but we need more people on blogs, twitter, talk radio, tv, more people writing books. two last examples -- we are now going through a revolution in energy. there's an american energy opportunity that by itself is going to remake your life. you should be dramatically optimistic. if we can beat obama this fall, we will see a takeoff of the next decade that will once again make america the leading country in the world. we will be the dominant manufacturing country in the next decade, the dominant provider of energy.

people forget, we are an enormously and doweled country. when i first thought environmental studies in the 1970's -- this would be a great case study for someone who wants to do an interesting book when they -- we use the popular book called "the limits to growth." it have been developed using fancy computer models at mit and was seen to be very advanced. garbage-in, garbage-out is a very important part of computer work. everything they describe as wrong. this is the problem with modern left wing environmentalism. every single prediction. you get a copy of the book -- it is just wrong. the most recent vivid example of the left being wrong is the concept called peak energy. how many of you heard of peak energy or peak oil? one of the things academic leftists love talking to people about. we are going to run out. -- there is a funny movie called "the last car" i think, in 1980,

i think, and it is like jimmy carter's world coming true. only enough gasoline leapt for one car and the whole rest of the country does not have cars -- only enough gasoline left for one car. a black utopia, if you will, where everything the left dreams of has happened and it is really miserable. in that context, innovation has changed everything. we now have a combination of what is called fracking and horizontal drilling which enables you to go down and get what is called tight oil or gas and shale. we knew there were gas and oil after index and foundations -- formation but we cannot get them. let me give you two numbers to illustrate the scale of the american energy opportunity. the amount of natural gas recoverable in the united states went from seven years in t yearso 100 -- in 2000, to 125 years today.

for most of you -- a few of you may live more than 125 years -- but for most of you we have found that natural gas to get through your lifetime. remember, this is assuming we don't find more. the numbers for oil -- 10 years ago north dakota had 150 million barrels of reserves. the current number is 24 billion. north dakota this year passed california and alaska and is now the second-largest oil-producing state in the united states. this is what is wrong with liberalism. if you went 10 years ago and said north dakota will be the number two or of the state, they would say you are crazy

because they live in a polaroid snapshot world. but history is made dynamically, it is made by inventing things, creating new potential. how many of you have a phone that has a video camera? i rest my case. just think about the dynamics of what is happening to your personal capacity to deal with the internet. so, there are things we can do when we need a generation of innovation, and we need people to be noisy about why we should get it and we need to reset the country on a belief that we could have a dramatically better future. i think that is the challenge for you generation. let me, if it is ok, toss it over to questions. [applause] and i gather you should ask the questions into the microphones of a nice spin people know what is going on. -- the nice c-span people will know what is going on. >> what do you think is the most effective way for us to encourage young people to join

the conservative movement? >> i think the starting points are two things. one is -- do they like having a job? would they rather live in a future where there are a lot more jobs, opportunity, and take-home pay and a lot more choices or one where we all come to resemble downtown detroit? second is a question of freedom. do they want to live any world where they get to define their future and make their choices or do they want to live in the world or somebody in washington, d.c., and an unknown bureaucracy issues. regulation that the deregulation is to define their life? would that work? ok. i am not a young person. i don't know what works. >> thank you, mr. speaker. from north dakota state university -- >> that is why he kept nodding, yes. >> thank you so much for

pointing out the successes we have had. -- and the state of north dakota, especially of the energy in this day. but to take my question in the different direction -- how do we when the culture war in this country and win the cultural battle for conservative soul of the nation? been a very good question. first of all, about -- >> a very good question. first of all, about -- about north dakota. vote left will start whirring about north -- north dakota, because you know when there is an oil boom there are not enough -- there are so many jobs, too many jobs. having no jobs, and no roads -- if nobody puts a truck on the road, the road last a very long time. just think about it.

just watch the way the left will react to north dakota. western north dakota has to many jobs, to many people, too many folks striding around. it is a small town that has one traffic light, it's a long time to get through because all of these people are there. so, you have this constant complaint, either why can't we all lived in detroit where they are going back to farming in downtown detroit because half the buildings are unoccupied or the complexity of succeeding. it is a very important part of life. if you succeed, there will be changes. i bet all of you have had this experience. you go back home with folksy went to high school with and you try to describe your new life and for a fair chance for some of them you live in two different worlds. my impression is most north dakota andns are happy to have so much will produce they have a $3 billion surplus -- most north dakota residents are happy to have some much oil produced.

i think the greatest the lustration of winning a cultural war in a very direct way is abraham lincoln. there are a couple of books by a theologian, one only and that the greatest speech, about his second inaugural, -- one on linkedin's greatest speech, and one as president, and one called cooper union. if you want to understand being persuasive and you want to see a cultural fight, studied abraham lincoln. abraham lincoln in 1850's, there is a very unformed argument in 1850's. should slaby allowed to expand, does it matter? -- should slavery be allowed to expand?

you have in abraham lincoln's somebody who is very carefully moving public opinion extraordinary -- in an extraordinarily well thought-out way and it all blows up in his face and you end up in a war. and he then has to mobilize and sustain the north, despite huge casualties. we lose more people between the north and south combined in the civil war and then all of the other wars combined. and from a much smaller population base. if you read abraham lincoln's gettysburg address, it is a campaign document. no president has been reelected since andrew johnson -- and dejection -- andrew jackson in 1832. the gettysburg address we looked at as a historic, cultural -- read it as a politician speech. basically saying to the north, if you vote against me, your son was killed in vain. now, are you prepared to let your son's death be meaningless or are you on the side of freedom? it is really designed to take this cultural fight. callista and i have done a

series of books on american exceptional is in and we are doing it to pick a fight with the left. either the declaration of independence matters or it does not. if it matters it is a real document and it says your rights come from god, you are endowed by your creative. this is a cultural fight we want to have a country because the hard left of not believe any of that. you get in a very serious question on the nature of america. and i think you want to get people down to first principles and you want to get the down to facts. is it a fact that we now have a lot more oil because of innovation or not? this is why i am reading this piece on the muslim brotherhood. is it a fact that there are people on the planet who said -- say they would like to kill us? let's start with that. if you are on the hard left,

they will say it is just political language. you would think after 9/11 or this week's bombing in iraq or the car >> -- car bomber in times square, maybe people who say i want to kill you actually mean they want to kill you. it is a very important core level argument and we have to be more prepared to wage a those kinds of first principles fights. >> mr. speaker, thank you very much. i am from florida. i became a citizen last year and recently ran to be a delegate for the rnc convention and was told by the good old boys i could not make it. the young people could not become a delegate. i became an alternate delegate but as of the republican party need a transformation for the next generation? do we need to go back to the 1980 idea of ronald reagan expressing a genuine message to be inclusive and open?

>> sure. of course, we do. if the old timers say there is no room for them, beat them. marco rubio did not wait and line. he beat the incumbent governor and he said i want to run for the u.s. senate. i knew him before he became speaker of the house. he had a very methodical campaign to become speaker when he was clearly too young. politics in the end -- there is a very good book of "plunkett of tammany hall." plunkett later in life told this reporter about how things worked. you find an office you can win and you beat somebody. then when you won, you are somebody. you are now a real person.

in the age of information -- let me give you two examples. i did jay leno the other night. did any of you see it? what did you think? ok. i saw snooki and i had a serious and meaningful dialogue. seriously. snooki exists because she exists because she exists. this is part of the nature of the modern world. you could have a brother or a sister and do your own tv show and three years from now if it catches on, you make money. if it doesn't, don't make money. so, part of the trick is to be noisy.

part of the trick is to take yourself seriously. i first appeared asking for a zoo in the city of paris for what i was 10 -- harrisburg when i was 10. i had people my whole career thinking i was too noisy. my attitude is it is nice to have an occasional republican willing to debate and argue and be in the media. but for a large part of our party, i was seen as so guy -- why doesn't he just be quiet? there is a famous book where the title was "tell newt to shut up," and it was a quote from john boehner. go back home and be it rather than complaining about it. fill the vacuum with their own energy and courage. >> first, i'd like you better than snooki. i am michael, going to law school in boston. i have been doing research on campaign finance.

as you probably know, you have a world in course in it this past year. what do you think of the state of campaign finance and how would you fight the left on things like the disclose act and other things they have been attacking super pacs for monday utilize the in the 2008 cycle? >> i think the ideal campaign finance system would allow any american to get any amount of after-tax income if they filed on the internet every night and they gave it to. i think it would clear up all the current bologna, the current red tape. the way the system currently works, if you are rich enough -- if you are mayor bloomberg, you can buy re-election. but he is writing a personal check. he spent so much the it -- getting reelected for mayor of new york that it was virtually impossible to give -- compete because if you are a middle- class candidate you could not raise the money. i think it would be healthier, instead of the money going to the supers -- super pacs that are so all outside of the system i would have the money went directly to the candidates and the candidates have to take responsibility for the advertising, and i think you would have a much cleaner system. every night reporting on the

internet, you know who gave what to whom and just relax and get away from the mess we're in now. campaign finance has consistently made the system worse and it had diverted incumbents' toward spending so much of their time raising money that they have far less time to think and far less time to work with the legislators then they did 30 years ago. -- than they did 30 years ago. >> thank you very much, mr. speaker, for this wonderful speech. i am currently with the foreign affairs committee. i want to shift the dynamic of the discussion and ask a foreign policy question, if you don't mind. recently, in the last few days,

there have been a lot of reports from both sides that are sort of taking this critical view of candidate romney's foreign policy, saying he does not have a specifically defined foreign- policy, and that is because president obama has had almost more aggressive foreign policy to some extent than president bush. i wondered if you could comment on that and what is your view in terms of this upcoming election, and in particular, how do you define it republican foreign- policy in the next foreign -- coming election? >> that is a good question. i think it is actually an advantage that romney does not have an automatic sense of what he would impose on foreign policy, because i think the world is evolving in ways we don't understand right now.

i would just give you a couple of quick examples. i was at a speech in singapore in june and i went early to listen to some of the speakers before i talked. one of them was a chinese in economist who pointed out in the next 10 years, india will add 70 billion -- 70 million workers and china because of the one child policy will lose 70 million workers. i went back to rss who works -- russ for me here, i asked sen meet the comparative numbers. 70 million workers added to india is the equivalent of the gentleman and british work force combined. nobody here -- our foreign- policy establishment in both parties doesn't think about a world in which the addition is bigger than germany and great britain, and yet that is the reality.

if you look at the build up of military force in asia and the decline of military force in europe, there are very substantial changes underway in ways we don't fully understand. in fact, there was an article this morning about the iranians by new technology to try to maximize their first 648 our capacity to inflict damage to the u.s. navy -- 6 or 8 hour capacity to and flood damage to the u.s. navy. if i were to say to you what is the most dangerous country in the world today, what would you pick? china, russia -- i am going to give you two countries not on that list. the most dangerous country in the world today is pakistan. pakistan probably has well over 100 nuclear weapons. it had a growing islamist factions. it is a very precarious, very complex country. it has substantial terrorist organizations operating all over the place.

the pakistani intelligence service funds some of those operations. i mean, it is truly complicated. we all worry about iran might get a nuclear weapon. pakistan has 100 nuclear weapons. iran -- ahmadinejad talked about eliminating is a row, so from that point, but there are a lot of people in pakistan who would like to eliminate somebody. whether it is india, what have you. the second most dangerous country from our standpoint is saudi arabia. it is the largest funder of wahabism in the world, a radical islamist position totally

incompatible with your lives. this is one of the conversation nobody in our elites want to have. none of you women would be in this room. he would not be allowed to be here. you have to look carefully at what does this all mean. i don't think today that we have designed systems that fit the realities of the world that is emerging, and i think one of the things i would recommend to a president-elect is he really methodically rethink -- and not just assume that he wants the right wing version of the establishment but that he actually wants to rethink what are our principles, goals, and what kind of systems we need to get there. i think the changes in the world around us are that big. i think are some of -- i am about to get the hook. >> one last question. i want to ask you about electromagnet pulse. i know you have written a little

bit on it. it is such a frightening prospect and we had a taste of it if you weeks ago when the power went out of the storm. the you know people in the private sector working -- do you know people in the private sector working on it? >> that everything that are the most immediate threats to your lives on a grand scale -- assuming there is not a nuclear war -- is cyber warfare, which we don't understand very well, and an electromagnetic pulse and of the two, electromagnetic pulse is much worse. we clearly know the technology because we first discovered it in the late 1950's when we set off a hydrogen warhead in the south pacific and 28 miles of -- 20,000 miles away in hawaii it knocked out lights and telephones. if you launch the weapon at the right out the to be potentially can knock out in large part of the country.

the reason it is so formidable is if you burnout elektra generating systems can't replace them. -- electric generating systems, began replace them. you going to a pre-elliptical world. -- pre-electrical world. if anybody wants a sobering the deduction, michael author wrote a great book called "one second after" actor -- where he shows you the town of north carolina after an electromagnetic pulse event. it is one areas, if i was looking at restructuring our national security system, we should have a very methodical program of hardening our systems. and you can hardin all of these large generating systems so an electromagnetic pulse would not destroy them. and also think through how you harden and of stuff that if there was an attack you could rebuild the system pretty fast.

today it would truly be a nightmare. let me just say, i hope all of you will get active and stay active and be engaged and i hope you will be engaged in an aggressive and direct way, and don't be too patient. we need people who are pushy and willing to work hard. do we have a couple of minutes to take pictures? who is my leader? you are my leader? the you want them to take pictures outside? -- do you want them to take pictures outside? >> some of the attendees at the clare boothe luce policy institute seminar lining up. we just heard from newt gingrich and we will hear next from mary katharine ham who will discuss her journalism career and the importance of speaking out as young conservatives and becoming activists. what she talked to the people about her journalism and the work and politics. this is about 35 minutes. >> hello. i am the summer intern.

in such a student at the university of virginia. i will introduce mary catherine ham. she got involved in the conservative movement. she worked at the heritage foundation and has written for such prominent complications -- publications and has also been featured on town hall.com. she is known for her success as an articulate a radio talk-show personality. her show when rick days and not washington g.t. -- her show ran weekdays in washington d.c..

she ran a successful video blog known as hmam nation. her videos disclosed questionable washington in transactions and secrets. it won the video of the year award. she covers everything from education to personal stories to economic and current events. she loves and focuses on conservative fiscal and security issues. she is now married and continues to work for our conservative movement and see editor at large at hotair.com. considers hersel a true feminist. i heard her speak about this earlier this summer. she encouraged me as a young conservative woman. i was impressed by how

persuasive they she spoke. she was friendly and witty. please join me in welcoming mary catherine ham. [laughter] [applause] >> thank you for coming in. i found these sunglasses outside. this is not an alcohol monitoring bracelets. . it is a pedometer. i know the speaker got into a bunch intowonky policy. -- a bunch of wonky policy. i went to give the some of the

advice about starting a career in washington. the first thing you should know about yourselves is that if you come to work in washington, if you are interested in politics and you want a career in this arena, you are not exactly normal. just accept it now. it is ok. it is part of the game. when you are communicating with other people, normal people, which will be your job, here is what you need to remember -- in washington, we think that a thousand things are happening every day that are important. to some extent, that is true, but what the rest of the world sees -- you know when you read some frigid me someone who is a and they opera fan compan catch up everyday, you look at

them and you say, that is insane. there is nothing happening. there are these fake cliffhangers every day. they say, note it is amazing. it is important to pay attention all the time. you could tune in years later, and someone would be doing the same thing. that is how they look at politics. four years go by, and they do not see a lot of concrete changes that are changing their lives. they see the same thing over and over again. new people are crazy -- you are crazy because you see something every day. it is ok not to be normal. keep that in mind when you are here or you will for people at dinner parties and barbecues. take the time to visit, people. this is what congressmen are supposed to do. occasionally, they forget to do that. personally, we were normal at

some point before we get into this. we still have that inside of it. we should cultivate it. i am from north carolina. i try to get down there to check in. just think outside the beltway can be helpful for this. it makes what ever you are easier to kids.eor if you're able to communicate with people who are not falling as everyday and change their mind, that is when you start achieving things here. that is the ultimate power, having people on your side, not the people who read "soap opera digest" every week. stay in touch with your normal person. it exists. when you are going back to explain washington, one of the things that i have thought since i moved here is that our duty

is to learn washington, learn the things are wrong with it, and inform people that this is how things happen here. when i came to washington for the first time, i did not know this. i was young. i was covering nascar. i did not really know that much myself. i was sort of weird. i had been into politics at a young age. i had an ideology young. one of the first things i learned was that they do not read the bills. is that right? i felt compelled to research it. i found out not only is that the truth, but it is standard practice. it is not thought of as unusual

in washington. i took that message back home. i said, hey, do not know that they did not read the bills? i was the hipster of reading bills. i was into it so early. i took it back to my friends back home and said, they do not read the bills. do you think there is something wrong with that, even if you are someone that was the federal government? do you think they should actually do some due diligence on every bill that passed? even my liberal friends back home were like, that is not right. they thought i was a propagand izing. with the health-care debate, that on its own was a great

educational moment for the entire country about how this town works. they wanted to passes in two months, but the public said hold on. what would have happened in two months, all of the backroom deals that they had about it, that stress that for a year. once it is stretched out that long, it is a really ugly. what americans learned is that is not new. that is a way that most bills get done. you just saw it in the open for the first time. that is a powerful thing. that is something that the normal people need to know. i am glad we went through it. it is your chance to learn here the weird things that people did not know about washington, communicated to them.

in the clinton years, congress have gotten 330 bills done. the number of bills passed should not be the mark of success. can ezra tell me what posted? he probably could. -- tell me what those sbills did? he probably could. we need to know ts. back home, the people whose lives are being expected, should have a chance to weigh in. we have gotten so bloated and so gigantic that it is almost impossible for them to do that. that is what people say, politics is exhausting. i say, i know.

that is why we are here to be involved partly on your behalf. i wish we could get this boiled down so you could be involved. so you could learn exactly what they're doing up here. that is our job. we are ambassadors for this weird stuff that comes here. it is our job to try to fix it by convincing people it is insane. it is not that hard a job if you work on it. what age are you guys? are you guys mostly college age? being an intern, i was not one on capitol hill. i did my work elsewhere in newspapers. one thing i would say about any the an intern is not be above during the scilicet they ask you to do. i know we are being very practical here. i have had experiences -- i had

a job that told me nothing about monitoring and capitol hill meeting. it was not the greatest job in the world. it was not in my job description. i wrote the notes every week. someone saw the writing and said, we like the way you write. would you like to write a column for us? that was a big turning point for me. it taught me to not dismissed things that you may think, is that in my job description? it does not mean you have to take abuse. making yourself available and that you are willing to do some of that stuff because when you are young, a lot of the people above you -- it takes a lot of money per hour to get them to take notes. i was cheaper. that was a good investment for

the company. not making a fuss about that paid off very well for me. another thought on basic career advice -- this town is about to you know. that does not always have to be a nasty saying. you can make it on your merit, but i had not realized that that is just how human relationships work. i will say this about making connections -- in washington, we have a bunch of happy hours in meetings for connecting with other people who may help in your career. your connections will be more helpful to you if you actually have a connection with them. the happy hours are fun. the connecting events are fun. if you only go in there all mercenary style to find someone who will give you a leg up, that

will not help you as much. if you go in and be a nice person like your mom advice, it is very helpful. do not be afraid to try where things on the job. that is not kinky. do not look at me like that. the c-span arias is -- audience is freaking out. being young has an advantage. did you think that running a facebook page could be a marketable skill? it is because older people do not innately understand these things as much as you do. you have an advantage in the marketplace and you should use. when i was coming up, twitter and youtube were brand new. the cost of embarrassing oneself or low.

people were just learning it. there are not sure what to do with it. i decided to do a newscast where i would dress up people to illustrate the news of the week. this was silly. if that hundreds of thousands of viewers. having the ability to think a little bit weird, especially with new technology is what will make you stand out. there will be a thousand new tools coming out that congress people need, that activist organizations need that you will probably be familiar with months before your bosses. keep an eye on that. keep your head about you. people will mess up on twitter are generally just being jerks. if you ask -- if you act like a nice, normal person, then you

are generally ok. to not be afraid to try out these new tools. this is what i always give. i especially give this to young women coming into politics. some of you who have heard me speak before may have heard it because it is my hobby horse. the yourself in negotiating coach. i know that the congress was going to pass a bill that would make sure no one would ever be paid less than any other man ever, they did two years ago. it is all nonsense. if you are getting $5,000 less than a male counterpart, the need to be asking for $15,000 more. the best way to solve that problem is to keep yourself in negotiating coach, asked for what you need, what you deserve, and do not go to the

speaker of the house and ask the speaker of the house to pass a bill to help me from more money. it is a bad way of going about to do that. it goes from men as well. women have more problems in that situation asking for money, pushing back. if you get a coach that will hit your helmet before the game and you ready to go, if you start early in your career, it will pay dividends throughout your career. the really simple thing -- it is a really simple thing. i did it years ago. my friend does negotiations every day. every time i am of for a jap, we do the talk. -- of for a job, we do the pep talk. it is a favorite that i have done myself. i encourage everyone to get a try. it can just be a friend.

it does not have to be a class. it will help you. if someone offers you something, maybe not on your first job, but as you are moving up, go in there and push back in little. i have the certain skills. i have these things that make me different and special. i have proven that i am good at this. this is what i want. the last thing i will say -- i will do a question and answer. i do not want to hold you over too long. the last thing i wanted to say is as conservatives, a lot of times we get a little cowed into not thinking what we do is just as noble as a people are doing on the other side. i see it all the time. the tea party was sort of a

moment for conservatives to say, what i do matters. the things i care about our righteous. the things i want to do in making government more small and simple are good things. i will embrace that. travel go stand out in the park. i will not let these people tell me i am a horrible person because of it. it can be easy to let people cowl you. do not be afraid to think that what you are doing is noble. you are trying to make this government smaller and more responsible -- responsive. what is not novel about that? it is a beautiful thing. look at it as he wanting people to have input on those bills.

that go to congress every year. people will tell you all of the time that you are a heartless person. they are wrong. own it. that will make you a better communicator as well. those are more -- those are my basic tips. i will love to do question and answer on current events for advice. is that ok with you guys? [applause] >> could you expand on the concept of being a passionate conservative, especially as a young person and attract other people to be passionate conservatives share this message? >> knowing yourself is important. i grew up with all liberals. i moved to washington.

i was in a small town in north carolina where i was not completely outnumbered. i had to learn my stuff. i had to get ready not necessarily to go toe to toe in a cable news style debate. that will not win people over like if you are out having a drink. one of the ways that is most persuasive case to honestly say calmly, look, good people believe something different. here is why. let me explain how it benefits normal people. how it is a compassionate point of view. taking that approach among small groups of friends is probably the best way to reach people. a lot of times, especially when

i talk to young women, or young people, you do not have to necessarily swing them all away to committed t conservative with you. focus on some issues that they agree with you. if they are chipping away at that convention wisdom, they will come with you some of the rest of the way later. my best friend from home is now with the commerce department believes in free trade. that was the achilles heel with her. she is not an activist conservative. she is not in the same place she was before because she had a different point of view on that. tapping into that and not being like, why do you not agree with me on every issue will not help. with our peers, it will not happen that often. i like to play its soft.

when the attack, feel free to come back. >> thank you for coming in. i could to >> a very university what would be your advice -- how did you figure out what you wanted to do in the long run? what would be your advice to college students and in turn to are still figuring it out? >> i did not plan to do any of this, which is part of why i ended up for i am. i am excited about it. if you have asked me when i was in college what i wanted to do, this would not have been in the realm of possibilities because it would have never to occurred to me to do radio or tv. i have always been a writer.

i found outi think being open to possibilities is one of the things that helped me. because i did not have a specific path, when somebody comes to me and says do you want to host a radio show, sure, i will try that? i will be on tv. giving things a shot and not being afraid helps. that goes along with what i was saying about being a young person, having new, marketable skills in technology, and not being afraid to embrace that. maybe you're hosting a web show for whatever group you are working for. maybe you are handling the twitter feed. do not be afraid to try those new things, take those new tools in new directions. that is what serve me well. i happen to come up in a time where all of a sudden being a commentator was a job in and of itself. being a personality and having a specific point of view and making it a little more fun was

something that served me well at the time that i came up in. it would not have served me well a couple years ago, but i think the opportunities are multiplying as opposed to contracting as far as different things you can do. as far as the economy goes, i do not envy you guys going out there right now. i want to stipulate that my situation was different because things were looking pretty good. but i think in activism there are lots of places to look on a state level, on the federal level. but do not be afraid to try different outlets. do thisay i'm going to and refuse to fear from that because you might miss out on cool things. >> my name is francesca. i am from emory university. i have a question about radio and television. i was just wondering like what interest -- what internships and

like what skills would help someone to get those jobs in the work force? >> it is always good to start with something -- generally, for radio it is call screener and booker. when you get those jobs -- you can get them on all radio shows. the skills are the same. they translate to every level. just being able to handle that kind of thing, the people skills, just deciding what is a good call and a bad call, those skills are the same as far as you go. as far as tv goes, i think looking and producing for a show -- they also have at all networks, and i think at other places as well -- i'm speaking from a national level because that is what i know, they have guessed greeters, which is -- guest preacher's, which is where

everybody starts out. greeters, which is where everybody starts out. the best way to get into radio or television is to get a specialty. why is paul ryan the guy you talk to about budget issues? because he knows them better than anyone. he made that his will house. finding those things for yourself will get you into those areas where coming around? i will get you into those areas because people will come to you because you know things better than other people do. getting a specialty is a great tip in general for washington. i might have done things t differently had i seen backwards. just make yourself and authority. >> i go to cornell university.

i was wondering if you could weigh in with your opinion on the question can women have it all? >> i do think that you do have to make some choices. i will use my own life as an example. i realized about a year ago that in fact part of the idea comes from knowing not knowing what you want. i realize the part of what i wanted was the flexibility to have kids and be home with them part of the time. and still have an impact. i am blessed that my career as a blocker or commentator on tv on all this stuff has given me a way to find that path. but i am sure that if i went 80 hours a week gung-ho for the next 10 years, i would be in a different position than the one i'm going to be an because i have made that decision. now to me, that is still having it all. i am more than happy with the

situation that i have created for myself. it ended up being part of michael. -- part of my goal. when it comes to having it on, it does not necessarily mean to me that i must be at the very pinnacle and also have three kids and be home with them sometimes. i understand there are trade- offs that we make but i think, being honest with yourself about what you want to be, that is the best thing you can do for yourself. my mom worked probably 60 hours a week and had three kids and did an incredible job and we never thought twice about it, never had any doubt about how she felt about aus. my grandmother was in the military ended a thousand things and had three kids back when that was not as easy. i was inspired by them and i

made slightly different choices. my grandmother, my mom, to me, it counts as it all. i do not buy the notion that it all means that specific thing and if we do not all get there we have failed. make trade-offs and make yourself happy. >> my name is ashley and i was wondering what books you recommend to students? >> books. well, start off with the federalist papers, of course. i know people have their specific opinions about in rand. i think she is just a fun read. if you are a conservative, it is a blast to read her. there is a book called "we the living" that is semi autobiographical about her growing up in the soviet union that is really our raw picture

of how bad that ideology can get. i have always liked that one a little more. i love the economist, so if someone made me go back to school, i would probably go back for economics. i love the more simply written things like the road to serfdom and that kind of stuff. it gets you ready to do battle when you have to. but i also like silly books as well, and do not be afraid to read those too. that is one thing, taking a vacation from this occasionally, intellectually and physically, is good for you. >> let me ask you, where do you get your news? what are the top sources of news for you and what recommendations do you have for students? >> i actually will stay the way

i get news is to use my twitter account. for many young people that is a cool way to do it. i find that because i use my twitter stream -- i set up a very specific group of people i follow for breaking news and it is built over several years and probably really large at this point, but the point being, i find in a good 20-25 minutes ahead of people in breaking news because i am on twitter. i always followed up with other sources. i do not just check twitter. but that is my favorite way to get news. when i worked at newspapers, i was the only one reading blogs and i was ahead of everyone there. you should always remember that it can be fast and wrong so you need to check, but if you are a news junkie, that is my favorite

thing to do. i also loved the wall street journal, fox news, obviously. hotair.com i must give a plug to because i work there now. and all the guys like the george mason university economists have their own blogs. meghan mcardle i will recommend. she is a smart libertarian who works at newsweek now. i love reading her. i love reading more analytical, one piece of so i enjoy the economist and that kind of thing. the riveted on? -- everybody done? since we're on c-span, i would like to give a shout out to the c-span video library, which is possibly the crew list, and areas to video library on the planet. -- coolest, nerdiest library on

the planet. it is a really cool, useful tool if you are going to be working in politics and activism. it is a great tool to have at your disposal. i use it all the time. all right. have a great summer. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> next, a discussion on government action on the economy. following that, former president bill clinton. tamara, a look at mitt romney's work as president and ceo of the salt lake organizing committee for the 2002 winter olympics games. using c-span archival video, we looked back at mr. romney pose a role in lobbying congress for funding for the games. we also talked with a correspondent about his recent article, "the real story of ronnie's a lead the turnaround olympic mney's

turnaround." >> democrats are holding public hearings in minnesota this week and followed a few weeks later with their final platform recommendation in detroit. republican start their process in florida. c-span coverage of the party conventions continues august 10th with the reform party in philadelphia followed by the republican national convention with live gavel-to-gavel coverage beginning august 27th from tampa and the democratic national convention live from charlotte, n.c. starting monday, september 3rd. >> now a discussion about how congress is dealing with the economy. from "washington journal," this is one hour and 25 minutes.

host: let me introduce you to our guests. and while this an economic reporter. i want to start with the basic questions. is there a consensus about the state of the economy right now, about its health? calleguest: i think there is. most people are concerned about the economy, republicans and democrats. what they have not agreed on is what to do. guest: i think everyone is in rough agreement that things are a little bit better than they were in 2009, but in no sense good. nobody is satisfied with where

things are right now. host: we have a good bit of time with you. we will come back to issues as we go along. there is already movement to avoid the fiscal clef. what do you know about this? guest: i have not seen the story, but it does not necessarily sound like they are ready to deal with the fiscal clef. that often refers to the expiration of the bush tax cuts and the budgetary cuts that are coming. what they are working on is how to avoid the threat of a government shutdown.

both chambers, the house and senate are approaching each other and saying, we want to avoid a government shutdown. i think we might see some movement to keep the government funded through next year. host: if they extended through six months, what would be the mechanics of that with sequestration and everything? guest: the problem with this policy, and we saw this in 2011, is that it had an effect on the economy when there is this much uncertainty about what the government is going to do. there was some uncertainty about whether the government was going to continue making its bond payments. a lot of businesses said all right, we're going to wait and see how this resolve's before we figure out what our extension

plans are going to be. it really puts the brakes on things when people do not know how things are going to be resolved. the keep kicking the can down the road, that is not going to be helpful to keep fixing it in short bursts. host: we welcome your comments. we will put the phone numbers on the screen. you can also tweet us. let me move into taxation, which is part of this fiscal deadline. this week, the senate got of vote on taxes. why did that happen? what were the politics behind that? guest: in the last week or so, democrats and republicans have been doing a kind of dance. republicans want to extend all of the bush tax cuts at least for a year.

they have talked about doing a broader overhaul. the democrats say -- and this is president obama's position, we do not want to extend the taxes for upper income earners. so, what the question was was would there be a vote on either of these proposals. for a long time it did not look like there would be one. ultimately, late on thursday, the senate leaders got together and said we want to have this debate. senate republicans usually reject anything, just having a majority vote. but here they said no, we will let you have a vote and we are going to vote on our proposal. they had that boat. the republican proposal was rejected and the democratic one pass with 51 votes. two: let's listen to the

leaders in the senate talking about this tax bill and what their views are. quite to their bill would raise taxes on the middle-class and gives millionaires a tax break. it would raise taxes on parents trying to pay for college, families, especially large families, with children. it is no wonder that the majority of the united states senate oppose the legislation. in just a short time, there will be a bill that will pass to cut taxes for 90% of americans. including every middle-class taxpayer and more than 90% of small businesses. this plan, proposed by president obama, would cut taxes for 114

million american families. there's raises taxes for 25 million middle-class families. this is the only bill that has a chance of becoming law so it is the only plan that would actually give a middle-class family a chance of avoiding a fiscal cliff. >> this proposal guarantees the taxes will go up on roughly a million of our most successful small businesses. over 50% of small business income, 25% of the workforce, will be affected by it. it guarantees the taxes -- it guarantees that taxes go up on capital gains. dividends. which provide the income for a huge number of our senior citizens. this is a uniquely bad idea. the fact that he needed to mention it illustrates the point that this is more about the election than the economy.

i would predict that there will be bipartisan opposition to this proposal. i am sure a few arms have been twisted to get the results. host: we have a pledge from the house gop that the leaders will vote on the senate house bill. is this all about politics? guest: it is a legitimate economic issues. although there our politics, there has to be a decision made by the end of the year. but there is a lot scheduled to change at the end of the year so they has no -- they have no choice. host: to begin to hear democratic senate leaders talk about letting it expire. and moving the debate so it

would bring them back to a ground zero and starting tax policy fresh. is this a legitimate strategy? guest: i mean, that is what happens if you let everything expire. it is legitimate in that sense. whether or not it is the best thing for the economy is a separate question. there are issues expiring at the end of this year. the budget cuts. and taking a hard line on taxes may be allows them to help protect some of the cuts that would come in. i do not think it will be as simple as a single tax load. there needs to be a package that deals with the cuts and the taxes before you really know how this will be resolved. guest: in washington, we often bemoan the simple political votes. they call them showboats. it is important for voters to understand where each party

stands. i think the senate passed this bill to keep the tax cuts for all of those below $250,000 per year. the house will pass a bill next week on party lines, pretty much, to extend the bush tax cuts in star lee. -- entirely. it may be good for voters to see where the choices are. i think both parties actually welcome the debate. both see advantages. the republicans think we can call the democrats tax hikers. this will hurt small businesses. democrats say, you are helping the rich. host: first of all, is a $200,000 for individual? in $200,000 for a family? guest: is. host: with the increase taxation be above that threshold?

guest: only the income above those thresholds will be taxed. the bush tax cuts would be reduced to 35% -- 39.6% at the top level. that is what it was during clinton's years. host: the portion over the threshold would be raised. let us get to some calls. people are lining up. we begin with a call from jerry in chicago. you are on the air. caller: actually, this is buried. -- barry. host: i am sorry. caller: things have been an echo chamber. it is like history does not really happened. it is like history is what they do not want you to know about and then they will sit here and

talk about self created nightmares. they're trying to scare you into not using your senses. they want you to believe in to their darker world where you have to choose from their choices. what i see is there is a possibility that people, if they could work together and have successes and start building them, maybe just diving in to special interests like gardening, then i could see the economy doing better. trying to come from a top-down approach when you really do not -- those people are so lazy, i will just feed this synthetic corn.

while i am sitting back eating heirloom quality stuff. the people are so dumb they do not know. there are some that do and there are some that do not. are we going to feed the smart people good stuff? you have to make it that a word. -- better world. host: thank you. guest: he seems frustrated with washington, as many are across the country. i think what we will see in the coming election is whether either party can lay out an agenda that really unites people or at least unites 51%. host: am going to ask you both -- looking at congress alone, what actual buttons can they pushed that would have a positive or negative affect on the economy right now?

guest: well, this is one of the things ben bernanke talks about all the time. congress can do two things at once. they act like they cannot, but they could enact policies that would provide more support for the economy in the short term and then in the long term, create a plan that would help bring the budget back to some sustainable situation. obviously, you have the spending likely to grow much faster than revenue. it is unsustainable. everybody knows that. there is no disagreement about that. if congress is able to get that plan in place that makes it clear that the country is not bankrupt in the future, at the same time he not hiking taxes all at once, that would be a tremendous help to the economy because people would have a

little bit more knowledge about what is going to happen out of washington. host: 90 and investment. letting people be confident -- certainty and investment. guest: people can invest in their education from the time they're 18 to 22 a and then pay the debt done in the future when they are on a firmer footing. there is no reason the government cannot do that, as well. host: do you have anything to add, ben weyl? guest: i think it has a lot of leverage on the economy, but people do not agree. the democrats and republicans do not agree on the best way to spur the republicans. the house republicans passed a bill to freeze regulations until unemployment goes down to

6%. this bill is going nowhere in the senate. can for republicans -- for republicans rolling back regulations, it is a way to boost the economy. democrats will not necessarily use the word but they like to see stimulus. they say there is a lack of demand and the way to prime the pump would be spending. they are not going to necessarily say that. host: there is a "usa today" story -- let me share with you what they say.

host: here is the comparison -- host: do you have a reaction? either of you? guest: there are a lot of misconceptions about the obama administration meddling with the workings of individual businesses. they have passed two very significant pieces of regulatory legislation.

the affordable care act, obamacare, had a lot of rules here people have to figure out what they mean. the dodd-frank act is setting up new rules for anyone involved in the financial system. one of the things i have found -- i spent a lot of time going around the country and i get the opportunity to listen to a lot of people who run businesses. a lot of these regulations consume a lot of time of the people at the top. the ceo's of banks right now are all having to devote time to understanding which of these rules apply to them and which do not. what changes do they have to make because of these banking rules? maybe the number is not any more than in previous administrations, but the nature of them is different. things get up more to the executive level.

they find themselves taking a lot more time with it. they are the people the kind of set the discussion. the tone of the discussion for what people think about in the business community. they are in their offices, trying to figure out what dodd- frank means. they take that to their chambers of commerce. that is why i think there is a prevalence of this view that there are new regulations, even when they are not much greater than in previous administrations. host: graduate of georgetown university, now, he reports for bloomberg news on monetary policy and economic conditions around the country. the next call for our guests is from jerry, a democrat. caller: this is a great topic. i think there is a paradigm shift in how we see employment

or full employment. with the global economy in competition, we have to accept 7% to 8% unemployment. we will have to have that safety net to help. trying to get it down to 5% with the global economy in full force is almost impossible. the second thing i wanted to say was the democrats are willing to compromise if republicans are willing to fix revenue. would you agree to attend dollar cut in safety or $1 increase in revenue? non- agreed. that is extreme. if i give you $10 for every $1, that shows you how extreme the republicans are. if they are not willing to agree with that, i do not know how we will reach a consensus. host: thank you. does the federal reserve agree that in the global economy, a

target of 7% to 8% is acceptable for unemployment? guest: they do not, but it is out there. people think the structure of the economy has changed and there is no way to get back to the unemployment rates we saw in the previous decade or in the 1990's. although the federal reserve things you can get unemployment down to 5% over a couple of years -- they think we can get to it. there are a lot of economists who do not think that is in the cards for us. the american workforce does not necessarily have the skills needed to do that. the employers are not willing people to pay because they can go overseas in the pay a much smaller amount to do similar work or maybe to another country and pay two people at the same

price you are getting one american worker. that makes it a tough american -- at duff environment. wherever you believe the unemployment rate can go to, whether it is 5% or 7%, this is not an issue anyone is confronting. there is no talk about what legislation or changes to the safety net need to be made. there are no efforts to get workforce retraining going on. i think the caller is right. this is a serious issue. host: the second comment was on no compromises. guest: this goes to what josh was saying earlier. there is a long-term fiscal problem. the question is, how do we fill that hole? democrats say there needs to be revenue. that debate is happening now. it is happening in congress. i think a lot of politicians are saying this election will

determine the future of that. voters will have a chance to come down on one side or the other. i am not so sure that is true, especially if we end up with divided government. the question is -- does their need to be a major event that serves policy makers to action? i am not optimistic. last summer, the u.s. faced a downgrade in the dead. -- debt. it is no longer aaa from standard and poor. that will not move lawmakers. host: this viewer wants to come back to you about the regulatory burden. he writes -- guest: yeah, i was at an event a couple of months ago in washington where an attorney confronted one of the governors

at the federal reserve, the one in charge of regulation, and he said don't you realize how much of our time this is occupying? how in some ways these regulations are applying a break to the ability of banks to go out there in extend credit? he did not mention the other activities that they do, some of which are not as helpful as making loans to ordinary people. the governor gave a response. he said yes, we know that is true. there is an element of this that is slowing things down, but don't you remember what happened in 2007? we did not have regulations in place. unemployment shot up to 10%. is it worse slowing things down a little bit so you do not have

a financial crisis? that is the point business executives do not like to talk about. that is the reality. we are still recovering from a financial crisis. it is not an abstract issue. there is a real reason to think that it might make sense to put the brakes on so we do not have another crisis. host: next is from trevor in phoenix. go ahead. caller: thank you for taking the call. we are already to hit a fiscal cliff. i say they for fit and do something. host: how likely is that? guest: not very likely. there is an election coming. politicians want to go home and campaign. the threat of skipping a

vacation is nice and it makes headlines sometimes. for good or bad, they are leaving town. host: our guest, ben weyl, is a graduate of a college in iowa. he has been reporting on capitol hill. guest: i was in iowa for the 2004 iowa caucus. we had john kerry and howard dean coming through. it was pretty exciting. host: the do know he would come to washington? guest: i was pretty -- did you know you would come to washington? guest: i was pretty sure. host: good morning.

are you there? caller: can you hear me? thank you for taking my phone call. i am going to be brief. i have a few statements i wanted to make. but people are trying to put stuff on barack obama and romney is not even in there. the blade is on the congress and senate to straighten this stuff out. on the comment that the president made about -- nike was started by the federal government. ross perot got his start with the federal government. america, you are not willing to get the jobs back. on the well for -- welfare joint, if you put 13% of black america on welfare, you still have 33 million people out there that are taking up welfare money. oil companies, gas will be $3 a gallon -- that has to be $96 a barrel. what are you doing? wall street, what are you doing?

why are you taking social security and medicare from the american people? just let them catch you $1 trades and that will take a set of the deficit. thank you. host: texting financial transactions would take america out of the pretax in financial transactions with take america out of the debt problem. guest: that would be a very high financial transaction tax. people get confused about what the issue is. we have the baby boom generation with a huge number of retirees. what is driving the long-term budget issue is almost entirely the aging of the population. we just are rid of the department of education. no, that is a drop in the bucket.

it is more than health care side then it is the social security side. the social security trust fund -- there is money in there. it is a health-care issue. when people get distracted and are not thinking long-term what should be done about health care to make it sustainable and so it is paid for, you are not necessarily getting and what the real problem is. host: next is from peter in richmond. caller: hello. am i on the air? my question pertains to the dissolution of factual numbers and the numbers that are on paper. that is my first statement. we have a single digit unemployment rate. the way we get it is by asking how many people are on unemployment. i know a whole bunch of people

core unemployed and for not on unemployment. my second question -- who are unemployed and are not on unemployment. we are not addressing gold and silver or what that will do to the economy. people are starting to worry and are talking about trading gold and silver more than the american dollar. i want to know what you have to say about this because these are real issues that nobody is addressing. our money is not based on anything. it is predicated on the amount of money the united states of america, a corporation, oppose the federal reserve. host: all right. thank you . first on the real unemployment numbers. guest: i think peter makes a good point. the unemployment crisis is staggering and millions who are not receiving -- counted as unemployed are either unemployed or underemployed.

that is something that lawmakers recognize, but they are not doing much in terms of policy to do anything about it. host: the silver and gold crisis? guest: well, the run gold prices have had have been interesting. they were $600 an ounce a decade ago and they have gone up to 1900 dollars. the price has more than tripled in a decade. i would say that for ordinary people, this is not something to be particularly worried about. personally, what matters to me and what i think should matter to most consumers is what the price of things are at the grocery store relative to what you are getting paid. the price of gold does not affect me on a month-to-month basis. i am not sure why issued anyone else.

i a much more concerned about the prices you pay on your good and what your income is. certainly, the concern about inflation is what has motivated a lot of the things that have happened towards the federal reserve. this week the house of representatives voted to audit the federal reserve to get a better understanding of what is going on with monetary policy. some people say measures there are like politics. it is motivated by these economic uncertainties. host: let us take a couple of calls and we will dive right into that aspect of the federal reserve. greenbelt, maryland. thomas is a democrat. good morning. you are on the air. caller: good morning. we are in a remarkable situation. we have a country where we have free education and what not. and yet, children are not learning.

we have a public out here who are bombarded with information by the news media. they still do not get it. the american people are convicted and confused, not because they are ignorant or anything like that, but because they are idealistic. they have in their minds that this is the way it should be. if it does not turn out that way, they cannot adjust to the reality of the matter. i do not know what to do with people like that or what we can do because they are sending people to congress who think like they do and we cannot get anywhere. we had a civil war because one group of people thought that they were going to overthrow the government to have things their way and they are trying to do it again. they will overthrow the government in financial means in order to get their way. so, i do not know what we do. i will leave it up to you guys.

god bless you. god bless america. host: thank you . on twitter -- host: is there a -- we talked about some many people frustrated. are they sending enough messages about their frustration to washington? guest: i think they are. one of the points on twitter was that we need to take unpopular measures. the main driver of our long-term debt is medicare. voters do not want to touch medicare. it is politically explosive for politicians to do anything there. part of it is kicking the can down the road. part of it is legitimate disagreement on policy and philosophy in the role of government.

host: let us move into the discussion about the fed. ben bernanke was on capitol hill a week ago and he talked about the available options they might have for more economic stimulus. you have been writing about this. bernanke sees grade of options for easing. let us understand what tools the fed has. guest: in normal times, the fed raises and lowers interest rates. when they are higher, it is less desirable to borrow. it puts the brakes on things. it makes it more profitable to say -- back in the 1990's, you could open a savings account with 6%. that is more attractive than now with 1%. 2008, the fed lowered interest rates as low as they can.

it brought mortgage rates and treasury rates all the way to the very bottom. the kind of exhausted the ability -- they kind of exhausted the ability to stimulate the economy through these measures. the average national 30-year fixed-rate mortgage is under 3.5%. that number is almost impossible to believe. when my dad bought his first house, he took out an 18% mortgage. now, they are 3.5%. there were 4% a year ago. -- they were 4% a year ago during how much extra benefit are you getting? not much. people are not borrowing because they do not have enough money for a down payment or maybe there house went under water and so they cannot refinance or maybe they have seen what happened with housing prices and they do not want to get involved in the housing market. they do not want to take out

$400,000 in debt. that might be one bedroom in san francisco or d.c. the reasons the economy is held back is not necessarily the level of interest rates. the fed is trying to come up with new ways to boost the economy. one of the things they have done is called quantitative easing. they go in and purchase bonds or mortgage bonds to further bring down those rates. also importantly, when they purchase those bonds, they are not on the market. investors are forced to put their money somewhere else. hopefully, investing it in useful things. that can be in companies. theoretically come they could be

-- it would force people to -- theoretically, it would force people to make deals with companies that are struggling to get by or any other sort of corporate borrowing. these programs are designed to push investors into these other assets and boost the economy that way. there is decent evidence that these programs work. there are did the agreement over how powerful they are. they certainly believe they work. economists believe that there are benefits. they are trying to figure out new ways to do this. over the past four years. -- over the past quiet for years, they have bought $2 trillion. it means a lot of the things

that used to be available for investors are kind of disappearing. they are running into the issue of whether or not they bought too many treasury bonds, private investors could not bid on the assets because they would not be there. that is an interesting dilemma of. a lot of economists do not take it seriously. the fed takes it very seriously. host: back to the phone calls. you are on, dave. caller: good morning, susan. a k a greta. according to the democrats, these tax increases will fund the government for nine days? guest: i am not sure about the exact number. i do not think the democrats intended the tax increases on the wealthy to fund the entire government.

they see it as a crucial part of bringing down deficits. host: what is your opinion on all of this? caller: well, the only other thing i wanted to say was i understand the democratic senate has not passed a budget in three years. is that their job? guest: you know, you make a good statement. that is why republicans are hammering democrats for it. they have not adopted a budget resolution in three years. that does not mean that they are not passing spending laws. but, harry reid has decided that maybe it is safer for his members not to take a vote on a bill that would increase the deficit substantially. host: how many appropriations bills have passed the senate? guest: 0 this year. host: what is the strategy? guest: what generally happens and congress has not passed all of its appropriations bills since 1997, this is kind of a

ritual in washington where the house and senate eventually pass and on the bus or a large package of spending bills and that keeps the government funded. it is a last-minute thing. host: we are talking about the continuing resolution that will fund the government passed the election. our two guests are with us for 90 minutes. we're talking about washington related policy issues. let us take our next phone call from jacksonville, florida. this is jennifer, an independent. caller: good morning. the situation with the economy would be fixed -- host: are you there? we might have lost her. sorry. guest: she had the answer. [laughter] host: let us move onto a

democrat in tennessee. hello. caller: good morning. i would like to know how many jobs are being lost -- host: how many jobs are being lost to global trade? guest: it is impossible to make an estimate of that. one figure that i think probably comes close to the losses we are talking about is what has happened with manufacturing in the u.s. this is an industry that 20 years ago, it employed 20 million people. today, it employs around 12 million. you have seen 8 million manufacturing jobs disappear in a relatively short time. that is not the case that global manufacturing has declined. certainly, you have a lot more people working in manufacturing than you did 20 years ago. i think it is reasonable to look get that and you can attribute that to technology, the process sees in manufacturing have gotten better.

you can attribute it to the fact that companies have been able to find more inexpensive labor in other countries and so, you can look right there and say that is 8 million jobs just from manufacturing. host: outsourcing is the destructive nature of digital technology, replacing jobs that were formerly done by people. just this week, i saw a story about how airlines are moving into self chickens. you would no longer have a gate agent. we all have coats of our electronic reservations. how much of what is going on is

not just outsourcing but technology changes? guest: there is no doubt that it is huge. this goes back to the comment earlier that wherever you think unemployment can get, there is no dispute that these changes are happening and people in washington are not wrestling with it in a serious way. host: north carolina. arthur. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you? my main concern is right now, president obama has no respect for the american people. he wants to do it his way. his way is failing. unemployment is high. that deficit spending keeps going up. there is a responsibility in the government. the house passed 30 jobs bill so this year and none of them -- 30 jobs bill this year and none of them went through. the american people said in 2010 and 2012, we must repeal health care. we must get the house in order. we must stop the waste of spending.

also, the money they put i.o.u.'s in social security -- that has to be paid back to the american people. i know we cannot pay it back now. we also must work on this. also, social security. everybody should pay 6.2% of your total earned wages. this will bring up the unemployment. -- the social security. right now, the government should not be able to take money. this is unacceptable for the american people. host: let me stay with those last two points. is there beginning to be a spot in this town where they will lift the caps on the withholding? guest: i know that is a proposal that democrats are supportive of. i do not think republicans are

necessarily ready to go there. i think what our third said it was even folks who are very upset with spending and deficit spending and the president's policies, they are very adamant about keeping social security intact. these are the tradeoffs that policymakers will have to consider because ultimately, you know, you need to make choices. >> his last comments were reminiscent -- host: his last comments were reminiscent of campaigns where they talked about a lock box. of course with the unified budget, that concept went away. how to use secure social security with a unified budget? >> that is one of the concerns of arthur. an independent from vermont who

caucuses with the democrats gave a major speech earlier this week saying -- calling out president obama saying, what is your stance on social security? he wants to make sure that the president maintains his pledge to not cut social security. to keep it intact. as we are talking about how to pay down our deficit and debt, last year, during the debt ceiling debate, there was talk about a grand bargaining. potentially, social security was in the mix. the senator said get this off the table. host: i'm going to go back to the fed and the legislation passed by congress this week. ron paul's proposal for auditing the fed. here he is on the floor, talking about why this is important. [video clip] >> i do not know how anybody could be against transparency. they want secrecy. that is to protect individuals. much bigger than what the congress does.

these trillions of dollars bailout the wealthy rich people that the banks -- bailing out europe, dealing with central banks. different places. to say that we should have secrecy and say it is political, to that transparency, it is very political when you have a federal reserve that can bail out one company and not another. that is pretty political. i think when people talk about independence and having this privacy of the central bank, that means they want secrecy. secrecy is not good. we should have fit privacy for the individual, but we should have openness of government all the time. we have drifted away from that. you tell us the final vote was 327 to 98. ron paul has been talking about auditing the fed for a whi.