today. the supreme court can act as as today on health care reform that puts soto mayor in an unusual position. to provide first control another health coverage to their workers. the emergency application was filed on tuesday, a day before it was set to take effect. there's been a temporary stay. the deadline for the response is today at 10:00 eastern. we will keep you on top of that. the weather has not stopped the institute. they are still planning on hearing from jack martin later today. he is from the federation for american immigration reform.

you can see his remark starting :45 eastern right here on c-span. an update on the u.s. capitol restoration project. it is not undergone a complete restoration until 1959 and has more than 1000 crack's and efficiency. the project started in november. this is about 25 minutes. >> this circular staircase was the original way to the first capitol dome, and continues to be the way we get to the walter dome. it was built in 1826.

the original staircase was wooden. it was removed in 1851, when there was a fire in the library of congress. for fear that the fire would spread to the wooden dome, they cut it out. walter, when he did his changes, inserted a cast-iron staircase you see today. during the construction, when they were dismantling the original dome, they weighed every piece as it was coming down, so they could verify what the difference between the old and new dome was. it turned out, i think, the old dome was just under 12 million pounds. given how much larger the walter dome is, the fact it is only 20% more weight is amazing. it speaks to the nature of cast-iron, and the ability to build this large structure with relatively little weight. to me, it is the merger of technology and the time. >> do many people who do not know architecture think -- would you describe why cast-iron?

why that is suffered problems over time? >> i think walter's intent was that it look like masonry. he did not intend for this to be a modern structure. he intended it to be appropriate to the rest of the capitol design. because of the weight, it could not be built in masonry. walter had just finished the library of congress renovation. once it had been destroyed by fire, he went in with a fireproof interior structure, made of cast-iron. in building that, he proved the resilience and economy of cast-iron. you could make multiple pieces from a single mold. and was able to then create this dome without extensive cost, and

with enough light weight aspects that it was possible. >> much heavier wood or a marble dome? [indiscernible] >> it would not have been supported by the structure, so i think it was never calculated. it would have been considerably higher than the 14 million pounds the dome and masonry additions were that was ultimately built. i think the point here is that the walls you are leaning against are the original bulfinch drum for the original dome of the capitol. everything that walter added was about the cornice level at this edge. this would have been originally exposed to view from the east and west front. and you can see overhead how did racquets extend out to pick up the columns.

half the columns are drainage columns and the other half are ventilation columns. and it would have been very odd to leave that cantilever condition exposed to view. so walter created a skirt of iron work that makes that transition from the cantilevered skirt out to the rest of the roof of the capitol. you can see the great condition we have been able to achieve with the restoration at this point. the skirt has been completely restored. the ironwork was repaired. the new paint system was installed. in addition to that, we cleaned and conserved and repainted the original bulfinch stone walls. and this ring of masonry that is seven feet thick that is the foundation for the ironwork that

extends above. so these brackets -- we only see eight feet of them now. there is an additional seven feet embedded into the masonry work. that acts as a huge foundation that supports the weight of the dome and transfers them evenly onto the stonewalls below. but here, you get a good sense for the bracket cantilever the -- beyond the on the old stone walls of the bulfinch drum, and how alternating columns are used for drainage columns. the others provide passive ventilation. you can see to your left how, when it was installed, some of the chimneys of the capitol were captured within the footprint. he used the hollow columns as a way to get the smoke exhaust out to the outside. i have seen a couple of photographs of the smoke billowing out of the balustrade.

at the boilerplate level. it is the chimney smoke coming out. you get to really appreciate the beauty of the rotunda, and the accomplishment of adding this additional height to the space. now, the actual interior coffered dome is not much larger than what bulfinch would have had here, and his dome would have rested on the stonework down below, where you see a projecting cornice and a band of stone just above it. that is where the initial dome would have sprung. we are now almost at the apex over the bulfinch dome would have ended. walter has lifted that on additional drums to give height and light into the rotunda. so here you can -- everything above the sandstone is what was

added as part of walter's addition. from the top of the sandstone to the balustrade we are standing on, it is predominantly masonry with some cast-iron elements. the coffers are cast-iron. the cornice below the frieze is cast-iron. and below the balustrade is also cast-iron. everything else is masonry with a plaster coating. we are about -- we are in the range of, i would say, close to 100 feet. at this level, you can also appreciate the frieze, the national frieze.

he did not start painting that until 1870. he managed to get about 3/4 of the way around before his death in 1880. he envisioned completing the entire work but his early death precluded him from finishing. constagini carried the work forward to the california gold rush and once she gets the california gold rush, his work and and alan cox's works continue to conclude the civil war and the birth of flight which takes us back to the discovery of america by christopher columbus where bermidi started his work.

as you look across the rotunda you can see evidence of some , water leaks that have occurred over time. the streaking below the lowest band of ornamentation on the copper dome, some of the staining on the sides of the pilasters. and you can see on the balustrade some evidence. they were multiple tiers of gas jets that occurred, one above the stone cornice where you see light fixtures. one at the base of the balustrade work where you see remnants of an earlier lighting scheme, the conduit with sockets. there was a string of lights at the base of the cupola and at the underside there was a ring of gas jets. they were over 1000 gas jets --t would eliminate illuminate instantly with the click of a switch from a battery in the lower levels of the

capital. you can imagine that night that must have been quite a dramatic affect to see this all eliminate d at once.ate as electricity was introduced to the building at the turn of the 20th century, this fixtures were replaced with electrical incandescent lighting and now we are using a more modern system. to eliminate the rotunda. one of the engineers for the project, he had all of the lower-level pieces stamped with his name. you look at some of the nuts and bolts, it will say his name. [indiscernible] i am sure you heard about the controversy between two competing egos. walter being a phenomenal engineer. they both wanted credit for creating the dome. without either of them he could

not have happened but it was the merging of their talents that allowed it to come into being. >> it is the perfect building to deal with egos. >> exactly. [laughter] let me show you this while we are here. we are passing through the boilerplate plenum. we are on top of the colonnade. there is a balcony we do not open to the public because it is fairly large and hard to control groups on. but it does offer us an opportunity to show you graphically how thin the cast iron shell of the dome really is. i will lift this coffer just enough so you can see the thin edge, 3/8 of an inch which is what the exterior shell of the dome is made of and the interior shell that you see the -- from the rotunda floor.

ironically, this is also how you would get outside to change the light fixtures on that cornice. we do not do that anymore thanks to modern lighting technology. we do not get out there. but it is always impressive to me to look through this thin layer and see for the first time just how the dome is constructed. let me know when you're done. >> how heavy is that? >> very. it is supported by the hinge. i am lifting it a little. please be careful when you come through. there is a window that sets into the staircase a bit and you need to watch your shoulder. you can also begin to appreciate here the structure and design of the dome with these enormous rib tresses, 36 in total that create

a conical structure and there are outriggers i go out and pick up the exterior skin and noticed that when you go through that the interior shell is not matching and aligning with the superstructure. it is suspended from it and the exterior shell is projecting beyond it. i am not as young as i used to be. keep in mind when the dome was finished this wall would not have been here. this wall and window was added in the 1940's when air-conditioning was introduced into the capital. so that is why you have a second railing on the interior side. people often wonder why this

balcony needs two railings. this is why. you would have that view on the backside of the shell which would have allowed much more light to come through and through this balcony level. we are a considerable distance apart. you should be able to hear me pretty clearly. i think this is an amazing space. you have to be very careful what you saying when you're up here. anyone on the opposite side can hear you. >> where is the [inaudible] >> 12 of these windows will be removed and if you look above the pavilion that we entered through, you'll see there is a bracket that extends out. during that phase we left that in place to be used as a lifting hoist for the 11 brackets that will be lifted. the 12 brackets will extend out over this railing and the catenary netting system will be suspended over the rotunda.

the purpose of that netting is twofold. it provides protection to the visitors so the rotunda can remain open while we are doing our work but it has a decorative drapery on the underside so that it looks appropriate for ceremonial events that can occur or for the visitors visiting the capital. we did not want it to look like an industrial safety netting. >> [inaudible] >> rather than replacing it we will be repairing it with any

epoxy system much like you would repair your windshield on your car if you had a crack. you use a heat and vacuum to infuse it with anti-proxy -- an epoxy binder. that is why the lock and stitch technique that we are using is so important to our restoration efforts. we want to save as much of the historic artifact as we can. >> are there any examples of the lock and stitch? >> unfortunately, all of them that were completed as part of the project have been overpainted. that is the beauty is that you do not see them when they are complete. notice that we are over the painting and there is a tinned canopy on top acting as an umbrella to ensure that if there is a leak in the exterior skin that it is caught and drained away so it does not affect the painting.

we are at the level. we are going to be go out this door. be careful as you go through. it is very low. be mindful that the iron is very hard. the last thing you want to do is hit your head on this sharp edge. be careful and duck as you go through the doorway. the genius of the radial scheme and the capital is the focal point of washington. the axis of the mall, maryland avenue, pennsylvania avenue all radiating from the central point. the beauty of the city opens before you when you stand at this level. if you look at the top plate

there are a series of through bolts that hold this together. as rust has developed and this railing has been pushed up by the pressure of the rust, the top plate has cracked and that is relieving the stress that is in the ironwork. what it also does is compromised the structural integrity of that particular piece. we are not concerned about it because there is so much redundancy in the ironwork design but we have put this here as a measure to ensure that until this work is repaired during this phase, we do not have any issues with any forces against the railing. to me it is symbolic of the joining of both parties in congress to come together to

fund an effort that is incredibly important to our country and preserving the capital dome is not a question for discussion. it is something that has to happen. there is no more recognizable symbol of the country than the capitol dome. or our national flag. >> or like raise the national debt ceiling. >> i will not go there. it is another good example of the thinness of the shell. it tells people how the structure works. the exterior skin of the dome and cast ironwork. >> [inaudible] >> i can tell you that i removed 180,000 pounds of lead based paint from the attic during our first phase so this should not

weigh more than the amount of lead paint i have taken off. just as when you came out, watch your head as you come through the doorway. that is the convene light that is on at night when congress is in session. it is not one bulb that is lit but four. there is an interstitial space behind the statue base. as you can see, no person is permitted above this platform under any circumstance. make sure there is someone in front of you. if there is someone in front of you you can focus on it is easier. >> how far are we going down?

>> we will stop here. one of the things i wanted to point out to you here as you are coming down the steps, you will see that the 36 rib tresses that form the superstructure converge at this level and go to support the statue of freedom. as you can imagine trying to merge 36 items into such a small space at the top was too great so every third truss is the one that continues forward and the two that flank it merge into it for buttressing support. what you also see here is the enormous superstructure has very slender bands that reach down to suspend the shell below.

and it has a very thin element that reaches out to the shape of the exterior dome. the brilliant thing about this design is that the dome is exposed to very harsh conditions on the outside, very cold in the winter of extra my hot in the -- extremely hot in the summertime under direct sun. some plates may approach 130 degrees fahrenheit. because they are held away from the superstructure, that heat dissipates in the ironwork before it gets to the superstructure. the rib tresses see very little temperature swing during the course of the year which helps to maintain the structural integrity of the dome. it does not move that much. but a lot of the damage we are addressing are in the shells and and those are exposed to wide temperature swings, a lot of expansion, and when the rust develops between the plates it binds the plate's removing and that creates enormous pressures in the ironwork that relieve itself by cracking.

most of the work we will be doing in this phase will be addressing those cracks in the exterior shell. as a huge erector set of pieces coming from a remote foundry, they had to mark each piece of -- so that the installers knew where at what level of the dome each piece was to go. do not be surprised if you see these marks on every piece as you go down. there was a clear pattern that was made for each location and it was important that it go in at a certain spot and they use those marks to make sure the installers knew where to place it. there is the acorn finial that had cracked and had to be removed. there are a series of bolts i go -- that go through that plate above the octagonal window. there is a large ornamental piece that crests that window. that is where the acorn finial is from.

>> [inaudible] >> to the cracks? all of that will be preserved. our goal is to keep as much of the historic fabric as possible. it is going to be repaired. yes. there will be 12 of these outriggers that go out to support the netting system that is suspended above the floor. >> is it a net? >> it is a multilayered netting that is meant to capture a load of 500 pounds and more. we start with a very large net and a layer of slightly smaller netting and a very tightknit to

-- a tight net to catch any small objects. all of that is concealed from from the rotunda side by a decorative scrim. >> is there the worry that hammering will shake something loose? >> if a nut word to fall or if there was a broken piece of iron, we want to -- protect the public. we want to make sure there is ample construction barriers there to preclude anything from happening. not that we are expecting it to happen, we want to ensure that it does not. everything, the brackets, the columns, and the superstructure behind the skin plates was created in a foundry in baltimore called pool and hunt. once they finished their work up to the balcony, from that point

forward, all the work was done by james kirkland out of new york. >> what are the wires? >> the wires are part of a he -- a defunct bird proofing system. we will remove those as part of the work and install a netting system, passive netting system to keep smaller birds from nesting. when we started this project, there was a major water event in the fall of 1990 that deposited a large amount of water on the floor of the rotunda. and it was through our investigations that we discovered bird nesting materials and debris from meeting on the dome -- eating on the dome that cause the water to -- that clog the gutter and cause the water to back up and cascade onto the rotunda. we have taken this on a series of projects to ensure that that drainage system is never compromised again by debris.

and it led to the development of the master plan and the study of the ironwork and to the project that we are getting completed in the next two years. >> from all outside the dome as snow continues to fall on this day in washington, d.c. the u.s. house gaveling in about half an hour or so. at noon they will come in again to start the second session. no legislative business will be conducted today. some news from the supreme court. the court may act on a pending request for an injunction in health care reform. groups have asked the court to block enforcement of the requirement in the affordable care act to provide reproductive health coverage to their workers.

justice so some i ordered -- soda soda mayor issued a stay. we will keep on top of that and update as we get information. we have been showing you on q&a"t recitations of our " series. she will talk about her latest book on president calvin coolidge. here is a brief look. >> nothing that he did is when he left office, the budget was lower than when he came in. that is a story for us now. how did he do that? the economy grew a lot. maybe more than 3%. the budget was balanced due to his own parsimony. how did he manage to make the budget go lower? how did that help the economy? a lot.

he got the government out of the way of the economy. very foreign. >> do you remember how big the budget was then? >> it depends the way you counted. about $3 billion. % andwould be less than 5 he was going to get it down to $3 billion that was his holy grail. this book is so long because little section of the book is about his effort with another new englander to cut the budget. they didn't just cut the tax rate. they cut the budget. this is different from our modern supply-siders who put the tax rate. coolidge always -- you will see a photo of two lion cubs he had. he said you cannot just cut taxes. you have to cut budget.

those line cups were named budget bureau and tax reduction. >> part of our conversation with shlaes. it is more from our first lady series later tonight with a focus on rosalynn carter. that is tonight starting at 9:00 eastern here on c-span. is interesting to talk about how the republican party is less unified than the democratic party only think about the historical and is vanishing time to be steadiness this. for the first time we are seeing a republican party that is .truggling they were tinkering with the reform process every four years. >> the interplay of what happened all really matter, more

than the underlying scandal itself when it comes to these comebacks. >> and especially if you're running in a context in which you can present yourself as an abused group, part of an abuse group. you can play that quite well. whether the case that jeff talked about or the case in alabama, where he use the 10 commandments controversy very effectively in an attack on christian conservatives. i think that is very much the case. >> the state of the national parties, a look at the politics of recovery. saturday morning at 10:00 eastern. live sunday and c-span2, your calls and comments for marked within -- mark levin. that is at noon on "in depth.'

american history tv looks back 15 years at the patient president william jefferson clinton. saturday and sunday at noon eastern. on the stateon now of conservatism in america from today's "washington journal." host: now joining us on the "washington journal." before we get into article, a conservative vision of government if mitt romney had been elected? guest: it would've been a better year. that economic policies would've been in place. the economy would be recovering better, america would have a stronger and more vital role in the world. i think there would be less chaos and disorder in the world. i think we would be in the process of undoing and repealing the affordable care act, which i think is a monumental failure.

a lot of the problems we are facing that are really being driven by what is popularly known as obamacare, we would not be facing. i think we would be in a lot better shape. host: for national affairs, you and michael gersten have written a large article, a conservative vision of government. i want to take a snippet of this and have you expand a little bit on it. you have asked the question, what is the proper and appropriate extent and purpose of government? conservatives in recent years have not done enough to answer this question. guest: yeah, i think that is right. several things are going on. i think over the last five years during the obama era, conservatives have done a pretty good job at making criticisms of government and obama era policies. i think that is good, as far as they go.

but what they have been able to do, what they haven't been doing is to articulate a more positive view of government. the way that i have put it is that conservatives talk a lot about the dangers of the size of state but they don't talk about the purposes of the state. it is one thing that conservatives have made mistakes on and are open to criticism. they go beyond that in this essay in "national affairs," it is that they haven't articulated what the purpose of government is, but there has been a kind of ferocious antigovernment rhetoric and mindset that has taken root and found a home in some elements of the conservative movement. and so what mike and i are trying to do in this essay is why we think that is an error we think it is wrong historically, philosophically and politically. host: at the heart, you write, of the oppositional view of

government espoused by some libertarians and tea party leaders, is a particular version of american history. our national recovery they insist depends on returning to the governing philosophy of the american founders as it is embodied in the constitution. guest: that is right. this is the most interesting part of the article to work on. if you're familiar with the conservative debate and some of the ferocious antigovernment rhetoric, you'll find a lot of conservatives anchor their views in the constitution and the american founding. what mike and i did is go back and analyze what the founders really believed at the time. it is a lot more complicated than that. and i think what people need to understand is we have this great debate in the 18th century in which the federalist founders,

the antifederalists were viewed as the antigovernment. they had people like james madison and alexander hamilton, george washington, james wilson. these were not people who view government as a necessary evil in the words of thomas paine. they actually believed government properly limited and properly framed central as a public good. so i think what has happened is that the founders of the constitution have been is appropriated by some modern-day conservatives. they are invoked more often than are read. i do think you people would go back and the debate of the american founding, the rhetoric of this positional mindset to government would be different than what we're hearing. i want to make one thing clear . i very much in favor of limited

government. in the essay we explain why we are. i think there's a difference between limited government on the one hand and a kind of reflective rhetorical denigration on the other. host: some people are going to read this are going to say establishment republican. guest: yes, they will. i'm not quite sure what that phrase means. people who hurl that around as an epitaph are part of the establishment themselves. i actually don't think establishment, per se, is bad. if it means living inside the beltway, i am guilty as charged. i actually think if you look through the agenda that i have advanced in this essay with mike courson and i am not sure that it would qualify as establishment. i am very forward leaning and fairly bold and the forms that i have been advocating, both in writing and in meetings with congressional leaders. but people can decide for themselves whether i am part of the establishment or not. it is not problematic, i like

washington, d.c. i have a number of good friends here. i think people should be judged not whether they're part of the establishment or not but by the merits of their ideas. host: a little bit more from your essay -- important respects abraham lincoln continued the philosophical arc of the framers of the constitution. guest: it is very true. lincoln was the 16th president. i think he was america's greatest president, probably in competition with washington. he was the de facto founder of the republican party. here again, this is an individual who if you examine what he said, what he wrote and what he believed, was not somebody who was a denigrator of government. in fact he expanded the powers of government, much as the founders did. lincoln really was the great interpreter of the founders, probably almost without question the greatest presidential interpreter of the founders time

and again in his debates with stephen douglas and in this case against slavery used to go back to the declaration and explain what that meant. here again, i think it is worthwhile to go back to read what these people said, what they believed. now, it is important to say that i am not arguing it would not argue that the founders are lincoln magically appeared in 21st-century america they be happy with the size of government. i suspect it would be concerned. i am to one i spent a great deal of my time arguing for limited government, why that is important and why i think that there have been a lot of mistakes from the obama presidency because government is doing too much and doing too much poorly. our purpose here was to try and add what i suppose is a corrective to the conservative debate and the conservative movement. host: what is the ethics and public policy center?

guest: it is a think tank on it -- that was founded in 1976 by ernest lefevre. it has 20 scholars here in washington, d.c. unlike some of the other think tanks that are around, it makes a conscious effort to try and explore the religious and moral dimensions of public policy. really has some of the finest scholars in the country. is a really a tricky place. george wigle on catholic matters. it is one of the first ones i worked for when i came to washington in the 1980's. i had a series of jobs in three republican administrations and worked in the bush white house. when i left there in 2007, they gave me an office and a home and i am delighted to be there. it is a wonderful place. host: speaking of the catholic focus, the pope has made some policy statements.

rush limbaugh has called some of his ideas marxist. what are you think about pope francis? guest: i think he is traffic. i myself am a christian, not a catholic, but a christian. i think he embodies in very many ways the spirit of christ. i think he is good for the catholic church, which is an institution that has absorbed some tremendously difficult blows over the last decade. i think his humility and his humanity, his obvious concern for the poor and the disenfranchised, people living in the shadows of society, is terrific. i read this exhortation, the part that had to do with the economy was pretty minor in terms of what he wrote. i read it, didn't agree fully with his views. i thought he was somewhat simplistic and his views and sweeping in his statements

toward capitalism, but he is not an economist and what he is arguing for primarily on not economic or public house in matters could use the head of the roman catholic church. i am a great fan. i'm very intrigued by him and i think he is a part from being that important of a religious leader, i think there are some lessons that he can teach people in politics in terms of how to get your message through in a way that is not public relations related but really an authentic insight into his heart and mind and soul. host: back to a conservative vision of government, your -- ithael gerson write speaks well of conservatives that they want to be thought of as the defenders of the constitution, but at a minimum, constitutional conservatives should recognize what both the federalist founders and lincoln

actually envisioned for the republic they created and preserved. they were on the whole rigorous, empirical, modern thinkers as well as sober and skeptical heirs of the enlightenment. guest: this is an argument to go back. rather than invoking the as a side note, today we talk about the polarization and about how nasty the debates can get. those are fair points. andgo back and you read those were really ferocious. debates as well. caution.a i think it would be wrong. forsame way it is wrong christians to take scripture and this is what a christian should

believe i policy. there is something similar. it is hard to know what the founders or lincoln would say about any particular policy. you can learn the animated principles were. what is the philosophy that informed their thinking. what is the disposition that they had? and you can take that and try to apply it to the issues and challenges. it can be instructive and helpful. host: the relationship between the government and the life of the people is a particularly challenging problem in our time. the overreach of the obama years has given form to the less powerful desire to manage and manipulate those realms of life that in our country have generally been left within the purview of the family, civil society, and local community. guest: i think it is one of the biggest distinctions between liberals and conservatives. conservatives place a high

premium on them. families, churches, schools, and so forth. really what conservatives have argued for is that between the state and the individual there is human life that needs to be respected and supported. and modern liberalism tends to impose itself there. to think that it knows better. there is an impulse toward centralization. and technocratic expertise. we see it in the affordable care act, which i think is problematic. you see it manifest in the current debate. this argument about religious liberties in the affordable care act and whether religious institutions him and their health insurance policies, have to give out policies that would cover birth control and abortion. historically, the state has respected the religious views of

these institutions. the obama administration, very much in keeping with modern liberalism, says we know better. the state knows better. you will bow before the state. we will dictate to you what you should do. you may have religious objections, but we really do know better. that is a precise and specific manifestation of this broader debate and tendencies. host: pete wehner, this tweet -- your response to this tweet. guest: not many and they shouldn't. we talk about this in the essay. there are some conservatives who either explicitly say or hint at this notion of dismantling the state and going back to the pre-new deal era.

because social security would be unconstitutional. in practice, the republican party is the political home of the conservative movement. there are no prominent conservatives who want to do it. in fact the best figures in american conservatism and elected officials, in congress, people like paul ryan, are promoting far-reaching, very necessary reforms to programs like medicare. not to dismantle them, but to actually help them survive. at the rate we are going, if there are not necessary reforms, those programs will go bankrupt. at some point there will be a real jolt to the people who depend on those programs. much as we have seen in countries in europe, like greece. i do not think it is warranted. it would be politically suicidal. ronald reagan made his peace and

so should others. host: westerly, rhode island. a letter to the editor in the times."ton time for republicans in name only to follow the tea party. he writes, to paraphrase mark twain, reports of the tea party's death have been greatly exaggerated. the tea party will shortly become the dominant political force in america and here is why. every negative thing the tea party said was going to happen with this law has happened.

host: here's a news bulletin. since you won't lead the fight to reverse the socialist utopia that washington is jamming down our throats, you can follow the tea party or preferably just get out of the way. guest: yeah. that is a good letter at editorial in terms of capturing a particular point of view. the first thing i would say is that the tea party has been a force for good in american politics. its genesis and creation was in response to an overreach of government by the obama administration. it manifests itself in several ways. you saw in the early years with the huge money that was spent to try to get us out of the economic, financial collapse that we had. but mostly in the affordable care act.

and they were a huge and important and positive force in the 2010 midterm election. so i think that is good. the instincts and impulses, many of them, of the tea party are good. but i do think that there is this kind of rhetorical overreach. some of what he was getting at here. there is a kind of reflexive denigration within some members of the tea party or some of the tea party groups where every time government is mentioned in a negative light, it tends to be a little bit of imprecision in the tea party. i wrote a piece in "the wall street journal" a couple of years ago -- michele bachmann who considers herself a member in good standing of the tea party. they talk a lot about limited government. but then when specific issues came up like medicare reform, which paul ryan was pushing, she was very hesitant about getting into it. and tea party members were very cool to the idea of entitlement reform.

you cannot be a limited government individual in 2014 or 2012 and not be in favor of entitlement reform. and yet there was this odd kind of schizophrenia that was going on. so rhetorically, very far out there. then when you got into the policies, somewhat modest. the last thing i would say -- there is a conservative disposition and temperament. and i think there are some people within the conservative building of the tea party have lost that. there is a kind of purification impulse which this individual got to. john boehner is a republican in name only. constantly berating people who are part of the establishment. wanting to burn heretics. it is a notion of exclusion more than expansion toward the party

and a kind of intellectual rigidity that has taken place. we saw it in the republican party in the 2012 election. if you could get $10 of spending cuts for tax increases, which of you republican candidates would agree to that? and not a single hand went up. there is an ideology within the republican party, tea party movement that says you will not raise taxes under any conditions, regardless. i think that is not a conservative way to approach things. tax rates, there is nothing set in stone about where the tax rates are right now. it depends on circumstances. it depends on what you get in return. any conservative would take that in a moment. this is an ideological rigidity that is taking place. i suspect that person probably shares it. host: one more quote from your essay before we go to calls.

a truly conservative response to the advance of the liberal or progressive ideology would not involve the adoption of an opposite and equally narrow ideology. guest: that is right. it is an interesting thing. the history of liberalism and conservatism -- conservatism is a negation of ideology. that is, it is very wary of abstractions and of imposing principles regardless of circumstances. conservatism believes in the complexity of human society, the dangers of unintended consequences. has been the antithesis of a revolutionary rhetoric, utopianism. and has stayed away from ideology. one of the figures was edmund burke. the great british statesman in

the 18th century. he wrote reflections to revolution in france. a fierce critic of the french revolution. and rightly so. this was a person who wrote a great deal about the importance of prudence. about taking into account circumstances, history. and that is what conservatives should be. it should not be an ideology in the way that that is generally understood. host: pete wehner is our guest. a former advisor to the romney campaign in 2012. stephen in california on our democrat line. your first of. caller: thank you very much. beautiful words, mr. wehner. i have a problem with a lot of problems that are coming across from conservatism. i think of what we are experiencing now is basically unfettered capitalism. if we live in a consumer society

likely no that funds 70% of our economy and what makes more sense -- to have 150,000 people with $350 million or 350 million people with $150 million? we had pretty close to that when clinton left office. and so i was making a very good living at that time. i happen to be an artist and i was pushing a couple hundred thousand per year. i had an employee working at my gallery and things were working beautifully. now what is happening is we are giving more and more tax cuts to the wealthy. and so what happens is that somebody who makes 400 times what i make in a year is only paying 200 times what i pay in taxes. and so that is 50% less.

if we have the temerity to ask that person to pay 55% of what i pay in taxes, that is class warfare. and that seems to be the conservative argument. host: i think we have a good issue to grab onto. guest: good question. i appreciate them. then they try and go through them. there was a lot of human hardship these days. driven by the economy. and so those are also difficult and poignant examples. let me try to take these in pieces. i don't think we have such a thing as unfettered capitalism in america. we have a fair amount of regulation. i would argue that a problem today -- let me say one other thing about capitalism. capitalism is the economic system which has done far and away the most to lift the poverty and to create a middle

class. and to give people a chance for prosperity and dignity, work, and human flourishing. so capitalism has been one of the wonders of the world. and that does not mean that it does not make mistakes or that it does not need the state to impose certain regulations. nobody is arguing -- maybe a few libertarians -- for unfettered capitalism. in terms of the economy today, we have had barack obama who has been president for five years. he is not a conservative. he is arguably the most liberal president we have ever had. he has given us a historically bad economic recovery. job growth has been stagnant. huge drop in the number of people in the labor force. long-term unemployment reaching record levels.

poverty at record levels. i don't think you can lay the problems of the economy at the foot or feet of conservatives. i think a lot of it has to do with president obama. i think some of the things go beyond president obama or a single president. there are deep structural changes that are happening and that we have to deal with. one last point about this larger question about income inequality which is a fairly hot topic in , political circles and an issue obama talked about. we believe this discussion for live coverage of the u.s. house. members are about to gaveling for a brief session to end. and then at noon members will return to start the second session. no legislative business will be conducted today. now to live coverage of the u.s. house here on c-span. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014]

[captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.] the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's room, washington, d.c., january 3, 2014. i hereby appoint the honorable

thomas e. petri to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray. god of the universe, we give you thanks for giving us another day. in the final hour of the first session of the 113th congress, we give you thanks for your faithfulness to our nation. there have been many struggles, many sorrows and yet we are still here and able to give you thanks that millions of our citizens live free. may the work of the second session issue forth to the benefit of our nation and its citizens and where the efforts of this congress have fallen short, we ask your forgiveness and the forgiveness of all americans.

may all that is done this day be for your greater honor and glory. amen. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to section 6-a of house resolution 438, the journal of the last day's proceedings is approved. the chair will lead the house in the pledge of allegiance. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the house will stand in recess subject to the call of the chair. >> the house has recessed.

lawmakers will return to legislative business on tuesday. back now to that discussion on american conservatism in today's washington journal. host: a host -- tweet -- do you consider yourself a moderate? if someone can centers me a moderate they are pretty on the fringe. are pretty far on

the french. i am a conservative. -- fringe. i am a conservative. i have a tremendous amount of respect for ronald reagan and margaret thatcher. burke, james madison, lincoln -- i think he is the greatest american president. all of those would qualify as conservatives. i think that there are people today who thinks that a genuine, authentic conservatism is not what they are for. they gravitate toward a kind of revolutionary, radical form of conservatism.

the history of conservatism, the wisdom of conservatism, and i think what is the best interest -- you try to engage in a serious debate and rather than engaging in a debate, they write people off as rino's were moderates or whatever the agger

-- ted cruz -- he was insanely one of the leaders of the government shutdown. you have people like rand paul a real libertarian. intelligent, well spoken. you are seeing the debate in domestic affairs and in foreign policy. rand paul is nothing like the reagan internationalist approach. he does not really believe america should have a prominent role in maintaining world order. these debates are fairly intense. they are not unhealthy. not dissimilar to ronald reagan and richard nixon and henry kissinger. reagan was a strong critic of detente. reagan had a debate involving the panama canal. those debates are not bad. it tends to be somewhat undisciplined. you have these kind of back-and-

forth. some of these issues will be resolved once the republican party dominates -- nominates a candidate in 2016 and the party and the movement will unify behind them. host: dave in florida. independent line. caller: good morning. good morning, sir. [indiscernible] attacking the tea party and the people who are not that educated , but are totally fed up. going back to george bush. you keep knocking president obama. the main reason obama got elected in the first place is because that people were so fed up with the moderate conservatism -- i would almost say liberalism of george bush --

and the madness that went on then. obama turned right around -- they totally went directly opposite of what he campaigned on. people went ballistic. it is not an antigovernment -- it is an antiestablishment. host: thank you. guest: thank you for the call. let me try to untangle this. i do have some criticism of the tea party. as i said earlier, i think they are a force for good in american politics. i credit them with the 2010 midterm elections. but i think that some refinement needs to go on. i think that the tea party needs to look within. some critiques need to go on. i don't think they are evil or nasty. i think for most part, it is

comprised of good, generous, patriotic americans and the think the impulses are all right. i am a strong critic of president obama and that the government -- what the government is doing. there has been a rhetorical overreach. it is a disparagement of government which is not healthy. president bush was a conservative by any reasonable metric. in some ways, even more conservative than ronald reagan. he never raised taxes. reagan did. reagan had the huge advances on supply-side economics. he also had the tougher taxes. bush never had that. spending under bush was considerably less than it was under reagan.

taxes were lower. i think president bush, as a conservative, stands up very well. i think president obama was elected in part because of the financial crisis and the iraqi war. let me deal with both of those. president bush was dealing with reforms with freddie and fannie. who brought those reforms? one was a junior senator -- blocked those reforms? one was a junior senator named barack obama. it was a rough kind of justice that president obama inherited the problem. the bush administration made real errors in the iraq war. the planning was not proper. the theory did not work.

president bush changed it. he advocated the surge. a traditional counterinsurgency strategy, beautifully executed by david petraeus. by the time he left office, iraq was in relatively good shape. it was a relatively pacified country. that has been undone, but not because of him. it is because of the policies pursued by his successor. host: a tweet. guest: no, i don't think so. it was a comment and one that governor romney himself said that he regrets. people have to speak for themselves. i am not wild about this notion of establishment republicans. people have to speak for themselves.

there is a view which does exist within conservatism that is very, very worried that we have created a nation of takers instead of givers. people who have become overly dependent on government. they don't pay income taxes and they get money from various government programs and it has corrupted their character. and impeded better judgment. i think that the 47%, and was unfortunate. what republicans and conservatives have to do is find a language and set up policies that actually appeal to middle- class people. a huge changes happening in america that has happened in america over the past several decades. i'm not sure republicans and conservatives are aware of it. this is not 1980. white voters are increasingly

smaller percentage of the electorate. 2012 election was the first one in which the nonwhite vote was really decisive. mitt romney won the white vote by 20 points. that is historically very good. it is almost unprecedented. yet he lost by over 5 million votes. he lost the nonwhite vote by 63%. every year since 1996, for every two years, the nonwhite vote has gone up 2%. i don't think the conservative movement and the republican party have adjusted. that does not have a disposition that is appealing to america today. if they are getting a higher

percentage of a smaller pool of voters -- that is not a prescription for success. host: john in illinois on the democrat line. you are on. caller: good morning. i would like to discuss top tax rates and conservatism from a little different point of view. it is a little long and complicated. if you think it has value, maybe you could keep the host from cutting me off. host: i will recommend that you add it yourself and get it down into a bite sized chunk. caller: you kind of ironically pointed out how the top one percent are now paying about 40% of the taxes and yet most people are aware that they are much -- paying a much smaller percentage of their income in taxes than in the 20th century. the implications of being able to double the amount from 20% to 40% -- they are paying a huge

percent of our total taxes but an ever smaller amount of their income. income is growing at an enormous disparity. the other main thing i want to discuss is about the concern with top tax rates. maximizing revenue is one of the concerns of government. it is a legitimate question to ask why is that a concern? while we are in so much debt, it obviously is. conservatives say that decreasing taxes increases revenue. theratechnologies and maximize revenue is important. host: a conclusion? caller: the conclusion is that where the top tax rate would be. the main point is that if you

brought it down to 1%, you would not be bringing in any income. how can they argue all the time to only lower it when you don't necessarily know if you are already below the point which maximizes income? host: thank you. guest: that is an interesting and intelligent question. i agree with you to this extent. i do not think there is a magic rate. you cannot constantly argue that taxes should be lowered. at some point, taxes will in fact go to a point when there is too low and you don't get any revenue at all. the question is, what is the rate that maximizes economic growth and brings in the kind of revenues that you need? i would point out that when president reagan took over, the top tax rate was 70%.

he cut it to 28%. hugh had huge economic growth. the 70% rates were clearly oppressive and problematic and where an anchor and wet blanket on the economy. under reagan, we had huge economic growth and huge job growth. beyond that, i think this is an issue which really divides liberals and conservatives. the topic of this program. liberals few taxes through a moral prism and as an instrument to try to redistribute wealth. i don't see it that way. i think taxes should be used to fund government, not to redistribute wealth. what you should be thinking about is what are the policies that advance economic growth? what are the tax rates that unleashed the american economy and democratic capitalism in a way that leads to prosperity for people at every strata of society? liberals spend a tremendous amount of time concerned about inequality. inequality is endemic to human life.

more quality does not necessarily lead to better life. someone the other day pointed out that china under mao had much more equality than china today. but there is no question that china is better today in terms of what it offers its citizens. it could be that the rich are getting rich at a faster rate and the port for getting rich and the gap increases, but everybody gets better. that is not the issue. is there social mobility? if you have income inequality but not social mobility, that is a kind of caste system. that is problematic. host: pennsylvania, republican line. caller: good morning. on a macro level, what is your opinion about capitalism on a collision course with socialism? why don't we hear that word very often?

in my observation, the past 60 or 70 years we are out spending ourselves, but we do not want to raise taxes. i am not a socialist. i just would like to hear your opinion. guest: yes. the collision between capitalism and socialism. this is an old, now ancient debate between capitalism and socialism. america has been a capitalist country, it still is. president obama is a person of the left, so he is pushing policies to redistribution, high taxes, larger role of government.

he has taken it more in a democratic socialist, like countries you see in europe. democratic capitalism is bad for all sorts of reasons -- better for all sorts of reasons. on the tax issue, the question is not whether we should raise taxes on the rich so we make them pay more, so there is some kind of punitive aspect to this or so we decrease in the quality the question is what are the tax rates, what are the tax policies, what are the tax codes that lead to economic growth? paul ryan and other republicans have been advocating and have put forward -- will put forward a conference -- comprehensive plan that will push forward reform of the tax code which would lead to some higher taxes lower tax rates, but a broadening of the base. the kind of tax reform that happened in 1986, the bipartisan deal between ronald reagan and tip o'neill and bill bradley and others.

it did wondrous in terms of its economic effects. host: freddie, indianapolis. democrat. caller: i am classifying myself as a socialist communist. a socialist capitalist. the reason for that. let me tell you. reduce -- a redistribution of wealth. when the people out here do not have jobs, someone is going to have to feed them. if they don't have jobs to feed themselves, someone will have to feed them. if no one is feeding them, they will not let them go hungry. what do you think of that? guest: thank you for the call. i agree.

i do think someone needs to feed them. i think one of the roles of the state is to provide, to give provision for the poor and particularly those who have been poor and needy for no fault of their own. i believe in the welfare state in that understanding of it. that is partly why we wrote this article. my objective, and i think the objective of the most conservatives, is to try to have fewer people who are poor. that requires economic growth, social mobility, giving people skills and talents that they need in a modern economy. just thinking about the poor in staying in the situation that they have and that the state needs to give the money -- that is not good. i understand helping the poor as

a temporary provision in most situations. but it is not good for them and it is not good for society to keep them there. what you need to do is to have public policy that gives people the best chance to prosper and to flourish. that does not mean that they are going to be essentially wards of the state. host: the last call comes from alan in maryland. on our independent line. caller: good morning. you used the term antigovernment three times this morning. since antigovernment -- i don't understand why you use this term consistently like a liberal does. host: sorry about that. i thought you were finished. guest: the reason i use it is that when you listen to the rhetoric of some people -- not all people on the right -- it is a constant barrage that is critical and denigrating of government. i would call that antigovernment. i do not think it is nihilistic or anarchist.

i think it is a rhetorical disposition to criticize government. to say again, i am a critic of much of what government is doing. i think it is too large and needs to be limited. in the formulation of margaret thatcher, it takes too much to do too much for us. i think if you just listen to the public debate -- at least as represented by some people on the right -- it is this denigration of government that i think is unfortunate and problematic. i think there is an element -- some people on the right to view government as a kind of necessary evil. i do not agree with that. i do not think that is really true. i do not think it is faithful to the best tradition of conservatism. host: a tweet.

guest: i have tried to. you can go back and read the tape or watch the tape, read the transcript, read the article. or go to commentary magazine.com. i have laid out, more times than i can count, more public policies, from the reform of entitlements, to the tax code, education reform -- i think that is a big issue. i think areas of private and public choice, charter schools, accountability, merit pay -- very important issues. i think reforms of energy -- it does not get nearly enough attention. this is important. i try to spend a fair amount of my time actually laying out what conservatives ought to embrace. this is a much more theoretical

discussion and article itself, in terms of the philosophy of conservatism, as opposed to laying out a 10 or 20 point public policy proposal, which i am happy to do some other time. host: the title of the essay -- a conservative vision of government. it is available at national affairs.com. thank you for being on the journal. >> earlier this hour the u.s. house officially ended their first session of the 100 13th congress. and in they will come together to start the second session. in the meantime, the supreme court is in session on this friday. the ap reporting on the obama administration's reaction to report injunction to a portion of the nature and care law. he says they should stop blocking the health care law that includes birth control.

the government says religious nonprofit groups can certify that they do not want to provide contraceptive coverage. a group of catholic nuns that renders a -- nursing loans suit say even citing that forms violates the beliefs. we will keep you updated as warranted. the weather happening here in washington dc has not stopped the american university public affairs and advocacy institute. they are planning on hearing jack martin later today. -- remarkse his mark starting at 1:45 p.m. eastern. we've been showing on corporate -- presentations are q&a series. join us later for our conversation with m&a shoelace -- amity shlaes. later tonight, it is more from our first lady series. our focus will be on president

carter's right -- wife roselyn. house will gavel in at noon eastern to start the second session of the 100 13th congress. we'll have live coverage in just about half an hour. women -- a look at the impact of women in politics from washington journal. host: jennifer lawless is coming up next. she runs the women in politics institute at american university. she has co-authored this report girls just want to not run. the gender gap in young americans political ambition. are women running for office?

guest: they are not running for office or thinking about running for office. that is more problematic than the lack of female candidates itself. host: why? guest: it is not appealing on the radar screen for several reasons. no one suggests it. family members, friends, party leaders, suggested officials. they are more likely to encourage men and recruitment. second, women who has the same exact credentials as men are far less likely than men to self assess of being qualified to run for office. their self-doubt holds them back. there are people out there who are aiding those doubts. host: 20% of the u.s. senate is women. 17.8% of the house. state governors, 10%. 23% of step legislators -- state legislators. isn't that all good news? guest: it is all good news, but it is important to remember that women are 52% of the population. they're more than half of the college graduates.

the receiving log degrees and business degrees in almost equal numbers as men. the fact that they are still so fundamentally under a -- underrepresented in political power should raise an eyebrow. host: the gender gap in political ambition. you have a chart here. women are represented in pink. men in blue. is this a fact that men and women are different or is this because women are being raised not to think about these things? guest: i think it is a combination of a series of factors. recruitment factor, qualifications -- the other thing to keep in mind is that this report is a portrait of college students. these are 18-25 euros. -- yearolds. the gender gap of people who

have not determined what their career will be. it is quite stunning. it is the same size of the gender gap we discovered among successful lawyers, business leaders, educators, political activists. something is happening to discourage women and thinking of politics as a lucrative profession, something that is appealing in any way. host: is there a way of changing that early focus on boys? guest: there are a few things we can do. we know that women and men and boys and girls are equally receptive to thinking about running for office when somebody suggests it. the easiest thing to do is to encourage young women to think about it. to put it on their list of

possible options. we also know that competitive experiences and reinforce the kinds of qualities and traits that tend to be related to political ambition. playing sports in high school or college, running for student government -- those are two different sets of experiences that are very linked to interest in running for office later in life. to the extent that we can close the gender caps on those kind of factors come we can promote female candidates. host: i want to go back to the sports thing. we will be talking about women in politics throughout this program. you can dial in and participate. we have set aside our fourth line for women who hold political office or have run for political office. we would like to hear from you as well. jennifer lalas is one who has run for political office. (202) 585-3883. i want to go back to the sports thing. you hit this a couple of times. organized sports in college.

men have higher participation rates than women in both of those. why is it important? guest: i think that sports and competition in general and the signal that it is ok -- ok to compete and ok to win and ok to lose -- a lot of the time when we think about running for office, we think about contests. pretty harsh competition. people have experience competing in a different arena, and a different round that can mitigate some of the concerns they have as to whether they can succeed in the political arena. host: here is another one. politicized environment and political ambition. it ran for student government in college. only 6% of women. 43% of men. guest: it seems to be the case that when women get to college, their interests diverge from

those of their male counterparts. we don't uncover differences like this from high school samples. what seems to be happening is that women and men have different interests and the different interests are fueled by the college experience. it is not to say that they cannot get closer in line together and we cannot encourage women to think about politics among political science classes, to understand how the issues they care about are in fact political and related to government. the onus is on us to do that because they are not naturally selecting into those kind of interests and professions. host: do the parties -- don't they focus on women and recruiting women and getting women involved? guest: 20% of the united states senate is women.

the interesting fact here is that when women run for office, they fare as well as their male counterparts. both in terms of vote totals and dollars raised. voters are willing to elect women. the problem is that women are not running in the numbers we expect them to run in. the fact that i just said about one women run for office they fare as well as men, most women do not know that. we found that 70% of people believe that there is bias against female candidates. acting not to run for office might be a rational response to a political environment that potential candidates perceived as biased. importantly, we have to

disseminate the message that women are just as able to succeed. host: here is another chart. openness to potential jobs and professions by sex. is her college age men and women. open to political positions. men are higher on all three. then when you go to historically female careers. guest: we still have traditional sex segregation in terms of occupational preferences. that is especially interesting among a college sample. this is a group of people where we would think that we would see far more egalitarian is in. a lot of careers we do. careers like lawyer or doctor, women and men are equally likely to think of that. when we think about the most traditional roles, we see that the young generation falls into those realms. host: what about when we talk about women's issues in politics?

guest: there was a lot of debate over what those issues actually are. traditionally they have been defined as issues that disproportionately affect women, families, and children. women are still responsible for the families and children at greater rates than men. there is evidence to suggest that women are seen as more credible legislating on a lot of those issues. when those issues dominate in the political arena, female candidates might have an edge. that was certainly the case in the 1990's and the early 2000's more recent evidence called into question. now, both male and female candidates are equally as likely to be stereotyped when talking about women's issues and talking about issues like the economy or national security. host: tell us about your experience running for office. guest: i ran for the u.s. house of representatives in the

second district of rhode island. i lost. host: why did you get into it and what was the experience like? guest: the experience was the most exhilarating, fulfilling experience i have ever had in my life. i got into the race because it was a heavily democratic district and i thought that the incumbent was not adequately representing the people who lived there. on a lot of social policy issues , women's rights issues in particular. i thought that he was out of sync with his constituents and i thought i could do a better job. host: did you raise money? what was the hard part, what was the exhilarating part? guest: taking on an incumbent is very difficult. you have to build name recognition. you're starting from scratch. i raised several hundred thousand dollars. i gardner nearly 40% of the vote. the thing that was most exhilarating was talking to

voters, many of whom had never interacted with an elected official or candidate. what was striking to me was the manner in which they were so ready to talk about their experience are having needed help or what they wanted from government -- but also that they really believed that running for office within opera profession. we tend to hear such negative attitudes toward congress, tour the president, toward our political institutions. i think those are very abstract notions. when voters meet individual candidates or when they interact with individual elected officials, they know that the overwhelming majority of people are doing it because they care and want to make the world a better place. host: what is your reaction to republican spin the daddy party and democrats being the mommy party? guest: i think it is cliché. they need to get together and figure out how to move the country in the right direction. to the extent that we are stereotyping the parties were dividing them and giving them some credit for some issues, it is stymieing progress. host: factors that hinder young women's political ambitions. young men are more likely than young women to think about politics as a possible career path. from their school experience to the peer associations to their

media habits, young women tend to be exposed to less political information and discussion than do young men. number three is missing at this point. number four is young women are less likely to receive encouragement to run for office from anyone. another one is that young women are less likely than young men to think they will be qualified to run for office, even once they are established in their careers. (202) 585-3880, democrats. (202) 585-3881, republicans. (202) 585-3882, independents. the fourth line is for women who have run for office or who are officeholders. (202) 585-3883. we will begin with a call on that line from judy in minneapolis. what office he ran for or what office you are holding. caller: hi. i am actually currently running

for michele bachmann's seat for the house of representatives. host: are you in a primary? caller: we have not had our caucuses yet. i have one purpose -- person who is competing against me. there were three republicans that are seeking the public nomination. -- republican nomination. host: why are you running for office? caller: i have a history of lobbying the legislature in minnesota for several years. writing legislation, pulling together agency people on the issue of childhood lead poisoning prevention and solid waste issues. i have not seen a resolution of that epidemic for children. at the same time, i am living in a community where michele bachmann has served. i have thought of running against her years ago and i did not.

i am at a time in my life -- i am 57 years old -- it is a good time to do it. i thought of running for governor before. i attempted to run for u.s. senate before. this is something that i am ready for. what i would say about what motivated me is that i had a grandfather who was in the state legislature three terms. i think having a relative close to me that had served in politics possibly had an effect. i think also a very politically minded sixth-grade teacher during the election of next and nixon. we were on the campaign trail in the sixth grade. having our little school election and so on. i think that was very powerful. at a young age, to have that social studies experience touring an election year with a very aggressive teacher.

host: do you think being a woman running for office is harder than being a man running for office? caller: well, i think the fact that michele bachmann has held the seat for 10 years -- i have a feeling the constituents -- they may be like to vote for women and they don't care what you say. that may be one thing going for me. i think that actually, for instance, for me

i don't see this as a career, and i don't think anybody should look at politics necessarily as a career. but when it is your time to step forward and take the job for a term or two, to add your input and expertise, to do that. i feel like oftentimes the reason why i felt like running for governor before and attempted to run for u.s. senate is it is like a vacuum cleaner sucking in any normal human being instead of career people. i think there is no accountability for what they are doing, and i have been frustrated with congresspeople going to washington and then they are listening to the lobbyists in the beltway instead of the local constituents. host: judy, i think we have found you on the internet. are you judy adams, minnesota aggressive project? there is the caller we have been

talking to. guest: i think a lot of the points that you raised are exactly right. we have 500,000 elected offices in this country, so average citizens are supposed to step forward and run for these offices. it is not meant to be 500,000 career politicians. when you get to the federal level and we are talking about the u.s. house, the senate, or a governor, those tend to be more career like positions. but the majority are not. knowing about an issue, caring about an issue, and deciding it is time to do something about that issue is what we should be encouraging everybody to do. the other thing i would note is one of the findings we uncovered is a politicized upbringing does encompass very political teachers or high school or elementary school experiences that were politically charged, as well as political relatives. you have to look no further than the u.s. house of representatives to see several examples of multiple generations of elected officials. host: we are getting some tweets. cdog tweets in, is nancy pelosi and inspiration for you? guest: i think any woman who has made it in politics high has to be an inspiration to anyone who does the kind of work that i do. the manner in which a lot of these high-profile women have managed to a compass not only their legislative goals but also

make it important to increase the number of women politics -- women in politics is very admirable. host: sea of tranquility asks, "do you think the way the press trashes gop women is one reason they do not run for office, like they did sarah palin?" guest: jenny hayes and i have done a systematic media coverage study, focusing on the 20 10th congressional elections. we quoted more than -- on the 2010 congressional elections. we uncovered no difference between male and female candidates. the kind of coverage really is an anomaly, and it is not what most voters are exposed to regularly. host: 500,000 elective offices in this country, professor lawless.

what percentage had women running for that position? guest: most of those offices are held at the local level, and we don't have brought systematic data. but there is nothing to suggest that the percentage of women running is very different than the percentage of women holding those positions because we know that women care as much as men, so they are winning at equal rates. caller: jennifer, you have quite an impressive knowledge on your subject here. my question is about hillary clinton. i am a little afraid that rush limbaugh is going to get hillary clinton elected. host: why do you say that, andrew? you're calling on the republican line. caller: i don't think rush limbaugh is interested in getting republicans elected. he is interested in getting democrats elected so that the

people who pay rush limbaugh can make more money off a divided country. that is what i think. anyway, if rush limbaugh does get hillary elected, which is what the people who pay him get him to do, do you think she would be a good president, or will she be in it for the money like a lot of people think? guest: i think rush limbaugh cannot get anybody elected president, but if we go down the path of assuming she's the nominee who gets elected, she is in a position where it will be far more lucrative for her not to run for office and the president of the united states. she and her husband can both command speaking salaries that far exceed what she would make as president. it is hard to find a candidate, though, with a better resume and more experience than she has, and it is going to be difficult for the democrats to have a nominee other than hillary

clinton should she decide to throw her hat into the ring. host: 2008 campaign -- did you see evidence of sexism in that campaign? guest: 2008 did demonstrate some gender dynamics. there's no question that the media -- not the mainstream media -- focused on hillary clinton's and sarah palin's appearance and backgrounds that seemed to misogynist. that was a very small percentage of overall coverage, that those kinds of examples were played and replayed, and i think it sends a signal to voters that there was rampant sexism. on the part of voters, it is difficult to determine whether there was any. some women supported hillary clinton because they wanted to

make history. there were others who were under no circumstances going to support her, not only because of her own adage but because -- host: new hampshire. hillary clinton teared up talking about her campaign. edmund muskie teared up, 1972. he was out. is there sexism there? guest: hillary clinton, when she teared up, did not engage in an emotional breakdown. her voice cracked and there might have been a little bit of water in her eyes. this was not a meltdown. but voters are really looking, i think, for evidence that she was a normal human being, and that sent that signal. it did not suggest she was weak or unable to govern, it reinforced the human side that ultimately worked to her advantage, at least in that particular primary. host: ken, from new york, independent line, go ahead with your comment or question for jennifer lawless. caller: we had a lady in upstate new york, a hotly contested

local race for the assembly. won by two votes, and it was interesting to watch her because she was an extremely bright woman -- a farmer, a mother. i don't think she had an idea of how all-consuming the task was, but she stayed with it and she did a bang-up job. i was also wondering if there are inherent male-female differences? typically my impression of my own gender is that when we were boys we were all competitive in different ways. it might be chess, sports, the math club, things like that. and a lot of men are drawn into politics because -- i wonder if she has any views on whether there are geographic differences, in the united states and maybe even extending

to europe, where they seem to be making headway. thank you. guest: thanks for those questions. in terms of biological differences or inherent differences, i tend to think socialization overcomes any differences that might exist. in part, that is because the people who run for office are fundamentally different than everybody else. if you look at congress, the 535 people who served there are far more like each other than they are anyone else in the general population. so uncovering gender differences among them becomes very difficult just because they are so competitive, driven, assertive, and this is the case for the men and women who serve, which suggests that the manner in which you are raised and the qualities in which you are raised to possess and exhibit can be taught and can be socialized. in terms of geographic differences, we really did not find any. it did not matter where these

young and them and -- young men and women were from. geography really did not play a role. across the board and across democratic groups, women are less likely than men to express interest in the process. host: have you done a compare and contrast politics business in other fields, in politics, law, where women are doing, performing at different levels? >> what is really interesting is for business and law, we have surveyed over the last 12 years about 8500 men and women who work in those professions who are similarly situated, so they have managed to achieve the same levels of professional success in a male-dominated profession. yet it is from those professions that we see this gender gap in political ambition emerge. something seems fundamentally

different about politics because these are women who have achieved the highest level of success in other male dominated realms. they are just not interested in doing it in the political realm. host: diana is a democratic candidate in rockford, illinois. tell us about your officeholding or you're running. caller: i am not presently a candidate. i recently ran for local office as alderman. i found the experience very enlightening and informative, and i will continue to run for office. i question for your guest is, did she find in her survey any differences when it comes to economic or culture? i am a woman of color, and i did find because i live in a heavily majority districts that there was a kickback against that. did she find any of that displayed in her findings? guest: we did not find any systematic differences in that way, but we are interested in finding if anyone is interested

in running office am a and -- in running for office. while there is a lot of research that verifies the trends that you identify, those are not the questions we were interested in asking. host: john boehner recently said that the gop needs to be more "sensitive" to women. guest: yes, and then several republicans came out and explained that the way to create that sensitivity was to talk to their wives and daughters about it. not the best way to phrase it. to the extent that the democrats are able to exploit the gender gap, they win elections. you have to look no further than 2012, to the mistakes of todd akin or richard murdoch. but this is why claire mccaskill

is still on the united states senate. it is true the republicans have to figure out how to speak to half the population, and they also should mean it. it is not just an example of opening a binder and reading talking points. it is a terrible phrase but started out as an ok idea, which was a way to let gubernatorial candidates to find out who they would be appointing.

when mitt romney did what he did in the states, the whole thing became part of a joke. the reality was republicans were doing other things to reinforce the idea that they were not taking female candidates and voters seriously. host: this tweet -- "do men run differently against women for fear of being viewed as a bully?" guest: in the 1990's, male candidates were more likely to talk about women's issues to show they were sensitive and capable of dealing with those issues. now we have reached a point where campaign tactics look a little more similar across the board. host: you have a chart in here about visiting websites, political websites, and men go there more often, period. it has been over the years of this program, two to one, men call in more than women. consistently for 15 years. guest: the fact that we found that among 18 to 24-year-olds reinforced that. the more things change, the more they stay the same. we have a situation where politics remains seen as a male domain. it is an arena in which men are

seen as being embraced and women are not. we have to get away from that. having more women on sunday morning talk shows, political talk radio, having them write to letters to the editor and op-ed s will begin to open the door and let people see that women's presence can be embraced when they enter the political arena. host: john from lakeland, florida, go ahead with your comment for professor lawless. caller: we don't tolerate racial profiling, but isn't your organization gender profiling? i would call it sexist. guest: the mission is to close the gender gap in political leadership, so we provide courses that call attention to the way that women in politics

fare. we provide leadership training to direct people to the government. we have special events where we bring in women who talk about their stances, and all of our classes and programs and events bring in male and female students across the country. our goal is to bring people information so they can make decisions for themselves. host: amber is a candidate or office holder in williamsburg, massachusetts. tell us what office you were in or are seeking or are holding. caller: i ran a campaign in a community college that i attended in southern california, a student trustee position, so we were compensated by the state of california, and i was serving with a board and the president like anyone else who would have run in the city. >> you can see the rest of this discussion at our website c- span.org. we are going live to the u.s.

house, members are coming in to start the next session of the 113 congress. now live to the floor of the u.s. house. the speaker pro tempore: this being the day fixed, pursuant to the 20th amendment to the constitution for the meeting of the second session of the 113th congress, the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's room, washington, d.c.,