t.deral agent trying t >> that makes some people very nervous. existss a balance that between the federal law enforcement and law-enforcement. we have seen this play out in arizona. it is interesting to hear him say that. >> their group is known for helping with the attorney fees and that sort of thing when there is prosecution. >> we saw the same thing with president obama's health-care law. it became a state sovereignty issue. estes challenged it on the ground that it violated -- it challenged it on the grounds that it violated state laws so that the state/federal balance is playing out. >> as we head into this next

week, the house returns after the spring recess. are they working behind the scenes on gun legislation at? who is working on it? >> there has been a lot of bipartisan work. of west virginia a few ran a campaign has been working behind the scenes to come up with a deal. discussions will continue. whether or not they come to resolution will be seen. >> ginger gibson, david sherfinski, thank you of both. >> thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> today, president obama's remarks to the denver police academy followed by david keene from the national rifle association.

later, a senior white house adviser valerie jarrett. >> president obama continue his push for stricter gun-control denver policeecembe academy. it eliminates the size of ammunition magazines. this is about half an hour. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ >> thank you. thank you so much. thank you, everybody. everybody have a seat. thank you. it is wonderful to be back in colorado and in denver. i want to thank chief white for that introduction. you have some outstanding officials here today. i want to acknowledge them.

a wonderful governor, john hickenlooper. next to him, joe garcia, an outstanding lt. governor. young the finest senators, michael bennett is here. house,ic members of the ed pearl mutter. and -- and your own mayer, michael hancock is here. [applause] you -- i want to say thank to the denver police for having me here, and for the outstanding work you do each day to serve your communities. and before i came out there i sat down with law enforcement,

holder and the leaders i mentioned, the mayor of aurora, sportsmen, parents. loved ones. of the victims of the shootings in columbine and aurora. we talked about how to protect our citizens from gun violence. we've wanted law enforcement to shape the discussion. law enforcement lives this every day. law enforcement sees this -- with lives lost and lives and communities changed

forever. they are often in the line of fire. law enforcement knows what works and what doesn't. we wanted that advice. and we hear from mayors like steve hogan because he is on the front line and he is with these issues under sad circumstances. i came to denver because colorado is a model of what is possible. it is 120 days since the murder of 20 children in newtown, connecticut which shocked the

country and galvanized parents. toy said, 'we have something.' more than 100 times as many have fallen to gun violence in the 100 days. 2,000 struck down, often because they went around their daily route. just shopping, going to school. every day we do something about

it -- more than one million are lost to us a year by gun. the good news is colorado has [applause] this is a state that has separate the tragedy of two of the worst mass shootings and our history. inyears ago this month columbine and lacher and aurora. -- last year in are rare. it triggered second amendment rights. .he state of proud sportsmen the government want me to remind everybody that there is outstanding in come here in colorado. condition ofrong gun ownership.

this is part of the fabric of people's lives. they treat them ownership with reverence and respect. i am here because i believe that does not have to be a conflict in reconciling these realities. there does not have to be a conflict between protecting our citizens and protecting our second amendment rights. letters in mys of office from prop gun owners, whether for sport or protection or collection who tell me how deeply they cherished the right. they did not want them in french upon but they still want us to do something to stop the epidemic of bridge epidemic of gun violence. i appreciate everyone of those letters. i have learned from them. thatnk, rodham has shunned

progress is possible. steve mentioned that our war is very much a pub project purple city -- is a much a purple city. it came together understanding that there had to be something that made sense. backgroundn tapper checks that will not infringe on the rights of gun honors but will help keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people. in january just a few weeks after newton. at that together common-sense proposals allowing the same lines of what is past year in colorado, to keep our kids safe.

union address the i urge congress to give these a vote. them iwe even asked for already signed numerous executive orders doing what we could administratively to make sure that guns do not fall into the hands of the wrong people. what i said then is still true. if we are really going to tackle this problem seriously and we have got to get congress to take the next debt. as soon as next week they will be voted. everyn as next week signature will get to vote on whether or not we should require background checks for anyone he wants to purchase a gun. are have background checks. they are right. over the past 20 years they have kept more than 2 million

endangers people from buying a gun. that currently exist and have allowed way too many criminals and folks who should not be getting guns. it is allow them to avoid background checks entirely. in makes them harder for law enforcement to do their job. i understand nobody is talking about trading in entirely new system. we're talking about plugging .oles

and some people said, well, to stop everybody. and the governor was the first one to acknowledge, yes, they won't stop everybody, but as he pointed out, statistically, there are a whole bunch of folks who have been stopped. as a consequence of background checks, law enforcement has been able to stop people who have been convicted of murder from getting a gun, people who are under restraining orders for having committed violent domestic abuse from getting a gun. in a couple of cases the

governor mentioned to me, law enforcement has actually been able to arrest people who came to pick up their gun -- (laughter) -- because they were criminals, wanted. so this does work. and, by the way, if you're selling a gun, wouldn't you want to know who you're selling it to? wouldn't you want to know? wouldn't you want in your conscience to know that the person you're selling to isn't going to commit a crime? so these enhanced background checks won't stop all gun crimes, but they will certainly help prevent some. this is common sense. and, by the way, most gun owners -- more than 80 percent -- agree this makes sense. more than 70 percent of nra members agree. ninety percent of the american people agree. so there's no reason we can't do this unless politics is getting in the way. dore's no reason we can't

this. as soon as next week, every senator will get a chance to vote on a proposal to help strengthen school safety and help people struggling with mental health problems get the treatment that they need. as soon as next week, every senator will get to vote on whether or not we should crack down on folks who buy guns as part of a scheme to arm criminals. that would keep more guns off the streets and out of the hands of people who are intent on doing harm. and it would make life a whole lot easier and safer for the people behind me -- police officers. every senator will get a say on whether or not we should keep weapons of war and high-capacity ammunition magazines that facilitate mass killings off our streets. the type of assault rifle used in aurora, for example, when

paired with a high-capacity magazine, has one purpose, to pump out as many bullets as possible, as fast as possible. it's what allowed that gunman to shoot 70 people and kill 12 in a matter of a few minutes. i don't believe that weapons designed for theaters of war have a place in movie theaters. most americans agree with that. most of these ideas are not controversial. right now, 90 percent of americans -- 90 percent -- support background checks that will keep criminals and people who have been found to be a danger to themselves or others from buying a gun. more than 80 percent of republicans agree. most gun owners agree. think about it, how often do 90

percent of americans agree on anything? and yet, there are already some senators back in washington floating the idea that they might use obscure procedural stunts to prevent or delay any of these votes on reform. think about that. they're not just saying they'll vote "no" on the proposal that most americans support. they're saying they'll do everything they can to avoid even allowing a vote on a proposal that the overwhelming majority of the american people support. they're saying your opinion doesn't matter. we knew from the beginning that change wouldn't be easy. and we knew that there would be powerful voices that would do everything they could to run out the clock, change the subject, ignore the majority of the american people. we knew they'd try to make any progress collapse under the weight of fear and frustration, or maybe people would just stop paying attention. the only way this time will be different is if the american people demand that this time it must be different -- that this time, we must do something to protect our communities and our

kids. we need parents, we need teachers, we need police officers, we need pastors, we need hunters and sportsmen, americans of every background to say, we've suffered too much pain and care too much about our children to allow this to continue. we're not going to just wait for the next newtown or the next aurora before we act. and i genuinely believe that's what the overwhelming majority of americans -- i don't care what party they belong to -- that's what they want. somejust want to see progress.

it was interesting, during the conversation, a number of people talked about the trust issue. part of the reason it's so hard to get this done is because both sides of the debate sometimes don't listen to each other. the people who take absolute positions on these issues, on both sides, sometimes aren't willing to concede even an inch of ground. and so one of the questions we talked about was, how do you build trust? how do you rebuild some trust? and i told the story about two conversations i had. the first conversation was when michelle came back from doing some campaigning out in rural iowa. and we were sitting at dinner, and she had been to like a big county, a lot of driving out there, a lot of farmland. and she said, if i was living out in a farm in iowa, i'd probably want a gun, too.

if somebody just drives up into your driveway and you're not home -- you don't know who these people are and you don't how long it's going to take for the sheriffs to respond. i can see why you'd want some guns for protection. that's one conversation. i had another conversation just a couple of months ago with a mom from chicago -- actually, evanston, illinois -- whose son had been killed in a random shooting. and she said, you know, i hate it when people tell me that my son was shot because he was in the wrong place at the wrong time. he was in the right place. he was on his way to school. he wasn't in the wrong place. he was exactly where he was supposed to be.

now, both those things are true. and sometimes we're so divided between rural and urban, and folks whose hunting is part of their lives and folks whose experience with guns is street crime. and the two sides just talk past one another. and more than anything, what i want to just emphasize is there are good people on both sides of this thing, but we have to be able to put ourselves in the other person's shoes. if you're a hunter, if you're a sportsman -- if you have a gun in your house for protection --

you've got to understand what whosels like for that mom son was randomly shot. and if you live in an urban area and you're worried about street crime, you've got to understand what it might be like if you grew out on a ranch and your dad had been taking you hunting all your life. sportsmen a couple of in our conversation today, and i thought one of them said something very important. he said, all my experiences with guns have been positive, but i realize that for others, all their experiences about guns have been negative. well, that's a start, right? if we start listening to each other, then we should be able get something done that's constructive. thatould be able to get done.

one last thing i'm going to mention is that during this conversation -- i hope you don't mind me quoting you, joe. joe garcia, i thought, also made an important point, and that is that the opponents of some of these common-sense laws have ginned up fears among responsible gun owners that have nothing to do with what's being proposed and nothing to do with the facts, but feeds into this suspicion about government. you hear some of these quotes, "i need a gun to protect myself from the government." "we can't do background checks because the government is going to come take my guns away." well, the government is us. these officials are elected by you. they are elected by you. i am elected by you. i am constrained, as they are constrained, by a system that

our founders put in place. it's a government of and by and for the people. and so, surely, we can have a debate that's not based on the notion somehow that your elected representatives are trying to do something to you potentially prevent group of families from the way the families of aurora or newtown or columbine have grieved. we've got to get past some of the rhetoric that gets perpetuated that breaks down trust and is so over the top that it just shuts down all discussion. and it's important for all of us when we hear that kind of talk to say, hold on a second.

arehere are any folks who out there right now who are gun owners, and you've been hearing that somehow somebody is taking away your guns, get the facts. gune not proposing a registration system, we're proposing background checks for criminals. don't just listen to what some advocates or folks who have an interest in this thing are saying. look at the actual legislation. that's what happened here in colorado. and hopefully, if we know the facts and we're listening to each other, then we can actually move forward. and that's what members of congress need to hear from you. right now, members of congress are at home in their districts. many of them are holding events where they can hear from their constituents.

so i'm asking anyone out there who is listening today, find out where your member of congress stands on these issues. if they're not part of the 90 percent of americans who agree on background checks, then ask them why not. why wouldn't you want to make it more difficult for a dangerous criminal to get his or her hands on a gun? why wouldn't you want to close the loophole that allows too many criminals to buy a gun without even the simplest of background checks? why on earth wouldn't you want to make it easier rather than harder for law enforcement to do their job? i know that some of the officers here today know what it's like to look into the eyes of a parent or a grandparent, a brother or a sister, or a spouse who has just lost a loved one to an act of violence. some of those families, by the way, are here today.

and as police officers, you know as well as anybody, there is no magic solution to prevent every bad thing from happening in the world. you still suit up, you put on your badge, put yourself at risk every single day. every single day, you go to work and you try to do the best you can to protect the people you're sworn to protect and serve. well, how can the rest of us as citizens do anything less? if there is just one step we take to prevent more from knowing the pain that some of the families who are here have known, don't we have an obligation to try? don't we have an obligation to try? if these reforms keep one ofson from murdering dozens innocent children or worshippers or moviegoers in a span of minutes, isn't it worth fighting for?

i believe it is. that's why i'm going to keep on working. i'm going to keep on giving it my best efforts. but i'm going to need your help. this is not easy. and i'll be blunt -- a lot of members of congress, this is tough for them. because those who are opposed any form of legislation affecting guns, they're very well-organized and they're very well-financed. but it can be done if enough voices are heard. so i want to thank all the police officers who are here for giving their best efforts every single day. i want to thank governor hickenlooper for his outstanding leadership. i want to thank all the families who are here for your courage in being willing to take

this tragedy something positive. i want to thank the people of colorado for coming together in sensible ways. let's see if we can get the whole country to do so. thank you, denver. god bless you. and god bless the united states of america. ♪ ♪

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013]

[applause] >> i want to say that it's a real pleasure to be here. here in pennsylvania. i have a soft spot in my heart for pennsylvania. rich was talking about the

pittsburgh annual meeting that we held a couple years ago here. that's where i was elected association and got to know rich. i can't think of anybody who i would rather have introduce me. this is mr. gun rights in this state. [applause] it is a particular pleasure to be here but pennsylvania is a great state personally and from the standpoint of the national rifle association. many of you probably know this, there are more n.r.a. members in pennsylvania than any other state in the union. texas doesn't -- [applause] my wife is from texas and texans don't like to hear this but it is true. you know pennsylvania's supportive of the second amendment rights has gone a long

way. the folks who live here seem to get it regardless on what part of the state they are from, particularly those in the middle part of the state. i remember some years ago being on the panel with james, you remember him. he described pennsylvania as pittsburgh and philadelphia separated by a third world nation. [laughter]

is not a partisan organizationthe second in the sense that the republican party is. i happen to be a proud republican. in terms of the second amendment, the second amendment and the right to keep and bear arms in this country is not, never has beens, and should not be a partisan position. the n.r.a. has had its support over years and has had its influence, not because we're a conservative organization or a

republican organization, because we're an american organization. n.r.a. members include democrats, factory owners, farmers, businessmen, lawyers -- yeah, lawyers too. lifee from every walk of that one can image. this is a lesson for politics, the strength of the n.r.a. stems from the fact that those who believe strongly in the values that we all share have something in common that goes beyond party, beyond whether they are a liberal or conservative, beyond position, beyond class, something that mr. obama understands and this is a dedication to american valley use and principles and freedom that gets them to step forward whenever they are challenged. this is a country, that strength derives in large part from the fact that americans have never been obsessed with politics. i have been, some people in this room may have been but

most americans are not obsessed with politics. they are obsessed with their families, living their lives, paying their takes and they want to do that without having to devote all of their time without political activity. but the one thing that has distin wished americans that when those values are threatened our willingness to step up to the plate, whether it comes from abroad or whether it is here at home. those what has marked on who believe in the second amendment rights, when our values are threatened we do what we need to do to step forward. politicians, many politicians, i was told by someone i won't

name out of courtesy but someone you would be familiar with but only reason for a party to exist is to get hold and exercise power. my response to that was that is why we got into politics in the first place. that's not why we got active in the political sphere. we got active, not so we can hold a job, not so we can exercise power, not so we can aggregate power to ourself but we believe in things. we believe in a view of america that goes back hundreds of years and we believed in preserving the values that we inherited. we believe and do believe we want to pass on the nation and the society to the next generation that we inherited from the last.

that's why we're here tonight. not simply because we're republicans. not simply because some of us are running for office or because we hold office but because we believe. a successful party, a successful political movement has to be based on principles and bleefs, values, and tradition -- beliefs and values and traditions. that's been the strength of the national rifle association. aat is the strength of successful political movement. it is something we must all do all the time, in every way we can. no political movement worth its changes its values to suit the whims of the day. a successful organization meets the needs and the policy goals. there this last election, n.r.a. was criticized, particularly in the media

because wayne lapierre and i and chris cox went around saying if and i went around saying if barack obama won a second term he would threaten the rights of american. we were told that was a ridiculous view. chris mathews suggested on the air that wayne lapierre was insane to suggest that. during the campaign, the president said i will never take your rifle, i will never take your shotgun, i will never take your side arm, i'm a believer in the second amendment i was asked why i did not like that comment, it meant he had to go against everything he ever said in his political life and every action he has ever taken, even before he was elected to political office.

i did want think he believed it. i received letters from n.r.a. members, remember when we perceive our rights and values are threatened we step up to the plate. i received letters saying i listened to the president and he sounded fine. i saved those letters until election day, the day which i hoped would turn out differently didn't. sent all those folks a note. noting that within two hours of barack obama's victory speech his state department notified the united nations they would like a small arms trade treaty for signing just as soon as humanly possible. the negotiations that were going on in the u.n. at that

time to come up with a treaty that they voted on this week was coming to a conclusion in august. at that point the white house and the state department contacted the unite nation and said that the american administration would like those negotiations put on hold. somebody noticed that if things are progressing as they were, a small arms trade treaty would appear on the president's desk in september and would become an issue in the president's campaign. the one thing they wanted to do was avoid second amendment issues. if they weren't able to avoid them a lot of people would step up to the plate and do what they needed to make sure their rights were safe. right after the election, the president said he wanted the treaty. i wrote to those members and i said the fact that it took two hours to send that letter is a

clue. it is clue that this guy is going to go after your rights. in newtown, connecticut they thought they saw that opportunity. the tragedy that took police there in the minds of the people at the white house and in new york, that was an opportunity to achieve policy goals they have been seeking for decades. to begin taking guns if they could, registering if they couldn't, and limiting the choices that american people have in purchasing firearms if they had to be limited to that. right after the tragedy, the president and others suggested that we needed to ban a list of guns, we needed to have all kinds of measures to keep honest americans from exercising a fundamental constitutional right, all in the name of saving the children.

but, in fact, when the president named his vice president to head a task force and invited various people to meet with him, we sent our director and he closed the door and said the president and i know what we want to do and we're going to do it. so let's talk about something else. it did not shock us, it did not surprise us. it is what we expected. it is our position and i think the position of the american people, that the president and his folks were asking the wrong questions. in the wake of the knewtown, they were not asking how do we protect our children? they were asking what do we do about guns? isn't this a chance to do something about guns? the n.r.a. and others suggested that was the wrong question. as a result of that we asked the former congressmen from arkansas, former u.s. attorney,

former head of the drug agency and the former number two men of homeland security to put together a task force and right the ask questions and that question was how do we protect our children? the task force included people like the head of the secret service. they came forward with a series of recommendations, one of which is the one way you protect your children is providing armed security to them because there are people in our society that is of so mentally disturbed they are likely to do anything. the day after the newtown tragedy, i found myself israel touring a facility where school security officers were trained. back in the 1970's israel had a whole spade of shootings.

at first, veterans and others rallied to the cause as volunteers and provided security in their schools. over the years that system morphed into something more institutionalized. today, israel schools, each school hires in some way through the school budget or local financing private security to protect the schools in that school. they don't use the military, they don't use the police, they use trained, often veterans but trained people, especially trained to provide security in the schools to solve that problem. when i came back we suggested that is something that should be looked at in this country. a number of people said we were crazy. then they looked at it and realized out of 137,000 schools over 30,000 already have armed

security so they did not want to suggest those people were crazy. finally, the president said now was skeptical of the idea. we put together this task force and the task force agrees with what the american people said. the gallop poll shortly after newtown, asked people what did they see the problem that created this? the number one problem they saw was a mental health system that doesn't work because the kinds of people who involve nems this sort of thing are crazy. they are not criminals in classic sense. they are looking for some place to vent their fantasies and hostilities and that is someplace that is not protected, among those places are movie theaters, shopping malls and the like. second, american people said the problem was we're not providing security to our schools. we provide guards at meaningless office buildings.

we have armed guards at banks and jewelry stores but not at our schools. perhaps our children are not as important as those things. we decided we need to look into this and that is why the task force was put together. this week they came back and said among other things, every school in the country, with every local law enforcement agency, with teachers, administrators, and parents, look at their facility and look at the things they can do to protect their children under their care. one of the things they should look to is providing the presence of an armed security officer. those officers could be financed through local grants, state grants, school budgets, they could be volunteers, they could be part of the administration that exists

today, but they should have the training necessary to do what they need to do. we're not talking about arming every teacher and every principal, we're not talking about simply letting these folks have firearms to do with what they will but providing the real training necessary in a shooting situation in a school. suggestsical evidence that in shopping malls and elsewhere, when there is someone there armed that school shootings are stopped, shootings in malls are stopped because the people who engage in this are not looking for a battle they are looking for a killing field. when the killing field is denied them they go away. we made those suggestions. those suggestions are on the table and we think will be taken seriously. interestingly, one of the parents of the children killed at newtown called and asked if he could come to the press conference and we said he could come and say what he wanted.

we did not urge him to do so. he came and he said specifically that he wanted to thank the n.r.a. because we have taken the problem that resulted in what happened in newtown seriously and have take an look what the could be done to prevent future tragedies of this sort. that's what we're doing. we take our responsibility seriously. we take our defense of the second amendment seriously. we take the concerns of our members and the citizens of this country as seriously as any organization that any of you have ever seen. most of you here, many of you here are members of the n.r.a., many of you are life members, many have been member for decades. those who aren't and even some of you who are, when you go on the street and ask someone about the n.r.a., they think of us in term as the advocacy mission. we're the organization that defends the second amendment.

that's a core part of the mission of the national rifle association but that is only part of it. the n.r.a. was formed in 1871 by a group of former union generals who saw during the several war that the american understanding and facility with decreased as people from europe who moved in with no firearms background, from a culture who did not use guns and the n.r.a. was the answer to that to make you are sure that americans in the future would have the same skills and same familiarity and the same appreciation of the second amendment. two of the founders were general, and between 1871 and 1970, the national rifle association never endorsed a candidate. we didn't have a lobby organization. we didn't have a lobbyist. we didn't need a lobbyist. we didn't need a political

operation. agreementwidespread in this country that the founders knew what they were doing when they included the second amendment in the constitution. like members of the n.r.a. included everyone from kennedy to roosevelt to humphrey. there was no partisan divide among gun owners. that changed as the culture wars in the 1970's broke out. all of a sudden, hostility to the second amendment became an ideological card to many in this country. it was a democratic member of congress, a man who is still serving from michigan. he came to the n.r.a. and said you can teach as many people as you want about gun safety, you can teach as many people as you

want about gun handling, you can train as many shooters an you want, you can provide as many trainers as you can train, but unless you defend the second amendment, there's not going to be any huntsers, there's not going to be any competitive shooters because it will be gone. because of that the institution of legislation was founded. gotuse of that the n.r.a. into the role, which many people see as key to our efforts today. despite of that, 90% of our funds and our efforts go into the traditional things that we're always involved in. we're involved with boy scouts, the girl scouts with competitive events and the like. we have 92,000 shooting instructors in this country. one of the things we're going to do as a result of what the group suggested is we're going

seriously on to ourselves the development of best practices set of training for people who will be involved in school security, whether they are police. we do train a lot of police today. whether they are school officers who are assigned to schools and one level or another, whether they are private security people or if they are school personnel. we're going to develop and provide to the extent that we can the training that these people need to be certified as having the skills necessary to protect our children. the n.r.a. has always been interested in these kinds of things and always will be. we will never and i say this before a partisan audience, we will never surrender our principles. imeone criticized me because

met with someone during the course of the argument. i said i will meet with anyone, i will talk to anyone but i won't surrender. we do need, all of us, if we believe strongly in this, we need to talk to people, we need to educate people. the one thing we don't need to do is surrender our principles and the two things are mutually exclusively. you can talk to those who don't agree with you but you don't have to surrender. members of congress don't have to surrender and legislatures don't have to surrender. this is an example of a guy who would never surrender. when i talk to partisan groups when i talk to gun group, that is what i tell them. if you're involved because you believe never, ever surrender your beliefs. think about ways to get other people to join you. think about ways to increase your numbers.

think about ways to win. that's what a party does, a proper party does. that's what a movement does. that's what people interested in affecting the future of the country do. you know, i would like to -- i'm accused of going on too long so i'm not going to do that. i want to tell a story. we're in a position today, and i know in this room, probably 99% of the people here feel as i do about the second amendment. i was talking to a group of congressmen last summer. i was asked by one -- it was at a breakfast, he asked me what would you say the is the greatest accomplishment of the national rifle association? the n.r.a. can't take credit but the entire second amendment community and the sports community can take some credit. we live in an era if you talk to

people they will talk to you about how the american culture is deteriorating. but in terms of the second amendment, the american culture has changed for the better. if you asked someone in 1968 after the passing of the gun act or two years later when the comfiscation case of all side arms was with passed, if you suggested then that we would have the rights under the second amendment that we have today, people would have laughed at you. we have those rights because we stood up and demanded those rights. we organized. the congress is not doing what the president wants it to do on second amendment issues because thousands of upon thousands upon thousands of american citizens

have been calling and contacting their congressmen and senator saying don't you dare. i talked to a good friend from a gun-friendly district, a member of congress who has been a- rifleby the national association. he says in the last three weeks i had my staff count, i received 5,000 phone calls from my own constituents and their general message is we now you've been a-rated. that was yesterday. we want to know what you're going to do today and what you're going to do tomorrow. he said i'm going to do what i did yesterday. at the end of the day, politicians listen to the people that elected them. thoseisten as long as people make their opinions known. that is our job to make those people involved in the political process. that is our job as the people of america to realize that vision. people who work for us know what we expect them and what it is we want them to do.

if we do that we will success. at any rate, i said in answer to this question, i said you know, nobody would have guessed it would be today. when we face the last great challenge of second amendment grounds the n.r.a. had 1.8 million members. by the time we get to houston, we will have 5 million members. when this current battle started, we had 4 million members. the greatest day in terms of new membership became the day barack obama delivered his statement and 58,000 people called and joined. we not put him up to that. [laughter] the fact of the matter is, so me americans share our concerns and are willing to step up. i said what is happened over the last few decades is more and more americans are involved in shooting for the first time in three decades. the study of outdoor sports found that more hunting licenses were sold than in any five-year.

in recent. a lot were young people. that has not happened before. more people are going to be range to shoot than ever before. high school shooting teams that were abolished in the 1970's are coming back. we know because we provide grants. differencee is a big between now and then. that is, today, firearms are cool. people are enjoying the shooting sports as they never have before. justare buying guns not for self-defense but to hunt, to go to the range to shoot, to have a good time. different groups are coming in, 10 or 15 years ago, could i have gone -- but anybody have gone to a gun store and found a paint gun -- pink gun? [laughter]

manufacturers don't just say i think i will make a pink gun. they do market research. women have been taking to the field, taking to competition, buying firearms for personal protection. i talked to the organizers of a gun show in virginia that do a lot of these east coast gun shows and they keep track of these things. they said five years ago, 8% that attended were women. go to an nra meeting and see how many women were there. that was not the case 20 years ago or 30 years ago. when i finished this presentation -- this was during the summer -- a young lady came up to me. she said, you know, you are absolutely right. she said i'm geomet to school, and she said of my sorority, we all go out to the range and shoot.

i looked at her and i said, you know something, 45 years ago at the university of wisconsin, if i called up his or her to girl and said it is friday afternoon, when we get our gun and go to the range, i don't think gotten that date. [laughter] the world has changed in some ways for the better. group not going to let a of ideologues roll back those gains, not now, not ever. [applause] i am here tonight for the same reason you are here tonight, and that is because the people who you organize for and participated in their campaigns and helped knock on doors and provide funds for their campaign believe in these principles. they deserve your support and deserve all of our support. if they did that, we are going

to be able to pass on to future generations the nation we inherited from those who came before us. thank you very much. [applause] we will have more on the gun debate in congress with larry pratt. that will be on the "newsmakers." congress returns from spring break this week to riffle schedule of hearings on the budget. testimony from some of the president's nominees for cabinet and other key positions. on the house and senate floor, the senate is back tomorrow at 2:00 p.m. eastern. it on the agenda is a judicial nomination and a couple of non cabinet nominations. the debate is possible by week's end but a new time is unclear. on wednesday they will take up

the new bill dealing with small hydropower projects. houseoverage of the starts tuesday at two o'clock p.m. eastern. on monday president obama will visit the university of hartford and the connecticut to continue his push for more federal gun laws. connecticut gov. dan maloney signed new legislation in the last week. added 100 firearms to the state's assault weapons ban and new limits to magazines. >> set bail of distortion and lies and half truths that obscure reality. we need the media to give us a dictionary definition of static, criticism, opposition, unwanted

interference. we need a media that covers power, not covers for power. [applause] theeed a media that is fourth estate, not for the state. and executivet, producer of " team democracy now," amy goodman taking your calls, females, and tweets life today at noon eastern on the " book tv." valerie jarrett offers advice to women climbing the professional ladder. it is about an hour. >> thank you for being here. i will tell you a couple of things before we dive right

then. full disclosure, valerie and i used to work together. we work on the first obama presidential campaign. now i get a chance to ask the questions i have always wanted to ask. the white house office of public engagements, a very important office of the president richie's head on the council of women and girls. she is a senior official in many capacities in the city of chicago and was the chief executive officer of the habitat company. she also was a lawyer and is practicing in a couple of law firms. and that's the very top positions in the white house. one of the most senior roles ever played by any woman in a white house. let's start there with that very issue.

everybody is so interested in the white house. influential person in the president's staff. you are certainly the most influential person on the staff. you will probably dispute that, i'm so i would still like to ask you, why do they describe you that way and how do you see your role? >> first of all, i am delighted to be here and see all of you. i am thrilled to be in an audience full of women and a few[laughter] glad to see you in the front, that is really bold. [laughter] i don't know why people describe the way i am. i think part of the answer is the way you phrased the question. it is unusual to have a woman who is this senior in the administration. you can get more attention when

there is historical reference that people can rely on. what i enjoy is the fact that it is 18. -- it is a team. given the state of the world the president inherited, the challenges are huge. the only way this is going to make the best decisions is to have a diverse group of people who are all thinking together. i don't think there is that kind of a hierarchy. the president listens to people that say things that are interesting. and often, the people that disagree with him. in that sense, we are all equal and you are as good as the last piece of advice you gave him. [laughter] >> since he listens to people who disagree with him, are you someone who was more willing to disagree with him than others because you have such a long friendship? >> i think perhaps in the beginning. as in any situation where people have a new boss, particularly if your boss is the president of the united states,

leader of the free world, if you get to know him -- linda had a chance to spend a lot of quality time with him -- the circumstances were quite intimate. you see very quickly how interested and engaging he is, and he likes people to disagree. having that sounding board to say if you look at it this way or that way, i probably came into the job with a lot of comfort. people who spend time with him appreciate the fact he doesn't want to be pushed. his goal is to make the best possible decisions he can. that comes from listening to a range of opinions, which is part of my response ability in the white house, overseeing the office of public engagement. also the outreach offices that bring perspective to washington that are outside of washington, whether it is the governor, mayor, the state legislature,

attorney general, things from outside or whether the range of interest groups that we communicate with on a regular basis and ordinary americans who have thoughts and opinions, too. >> let's talk more about your relationship with the president and also by the office of public engagement and governmental affairs. let's talk about your relationship with the first lady. it is unusual to have somebody at your level in in the white house who has a relationship, personal and professional, with most -- both the president and the first lady. >> she was artie practicing law at a law firm when i met her. it took me six years to figure out -- anybody practicing at a law firm out there? it is a matter of finding your own passion.

i realized early in our career -- our first conversation was about that experience at a law firm and me trying to visit to her the public surface -- service and how she was going to make an enormous difference. i turned out to be right about her. >> so you started as her boss, and now she's the first lady. talk a little bit about how that relationship even all and what is your role with her in the white house? >> it evolved as many friendships do. i think from the moment i met her, i still remember it was supposed to be about a 20- minute interview. and the moment i met her, i

offered her a job on the spot. i should have checked with my boss, the mayor. she struck me as being wise before her years. she was 26 years old. in the middle of the interview, i realized i was no longer interviewing her. she was interviewing me. she was asking good questions to make sure that if she came in she would add value and make a difference. she just did not want to do public service because it feels good. she wanted to move the needle. she is talking about a second term. she said she wants to make sure that what issues she takes on that she cares about them. that they will last longer than just my husband's term. those are the same issues she talked about with me 23 years ago.

because her chief of staff used to be the head of the office of public engagement, we work closely together. it was maybe unprecedented in the white house. oftentimes the first lady had her own agenda that was not part of the president's agenda. this first lady wants to have a passion and be someone who will be helpful to her husband. we spent a lot of time collaborating. in addition to being friends. >> you are friends. you read the criticism that the inner circle is too small and does not change often and the

president should reach out more. he should bring in more outside people to work in government or socialize with congress more. do you try to get him to reach out more? do you think it has been an issue because there has been a charm offensive in congress where he has been spending more time with them. have you encouraged him? >> he has always reached out. he has been engaging. part of the skill that he brought to the white house was what i observed in him when he was in the state legislator in illinois as a junior senator. he reached across the aisle and found a common ground. in the first term, he found there was not a lot of reciprocity on the part of the republicans in congress to engage. that has changed since the election. you can take issues such as

immigration reform. he tried to get engagement, especially since under president bush, the president and republicans cosponsored a bill but when president obama came in, that enthusiasm vanished. he reached out on the beginning. they did not want to engage. to there is a willingness engage area evil increased that outreach. he will do whatever it takes to get the job done. in terms of the lighthouse, we have had transition. there have been a lot of people -- in terms of the white house, we have had transition. have a new perspective is energizing. having denis mcdonough as the official is helpful.

everybody is stepping up their game. i think that is natural. i think that is healthy. the president appreciates the fresh perspective. >> because you have weighed in on so many issues, you read those who may be envious about that access you have saved that is primarily because you are friends. how do you react when you hear that? >> it is insulting. there is assumption there. he did not need me to come in. his senior advisers provide him with advice.

for my colleagues, i would like to think they think i add value and for the people that are outside, may be it is an enigma. they may say it is probably because the woman is his friend. [laughter] what is really important is how he feels about his team and that he gets what he needs. he has an energized group of people who are encouraged to speak openly and challenge him and ourselves. it makes for a healthy environment. i have had a lot of bosses. to go from being a mentor and his spouse's boss to seeing role reversal, i thought how will that work? i am used to being the bully. it has been amazing. >> starting with the issue -- the office of public engagement

and intergovernmental affairs in the council on woman and girls. they are not known. what do you see as the greatest accomplishment that you have been able to achieve with those divisions. >> the point is to encourage people who are out there where the rubber meets the roads, mayors to give us their perspective and tell us how well we are doing affects their lives. there is a range of constituencies who are deeply affected by the decisions made in washington. our goal is to wake up and think about them.

think about the american people and their challenges and the opportunities we want to create for them. getting the policy right that we available for the engagement and getting outside of washington and having that serendipitous encounter on a rope line were someone tells you a story about what you are doing and how it affects them. that is invigorating. what we have found is our successes are vast when americans have the wind to its back. that happened before the election. think about the payroll tax break we were able to get through congress. there was resistance until we traveled around the country and talked about it. the same when the interest rates to double. we got a lot of young people interested. that helps make the case to congress for why we were proposing was so important. we look forward to doing more

of that in the second term. >> you have been a liaison to the business community. they were not complimentary of the president's first term. many of them supported romney. what would happen there? weyou have to remember what were going through when the president took office. the economy was in crisis. the stock market was in a freefall. the world economy was teetering on the brink the cause of what was going on in the u.s. the president had to make tough and often unpopular decisions to continue the bailout of the banks that president bush started and help the auto industry.

push through the recovery act so we did not continue the freefall. we in place rules to ensure were never in a situation where taxpayers have to provide the subsidies they did to the banks. that was contentious with the business community. you had a disconnect where the world had collapsed and some of it continued with business as usual with the bonuses, etc. while american people were losing their homes and jobs. we lost 4 million jobs in the last six months of 2008. 750,000 jobs the first month the president took office. that sent shockwaves. by nature of the circumstances, there would be some tension. some in the business community

wanted us to not move forward with dodd-frank. some wanted us to reinstitute the repatriation holiday. there were basic policy disagreements. some of it was toned. some of it was the rhetoric you were hearing on both sides. times were tense. people have a lot at stake. the president worked hard to right the ship. that ruffled feathers. four years in, our interests are more aligned. we worked closely with the business community to get their free trade agreements to south korea, panama, colombia. we are working for additional free-trade agreements. we did a lot for the travel in tourism industry to expedite visas that were taking too long.

we heard complaints about people standing in line for hours or traveling miles to get a visa to come to the united states. we string lines that process. look at the segments of the business community. it is not homogeneous. that is something we are working on closely with the business community. at the funny till of last year, just at the end of the last year, the fiscal community engaged with the president in a way that they did not what we face the crisis in 2011 when the debt ceiling was looming. i was a wake-up call for both of us. we could not just assume that congress would avoid defaulting on our full faith and credit. the business community realized they should help congress what was at stake.

we have an alignment of interests. i am not going to say we will always agree but despite tensions you may have heard of or whoever anyone supported in the presidential race, the president has always had an open door. thein the week after election, the president invited in a cross-section of business leaders and asked for help as we face the fiscal cliff and the sequester and debt ceiling. that opened the door and provided opportunities for us to work together. >> another issue area in which you were involved -- the gay and lesbian community. you have been an advocate of same-sex marriage for a longer time than the president.

can you tell us about your conversations with him on that issue and how his thinking evolved? he did come around. ofi have been a supporter same-sex marriage. i have a 27-year-old daughter. she cannot figure out what all the fuss is about. a conversation that i have been having with her has been going on longer than the president's conversation with his daughters. he talked about how he made this evolution and it had a lot to do with his daughters who were in school with children whose parents were same-sex parents. he could not figure how do i say that your friends' parents cannot marry when other friend'' parents can marry. his experience with people in

the administration and friends of his who have had long- lasting relationships and want to marry. he had an evolution driven by his children and the relationships that he has as opposed to anything i would say. i've respected his evolution. he never questioned my position. >> you talked about it? >> we always did. i am a sounding board for him. he does not worry that i will come here and disclose all of the details of his conversation. [laughter] >> we will keep trying. [laughter] another issue is that you long

advocated the idea of people who came to this country illegally as children should be allowed to stay. >> the dream act kids. i can tell you where that came about. three years ago, a group of young adults walked to washington from florida. literally walked. they asked for a meeting with the president. because they were here without authorization, they could not come into the white house. i met with them outside of the white house together with the president of -- when you hear stories of them growing up, and you can imagine the shock of growing up in this country -- they wanted to be teachers or serve in the military.

they loved their country. when you heard the stories, you could not help but foster them. i met with them three or four times. they kept saying we want the president to recognize and do everything within his power. our first choice was to get legislation passed. that is the way to have a permit path to citizenship. there was nothing he could do that would give them that. we did not want to take the pressure off of congress from passing a comprehensive package. when it was clear that they would not do so, the president did sign the executive order. it is a stopgap measure which why we are working for a permit solution. there is a chance we could get it. i was a big advocate for those young people. you meet them and you can see my daughter.

their commitment and love for our country was no greater than hers. >> did that take a lot of persuading? >> he was always a supporter. the president and i agree on our vision on the country, our philosophy on growing the economy, equality and equal rights. we realize we shared those the first time we had dinner 23 years ago. as part of the bond of our friendship. he does not need a lot of persuasion from me to care about the same issues i care about. he already cares. i was delighted with his inauguration address.

it captured as only he can the essence of what he things our country is about. you are bending the ark of the moral universe toward justice. that is a work in progress that is never complete. he does not take a lot of convincing. >> the final issue and then we want to talk about being a woman in a man's world -- another front-page issue is gun violence. this is something that you have talked about a lot and cared about a lot because of the gun violence in chicago. why do you think this has now moved so slowly to the point where it looks like nothing will be done at all? >> there were a lot of questions.

it was an opportunity to strike when the iron was hot. what happened? >> i am not as pessimistic as the way you phrase the question would indicate. i had breakfast with the president to talk about what more we could do. the president is on his way to colorado to do an event to keep the passion going. at the white house, we had a powerful meeting and session with the mothers of victims who stood behind the president. i was looking at their expressions while the president was talking. this is an issue where i do not think that there is a mother out there that does not feel for these children. i went to newtown with the president two days after the tragedy. i was in his office one john

brennan called to tell him how many children were killed. i sat in the car with him while he wrote his speech that he gave that night. his staff prepared a speech, but he said they did not capture what he wanted to say. he was trying to figure out what to say that can console these parents. i watched him as he walked from family to family and tried to comfort him. i went to chicago with the first lady for a young lady's funeral. i know their family. once you have seen the devastation that so many families have undergone, we will not be deterred. we knew it would be hard. we will keep pushing. i am confident we will get legislation passed.

the president has taken 23 executive actions. we will do anything within our power. you are seeing states passed laws. there is a lot we can do. if we can save one child, i do not want to go to anymore funerals like the young lady's funeral. we should not give up. i will not give up. there is not a day that i go by that i do not think about the families i met. we are motivated. they are not pessimistic. we may not get everything we set out to do immediately but we will make progress. >> do you think that the nra was more formidable than you expected? >> this is an issue that people care about passionately. when you look at the polling, you see 90% of the country is in favor of your russell background checks.

there is a sense that the -- 90% of the country is in favor of universal background checks. it is healthy to the process. we can respect the second amendment and protect the rights of lawful gun owners. who can argue that you do not want someone with a criminal background or mental elements having a gun? that you should have these magazines with infinite number of capacity to shoot the lives. i have met with a young man who was in aurora who was shot several times. he survived. he was on to way being a fulbright scholar but he now wants to be an advocate to stop violence. you meet amazing people. that is what motivates us to do more. i do not think this will take nearly as long as what the

example i will give you. the president gave me a present. one was a petition for universal suffrage signed back in 1866 by susan b anthony and all of these amazing women. and the final resolution of congress in 1919. over 50 years it took to get this done. think about the people who signed the petition who were not there when the resolution was signed. they had to pass the baton. change is hard. you know that. we have not given up hope. change is hard but you have to keep at it. when it comes to issues like comprehensive immigration reform or gun control, the sand shifts quickly. after the devastation we have seen in the last couple of years, i would think that would

be enough. it is enough for americans. we have to help congress catch up. >> on what issue do you think you have had the most influence? >> i am not answering that question. [laughter] part of it is because everything is collaborative. we have conversations in the white house. we talk to one another. some of the work you did on the affordable care act. you remember the meetings. could you say that one person in the room was the driving force? you may pick one person. that person would say it was a team of people. i take pride in being a part of the team. part of the reason is why the team works is you do not want people saying i did that.

it is about us helping the president make decisions. the one thing i can say about his senior staff is our job is to provide him with the range of choices, give him our best thinking, and have confidence he will make the right decisions. he says when will you bring me that easy issue? [laughter] you have come in here with 10 things that are hard. if it was that easy, we would have decided. the ones that are between a bad choice and a worse choice are where you come in. [laughter] that is what our job is. it is not an administration where you will find anyone saying i did that. our goal is to make sure he makes the best judgment. we trust his judgment. >> in the five years you have been there, with every problem in the world facing you and a

new presidency and a team that had not been in the white house before, what do you think is the most important thing you have learned in these five years? what do you think you do differently today than you did when you started? >> that is a good question. we are in a different place. there is not a day that goes by that i have not learned a lesson that is very important. one of the lessons that i learned working for city government that i had to relearn at the federal level because this was like drinking out of a water hose is that you have so much coming in at you. you often cannot lose sight of the focus.

how do you get things done? by continuing to nudge along. it turned out to be harder than we anticipated in terms of accomplishments that requires congress as a partner. you cannot give up. you have to be determined and resilience. you have to be focused and push. you have to try a lot of different things. you have to have a certain decency about you that there are some things you will not do to get what you want. all of those things that you learn from your parents or in kindergarten, that sense of team play are important. the resilience and not sweating the small stuff. this is a tough town.

you know that. you work here. coming from chicago, i grew up in chicago politics. chicago is child's play next to d.c. this place will break your heart if you let it. you have to let things roll off. people say things that are not true. you cannot spend your nights anguishing about that. you have to remember why you are here and if you get out of washington and travel around and meet some of these people who have been touched by the good things we have gotten done, that is what consoles you for some of the tough times you face. a tough skin is important. try to keep a good heart. >> now we get to being a woman in the man's world. start with the white house. it has been said that it is a

boys' club. is that true? have you done anything yourself to mitigate any of that or change that impression or reality? >> it is not true. i was in a senior staff meeting. something told me when did they bring the subject up. the people who were contributing this morning were one of the president's deputy chiefs of staff. she gave a presentation on the sequester. there is the white house counsel who will not make a move without consulting with the deputy chief of staff or the cabinet secretary. one of the goals for the second term is to make sure the cabinet is integrated into the decision-

making progress. i could go on with this thing your tame the president has surrounded himself with. then there is the cabinet. you saw the janet a. napolitano, who was named the head of the secret service. i give these examples -- when we talk about the president's second term, he has a robust legislative agenda. the one thing he has made clear is that just as important as new legislation is busy successful implementation of the affordable care act. that is in the hands of kathleen sebelius, the women on the supreme court. he has always surrounded himself

just by women but women who he empowered in positions of influence. when people say it is a boys club, it is insulting to the women who are playing vertical worlds. worlds. -- critical roles. you may not see them on television, but they play critical roles. you should not underestimate the impact they have on the administration. >> talk about your life as a woman in a man's world outside of the white house. coming through the private sector, chicago city politics, which looks like it requires big muscles, you are a woman, african-american woman, and a single mom. do you have a story you can share with us about what you may have had to just taken a deep breath and said, really? that moment that you may have experienced where you were

moving up from one powerful position to another. >> the moment that changed my life was having a child. i was on a trajectory. i was working at a law firm. i was the first woman in my family to be a lawyer. my parents were proud. i had a beautiful office in the sears tower in chicago. when i returned from maternity leave, i was sitting in my office and i cried. i was miserable. i was not doing anything that i thought my daughter would be proud of one day. i had no passion. i would not say i was the best at it. joining city government is a change in trajectory, which allowed me flexibility. it was not that my hours were less.

i had flexibility about when i worked. i made a priority of being home for my daughter before she would go to bed. i would work after she went to bed. i have the ability to juggle. i had a woman who was my mentor. as madeleine albright said, there is a special place in hell for women who do not help other women. the mentor encouraged me to go and after about a year of working hard and ask for a promotion. my boss was a man. my mentor pushed me. i was a single mom. she said you are doing the same job as somebody who is a deputy. you should have the title and everything that goes with it. you should have the salary. when she set it to me and i did not do it, she was dogged.

one day i went into my boss's office and made my case. she said tell him why. i thought that he would recognize my worth. he listened to me and said ok. i was like what? i said oh and i want that office next to yours. [laughter] he said you cannot have that office. it is hierarchy based on longevity. i said but do not have a woman there. it will look better -- he said no. but i moved in. [laughter] my second story is why the mayor will always have my heart. i moved from the mayor's office

to running the office of planning and development. i was in a meeting with him with one of his officials. susan and i were in a meeting. he is really intimidating. he was going on about something. we were paying no attention. we kept looking at our watches. he realizes we were not listening. he says would you like to explain to me what is so important that you are not paying attention? i said the halloween parade starts in 20 minutes. it is 25 minutes away. he said what are you doing here?

if you could imagine the relief we felt. here he is the mayor of the city saying go to the halloween parade. we rushed and got out of the car just as the children were looking in the audience to see if we were there. we were talking about can you have it all and the controversy going around with sheryl sandberg's book. you can have it all but you cannot have it all at the same time. you have two workplaces that respect your whole life. people go to work and pretend they are somebody they are not. they think that is what it takes to get ahead. you may get ahead but you will not be fulfilled. pick your boss as well. be honest with yourself about what you need. if i had a five-year-old, i cannot work in the white house. when my daughter was five, i get

to be home to tuck her in bed. everybody's children are not the same you have to listen to yourself. you have to trust your gut. realize there will be trade- offs. you may not he able to work in the west wing when you are 30 but when you are 56 and the children are grown and you are not married, it is a great place to work. [laughter] it is delightful. be honest with yourself. i was fortunate to work in institutions that supported my life choices and allowed me to have a whole life. that is important. >> that is a great way to close. you were instrumental in helping to elect the first african-

american president. hillary clinton is top of line because she was on stage last night. how important is it that we see the first woman president in our lifetime? >> we should try to make opportunities available that have not been historically available. you talked about my position in the white house. >> advising hillary clinton? >> it is the beginning of 2013. why are we talking about the next president? can we get this president more time to be president? the day after the election you are on to the next race.

[laughter] give everyone a chance to figure out what they want to do. the idea breaking these glass ceilings and making sure we have more women in congress, perhaps we would have an easier time. women are good in elected office. it is regrettable more women do not go into elected office as well as pursue careers in government. if we can get a critical mass in the elective body, good things are ahead. >> that was great. thank you so much for that. if anyone has questions, we have a microphone. raise your hand and identify yourself. the first question comes from a man. >> i am steve.

i work in the city and study as well. thank you, linda. a lot of us have basketball on the mind. i wish your law school alma mater georgetown good luck. give your views on the flap of what happened to avery richards. she attended a conference in california. some people behind her made vulgar remarks. they were fired afterward. then she got a lot of threats. when i was a kid i devoured a book by evan thomas, what would be the female analog to them in your opinion?

>> in terms of behavior in the workplace and in general, we are obligated to set high standards for what is appropriate conduct. everyone in here has had a man or woman say something inappropriate to you and the work is that was compromising. many of us shrug it off because that is part of -- you are used to it. it is not ok. i remember being young and

having client state things that were inappropriate. part of what we tried to do back then was be with the team. you do not want to look like that woman who cannot take a joke. it is ok to say you cannot talk like that. it is not acceptable. we should stand up for ourselves and each other. if you see somebody who is getting spoken to in an inappropriate way, do it for them. you can be firm and clear. encourage our daughters to do that. our daughters do not need as much help as we did. they are good at fending for themselves. you have to be vigilant.

i spent a lot of time with victims of domestic violence, of human trafficking and you would think in our country that it would not be the way it is. one of the most underreported crimes is sexual assault on a partner. we were able to pass the reauthorization of the violence against women act. it's ok. you can clap. kathleen biden is on the board of a service that provides services to victims of violence and helps with everything from getting protection orders to divorce and child custody. 800 lawyers in d.c. volunteered to do this. it is an amazing project. it brought to home how important

the laws are but they will only be as good as the reporting mechanisms and the poor systems women have. one in three women is a victim. this is not someone else's problem is ours. >> another question. jill. >> jill lawrence from "national journal." one of the priorities is implementing the national care act. there have been articles about business is having problems -- business is having problems -- that are small and would grow and are waiting to see what happens but may not decide to grow because it may be too onerous. do they have legitimate complaints? what does the white house plan for dealing with the glitches that will happen as this is implemented?

today, you have the u.s. >> there is a piece of legislation. there will be glitches at the white house and through kathleen sebelius' office. we are working with the business community and trying to figure out if there are consequences, how we can address them. the successful implementation will be challenging. that is why we are spending so much time planning and reaching out. one example -- we had a meeting with folks from the pharmacy industry. pharmacists are trusted. they will be on the front line. one of our responsibilities will be setting up exchanges around the states and the federal exchanges and getting the enrollment going. a lot of the people who we want to be the beneficiaries of the enrollments may not know what they have to do to get enrolled. figuring out creative ways of

marketing those exchanges is something we are engaged in and a lot of dialogs. will be a grassroots effort to register people to make sure they have access to the benefits. this will improve the health of our country. we will offer affordable healthcare to everyone. it does not mean that it will be without challenges. for small businesses, we have an aggressive outreach to them to make sure they understand what the requirements are, what the potential benefits to their employees would be, and overall we are convinced it is good for the country but there will be an intensive outreach effort to the white house and through hhs. we want to make sure we address this. >> i am from the state

department. it was useful to hear everything you said. i was struck in 2010 when the white house felt a four on work place flexibility. you talked about the yahoo decision and the other challenges you are trying to handle. are there plans to move forward on that agenda? >> yes. at the time we did the form on workplace flexibility, the president and first lady participated in it because they care so much about this issue. when the first lady was interviewing for a job at the

university of chicago medical center, it was at a time when sasha was a baby. the babysitter did not show. she said the babysitter has not shown a. he said -- she said she would take her with her. she said if anybody would be willing to have you bring a baby, it would be him. she says if he is not, it is not the right place for me to go. sasha went to the interview. she did not cry. the first lady got the job. what is important is we did a study that demonstrated that companies that have flexibility have greater productivity and profitability. we need to make a business case for it. in addition for it being the right thing to do, it is good for business.

one of the things that we have been exploring through the council is how we can hold up the best practices. there are companies doing amazing things. we have demonstrations and the federal government because it is not a one-size-fits-all. you have to look at the needs of your business. another company may decide we can have all kinds of creative ways for flexibility. our job is to highlight those options and use the white house as a way where people can see options, showcase best practices in the hopes of getting this conversation going at a national level. where companies are appreciating the business model and why it is so important. >> thank you.

you have to go back to the white house. >> this is so much fun. >> this is so much more fun than what ever you are doing. i think you are ok despite my best efforts. thank you very much. >> thank you all. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> on the next "washington at one- secret missions on-one bay. then a report on the total costs of the wars of i rock -- iraq and afghanistan. live atton journal" 7:00 a.m. eastern here on c- span.

>> they had a very political marriage, much like john and abigail. in the hallslobby of congress. she was always very careful to say my husband believes this and my husband advocates that. but she was doing the pitch. husband's opponents said he hoped that if he were ever elected president, she would take up housekeeping like a normal woman. and she said, if james and i are ever elected, i will neither keep house nor make butter. >> monday night, one of the most politically active first lady's syrup oak. we'll also look at margaret taylor and abigail fillmore. we'll take your questions by phone, facebook, and twitter.

also on c-span radio and c- span.org. >> next, former white house budget director david stockman and general david walker talk about the impact of the national debt on the economy and the policies of president obama, congress, and the federal reserve. from george washington university, this is one hour and 10 minutes. [inaudible] >> welcome. thank you for being here today. when we name this panel month because -- months ago, we called the new austerity, thinking the nation would be in the midst of major discussions about

austerity and probably a lot further along than we now see that we are. we knew we had a debt problem. the nation knows we have a debt problem. the question is, what do we do with that and who feels the pain? we seem to be caught there in who feels the pain. the public is adamantly have to do something with that debt. i don't know about you, but i write about the economy and the market that i get the mails from people constantly screaming we have to do something about the debt. some of these people are hoarding gold because they figure a disaster is coming. but then you get to the questions that you have seen in some of the polling -- people believe we have to do something about the debt, but then you get to the specifics like medicare, social security and people say no way. i talked to someone at a town hall about the debt and about

what government should do about it. one very angry man who is retired stood up and said you keep the government out of my medicare. [laughter] that's where we are. mix into this the fact that we are in fragile times. one in four people in their 20s and 30s lost jobs and their pay cuts that 11% if they got rehired. or one in six people lost jobs and took pay cuts of 23% to get new jobs. people are worried, they're worried about their investments, they're worried about their retirement. half of the people that saved for their retirement. we are fragile and we are touchy

about what to do that during the debt, yet we know we have to do it. to help us understand what we need to do and how we need to do it and what the implications might be, we have a fabulous panel. people who know the nation's budget inside and out and the politics. first, i would like to introduce david stockman. those of you who were around during the reagan administration know his name well. he was the person who talked about supply-side economics or trickle down. with time, he became the little disenchanted with what happened with that and he will probably speak about that today. but he has been a politician, a businessman, after leaving government, he was at solomon

brothers and blackstone group. at one time, he served as a u.s. representative in michigan. for his insights into the budget, he was the director of the office of management and budget from 1981 to 1985. he has written three books and the latest book which i am reading and is a fascinating read is "the great deformation, the corruption of capitalism in america." also with us today is david walker, again, a person he knows washington inside and out and the budget process inside and out. now he is the founder and ceo of comeback america initiatives. he is talking about the debt problem and what needs to be done with it. prior to this position, he was

doing much the same thing as the head of the peter peterson foundation. david was the comptroller general of the u.s. as head of the u.s. government accountability office for 10 years, 1998 to 2008. he served under three different presidents for a total of 15 years. his latest of three books is "comeback america -- turning the country around and restoring fiscal responsibility." please join me in welcoming our wonderful panel. [applause] david stockman. >> a moment ago, she set a lot of people are looking for an explanation, particularly journalists, of of what has happened since we had the crisis

in 2008 and a massive stimulus programs. the big deficits and as wall street been fixed for not? i want to tell you that i have the answer to all of that. it is a 7 page book -- a 700 page book called "the great deformation." it started in the 1930's, '40's, '50's and so forth. i also have to confess i'm not a real offer -- and not a real author. according to some, i do rants and gold buggery, but i'm not real author. i plead guilty to being politically incorrect and i'm going to have a debate with my friend here. how do you know you are politically incorrect? the answer is professor paul krugman told me so. he recently suggested the summary of my book that appeared in the week in low -- the week

in review in "new york times" entitled "sundown in america" about how the state is going to damage our economy is the work of a cranky old man. there must be allowed of cranky old men in america because after the release on monday about all that ails us, this book suddenly went to no. 5 on the amazon list. what was in front of it was three books on a diet and one book, which is a novel called "the walking dead." i was proud to say i was ahead of the book behind me, which is a cookbook. i feel like i'm in the right the zip code in this whole thing because i believe we're going to have a massive national diet if we are ever going to get out of

the mess we are in. that we have been cooking the books for a long time fiscally and in the monetary system. this is all bubbles, it's not real, it is going to go down like the last two. if we don't wake up to the fact that all of this is artificial as a result of bad fiscal policy of a central bank that is out of control, a rogue central bank that is one of many around the world, we're going to have some horrible things to deal with the morning after when it happens. the book deals with many topics, but i want it to their relevant to our discussion today. one of them i call the fiscal doomsday machine. that's what i think about the budget. the second, i call the serial bubble machine, which is what i think about the fed. the two are highly interactive.

the point i would make, and there's a lot of history that goes back into this in the book is that when you get to the point where the central bank is so managed and manipulated, the whole financial market, the entire financial system, minimarkets, that markets, and all risk asset markets, none of the prices in the financial markets mean anything. they are not price discovery in the old free-market cents, cash flows, what is your contract say none of that is extant anymore. it has all been crushed, destroyed, and killed by a central bank that is printing money so rapidly that puts so many puts it under the market, the greenspan put, the bernanke put, all of the rest, let the markets are doing today is simply -- it is the work of a huge casino of players who are

essentially front running the fed, pricing every word, every nuance, every smoke signal that comes out of their statements every month and in between, pricing through arbitrage exchange that they're pumping to the system at about $85 billion a day. none of this is sustainable. all of it would have been considered looney stuff as recently as 1988. but we are so caught up in trying to desperately keep the bubble alive that we have allowed a group of people who run the fed, 12 people basically running the u.s. economy, every inch and aspect of the financial markets, that has spread to the whole world. it is a race to the bottom to see who can destroy their financial system faster.

last night, japan weighed in with truly insane stuff. they are going to double their monetary base in two years. why do i mention this? not only does it imply great hazard for the economy going forward, not only does it suggest the market is level at this moment, that's exactly 1% different from where it was 4750 days ago, march 2000. we have been here three times. the bubble has been inflated three times. the dot com of the 1990's bubble burst. greenspan panicked and pushed the interest rate almost instantly down to 1% and began to inflate the next bubble. millions of innocent americans got sucked in deeper than they could afford to be on mortgages.

we ended up with the subprime disaster which was funded by wall street, which was funded by the cheap money the fed had made available to the so-called investment banks. that bubble got inflated so that the s&p 500 was back to today's point in october, 2007. then the great crash came and then we have ben bernanke back with the greatest bubble machine in history immediately telling the people to get back into the market, it's ok, ride my bubble again, you can trust me. i find it crazy. in the six weeks after lehman brothers went down. and it should have gone down, it was a house of speculation. after it went down, the fed printed more money and expanded its balance sheet.

more than it had done in the first 94 years. in other words, the balance sheet on the eve of lehman brothers filing was $900 billion. 13 weeks later, it was $2.3 trillion. now it is 3.2 and it's going up 85 a month and there's nothing in history that says this makes any sense whatsoever. none of this massive printing in bond buying has gone in. it has basically circulated internally within the canyons of wall street. it has ended up as excess reserves at the federal reserve and what it does is keep the carry trade alive and well. by that, i mean you buy a billion dollars worth of government 10-year bonds at

1.8%. a paltry yield that makes no sense. no investor in his right mind will buy that and he might have to pay taxes and there might be some risk even if they call it a treasury. but why are they buying it hand over fist? the answer is they are front running the fed. the fed said we are going to keep the price of this bond up. you can count on it. we are putting a floor under it. on the other hand, the minute they buy that bond, they go across the street and put it up as collateral, cafaro $980 billion to fund the billion they just bought that's going to yield 180 basis points, capture the spread, laugh all the way to

bank, and sleep like a baby at night because uncle ben that i'm going to keep the funding at 10 basis points for the next two or three years so you don't have to worry about that and i'm not going to let the bond fall. this is the closest thing to legal thievery that has been created in a long time. it leads to a totally artificial market in which the treasury yield is simply being created by a fed that is way beyond the end of its scheme that has painted itself into a corner and there's not stop buying bonds because it does, then the yield might start going up and the price of the bond will fall even a little bit. the fast money and the carry trade will unwind immediately because the spread is what they're living on if the price of the bond fault of leverage of 98%, the arbitrage is destroyed, they will lose money, and they will unwind the trade and sell

the bond faster than they can even be recorded by the computers. therefore, we are all hostage. we are in a massive bond bubble and we have brilliant can the and professors is telling us don't worry about the debt -- brilliant keynesian professors telling us don't worry about the debt. the bond analysts are not complaining. they love the red ink. they are registering total satisfaction because the bond yield on the 10-year is only 1.8%. that is complete disingenuous nonsense. the reason the bond yield is 1.8% is the fed is setting it there. the reason the bond vigilantes are laughing all the way to the bank is because the spread trade that i talked about. if the fed ever stopped, the whole thing would blow and in the fiscal problem will be a nightmare none of you in this

room could believe because we will be in $20 trillion in debt and when interest rates normalize -- 2% cite is the normal monetary cost today, if it goes to 5% or 6%, that is $600 billion more that has to be financed of red ink and the politicians in washington can't even come up with $100 billion. when you look at in that perspective, the great enabler of what is going on on the fiscal failure is the federal reserve, the rogue central bank, the bureau of 12 monetary planners who are off the deep end in monetary policy that has never been tested in human history and cannot possibly survive. therefore, i say let's look at a realistic look at where the debt is, where the deficit is, and it is not $7 trillion, it is not in a glide path down, that's just a rosy scenario taped to a forecast and i know something about rosy scenarios because i

did the first one. if you do an honest view of the bumpy future we have in store for even just a cut and paste job on the last 10 years -- take the last 10 years and use it as your forecast going forward, you will get $15 trillion to $20 trillion and a total national debt of $30 trillion. you'll get 150% debt to gdp ratio and an utterly paralyzed congress. because when you are facing numbers that big, anything they're talking about today like that change cpi. it is 2% of the real problem. they will have no ability to form a political consensus, i don't care what kind of miracles you expect from states and in the two political parties. it's over. this is a fiscal doomsday

machine and it will hit the wall in the next few years and don't expect anything to stop it. that's my point of view. thank you. >> thank you. [applause] >> first, i agree we have an unsustainable fiscal policy. i agree we have an unstable monetary policy. but i don't believe it's too late. let me if i can talk briefly about where we have been, where we are, where we are headed, and how we compare to others and where we need to go. the truth is, the united states has strayed from the principles and values that made it great, under which it was founded, and we face a range of key sustainability to challenges that threaten our future position in the world, our future standard of living at home, and the future of domestic tranquillity in our streets. 100 years ago, the federal government was 2% of the federal economy and this year is 20%,

headed to 37% by 2040 absent a changing course. 100 years ago, the federal government controlled 97% of spending, now it controls 34% of spending and declining. three things happened in 1913 that fundamentally changed the united states. it caused the federal government to grow and expand and undercut states' rights. number one, the federal income tax, number two, the federal reserve, and number three, the direct election of senators as opposed to being appointed by the states. those along with the tendency of the supreme court to legislate rather than just interpret laws has really expanded the federal government's reach. if you look at the numbers, it is tough to follow trilliums, but let me give you an idea.

take off those zeroes. -- it is tough to follow trillions. if last year with a household that earned $24,000, it spent $35,000, it charged the $11,000 short cart -- short coming into the credit-card. if you add its unfunded obligations for social security and medicare, civilian and military pensions and a few other things, its real obligations are $720,000. that is on a $23,000 per year salary. those numbers do not work. if you use honest and comparable accounting, which i believe in, since i'm a member of the accounting hall of fame and a cpa, you have to have federal, state, local government debt to compare it to other industrialized nations, for example, europe. there is only one country that has higher debt to gdp than we do, and that is greece. and we do not want to follow their example. we have more time, but not a unlimited time. we have more time because we are

the largest economy on earth, we are the temporary sole superpower. and we are the best looking horse in the glue factory, but we are still in the glue factory. we have to recognize the reality that you cannot spend a trillion dollars or more that you are taking in, charge it to the credit card, a self deal in your own debt, and that's exactly what is going on. we do not know what real interest rates are right now. they are manipulating the interest rates. the carry trade is absolutely part of the bubble that is going on. when you can borrow 10 points and buy something that's going to yield 1.8, that is a big spread with no risk at a fair degree of certainty. that's one reason there is not a lot of lending going on. you don't need to make it any risk and you can make 170 basis points by doing absolutely nothing. when the government and the up

"bailing out" the financial institutions, it did not add appropriate conditions and safeguards. it has not made the kinds of reforms it needs to do. once the institutions "pay the government back," at very low interest rates, i might add, the government has no more levered on them anymore. so what do we need to do? first, we have to recognize we're going to solve this fiscal problem. the only question is are going to solve it prudently, preemptively, before we have a debt crisis, which would be a dramatic increase in interest rates -- for every 1% increase, 100 basis points, to $165 billion per year in interest, in which you get nothing. we are about 400 basis points below historical average. that is a lot of nothing. are we going to solve this prudently, preemptively, a phased in over time, or are we going to wait until we have a crisis at the doorstep? we will have a global crisis.

no one has talked to more americans around the country than i have. students, business and community leaders, etc. -- people are ahead of the politicians. they are concerned about the deficit and debt. when you see the polls, don't touch my medicare, don't touch my taxes -- those polls are grossly misleading. the you have a problem of magnitude that we have, you need to build the burning platform. you need to help people understand how serious the problem is and if we do not solve the problem, it threatens our future position in the world, our future standard at home, in the future domestic tranquillity in the streets. we are mortgaging the kids -- the future of our kids at record rates while reducing their future when they are going to face tougher competition and aid interconnected global marketplace. it is irresponsible, unethical,

and immoral. at -- you must paint the burning platform. after you do that, people will be willing to do things they were not willing to do previously. what the expect people to say it do you want to pay higher taxes? aat if we give you less of subsidy for medicare? what do you expect people to say? everybody would like to have their cake and eat it, too. we can solve the problem. i did a 10,000-mile fiscal bus tour. i had two special events where we included a demographically representative group of voters in ohio and virginia.

we built the burning platform. they got it. we exposed them to a range of reforms and budget controls, social security, health care, defense, taxes, political reforms. here is what we got back. 97% said putting our finances in order should be a top priority. progressnfidence that would be made this year. i hope they are wrong. a% said it would take combination of spending reductions. 92% agreed on a set of six principles and values to guide a grand bargain, which came up with. ofn we had a minimum of 77% the 90% support for specific

reforms. what is the problem? the problem is the biggest deficit this country has -- a leadership deficit. we do not have leadership. our political system as a republic is not responsible because of gerrymandering, because of the impact on the wingnuts on the right and left on primaries, because of campaign finance reform, and a lack of term limits. we will have to defuse this ticking time bomb. but congress and the president had failed to deal with this issue and because the president and congress decades ago changed the fed's mission to require it to be concerned with short-term unemployment, which politicized the fed.

when we get a grand bargain and we implement this in phases, then the fed needs to change course and we need to get rid of the fed having to be concerned with short-term unemployment. that is not its job. thank you very much. >> a lot of agreement there, especially when you say that one of our biggest deficits is a leadership deficit. total agreement. i want you to ask your questions, but before we move on, i am dying to ask david stockman question related to looking back. we will move on to the debt. in his book, he mentions that he never thought we were in any danger of the great depression when we had a major bailout, but supposedly from going into a great depression during the

financial crisis, and before we move on, david, i have to get what you are thinking. >> this is important, because the craziness that went on in september of 2008 was based on the theory of great depression 2.0, which i call the economic equivalent of wmd. most economists never would have expected that, but the one great scholar of the great depression and who has his analysis totally wrong because he xeroxed it from milton friedman, who was totally wrong about what the fed did in 1930 happened to be chairman of the fed. topanicked and he happened go around in the circles of government muttering great depression 2.0, we cannot make the same mistake that the fed

made in 1931, which was not a mistake, and they did not have to avoid it. soon you have hank paulson running around, who has a five- minute attention span, a highly unstable, emotional -- who fans the flames of -- and this is true -- read his own memoirs -- pretty soon the two of them had created a panic in the beltway that led to the stupid thing called tarp in march and sent to the congress up the hill instantly for $700 billion without reading the legislation. what kind of nonsense is that? there are both people like david and me, pete domenici, who in a flash had everything they had done in their whole life wiped out by the panic reaction of paulson. you think i am on paulson's case for good reason?

yes, i am. there was not a great depression in store. it happened in 1930 because we just got through the great war. the 1920's the u.s. had lent a lot of money to buy our exports. we were the china of the 1920's. when the stock market crash, the bond market, which were the equivalent of junk bonds today, went from 100 cents on the dollar to 10 cents. our export machine shut down instantly. we were a bigger exporter and predator than china was today, and as a result the export machine faltered, capital spending dropped by 82% in less than a year and a half, inventories were liquidated massively because the market was dry, capital spending stopped, and that had nothing to do with the fed. it was not a lack of money supply. that is i think a totally erroneous heretical historical

argument. today we are not anything like that. the hoover bills were in the interior of china when the great crash occurred in 2008. we did not have much of an industrial economy left. there was not going to be a big liquidation of industrial inventory, activity, and jobs. we had a one-time shift due to the housing collapse in terms of employment and economic activity that lasted about nine months. it was a deep recession, but it was not depression 2.0. all of this crazy stimulus, this wall street bailout and money pumping was against a phantom problem. it was a cover story so that the goldman-ites running at the treasury could bail out goldman

sachs, because this was going want to spread to the rest of the economy. the main street banks were solvent. they did not have all the stocks it took on their balance sheet. the run on the bank was entirely in the wholesale money market, in the canyons of wall street, on the so-called banks, which were hedge funds. it would have burned out there. they should have let it happen. the world would have no worse off with our without goldman because it would have been reorganized. they would not be faulted the same speculative activity that they are today as they were in 2008. their stock is back to $124,

$250, whatever it is today. it should have been zero. the discipline was imposed, as a result, we have 12 people running the u.s. economy crushing savers, telling people -- we had the president of the fed yesterday in boston saying we are trying to drive savers into high-risk investments. to put it in plain english, they're telling granny she has to get out of her savings account, which is making 40 basis points, she cannot live on that anyway, and get into a junk bond fund or buy the russell 2000 because the wise men who sit on the monetary politburo think the saver should be in the junk-bond market needing to levitate. coupwe have got is a d'etat in this country. it is undemocratically run by a group of mandarins and elitists

at the fed who are getting us into big trouble. this is not a debate about whether they are easy or not easy enough. this is about a rogue institution that will take everything down. >> david walker, when i talk to david, i think we should end this right now because this is disaster going nowhere. do you have a vision of what the timing and the sequencing be that could be productive, that could take us out of this without a great some majoror economic disaster? >> david is talking about monetary policy and the federal reserve, and i share concerns he has there. let me talk about fiscal,

because as i said before, tax and spending, right now the fed is the only game in town. the're trying to prop up economy, the housing market, a lot of people, including u.s. government. realistically, they will continue to do what they are doing rightly or wrongly until there is a grand bargain. what will it take? beenu look at what has done so far, they have been treating the symptoms, not the disease. for example, if you look at what happened at the end of the year, we raised taxes on people making over $400,000 a year, couples over $450,000, raised capital gains and dividends for people, did not transform the tax system at all. we have an abomination of a tax system. the fact is we need to streamline our tax code in a lot of ways, which i am happy to get into. what did they do with the sequester? yes, we need to cut defense spending and other non-defense

discretionary spending, but not any steep across-the-board approach. what are they not doing? they are not addressing medicare, medicaid, social security, $1.1 trillion in tax preferences that represent back- door spending that are not in the financial statements, that are not reviewed and reauthorized. they are not dealing with the drivers of our structural problem, which are mandatory spending and our outdated tax system. health care is the fastest growing program cost, but the biggest risk the budget is

interest costs. in interest, you get nothing for whatever you are paying for interest. i believe what has to happen is we need to reach a grand bargain and focus not on balancing the budget -- which will not balance the budget. the way that government calculates it is a bad joke anyway. what we need to focus on is more difficult to manipulate, debt to gdp. after world war ii, we had over 100% of debt to gdp. we took it to about 30%. we did not pay off the dime of that until 1980. we had fiscal discipline. we grew the economy. we lost our way. since 2003, and that is the year that thing spun out of control, we have to focus of not paying off the debt, not balance the budget, getting back to gdp down. we need to recapture control of the budget. you cannot have 2/3 of the budget on autopilot and growing. the only two things that should not have an annual limit, one

that you cannot have an annual limit on, which is interest. the other is i think we can reform social security to make it solvent. doknow the numbers, and you not have to have a budget. everything else, you have to have a budget, including health care. we are the only nation that does not have a budget for health care. nobody else is stupid enough to do that. we need to recapture control of the budget. we need to spend more on investment and young people and less on seniors and consumption. we need to phase in a lot of socialnges dealing with security and medicare over time, but that is ok, we can get the miracle of compounding to work for us. we need to talk about who is eligible, you need to reform your tax system and generate more revenues, and i am happy to get into details, and they are not doing that. what they are doing is they are

claiming they are doing a lot when in reality they are doing nothing. what is today, april 5? the president was supposed to submit a budget the first monday in february. he still has not submitted a budget. leading from behind again. it is unbelievable. >> let's hear from you. what are your questions? identify yourself and fire away. >> i am a political independent and have been since 1997. >> i'm a defrocked republican. >> david stockman goes after virtually every politician in every party in his book. >> i am from cnn money, and i'd want to say that sunday was probably the nicest day of the year. i wake up, first thing i read

was david stockman's piece and it ruined my day, so thank you very much. my question is, i understand your point that we were not at risk of a great depression. but given the experience we are seeing in europe, which has pursued a different approach to the crisis than the united states did, my question is, how much short-term pain is acceptable? if you accept it all, the adjustment process, if we were not at a great risk for depression, if there was a short-term adjustment that would have inflicted how higher unemployment? >> that goes to the issue of austerity. you can listen to the keynesian professors. i am saying austerity is not an elective course. it is something that happens to you when you are broke. the reason they have got to austerity in spain and italy thegreece and the rest of

periphery is the bond market finally said we will not buy any more of your paper at a rate than one that goes higher and higher with each new issue. their end to austerity is spreading to the rest of the continent. france is a disaster. retail activity is collapsing. andployment is above 12%, their economy is next in line. soon, germany will be the only sovereign nation standing, and that is because they have been exporting to all the other countries buying their goods. that system will not work. when you ask a question -- and i say that by way of preface -- but would have happened here? we would have had an austerity, but it was something that we

would have to go through any way, and i think that sooner we go through that, the better off we are going to be. points that i have two that will be important. everything the fed did had nothing to do with the unemployment rate being 11.1% or anything else. none of the money the fed created ever went into the main street for the next nine to 20 months after the crisis occurred. it simply stayed in the canyons of wall street, circulated back to the excess reserves on the balance sheet of the fed, kept the money market rate at 0%, and rekindled the fast money belief that the fed has got to put back in, and that is the only thing that happened. a recovery on wall street, none of this money went into main street. main street is so loaded with

debt from the last 30 or 40 years that households did not need to borrow, should not have, and most of them did want to borrow, and the banks did not want to lend because there were very few solvent borrowers left. business, the same way. business has $12 trillion in debt. this is compared to $3.5 trillion in 1994. the easy money would elicit credit growth -- the idea did not work because the economy was overloaded with debt to begin with. it was totally a pointless exercise. the fiscal stimulus helped some people, but most of it was a waste. only $30 billion of the $800 billion went to programs where it should have gone, food stamps, card income tax credit,

and other programs to help people. my point is when the crisis comes, you bolster the safety net. you put money into helping the desperately poor or people who are thrown into the street or who lose their job or who have no other way of making it, but you do not put the money into green energy boondoggles so some elon musk character can try to create an electric vehicle that he sells for $100,000 with $500 million of taxpayer money when there are so many damn car companies in the world, we do not need elon musk telling us he is going to start another car company and sell us selected vehicles that do not make sense for $100,000, rich people's toys. we could have done half of what they did in the stimulus, but the money in the safety net,

the only thing the government should do as we work to austerity, and begin to get our house in order fiscally, let the private economy heal. shut down these madmen at the fed. thewashington focus on dollars and cents of its revenue and spending accounts, bolster the safety net, put the money we have to spend there and get out of all the rest of it, get out of the bailout business, and it means test social security so we can cut the cost of that dramatically and use it to help people that are actually in need. >> question back here. >> you are not a fan of the fed, and you do not believe they are helping the job market. under your ideal scenario, what would the job market look like in this country? what would be the normal unemployment rate?

should public policy either fiscal or monetary wise have any role? >> i will answer that quick. it should have no role. the unemployment rate should be what falls out of the free enterprise system if it is not manipulated or deform or distorted by government intervention. if the unemployed rate is 6% or 4%, that is the result. you say, isn't that terrible? what about people who need jobs? the answer is if we allow the marketplace to set the price of labor and we got rid of things like the minimum wage, then there would be a job for anybody that wants it, there will be a job even in the united states. what we need to do if we want to help people and be the humanitarian is supplement what they can earn $7 an hour -- and that is what the job is -- with income tax credits or other transfer payments from the solvent and middle-class

taxpayers who have an obligation to help citizens who try to help themselves and still pass a means test and are not earning enough. if we got rid of the minimum wage, if we bolster the earned income tax credit, if we told the government it is none of your damn business where the unemployment rate is, you cannot even measure it, stop mucking around, if we told the fed forget it, this mandate is ridiculous, humphrey hawkins, and let private enterprise work, the country would be a lot better off. i do not know where the official rate of unemployment really is, but we would get real growth, real jobs, real prosperity, and there is not a chance that that will ever happen. >> let me jump in, because i cannot think the fed should be in the business of being concerned with unemployment. that is not its job. it is to try to make sure we have reasonable long-term interest rates, fight inflation, try to protect the value of the dollar. i think the country ought to be concerned with the unemployment

rate, but i think this is another example of where we are treating the symptoms and not the disease. first, the way the government keeps score, unemployment is a lot higher than what they are telling you. secondly, when you spend 2 1/2 times per person what other countries spend on k-12 education and health care and get below-average results, you got a problem. the reason we have in many cases high unemployment is because we cannot compete on wages. we have to compete on innovation, productivity, etc., and get our education, immigration policy, how we are investing with regard to research and development is not conducive toward what our comparative damage is. we have not moved to the new paradigm to recognize we're not over 50% of global economy, we are 22%, losing market share,

and we need to recognize the new reality. >> can i just add, militantn i am so about the unemployment rate not being in policy is because it is now standard, it is the excuse for every loophole in the tax code, for almost a spending program you can think of. every one of those items becomes a jobs program, and, therefore, that is why we have the disgrace that they've talked about before, the irs rate that is why you cannot get rid of almost anything in this huge federal bureaucracy we have today. all that is going to lead to short-term loss of jobs. that is why we are buying tanks in a world where we have no energy, and why are we doing that put because it is a jobs program. if the federal government was

out of the unemployment- managing business and out of the jobs business, and the congressmen could get back to looking at fiscal accounts and seeing what makes best for the long run, where we get the revenue, where we cut the spending, how we bring it closer to balance, and as long as we have unemployment as the excuse, the crony capitalists of america, the lobbyists of k street, will be like barnacles on this fiscal doomsday machine that i have talked about, and you will not get revenue raised, spending cuts, but because all that is happening in the name of keeping the unemployment rate slightly lower than a mismeasured one that is reported every month by d.o.l. >> of the things i learned as a student was perceptions govern.

i have a perception question. let's do the way-back machine. it is october 2008, and i am a citizen of the united states and i see that all of the wall street firms have failed. they are unwinding their commercial paper, laying off their staff in thousands and tens of thousands, and a few global banks have failed. the fdic is trying to sort out the deposit insurance from the rest of the mess, but they are failing, but my guess is the dow is in vertical free-fall, and there is zero political support for a safety net of any kind. i remember back then. public'sou think the reaction to that perception would have been, and more important, how would that have reaction have affected what

happened in the economy? >> you were directing the question to me, so i will answer. >> i would like you both to address it. >> my answer is there were three down and two to go. the investment banks were not investment banks, they were reckless hedge funds that were way over the -- >> that is not my question. >> i am going to insert. after bear stearns went down, i did not see anything went down. merrill lynch was already finished. goldman could have gone down. i know people in new york think wall street is the greatest thing since sliced bread. goldman could have gone down, morgan stanley. the banks of europe would not go down. they have socialist governments. the banks in germany would have

bailed out of deutsche bank. there was not going to be a conflagration. the main street banks in were in good shape. wells fargo was not going to go down. it fdic could have handled better. we have people who think they're sophisticated, who have watched this, saying this cannot happen, everybody would freak out. i do not believe it. this is the mythology that has led to the capture of policy -- >> you do not believe the -- [indiscernible] >> no. >> [indiscernible] >> it would have burned out within weeks. the public would not have panicked, and we would have gone out to the reconstitution of whenever parts came out of the people who were chastised, learned a generational lesson, and stopped gambling on the future.

if we had to have a couple weeks of national panic, so be it, because you cannot keep enabling this kind of activity. >> perceptions matter, ok, and perceptions are set by people who are in power and influence, and frankly, perceptions -- they are influenced by it. and influence by all of you, the media. there is no doubt about that. isrefore, what i would say there clearly was a perception we had a major problem. in my view, something was going to be done. shouldstion is, what have been done and what lessons have we learned and what adjustments have we made to try to minimize the chance that it will happen again? the maximum leverage the government had was when it was providing financial assistance to these institutions.

it did not impose a precondition on that financial assistance as it related to lending the money. it did not impose restrictions with regard to executive,. it did not end up making a number of changes with regard to fannie mae, freddie mac, things of that nature. and so in addition, you have to ask yourself, how did we get to a situation where everything happened just all the sudden? dot of that is because we not have very good foresight and insight. this town -- u.s. government has been in existence since 1789. we do not have three things that management 101 says you need to have. we have no plan. we have no budget. and we have no performance

metrics. since 1789. therefore, if we do not know what is going to happen, we just do more. we do more. we wait until things happen to us rather than trying to anticipate and look at the structural problems. i think something had to be done. i do not think there were preconditions placed on it and that we have learned enough. >> [indiscernible] that is my question -- >> it would have affected the economy, but i agree with dave, we are going to have some austerity at some point. the question is, do we have a little bit of austerity phased in, or do we wait until the crisis the door and we have draconian austerity? spendinge ought to be more on some investments now. i think we ought to be doing more with regard to critical

infrastructure. i also think we ought to be doing less in a lot of areas that our consumption oriented and things that did not work, whether direct spending programs or tax incentives and tax preferences. >> i'm owner of the pacific coast "business times." earlieru, we talked this fall when i did work for "the denver post." i want to pose another hypothetical. it is april 4, 2013. i am a small business owner. on april 15, i have my next payroll, studying very carefully your book, david stockman, it would suggest i lay off 20% of my staff or least cut my pay, everybody's pay 20%, hunker down, and prepare for the storm that is about to hit.

but it is the real world. what is your advice to me? >> i think that is fair enough, and i do not suggest you lay off 20% of your staff, but i that prepared can be cautious, do not take any significant risk, it yourself the leveraged. if you can generate internal cash flow for projects you believe in, where you have a customer base that you can serve, fine, but i am saying when this thing does it, the economy is going to be harmed. goingot think we're ever to have a great depression. what we are going to have is a long twilight of low or no or slightly negative growth, the same thing they have had in japan for the last 20 years. today we have japan trying to one-up the fed by saying they are right to print money so fast, the equivalent to $3 trillion a year in the u.s. scale of the economy.

it is $900 billion in their economy. therefore, i am basically saying that the adults have no idea what they're doing, the adults of the fed, in the beltway, you are out there working hard, you have got a good business. keepr down, the careful, going forward, but get yourself liquid, get yourself out of that, and be prepared for a bumpy ride for a long time to come. >> do you feel the same way, david? >> i believe we can solve this problem, and i have said that. i think the american people are willing to do what it takes to solve this problem. the biggest frustration that i have is that this town we are in is badly broken. and i think we are right to have

a lot more presidential leadership, and in fairness, i think bush 43 was a total disaster on fiscal issues, and obama is a disappointment. he still does not have his budget out yet. but i take hope in the fact the people are ahead of the politicians, and if we get leadership from president and he starts acting in a governing style instead of a campaign style and is truthful about how serious the problem is addressed to use his values approach to bring people together, and if the media recognizes that reality and if the people start demanding for their officials that they want results, we can get some results, and we can avoid a serious problem. we have more flexibility in our labor market than in europe. a lot of time people in europe will not hire because they cannot lay off people.

that is not the case in america. on the other hand, what they quickly, lay off very passively in this country. we do not want to do that, so if you have a growing problem, it is prudent to recognize it and address it so we can avoid that. >> thanks. >> your last point, mr. walker, you talk about solutions. both of you have identified serious problems with the fed, particularly political decision making. given the structure of the fed, how do we reform the fed, or do you believe that we should eliminate the fed? >> i will answer first. there is an answer that is laid out in great detail in my book. go back to the vision of the founders. carter glass is the greatest financial statesman to serve in the last century.

he was the author of the federal reserve. his version was a bankers' bank. they did not have an open- market committee. they were not followed by government debt. ory could not manage micromanage the interest rate paid at a heavy discount window. member banks who were needed cash, they could bring good collateral, cut inventory loans, receivable loans to the window, have them examined, and if it was good quality, they could get a loan, with a penalty interest rate above the market rate, and a market rate was set by the free market of savers in the various banking markets of the country. that is all we needed. that keeps the banking system liquid.

that allows the free enterprise economy to drive how much money we need him how much liquidity we need. we did not have any central planners, we do not have any politburo appearing out at the great expense and deciding they know what is best. we go back to carter glass' bankers' bank. shut down and bench the open market committee. it is impossible for the government -- for the fed to back and allow only chartered, narrow banks to make loans or take deposits and make business loans eligible for discount loans at a penalty rate, with good collateral, even is the interest rate goes to 20% in the market. that solves the fed problem. that keeps the banking system going. paid that is the original vision. the great argument of the 20th

century is between friedman and carter glass, freeman was wrong when he said the fed needed to manage the economy, to make sure the money supply grows at 3%. they cannot be that. and has been proved over over again, and it allows ambitious people to forget about the good professor told them, to be stingy with money, to buy at 3%, and begin to become the committee for the saving of the world, which is what greenspan turned the fed into, and that is a recipe for that mess we're in today. >> reform it, don't eliminate it. >> we have time for one more question, but i hate to see people take a trip to the mike and be turned away. two last questions with quick answers.

>> david stockman said there was almost a coup d'etat in this country, and he is trying to sell books, but i think he believes that. what do you think? >> david is focusing on that because he is focused on the federal reserve. bailoutd not be in the business. it needs to be reformed rather than eliminated. i believe some of the reasons it is doing what it is doing is because of the failure of the president and congress, not just this president, but the president, to make progress in fiscal policy because the lack of proper

planning and execution and risk management. i think we have a republic that is not representative or responsive to the public. i think we need to reform redistricting to make the purpose, to make it an independent process, to make the purpose to maximize competition consistent rather than minimize it. we need to eliminate democratic and republican primaries and the top two vote-getters are run off in the general election, finance reform, and term limits. >> hank paulson on the third floor of the treasury building, with all the goldman-ites running around, and read his memoirs and you will say he was

in constant contact with wall street. you have one call in there where blankfein calls him up and says, i am worried, they are going after morgan stanley. if they go down, i am next, you have to do something. and guess what -- the next few days these massive bailout lines were put out. morgan stanley was saved. they had $100 billion of federal money injected, and you can see it is in the report of a national crisis inquiry commission. coupnot say it was a d'etat, a military junta. but they were running the country. bush was clueless. he was hunkered down in the white house, and the only thing he knew was this sucker is going down. that is what he said. that was the extent of his knowledge. they had the congress buffaloed. read what some of the congressmen said. payrolls are not being met.

it was all lies. it was not true. it is time the public wakes up to the fact that this is how the country is being run today. >> quick. >> i am wondering, you talked about what needs to be done. who do you think will do it, your favorites in either party? >> my view is you do not make tough transformational reforms unless the chief executive officer is leading, whoever that is. the truth is there is only one person that is elected by all the people, and that is the president, and joe biden may tell you that he is, but let's get real. nobody else is elected by all the people. the president is the chief executive officer, has got the bully pulpit, has the ability to command media attention. he has is the only person who can get that message out there

from one set of lips. he needs to end up bringing people together on principles and values, and i believe he needs to take a page out of bill clinton, what he did in 1998 to hold three representative town halls with voters finding out what the people think. they will find out that they are way ahead of these people. that will give cover for democrats to reform the social insurance, they will give cover to republicans to raise taxes. that will put us on the path. the question is, will he do it? >> no. >> that was a quick answer. davidyou very much, stockman and david walker, for being with us today. but >> on the next "in washington journal" we will look at the congressional agenda, followed by discussion of the

secret military commissions in guantanamo bay with the supreme court correspondent. the report of the total cost on the wars in iraq and afghanistan. "washington journal" live at 7:00 eastern here on c-span. >> where is the predictability? what are the assurances that this committee and the senate has as to where you will be given the background and the history? >> as a teenager and did to my early 20s, i was a socialist, that hardly seems to me to indicate fundamental instability. as winston churchill said, and the man who is not a socialist before he is 40 has no heart and any man who is a socialist after he is 40 has no head. that kind of evolution is very

common in people. >> on those two characters that -- you hade was the to trains passing in the night. arlen specter was one of the toughest senators to lobby on anything. he did his homework. was smarter than rehnquist a lot of ways and a brilliant judge and he taught antitrust law and wrote the book at yale. hear these two guys meeting and they were passing like two trains. never did they ever come together on anything. >> more with the deputy assistant to presidents nixon and ford tonight at 8:00 on c- &a."s "q questionsnts asked

for their video documentary. they are the third prize winners studentcam competition. ♪ >> dear mr. president, after the economic downfall of 2008, the education budget has felt the effects of the situation. cutting education causes more problems down the road and puts the u.s. behind in global rankings. >> budget cut probably have the biggest disadvantage for american students with needs there not being met. we have to be able to meet them educationally. >> the resources, if used effectively to support high-

quality instruction can make a difference in terms of learning and students access. >> just investing for investing sake is not [inaudible] >> education is what drives jobs and what drives the economy. forget middle schools and schools along with the nation are facing a budget crisis. here at garrett middle school, we are faced with many budget challenges. one thing our school faces is a lack of updated technology and resources that have become a necessity for modern education. without the technology, teachers are unable to give their students the best knowledge and opportunity. >> every time we have budget cuts and we have a budget crisis, it seems like the number of students in our average classes goes up. we have more students in a class, you have less activity,

less time for each individual student, more demands on the teacher because of the added demands of grading. students are directly affected. there should be more teachers at a lower student teacher ratios, but others believe there should be more teachers they're adequately trained. >> when it comes to staffing ratios, when it comes to benefits, when it comes to compensation structures, we are talking about saying we have aftersed spending -- spending, we have increased spending threefold. most of this has got into hiring more warm bodies. we have gone from a 23-1 student ratio to about a 15.5 to one is to in ratio. this has meant more hiring and

more bodies we cannot trade adequately. -- we cannot train adequately. i would like to see fewer educators, trained and better, but at the end of the day, they may not feel this is a good trade off and these kinds of arecy determinations frequently going to have to happen whether or not teachers are comfortable. >> not only our students and teachers affected, but these cuts affect schools as a whole. >> i think everybody is affected. it's never just the teachers. bookkeepers,cted, teacher assistants, all of them play an important role in meeting the needs of our students. teacher pay does not move ahead to where it should be and you are not competitive with the school systems around you, then you lose teachers. >> every day, students are

affected by budget cuts in the school. these cuts not only affect their education but their future in the 21st century workforce. budget cuts don't only affect students. they can make a huge impact on all american citizens. higher education is crucial. without a secondary education degree, students don't have the same advantages that others do. having a good quality education is everything. >> there are less people coming out of the colleges and getting into the workforce. the one complaint we hear is they don't get enough students after graduating college actually ready to take on the job that they don't have the school -- the skills needed. we need to make sure our priorities are focused on education. it is the most important thing the state government does. >> one thing i'm haunted by is 9%the same time we have this

are 10% unemployment rate regardless of what the effect is for folks, there were 3 million jobs available in the united states. that is the kind of thing we should be working on right now. >> the educational link to economic development is incredibly strong. we know that individuals make significantly more money depending on their education. we know unemployment rates decrease as educational attainment increases. we know there is a direct link between the economy and education. >> need to make sure we have high standards and make sure we have the resources to help our teachers and resources meet those high standards that will be well-positioned for our

vital and have a strong, community and strong and vital economy. our students are not just going to be competing with other kids, they will be competing for jobs and other cities with young people from across the country and around the globe. to geteed to find a way everybody fully engaged in education, and our county and in with a wayto come up to fix the problems we have. >> mr. president, without funding, students are losing opportunities for their maximum potential. the currentf economic situation, schools have not received as much funding as they should. this is the most important issue right now. mr. president, please help fund

education. >> congratulations to all the of winners. to see more winning the is, go to student camp on work -- a two studentcam.org. >> congress returns to a full schedule of hearings on the budget and testimony from the cabinet on other key positions. on the house and senate floor, the senate is back tomorrow at 2:00. on the agenda, a judicial nomination of a couple of non- cabinet level nominations. but for their recess, the majority leader said it would take a gun legislation. today it is possible by week's end, but the timing is unclear. the house returns to consider a handful of suspension bills. on wednesday, they will take up a bill dealing with small hydro

projects and a bill to limit actions of the national labor relations board. live coverage starts on tuesday at 2:00. >> and joining us for our sunday roundtable, a former veteran of capitol hill and a longtime democratic party strategist. thank you for being with us. we're going to talk about a number of issues host:, same-sex marriage and -- let's begin with the president's budget. already getting criticized by the speaker of the house and by the afl-cio, calling it unconscionable. about >> i don't know unconscionable. the president is showing leadership. the president does not vote in the congress but it's important statement of values and i think what you are seeing again is leadership. there is a vision he is going to propose on wednesday, a compromise budget.

the speaker and other republicans at their word and will reportedly be including some tinkering with medicare add social security and entitlement reform. for me, it is about leadership and vision. i am excited to see it. it looks like it's going to be a reasonable package that has deficit reduction and is calling on the wealthiest taxpayers to pay our fair share. >> this is the had lied from the christian science monitor. is this compromise? guest: the most fascinating thing about this budget is how late it came. it is the first time in history the president has proposed a budget after the house and senate have passed. it could be a compromise. it is interesting he went down the road of entitlement reform. we will see if that actually

yield something. that the president and foreign policy sometimes leads from behind. we will see if it actually works out. see, the debt ceiling will probably come due sometime in august. that is a whole hot summer trying to figure out if there will be something somewhere. the job growth is not as strong as it needs to be. the expectation is it needed to webetween 200,000 -- and gained 88,000 jobs. >> it is disappointing. it is the 37th month of job growth. there have been 6.5 million new jobs created and people