tall, i would be in the nba, but hypotheticals are hypotheticals. ord paul or marco rubio chris christie. is there a candidate out there on either side that breaks that? if elected in 2016? well, first, i do not think there was anyone at the time when clinton was getting impeached, looking at that as an error of less polarization. >> the golden days. >> the golden era in washington. i think you did have a lot of people with experience from the clinton white house in the first term of the obama administration. also, you are always fighting the last war.

try to passntons health-care reform, the complaint was that they had handed the law down on high, and they had ignored the prerogatives of congress, and so the approach this time was different. framework, a bipartisan framework, largely because it had been built on the republicanrom the alternative to hillary care, and they thought that if the details were worked out, they would be able to do something in a bipartisan way than if it were a president handing things down from on high. theink they underestimated degree of resolve on the part of republicans. republicans came out scorched earth against the stimulus at a time when the economy was in freefall. i mean, this was the bill to prevent us from going into a depression, and not only was it the bill to keep us from going into a repression, it was part infrastructure spending, which

is what democrats wanted, but also more than one third tax cuts, which is what republicans wanted. i look back on the bush era, and i do not remember getting anything in legislation passed by george bush. there was a political decision that they were going to go scorched earth, irrespective of -- or what they were currently four. i think it is wrong to suggest anyone else would have gotten that result out of them. >> the amusing part of the stimulus reinventing the that is where we thought we were going to let where and her chairman

the people i tried, and i had people who tried to do business with the obama administration. they were rebuffed by the house democrats. and i think are they better or smarter. it goes to what occurred right now, which is, if, indeed, if these were policies that came from republicans, which is weferent from being popular, would still be passing jack kemp laws. you hear the democrats saying these were democratic ideas. they proved they were in competent, and the health care execution and what we have seen so far proves the levers of government him and the massive spending that has gone on under this president and the failure to competently execute stuff, and while the country is not keen to paying attention to what there is a overseas,

lot of nervousness that this administration was getting us out of the conflicts we were in, which i think the republic -- we doing. all of the talk of hillary will be smart, she will be the good one. she will be the smart, organized one. this undercuts all of the efforts by the democrats right now to say trust us for two more years. say,heard a friend of mine and i think this was appropriate, the last two w presidents had been president for half of the country. they have doubled down. , barack obama from illinois. who were the presidents before them? bill clinton from arkansas, a culturally conservative place, and ronald reagan from hollywood, so the question is who isher party nominate

from their own corner of the country, and on the republican side, what i think is so dangerous is that there are republicans from blue states, whether it is a scott walker or a chris christie, who are legitimate contenders, whereas hillary clinton, for better or worse is seen as a new yorker. they do not have a bench. those who are in the mix right now, but i think that is a challenge, which is to keep alive that team in states where democrats do not particularly wins senate or presidential levels these days, so they do have a bunch of people who can reach across the rest of the country. >> we would like to speak to that.

>> i will say one thing, but i think one of the stories, 63 seats in the house, his store, by the number of takeovers republicans. that matters no matter what in terms of policy. it matters much more in the year before redistricting. i think that was a huge moment there, and we will let these guys. >> let's just go in order. >> i think of the democrats had and 2010, the006 majority in the house, i think they would be in a majority in a lot more legislators. , and before a redistricting cycle, it will not be a midterm election. it could be where they do fairly well.

worseis cannot get any than it was during this decade when you saw any this iteration of modern democrats. i was on the democratic and there council, were democrats across the world. i would guess that less than 1/5 of them are in office today. i would caution anyone say it can never get any worse. >> [laughter] glad we have that behind us. we can look forward to 2008. media, the cable culture, our politics at the national level, that is pushing our polarization down. you can see it. the wisconsin legislature was not necessarily a legislature a year ago of warm friends across

bil, so that is a lot. ifin, i come back -- even you go to states where we have single party domination, i come back. california is a great example, where a state senator represents more people than in congress now. those seats are functionally driven i whoever nominates the next person in an open seat. you have california term limits, where there is a lot more open seats, and that is where we need to go back and create smaller districts and bring more people in the process. every thirdg about person in new hampshire has been a member of the state legislature. they give you a drivers license, and here is your membership in but that isure, healthy, not just for a small new england state, but you get more and more people involved in the process, so if it is an issue with a garbage dump, there are people who lead community

as thets, and communities are disintegrating, and we are becoming the social facebook electronic communities, we need to rebuild that. i think that is where the challenges are in that society. with spent a lot of time the house and senate, and there is a majority debate, which is intriguing. would it be unwise for democrats to not at least think about nominating a governor, given the past record of success for governors? it seems that everyone basically on the democratic side has said, well, if hillary wants it, she can have it. is that healthy for the country? are governors not a better bet? >> well, this is not a slight against brian. >> you do not want to get on the wrong side of that guy. >> i do think hillary clinton

will be the strongest nominee thinke democrats, and i it would be a powerful election to have a woman leading the presidential ticket. i do not think that you can discount the inspirational fact that hillary brings to the table, in addition to policy gravitas and world right presents from the secretary of so even though i think there are some strong governors out there, i do think hillary is the strongest nominee. what is going to be interesting, to me, is looking at what happens in the next round of gubernatorial elections, because you're going to see a lot of republican governors who make budget decisions to cut education early in their terms but who may be running for reelection with a rising economy behind them in their states, and you are going to see a lot of these congressional races and even u.s. senate races possibly

being affected by the state political dynamic and what has been going on in the state legislature and the statehouse which may either reinforce or cut against this. >> he saw a little bit of that in virginia, how the republican party got branded, with bob mcdonnell. the huge, important states with competitive races, pennsylvania, florida, michigan, ohio. it is not insignificant who wins those races with both the house and senate races but also the presidential. >> we will stop there. >> sure. you to the panel. a round of applause for them. [applause] and on behalf of the board sponsors, thank you for coming, and we hope you will attend our next event. to learn more, i direct you to our website. thank you. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014]

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> the bureau of labor statistics released its data, with the unemployment rate falling, and the economy adding 74 thousand jobs. at today's white house briefing, press secretary jay carney responded to reporter questions about the jobs report. >> back to the jobs numbers, it jay, i seem to remember you at job growthshowing us over the past couple of years, and the implication, the white house taking credit for the president's policies, and now we have this report. barely treading water. ominously, the workforce rate or participation rate, we are down at a low for almost 40 years.

>> that is pretty much where it has been since 2009. >> do the president's policies have to do, are they to blame at all with this jobs report? >> as i think you note, when we talk about the monthly jobs begin with always whether it comes in below expectations that there is more work to do, and this report is no different. but it does represent is 46 consecutive months of private sector job creation. 8.2 million jobs. >> that is barely anything. >> we need to have economic priorities, and those priorities are the president priorities, and he wants to advance an

agenda that delivers on those priorities, that continues the expands theat economic growth. so there's no question that when you have -- again, i think we've seen periods of late where the numbers have come in way over expectations, and we've see periods where they come in below. what we have seen generally is consistent private sector job creation. what we have seen also, labor participation rate notwithstanding, is a fall in the unemployment rate from 10 percent to 6.7 percent. 6.7 percent is too high. it is too high. and that's why we need to -- despite the drop, it is too high. that's why we have to keep working and have this as our focus, and not get hung up over ideological fights when we need to be focused on what we can do, coming together, to spur job creation and economic opportunity. that's what the president is

focused on. >> but do you see this as an ominous jobs report? >> i'm not an economist; i think our economists were out there talking about it today. what we've seen in general over recent months has been largely positive economic data. i'm not suggesting this is anything beyond the latest report, but i would point you to economists to give you a broader macro picture of where we are economically. the fact is we have work to do. we're continuing to grow, we're continuing to create jobs, but we have to grow faster and we have to create more jobs. that should be our priority here in washington. that's what folks in the country expect our priorities to be. they don't want us re-litigating old ideological fights. they don't want us veering off to have debates about issues that don't seem to affect their lives directly. so the president is very focused on these matters, and you've heard him talk about them a lot lately and you'll hear him talk

about them a lot in the coming days and weeks. >> house speaker john boehner also responded to the december jobs report, saying -- "washington journal," we will look at marijuana laws and the sale of marijuana for recreational use. allard guests are dan riffle and sabet, followed by discussion on the fbi, their budget, and how they adapt to law enforcement and national security. our guest is president of the agents association, reynaldo "washington

span.al," 7 a.m., on c- >> the security inside of iraq, i spent my life over there. 2010,006 until september i was there as we continued to reduce the level of violence, and the sectarian violence was going on. i believe we left it in a place where it is capable to move forward. we have now seen because of several political issues situationo iraq, that has now devolved into something that is concerning. about iraq.not just this is something we have to be cognizant of as the look across the middle east, what is going on in serious, that is going on in lebanon, what is going on inside of iraq, and it is this sectarianon --

influences he will try to take advantage of this. >> this weekend on c-span, general ray odierno looks at the security situation in the middle east and the future of the u.s. army, saturday morning at 10:00 a.m. eastern. live saturday on c-span two, .olitical sciences span3, american history tv, prohibition and the rise of the gangster, sunday morning, right past 10:00 eastern. >> next, a former south dakota democratic senator tom daschle talks about issues facing congress in the year ahead, including health care and immigration. in 2004, senator daschle lost his reelection race to john thune and went on to cofound the bipartisan policy center in 2007.

this runs just under one hour. [applause] >> dr., thank you very much for that introduction, and thank you for that warm reception. i have been looking forward to the opportunity to be with you this morning and would love to get into a dialogue in a few minutes. but let me share some initial thoughts with you. in politics you get introduced in a lot of interesting ways. i think my fondest introduction came a few years ago when i was introduced as a model politician and a model united states senator and model leader and a model american. my wife showed me the word "model" as it is defined, and it is defined as "a small replica of the real thing." [laughter] so the doctor didn't use that

word, and i appreciate that very much. i think you have had a model week from everything i hear. i am thrilled the bipartisan center has had the opportunity to work with the wilson center. i hope it could be the first of a series of projects like this, and i would love to have more of your input as to whether anything could be done to improve the experiences that you have had this week. you have talked about some of the key issues -- political reform, energy, immigration, the federal budget. i have got to believe it has been a very rewarding experience for most of you. i love the story of harry truman in 1948, who invited the first president of israel to come to talk about a similar agenda in the oval office. as they were talking, president truman leaned over to the president and said, with all these complicated issues, how would you like to be president of 189 million people?

the present replied, how would you like to be president of 2 million presidents? i think that is the essence of that story is that in the state of israel, and i would argue in the united states today, there are many people who would like to be president who have opinions at least as prominent and as strongly held as the president of the united states. that is increasingly creating a challenge of governance that i am sure you have confronted throughout your discussions today. the national environment today

is arguably the most polarized it has been in over 75 years. as a result of this polarization, we have had great difficulty in reaching consensus on the very issues that you have spent a whole week talking about, and you have a better understanding of why it has been difficult to reach consensus as result of the conversations and discussions that you have had. but our national environment is polarized in many different connotations, and i think most prominent of all the connotations is the division, the polarization that exists between those who believe our country was built on rugged individualism and that we ought to do everything we can to protect that rugged individualism and those who believe that all we have achieved in this country was done in large measure because of collective action. rugged individualism versus collective action. i do not think that those two positions are irreconcilable. but history has shown over time that reaching some reconciliation between those two philosophical points of view is oftentimes an extraordinary

challenge, because what happens as a result of this debate is that in large measure it becomes a debate about what is the proper role of government in society today. that is at its essence one of the most important central questions and factors that play themselves out in a myriad of different ways as these debates about issues take place. what is the role of government? and yet no one that i know of would argue that we should have no government. the question is along the spectrum of complete government involvement, responsibility, to minimal responsibility, and where in that spectrum should it lie? it varies from one particular public policy question to the next. i call this debate the noise of

democracy, the noise of democracy. it is not a very concordant sound. it is not very stereophonic. it beats the alternatives, as you consider egypt, syria, iraq, afghanistan, countries in africa. the noise of violence is even worse. i would argue that the sound of silence for people -- where people disappear because of what they believe -- is at least equal if not worse than that. so this noise of democracy is part of what happens in a democratic republic. this noise has been magnified in recent years, especially by the tea party, a tea party that has very strong views about the questions about the role of government. their view is that in most areas

of public policy, the government should not have any role at all. i have got a note to turn off my phone, but i have already done that. so government -- they argue that if government can do things right, so you should really not do much of anything at all. and because this group engenders in enormous amount of political clout, right now especially, they have almost gotten their wish. this is by far the least productive congress has been in 100 years. as a result of the realization, that lack of productivity is part of the agenda of the tea party and do something in and of itself that is debated. should we be celebrating or should we be lamenting the fact

that we have not seen a very productive congress today? as bad as things have been these last couple of years, one still has to keep it in historical perspective. things were a lot worse in the mid-19th century. i should say in the 1840's, a resolution was passed that all fisticuffs had to occur off the floor of the house of representatives. of course, the very famous incident where preston brooks, a congressman, came over with his cane and beat charles sumner within an inch of his life. we have not had any fisticuffs to my knowledge on the senate or house floors for several generations. maybe we are making a little bit of progress. yet this cacophony of voices and

this noise of democracy is certainly one that i think we need to be very concerned about. this vocal minority believes in large measure not only in a very limited role of government, but they have a tactical approach that has had a lot to do with our productivity in congress. that tactical approach is that it is imperative that members of congress stand their ground rather than find common ground, that finding common ground is tantamount to capitulation and that members of congress sent to washington to represent their constituencies should never capitulate. but obviously in a democracy, in a democratic republic, it is literally impossible to govern without finding common ground.

governance cannot work in a democracy without some compromise and some appreciation of the importance of reconciling the differences of opinion that exist among our 320 million people. those of the challenges, in light of the fact that you have a very strongly held what have you represented by a very vocal minority in congress who believe that there are very limited roles for government, at the same time they believe there should not be a compromise. that leads oftentimes then to the circumstances we are facing today and the challenges that we face with regard to productivity in congress itself. i used to keep a photo of president johnson before he was president. as you probably remember, he was

majority leader for six years. there is this iconic picture of lbj towering over senator theodore green, a senator from rhode island, demanding a vote on something. the reason i kept that picture in my office was because i aspired to have that capacity, but obviously i could not do that if i wanted to. towering over anybody is not my strong suit. [laughter] but i kept it as a reminder, really -- of really lyndon johnson's extraordinary capacity to serve as a leader and use whatever tactics were required at the time to get the job done, and there are so many people that conversely over the years have expressed a yearning for that day when you could back a senator into a corner and twist his arm and get his vote. but the fact is that when lyndon

johnson was majority leader, from 1954 until 1960, if i were to take a poll and ask how many filibusters, cloture votes do you think he had to deal with? you might be surprised that he only had one, and that was the 1957 vote on the civil rights act of 1957. harry reid, in the last six years as majority leader, has had 322 cloture votes. so one in the 1950's, 322 in the first decade of the 21st century. we have had more filibusters on nominations in the last five years than we have had in all of history. and so the number of filibusters and the extraordinary change in

the environment that it had a lot to do with how problematic it is to govern today on the critical issues. as a result, take the four issues you have spent a lot of time talking about this week -- immigration, energy, political reform, and the federal budget i would have to acknowledge this morning as we began the second session of this congress that the prospects for getting any of those four done are substantially below 50-50. i would say of the four, immigration may have the best chance. so what do we do? what is it that we ought to consider as we look at the state of governance in our collective -- elected capacity here in washington in the year 2014?

i would argue there are a number of things we could and probably should do, and i would argue that they are defined in large measure by how difficult they are, to find as i can to say in civil terms that there are big things and little things that could be done to advance the cause of bipartisanship, if we really wanted to achieve it. some do not, but the vast majority of people in this country what to see congress act more productively, want to see more comity, want to see more inspiration and aspirational approaches to our national policy agenda. so let me talk briefly about the big things and the little things, and then i would love to get into a conversation with you. on the big side of things, the things that they can rethink, number one is how we select our candidates.

increasingly in this country today, our elected officials choose their voters here and the voters do not choose our elected officials. and they do that of course through gerrymandering in particular, moving districts around to make sure you got a very defined group of people that are in your congressional district. that is happening more and more, and i think as a result democracy has suffered. we also have primaries today that are skewed and in many cases dominated by a very small fraction. the tea party has had enormous success in the parties because they are so well organized, recognizing that voter turnout in primaries is quite low. number two, i think that one of the biggest challenges we have,

believe it or not, is the airplane, and i should explain. the airplane has made it very easy for people to leave washington because it is so easy to leave washington, they leave on thursdays, they come back on tuesdays, and they try to govern on wednesdays. one cannot run a country as sophisticated as this one day a week. we have got to recognize that we have got to spend more time in washington dealing with the nation's business than we do today, and i will come back to that in a minute. but the airplane and all of its ramifications has had a profound effect on how congress works with each other, the fact that they do not socialize as they used to, the fact that no one moves their families to washington anymore -- all of that has contributed to this lack of time spent in this city

doing what they were elected to do. the media has changed. when i first started in politics, we had three networks. walter cronkite was the referee. now the media is more the participant than the referee. whether it is rachel maddow or rush limbaugh, there is a significant amount of philosophical and political inclination as these media celebrities are able to influence the perception of and ultimately the actions of many of the members of congress. and finally i would say the last big, big issue is money. in the last cycle, there were two races where the amount of money spent in the race exceeded $80 million. a typical congressman or senator has to raise -- i should say senator -- has to raise about $10,000 every single day he or

she is in office to be able to accommodate the average cost of a senate campaign today. money is driving a big part of the agenda, and it is something that we have got to be concerned about. let me turn to the smaller things. i mentioned already that we do not spend enough time in washington. in 2014, we're going to spend about nine days every month in session. nine days. we are scheduled to spend 113 days totally out of 365 in session. one cannot do the nation's work nine days a month. secondly, there is a real case to be made in my opinion for earmarks. i know you all know the term "earmarks," but it gives the member the opportunity to direct funding for his constituencies. we have eliminated earmarks.

and i think that was an overreaction. there was abuse of the earmarks system, but because members of congress no longer participate as directly in legislation, it is much harder to pass it as before. third, transparency. too much sunshine actually burns. and i think in some cases we have got to be concerned about how much transparency there is because it has had a very stilted effect, a very -- it caused a constraining environment with regard to the members' abilities to express themselves in a candid way as discussions are held about legislation, and somehow we have got to work on that. the so-called hastert rule is where you have to have a

majority of the majority before it gets taken to the floor. that is really not in keeping with the founding fathers' notion about what it democracy should be. having more caucuses where members would sit in a room and meet with one another is also something that would have enormous impact over time if it were done more frequent. finally, there is not enough socializing, like i wish there were, like there used to be among members of congress, and because there is not enough socializing, there's is not enough relationship, and because there is not enough relationship, there's not enough trust, and if there's not enough trust, there's not enough opportunity to come to some terms and agreements. so each of these fixes i think require attention and ultimately could make a major difference in

how washington functions. as i said, at its very heart, coming to some ultimate evolution about the role of government in society is going to be absolutely essential. i might add one last thing. that is the importance of leadership. we need leadership. we have been very fortunate to have at critical times in our history, the washingtons, the lincolns, the roosevelts. we need leadership as it relates to finding ways to ensure that we can put responsible and representative democracy at work again. i think the consequences of dysfunction could become increasingly problematic, affecting our quality of life, affecting our security nationally, affecting even our stature around the world. so these are not small matters. these are ones we all need to be very concerned about. it is something i hope you have given it thought to over the course of the week.

before i take your questions, let me just end with a story that i have always thought was pretty special. it is the story of benjamin franklin who, as you know, was one of the key members of the initial group of men who came together to write the constitution and to write most of the initial foundational premises upon which our democratic republic was built. as he was leading one night in the deliberations about our constitution, and woman in the crowd yelled, "mr. franklin, have you decided what will it be a monarchy, or will we have a republic?" he thought a minute, and he yelled back to the woman in the crowd, "ma'am, we will have a republic if we can keep it." that has been our charge for 200 years, to keep this republic. there are only two ways to do

it. one is to fight for it when you have to, and over a million americans have fought for it over these 220 years, and the other is to work at it every day. it is the responsibility of the members of congress of course to work at it, and as hard as it is to work at it these days, especially in times of polarization and reaching consensus, that challenge has hit new heights. it is the responsibility for us all. each of us in this room has responsibility. in our own way to work at it. you know that, or you would not be here. i am glad you are. i hope you have had a good week, and i look forward to taking your questions. thank you all very much. [applause]

>> thank you so much for being here. my name is michael arthur. my question relates to gerrymandering. what reforms have been proposed, and what do you think would be an effective solution? >> a great question, and i would say that as you know it is largely a state responsibility. some states have taken it very seriously, iowa in particular. iowa has made this as nonpolitical an effort over the years as they possibly can, requiring that all the counties within a congressional district the contiguous and that they be roughly equal and that the balance exists in large measure as a result of boundaries that already are in existence rather than carving up and deciding new

boundaries as one goes. they have had enormous success. they have an equal balance between republicans and democrats today in large measure because they have felt so strongly about this. another thing that has been done in recent years was done in california, which now requires the top two vote getters in the primary run against each other. and so, it is probably too early to tell whether that has worked as well as people have hoped. the early indications are that it is working reasonably well so far. those are the kinds of things that have to be done if we are going to get this thing addressed. i also think we have got to be concerned about how primaries function today in dealing with low voter turnout, and the influence that certain groups can have as a result of that low voter turnout is something that

has to be addressed, and that is partly a function of how much we spend in campaigns, which is also a big factor. thank you. >> thank you. >> my name is mike. you touched on the filibuster already, but as a former senate majority leader, how do you feel about harry reid's decision to take the nuclear option out? >> i support it. i think senator reid had little choice. i think it is unacceptable for a nominee who has been vetted and nominated by the president of the united states, any president, to be required to put his life on hold, his or her life on hold, for a couple of years without knowing what the circumstances are going to be. you cannot do that. and so, number one, i think that that factor is one of the most

important. i also believe even the fact that as i said in my comments we have had more filibusters on nominations in the last five years than in all of history put together. the trends are not good. senator reid limited this nuclear option, so-called, eliminating the filibuster only on nominations. my concern is that this could slip into other areas of legislating as well, and i would be concerned about that. the two things that i think would cure the problem, but they are hard to do, is, one, require members of congress to hold the floor if you're going to be filibustering, and, two, not move on to another piece of legislation. we call it dual tracking. stay on a particular issue until the issue is resolved. those two things are one of the reasons why we have had so few filibusters in the past.

>> thank you. thank you. >> hi. i was wondering if you could share some ideas you might have about decreasing the debt. >> decreasing the debt. i think as you know we have got a chasm between what we spend and what we raise today. we are at about -- it is getting better. the economy is getting stronger, and as a result, and i will come back to that in a minute -- as a result, the spread between what we raise and what we spend is different. in recessions we spend more because there is a lot of the safety nets that are used more frequently. in essence, what i think we have to do is to bring our revenue to the historic levels we have had in the past, around 20% of gdp,

and bring our spending -- and it is currently right now between 16% and 17% -- so we have to raise revenue and bring down spending, not only on the discretionary side, on the amount appropriated, but on the entitlement side, from 22.5% down to 20%. that would bring us roughly in balance. it is not necessary we be exactly in balance, but that would be my choice. how do we raise revenue? there are three things that have to be considered. first is the most important -- to keep growing the economy. the more the economy grows, more revenue will be raised. secondly, i think we have got an imbalance. you do not have the purpose of the we have had with regard to our tax code like we had before, and i think we have got to continue to build to make it more progressive. third, i think we have to

eliminate a lot of these crazy loopholes. we have amended the tax code. we have passed tax simplification in 1986, probably before most of you were born, and we have had over 8000 amendments to the tax code since 1986. most of them have had to do with creating more loopholes. it has got to do with the loophole challenge. on the spending side, we can do a lot with the entitlement programs. the legislators really have two choices. they can cut and shift the programs, and that is what we have done in the past, cut them back and shift the cost of something else, or we can improve their efficiency. health care is the best example. we spend about $800 billion unnecessarily. there is a lot we can do on the entitlement signed by redesigning and improving. that is what i would do. >> thank you.

>> thank you. >> senator daschle, earlier you spoke about silence and how people should not be locked in this silence in our country. my question, we've been talking about immigration a lot this week, what do you propose we do to ensure the millions of undocumented immigrants fighting for citizenship are not lost in the silence? >> that is such an important question now. i think it is tragic we have the circumstances we do today with regard to undocumented people in this country. they are denied health care. they are denied insurance. they are denied insurance. it is illegal for them to be denied health care per se, but oftentimes it is tantamount to denying them health care,

because they do not -- they are not likely to be received well if they do not come in with insurance or documentation, even in an emergency room. about 25,000 people a year die simply because they do not have insurance in this country. it starts with basic life-and- death issues like that. it is important that immigration has historically been one of our greatest strengths. i look around this room and i see an impressive diversity. i think more women than men, which is a good thing, and i think diversity in this country is something we have almost taken for granted. that diversity can be because we have migrated from different parts of the world. i think that has always been one of our greatest strengths. but yet there is a lot of resistance to that belief today. so i think there are three

things to ensure that we really number one, there has to be more congressional focus on the perils of living in this country as an undocumented person today. i do not think the congress has focused adequately on that question. that question, how do they live and what are their circumstances? number one, there has to be issues dealing with living in this country as an undocumented person today. number two, advocacy groups need to step up to the plate and be more visible. and, three, i am hopeful that these groups can organize themselves more effectively than they have in the past, and if not, have direct political influence, at least in an indirect way by increasing the visibility and the understanding

and the empathy of the challenges that they face and as a result our country faces by this dilemma. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> hello. you mentioned earlier that the debate is really over the role of government in this country. but what is your opinion on the role of this country in the world? in your opinion, will the next generation or even the current legislatures and executives in office, will they continue military action or will we see more negotiation about diplomacy, and sort of a bipartisanship worldwide? >> we are seeing a dramatic change in the world landscape over the last 30 years. it used to be a very bipolar coexistence in the cold war

between communist countries and non-communists countries, and that bipolar simplicity was both good and bad. there were great dangers like the cuban missile crisis and the possibility of a nuclear exchange, but that simplicity i think lulled us into a complacency about how we look at the world. today there are four levels, not just one. we have the military level, which will continue to be dominant for a long time to come. then, the second level is economic. there is an economic competition. china has become very powerful as a nation, not because of military strength, but on the basis of their economic strength. i think that is different than it has ever been before. i think that change has really

made a difference. i think that is a realization that we have not fully absorbed yet. i'm thinking with regard to our own strategy. at the third level, there is a new nationalism that is taking place all over the world with smaller countries that are trying to exert themselves a lot more effectively. i would list countries like israel, taiwan, singapore, and a lot of other countries -- brazil, clearly -- that have had sort of a newfound prominence in the world as a result of their success. and in the fourth level is the one that is the most troubling and intriguing, and that is what i would call the transnational level. transnational level is dominated by people who have no national identity -- hackers, whether it is al qaeda or someone hacking

into systems that may exist somewhere in the world and does enormous damage. we have to be concerned especially with that fourth tier. our security will be more affected by that fourth tier than the first. the question is, what do we do about it? to any extent that we can do it in a sick way it requires four d's. first is defense. there is a need for military strategy and infrastructure. second is diplomacy. second d. we need to put more emphasis on nation-to-nation relationships. third d is development, recognizing how important it is to allow the tide to rise on votes anywhere in the world, especially in the developing world, putting greater emphasis

on development is critical. the fourth is democracy. people have to have voices for themselvese. that fourth d is critical. we have minimized that. we put more resources today in the first d than the others put together. and i think we need to find a better balance as we go forward. that is a long answer to your question. >> thank you. >> hi. in the past two years you have been a voice in the role of health care has taken in our country and how we can look to cover everyone in the country. a news reporter praised chris christie for firing people after they lied to him. there was a lot of criticism about obama's responsibility for assigning responsibility in the slow rollout of the health care.

and the problems. i would wonder about that and how obama did not criticize his administration for the health- care rollout. >> that is a valid question. i think what the president would probably say, and i have not talked him personally about it, but have had many conversations with people around him, and i think what they would argue is that, number one, there was not any one person who was responsible who could take all the responsibility to the extent that he or she should be fired as a result. it was a team effort. the team failed, and as a result the team all is being held accountable. what the president would emphasize is it is almost like a sporting event.

the first month was the first inning. the second month was the second inning. we are now in about the fifth inning. the game is not over. the question is how it looks by the time we reach the ninth inning or the end of the game, to use a baseball analogy. i think today circumstances are dramatically different than they were on the 1st of october. about 2.5 million people now are enrolled in the exchanges. about 4.4 million people as a result of their eligibility for medicaid are now enrolled in medicaid for the first time, since october 1. about 3 million young adults have signed up on their family plans. you have almost 10 million people since the first of october who have insurance, if not for the first time, who have

insurance in a permanent way and far better insurance than they probably ever had before. so i think to take any rash action with regard to disciplining somebody before the game was over would have been premature, and i'm very hopeful and somewhat optimistic that circumstances are going to get better as these months unfold. >> thank you. >> hello. campaign finances. mr. glickman made a comment how he likes small contributions and that he dislikes having big contributions. >> first of all, i think we have compounded the problem dramatically by allowing large contributions. it has not done anything but accelerate the arms race with regard to money in politics, and that is unfortunate.

a typical member of the senate today has to spend 2/3 of his final two years in the senate raising money if it is a competitive race. you should not have to do that. i personally would favor a constitutional amendment that would allow us to put severe limits on the amount of money that is raised and spent. i would not allow any fundraising while congress is in session. i would put individual limits much more constrained than they are today in an effort to bring down the cost of campaigns. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> cody cooper. you are talking about the media having more of a participatory stance rather than a referee approach. i was wondering how you would influence the media to adopt the referee approach since they have a profit motive? >> that is one of the big issues

that really defies any simple solutions. it is really a paradigm. when i talk about leadership, it is imperative that it is not just government leadership that we need. it is private leadership. we need to ensure that the networks and that others in the media take the responsibility and show the leadership to ensure that there is good balance. i remember the day we lost the fairness doctrine which required balance. while we had that requirement, there was a lot more of a level playing field with regard to political rhetoric and all that came from it. that will probably never happen again. it is imperative that we try to incent, but that we encourage leaders to step up and be responsible more than they are

today. >> i come from the nation of nepal, and after 15 years of uprising, the country has seen a path to democracy. what is the one major piece of advice that you could give to a new democracy? >> i am inspired and excited about what i see. it has been a rough and uncertain road. you have made real progress. i think there are four pillars that countries interested in building a democracy have to be cognizant of in order for democracy to succeed.

the first pillar is in many respects probably the most important, and that is tolerance a willingness to accept the fact that somebody disagrees with you, that you do not agree with them, and next that while the fact that you may agree is great, a tolerance of other people's views and beliefs is fundamental to success. that is number one -- tolerance. the second is respect for the rule of law, because you make a mockery of democracy if you pass laws and do not abide by them. respect for the rule of law is the second pillar. the third pillar is participation. the quality of our democracy suffers in primaries with very low participation. so it is true in developed democracies like ours and in developing democracies like yours, having high levels are participation is really critical. and the fourth is what i just said about leadership.

you need leadership in the public and the private sector. that is an important pillar. without leadership you have anarchy. you need leadership to give that participation direction. those are the four pillars. we all strive. i do not think the united states is as tolerant a society as it should be. i do not think we respect the rule of law as we should. we lack participation sometimes in our elections, and there are times when i think we can do better with regard to leadership. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> hi, senator. i want to say i'm not usually nervous to ask questions, but i grew up watching your government and i appreciate your contribution to our country. i am impressed with the knowledge that you have about

our government and how it was formed and the history of it, and you have used several examples that created an image of how that applied and what that did. it really hit me how important it is we know where we come from and how we got there and what worked and what did not work. but my question is more in line with next week, which we are doing media, but in my lifetime, social media changed with the election of presidents kennedy and nixon and how people can use media to get their point across. i remember -- and i cannot remember the issue and i cannot remember the resolution, but i remember one time that you had a public meeting in the mall, i think it was either with a group or an individual, and you tried to get people watching to understand the point of what you was you were talking about. it might have been response to

the president's address to the congress. so it hit me and i have noticed that you use symbolism to explain things. you create a picture in our minds of we understand what you are talking about. from an educational point of view, you want your citizens to be informed and understand the decisions you're working on and making. and appreciate that, and i was wondering if you always had that or if that is something that you learned as you governed, that you wanted your constituency to understand, and what kind of benefits have you seen because of that ability to govern? >> thank you for your kind comments. partly it is acquired. you see many different approaches to communication in politics today. some fit the individual better than others. it is important to the extent you use the description paint the picture. it is important to paint pictures.

that is an acquired ability that i'm still trying to learn. i think it is important to speak in ways that people understand, that allow sort of a picture to be painted. and i think the more one can do that, the more effective one can be as a communicator. i am flattered that you would call attention to that. as i say, i still have a lot to work to do, but that is one thing i have attempted to do -- claude pepper was one of my mentors. he was a congressman from florida. he loved metaphors and pictures. he was such an eloquent speaker. mo udall also had that capacity. it is a tool that you want to be able to acquire is a public speaker and a public servant in particular.

>> i appreciate you telling people in my generation to take part in what is going on. >> hi. we were talking about education and especially the voucher system. i was wondering what your opinion of school choice and the voucher system was. >> i generally think that having school choice is a good thing. i think sometimes it is overrated. i think vouchers can be a good thing, but i also think they are overrated. i do not think -- i think if everybody got to go to a charter school or a private school things would be resolved is too simplistic. we need to look at all the tools we have available to us. i know extraordinary public

schools that have served their communities extremely well, but i also know there are charter schools and private schools that have served their communities well. i do not think there is any solution. i think we need to find the test in all of these models and apply them where they work test within a community. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> i'm a graduate student at the university of san diego. i appreciate your comments. i have been at a lot of political events, and frequently when you ask a representative questions, you seem to get the rhetoric of the canned answer. i really appreciate the fact that we can ask questions and they are contemplated. why does congress have different types of health care packages that when in the constitution we are not allowed to have any favoritism within the congress that the people do not have?

that would be the first question. and why there is not a momentum, if there is such a low rating for congress right now, why would the congress not band together to show good stead to the people that they would make that change that they are equal to the populace they represent. the second question i would have is it seems was so much conversation about cutting back expenditures or increasing taxation and those two bipolar conversations, why there is not more emphasis on the contributions that the wealthier are getting as corporate fare, or wealthy fare, that there is such a move to cut welfare, when on a budget sheet, when you continue to give tax incentives to only one edge of the population, that is the same

effectively as giving benefit packages to the wealthy. it does not seem to come out in the media. i am a republican and a conservative republican, but as i have studied this, i recognize that is pretty absent from the argument. it is just to not tax. but on the balance sheets, you either -- if you get an incentive or a benefit, it is coming from the revenue streams that come into the country. >> that is such a good point. i will take the second part of your question first. we have spent over $1 trillion on tax loopholes. it is become far more expensive in recent years. the proliferation of loopholes has been phenomenal in the past 20 years. it is not only complicating the tax code, but it has created a lot of the inequities that you

so eloquently addressed. that is why we need meaningful tax reform, but we do not score those tax loopholes the same way we do as direct spending. it does not get the same attention. i think that is where it starts. valuelative budgetary that tax loophole has is almost exactly the same as a direct editor. -- direct expenditure. they are not looked on in that same way. that is the first thing. let's create parity among all the different ways -- loopholes are commonly called tax and the church. but they are not scored as unexpended sure -- tax expenditure should be. they should start with that. it would put this in proper perspective just as you

suggested. two members of congress, i would say that sometimes they actually do things for which they do not get much credit. as you may not know, everybody in congress is now wired to participate in the health exchange. eligiblenot able to be -- they are no longer eligible for the old health system as it was originally designed. they can still access it, but it has to be through an exchange, through the district of columbia x change. you can probably sign up in your own status well. -- state as well. they are trying to attempt a greater effort at doing what you suggest. finding ways in which to ensure that they are not treated differently. i think it is still -- they have a 9% approval rating right now. i think that approval rating and part is reflected by the

extraordinary -- what appears to uni---what of a picky people united to toward each picayune attitude toward each other, rather than reasoning issues to the magnitude of which people care. that is a problem as well. it is not just that they set themselves apart, but they are not caucusing everything that needs to be accomplished in this great country of ours today. your point is well taken. linko we ensure that they more direct lead to the people of this country? we have a big job to do in this regard. enjoyed your questions a lot. thank you very much and have a great weekend. [applause] being with usor

today. we have a token of our appreciation therefore you. a briefcase with our logo. i want to say a few things to you, as well as your collie, former senator olympia snowe, or some wording our program. daschle introduced us to the folks at the policy center when we had this idea for this academic seminar. thank you for your leadership there and thank you for your friendship. thank you very much. [applause] >> the bureau of labor statistics released the december 2013 jobs report today. the unemployment rate fell to 6.7%. the economy added 74,000 jobs. the new head of the bureau of labor statistics spoke about the report during today's meeting at the joint economic committee. here is a look. >> thank you commissioner. as you know, the unemployment rate fell pretty dramatically.

would you describe this as an encouraging sign of a sustainable recovery? number,month's of course you do not want to hang too much on one particular number. most of the change in the due toyment rate was falling labor force participation. >> people simply giving up on the market and the workforce? >> the interesting thing is that when we looked at it, it look like most of these flows in nonparticipation were from employment, rather than unemployment. generally speaking, it is not a robust sign. the fall of unemployment should have come from the creation of jobs. >> that dropping the reasons for

it, is it a troubling indicator? >> it depends on the question you are asking. it is really not a sign of strength. >> you can watch the rest of the hearing and testimony online at c-span.org. on the next washington journal, we will look at u.s. marijuana laws and the significance of the decision in colorado to allow the sale of the drug for recreational use. followed by a discussion on the fbi, their budget, and their relationship to law enforcement and national security. is the president of the fbi agents association.

live at 7:00 a.m. on c-span. former democratic national committee chair takes the oval office on saturday to become the governor of virginia. we will bring you the ceremony live from richmond beginning at 12:05 p.m. eastern. we bring public affairs about strictly to you, putting you in the room at congressional hearings, white house events, and complete gavel to gavel coverage of the u.s. house. all in the public service of private industry. we are c-span, created by the cable tv industry 35 years ago. definition,high like us on facebook, and follow us on twitter. >> now i look at women and conservatism with the former new york republican representative

ann marie buerkle. she is now a consumer -- mission or with the consumer product safety organization. this runs 45 minutes. >> good afternoon. policye president of the institute. i want to thank you for joining us for our first conservative women network of 2014. a special thank to our partners. we do this jointly every month. we love working with our partners. i am pleased to welcome today's

speaker, ann marie buerkle. she represented the 25th district of new york in the united states congress from 2011-2013. she spoke to us back then in june of 2011 when she was serving on an oversight and veterans affairs committee. during her time in the u.s. house, she championed policies to end the reckless government spending and grow the nation's economy and she was appointed by the president to serve as one of two congressional republicans to the united nations. after serving in the u.s. house of representatives, in 2013, she was appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate as a commissioner at the u.s. consumer product safety commission, where she currently serves. she was born and raised in auburn, new york. her grandparents emigrated to united states from italy, she worked in her parents' grocery store.

she witnessed the strong work ethic of her parents, who taught her that through hard work, she could achieve the american dream. graduated from saint joseph hospital school of nursing as a registered nurse in 1972. she worked in new york city's: be a presbyterian hospital. in 1977, she graduated from another college with a bachelor of science degree. she later returned law degree from syracuse university college of law. she worked as a private law firm and was avoided as an assistant new york state assistant attorney general. for 30 years, she served in that capacity. in 2010, she left a bursary see in the united states congress -- she left to pursue a seat in the united states congress. she has six grandchildren and 15 grandchildren. she says that her love for the united states and her desire to give her kids and grandkids the same opportunities that she had

inspires all that she does. please join me in welcoming back to cws ann marie buerkle. [applause] >> inc. you all very much and thank you for that kind introduction. maybe that is why i am tired. i am glad to be back here and i want to thank the clare booth luce society for the opportunity to speak to all of you. there is nothing more important than your generation and making sure that you are involved and that you can carry on the great legacy. before we get started, and i hear from your comments, i would like to ask all of you to keep in your thoughts and prayers the men and women of the military. we live in the greatest nation of the history of the world and it is because of their service and sacrifice. i had the honor of serving on the veterans affairs committee. i went to walter reed and bethesda and then you understand

the sacrifices that our military makes and their families make alongside of them. we must never take that for granted. we must always support them and keep them in our errors. just this morning, three americans, two of the military, were killed in a plane accident and annas and. -- in afghanistan. i think most of virginia, sailors and a helicopter, three sailors, one is still missing, they do make that sacrifice day in and day out. their family makes it along to them. into an going introduction. i have a paragraph here, but you did a wonderful job. thank you very much. before i made my comments, i thought it might be held for me to hear from all of you. what concerns you? what is on your mind today as these are here? -- as we sit here?

what is on your mind? what do you think should be the priority for united it's of america? -- united states of america? >> repealing obamacare. [laughter] >> anyone else? >> cutting taxes. >> anything else? strong on key social issues like light. -- life. >> i am delighted to see one of my former staffers here who works for the pro-life movement. thank you for coming, it is so great to see you. of the affordable care act, jobs, and the economy, cutting taxes, those are things that most americans, certainly those of us who are paying attention, air about. we will get into some of that in just a moment. youhear people talk, and

walk away and you think, would that person just say? before i get into my comments, i want to leave you with two thoughts. remember these two things. number one, be grateful that you are fortunate enough to live in the greatest nation in the history of the world. you are an american citizen and you live in the united states of america. we sometimes take that for granted, but we must never forget. the important thing i want you to remember is that you can be or do anything that you are willing to work hard for. you must set your mind to it. if you are willing to pick yourself up after you have failed, and you start all over again, you can do it. a perfectelf up as example. i went to a catholic high school in a small town, auburn, new york. counselormy guidance and she gave me three options and one of them was to go into the convent.

that was number one. back then, you became a nurse or a teacher or a homemaker. those were the choices. nobody ever said to me that i could be the first women to represent my district in congress. it is not easy, and i do not want you to think it is easy, but i want to say that you can do a full not be deterred. that in 2009, i told people i was interested in running for congress. i background had been in hell. i was concerned about the affordable care act and people rolled their eyes at me. a lot of them. , you have toe that be undeterred. do not let the media or anyone else discourage you from doing what you -- what god has given you the ability to do. that is a very important component. to make sure that you are praying for direction in your life and knowing what it is you are calling in. we all have different talents

and we bring different talents to the table. those two things, if you do not remember anything else, please he does in mine. let's get started. i want to speak you about conservatism. i broke it down into three separate buckets at we will talk about. the first thing i want to talk about is some very fundamental issues within conservatism and within promoting our principles of conservatism. secondly, i want to talk about the obstacles that we find when we encounter an pursue our core principles. thirdly, i want to talk to you about opportunities that i the -- that republicans and conservatives need to really grasp onto these opportunities because there are ways for us to hopefully take back the white house. andust take back the senate remain in control of the house. the sake of our nation and generations to come that should be the goal of our

party and our conservative movement. let's start with what is pretty obvious. number 1, 2012 is a bad year for republicans and conservatives. we have got to make some changes if we are going to move forward and be successful in promoting our conservative causes and beliefs. number two, there are many people in this country who believe that if we compromise, if we moved to the center, if we somehow give up our core beliefs, that we will attract more people. we will win elections. i guess i'm here to tell you all that i do not agree with that. i think the key to getting more people involved and getting more people interested in the republican party and in the conservative movement is to stay firm. we must let the american people know that we stand for something. we believe in something. i do not want you to confuse that with perhaps thinking that that means we are intractable

and we will not compromise. i will get into it a little bit later, but i think we have got to learn that conservatives, and republicans, we have to look at issues not from a 360 degree angle, we look at the entire issue. we look at it first and foremost about whether it is working or not. what we are seeing in our nation today is that these liberal progressive ideas are not working. that is why our key is to show the american people what does work. we will get into that a little bit later. i just want to reiterate that i do not believe that compromising what is so important to us, what is really the core of what i believe is the united states of america, the essence of how we connect to the american people, we cannot compromise that. that is not going to win us elections.

the third thing i want to talk about is that conservatism is hard. it is a hard message to articulate. problem,ncounter a when we look at health care and we identify that there is a robber with health care in this country, our liberal friends turned to the government. look to appropriate money and solve the problems with bureaucracy. conservatives do not do that. the answers that and solutions to these monumental problems lie with the american people. that is a more difficult road to take because it requires getting people involved. it involves selling what you want to do to those people, getting the money from the private sector and getting people on board so that they will espouse and understand these critical issues. tois easier to just turn

congress, or turn to the senate, and say, ok, what law are we going to pass? that is how we are going to resolve the health care issues in this country. it is not working. i do not have to tell you all that. i do want to say, conservative business is difficult. but it is the right way for us to go. it is the right way for the united states of america to go. let's talk for just a few minutes about the obstacles that we place as conservatives. -- that we face as conservatives. the difficulty is messaging. it is difficult to message conservatives principles. we have to inspire people. that is the task of the conservative. we have to inspire people that this is a better way to go or the american people. are to empower

people. they are to lift people up. they are far better than making them dependent on the federal government. it is not an easy job. it is not an easy task to articulate. we must make that message clear to the american people. that is an obstacle we face. until we make our messaging clearer than we are able to, i a lot of americans are just going their own way and leaving their own lives -- leading their own lives. that is one of the issues that we have suffered from. conservatives tend to be working, raising their families, be concerned about their children and their education. they are not paying attention to the bigger picture. agos in kentucky a week visiting my daughter at a conservative church and the pastor stood up and he was saying how we need to pray for this country. yes we do need to pray for this country, but we must also get involved. we must also get like-minded people in government because i think, and this dovetails into my next obstacle we face, the

media, that the media has intimidated people from getting involved. they have intimidated people from even expressing their views. , and ipick up a paper can talk about my own local paper, i can acknowledge it, from the time i declared until as recently as last week, they have been on a vendetta to go after me. just last week, there was a whole issue. i have been out of congress a year, and they're still going ther may stop the media, biggest problem we have with the media is that it intimidates conservatives. theykes them feel as if are the only one to feel that way. leave this room today go forward, you can talk to people. .ou can empower other women you are not alone when you want the best for your kids or more

opportunities for your kids. you do not want the affordable care act. you want to make sure that health care stays quality. that is a problem we have with the media. i think it doesn't committee. running back to the messaging, i left out an important component. we need a conservatives to let the country know that we are not a party of white rich men. that is a huge problem in our messaging. it is something that we have to change. we have to really insist that show through our conversations, our policy is that we are a party for all americans. poor, they, the african-americans, the latinos, the urban, the world. -- the rural. the values that we hold so dear will hold everybody -- lift everybody off. there is a stereotype that fits

with the republican party. we need to break that. you alone in this room can ring about change. that leads me to the third obstacle we face. i can say that i've encountered it firsthand and that his stereotypes. the media and primarily the media has made conservatives out to be crazy right-wing radicals. july asegan in commissioner at the consumer product safety commission. i cannot tell you from the time i started, up until yesterday, people came up to me and they say, oh my gosh. we were so nervous about you. have snakes i would coming out of my ears. because i am conservative, because i am supposedly a tea party person. to this day, i do not know what the tea party is. that the believe

constitution is as relevant today as it was when it was written. that is a stereotype. conservatives often find themselves in it. the media plays into it. it is what the paper did to me. they can make you, they can marginalize you. they can make you irrelevant. they can make you sound like what you're espousing is radical. nothing we espouse is radical. you all know that in this room to the very core of your being. we are talking about what makes america the greatest country ever. we have these rights coming from our almighty kreider -- our almighty creator. as a stereotype that we face as conservatives in this country. i will say, we're guilty on the other side, we have to be very guilty of this, and this dovetails with my next section on opportunity. we cannot stereotype. we cannot look at a group and say that they would never vote

republican, they are not conservatives, and we write them off. getting into where there are conservative for a movement in this country, number one, women. i think we need to articulate a message to women that this women aree system -- the health care decision-makers. i have a health-care proxy for my mother who is 92. i am getting ready to go to texas because one of my daughters is getting ready to have a baby. we're intimately involved in health care. for some women, the affordable care act is not a good way to go. we are very interested in education. we have to articulate a message to women that there is a place for you in this republican party. you careare about, about. we are not doing a good job of that. part of attracting women to our conservative movement is the

hypocrisy on the other side. picture this. 2010, i amin thinking about my campaign. i am the mother of six, he went to law school, i should be the poster child for now. we were vilified by women's groups because we did not a lock and step with the life issue. that is the only thing that i can conclude. ,here were policies in general that government should be more, you know. the hypocrisy of the women's movement, in 2012, the liberal groups targeted women. us. defeated from the time it was collected -- from the time i was elected,

i was targeted. you say, wait a minute. this doesn't make sense. we must point out the hypocrisy of women's groups in this country. the conservatives who truly care about women and advancing their depth solelyr more in what we all talk about. have more depth than reproductive rights. there is more to women than that. that whole initiative and the way they have really co-opted the women's vote is based on that. up toup to that -- it is us to show women that we have far more depth. we are concerned about our kids getting jobs. we are concerned about a strong economy. that is pandering. it is an insult to women. we should take it as doubtful -- it asuld take an

such. where are their craft? where can we infiltrate? teachers, his dorky teachers' unions are going to vote democratic. rather than looking for the union leaders, we have to get to the teachers. teachers.so many we talked to a lot of them in the last campaign who are disenchanted and upset with the core curriculum and race to the top. this movement to nationalize our education system is frustrating teachers who sat out on a mission, and that mission was to educate kids. limited as to what they can do. there was a ruling on food and what kids can eat. teachers are a fertile ground are aas -- teachers fertile ground because they are so frustrated. they believe that education

decision should be left to state and local governments. knows what isyork best for syracuse, new york. washington does not. teachers are very fertile ground. we can make some headway into teachers. i think health-care workers are another group that we should be able to make our case to. hospitalslks in local in our neck of the woods. people who have been laid off because of the affordable care act. people who are intimately involved in health care and understand that this law amongst a whole. of problems, is going to affect the quality of health care. the ability to access physicians and health care. it is not what we need in this country. health care is another area that we should be able to get our message to.

the message is a conservative message, but it is also a message about what works. we celebrated the 50th anniversary of the war on poverty. thank you lbj. trillions of dollars have been spent on the war on poverty. where are we? we're at the same percentage of americans at or below the federal poverty guidelines. these policies do not work. it is not a republican or democratic issue. they do not work. you have education, the aca, the war on poverty. this is where the message gets tricky and challenging. we are not saying we do not care. we're saying that the way to lift people out of poverty is to give them opportunities. poverty,is war on these handouts, they do not do that. the key people down. they make them dependent on the government.

that is not the united states of america and it is not the right way to go for this country. my grandparents came here as teenagers from italy. they never spoke english. my parents were so determined that we were going to get opportunities they did not have. my father worked as an insurance thousand. he worked 18 to 20 hours a day. he went out and work harder. , especially between with the economy, there is another thing that is not working. the unemployment rate is down to 6.7%. only 74,000 new jobs were created. that is the lowest in three years. we have not taken on past economic recovery. his policies do not work. that is the approach we have to take. we do care about people.

we care about people so much that we respect their abilities. we want to give them a chance and lift them up. we do not want to keep them subservient to government. i mentioned that. , and i think we have time for questions, i want thatcourage all of you conservatism is nothing to be ashamed of. you should be proud of the principles and core beliefs that you have. it is something that we need to embrace and not run away from. the conservative policies really offer more to people. they are what this country was intended to be. we must be proud of them. we must continue to educate and message so that we can get more americans involved. in doing so, we will not only

win elections, but we will change our country for the better. we will ensure that our children and grandchildren have access to all of the opportunities that we had. we will achieve the true american dream of ensuring that we hand off to the next generation of better united states of america. that has is horribly been -- historically been the hallmark of this country. it is unique to america. we hand off a better united states of america and right now we are not going to do that for this next generation. it is so unfair, what is being done to you. it is something that will be on the backs of generations. it is why we need to get back to our fiscal responsibility and our roots of not spending more money than be taken. the country has been doing this for three decades. -- webt and the deficit

are giving to the next generation -- the debt and the deficit that we are giving to the next generation is unconscionable. that we changere these policies so we do not give that to the next generation. i want to say to all of you that this is not easy. it is a steep hill that we have to climb. our current leaders need to be resilient. we need them to continue to fight for the value of the people here. it is they and they do they serve who share their principles and they will lead us into a new chapter of conservatism. alone.nnot do it they need more great candidates. they need people from all walks of life and all backgrounds. we need people to take up the charge and go down to washington as civilians, not career politicians.

you represent your district and you sick -- stick to the conservative principles that made this country so great. we have too many career politicians. i often talk about considering term limits. too many people have made politics and their office a way of life. has been toing that the detriment of the united states of america. i want to encourage all of you, and as i mentioned earlier, the pastor mentioned about praying. praying is very important. but representing and getting involved is equally as important, and we have a moral commitment. it is not easy, but we have a moral commitment to get involved and do what we can do and start copy groups. it starts in your family and it grows from there. you must educate and really talk about the conservative principles that we all hold so dear.

i think as far as women go, we need more women in government. they are problem solvers, multitaskers, creative and their solutions to problems. we need more women to get involved. -- thise can do that type of a forum encourages you all and hopefully inspires you. that is something that the conservative movement needs to do more of. it needs to inspire women to get involved. it needs to give them the support they need so that they are not fearful and concerned with the backlash that they may feel from the media or from their liberal counterparts. we will win at the polls, and others we will not. but every time you have a conversation with anyone, anytime you espouse a server to conservative value

and make the case for conservative principles, we went. we have to look at advancing our cause. it is not about you and it is not about me. it is about the united states of america. 2010.s why ran in the whole conservative movement was so vocal. we are headed in the wrong direction. so many things are not working right now. our foreign policy, our economic policy, are education policy. until we get conservatives in office, and i would strongly encourage women to get involved, we will not change that. that is the reality of where we are at in this country. i will finish where i began. that is that we have a steep mountain to climb. we have a lot of challenges ahead of us. by embracing our conservativism and standing up for and not running away from, sharing our message of all americans, we

will lead this great nation into a brighter, better future for our kids and for our grandkids. god bless you all and may god bless the greatest nation of the united states of america. thank you so much. [applause] >> she does inspire, doesn't she? wonderful. i am glad that you are here and fighting the fight in washington. i do not want you to be a career politician, but i hope someday you go back there. >> cross my fingers. >> good, good, good. we have a couple ladies here. this girl is heading back to school tomorrow. jeanie is the administrative director. she has been there 13 years. that is what you want on your resume. you want to stay as long as possible.

you become so valuable in these types of jobs. let you call on people and if you would not mind giving your name and your affiliation if you have one. here is a question right here. >> thank you for your great top. and i workbrittany for senator ted cruz. are-- especially since you working in your district, what have you found to be the most effective ways of collecting stories from people, specifically teachers and people in the medical field, where those areas are where people are hurting and they are feeling changes, but sometimes making a narrative and getting that message out? putting in real terms. me -- anecdotes come to

people were anxious to tell their stories. during lot of town halls the keyword of time -- people were anxious. what we did, and i would recommend this to many of you, we began to have women's groups. we started with a group of women and there were six of us. we had an event at a restaurant and everyone invited five people. i talked about conservative values and what i stood for. the next event was two people were invited and we grew until we had lunch with over 300 people there. that is what we have to do. people want to tell their stories. they are frustrated. if you give them that opportunity where they are not intimidated and they do not feel like they are the only one who has encountered this, i cannot imagine if you went out and started a website, how many people would respond to that.

him andthem out for that assurance that they are not alone. personnot just some rich who has encountered this. a lot of people feel the same way they do. >> i have a question. becky norton, heritage foundation. one of the things that we talked about often as the core conservative idea is the concept who are economic conservatives and people who are social conservatives and are concerned about education and marriage and life actually rely upon each other for the success

of what they believe. i wonder if you identify with that, we are all in the same boat so to speak. economic, foreign, defense, education, life, it all has to work in order for our nation to work? >> i am in that boat. the reality of it is that some --ple think that the economy that is what they care about. for other people, it is health care. everyone has a different priority. everything is their priority. making them feel that they have a place to go with like-minded people is very important. easy one. place where they have support as well.

difficult, some folks, in you think exactly what they do, then it becomes a problem. you can give people a comfortable place to go without agreeing and without compromising your values. that goes back to the stereotype. it goes back to appreciating and understanding. it is a question of education. we cannot judge them because they do not think exactly like us. we must allow them to see where we are coming from. that goes back as i mentioned to the stereotype. they are hopeless. , i should say, one of the most unusual alliances in congress was me and the head of the aclu.

there were certain issues that we found common ground on. the nsa issue has come to light. --e of the privacy issues being able to have that conversation, you do not know how you are affecting people. if you write them off because they do not agree to every issue, i just want to make sure that you are not compromising your values. you are educating them and giving them a place to go. let's not destroy the relationship because we do not agree. >> usurp the there for two years. one of these ladies is going to run. what advice would you give? what do you think you did well? what are some things that you would like to go back and do again? >> what i thought we really did made serving our

district and the people i represented a priority. -- and it wasve part of my sadness when we lost -- we gave a voice to people who needed help with a project or help with their social security. we did a huge veteran outreach piece. i really believe that we were serving the people the way government was meant to be. we were their voice in washington. we did all of the town halls. we had communications with people. i really felt like we gave them a voice and we provided a great service to them. i think of all the things that we did. that is what we were most proud of. you make decisions when you are running. i really do not regret anything. i can look in the mirror every day and i say i never compromise to i was. i did not change my campaign

spiel. i voted against the budget control act. i voted with my party on key votes. that was the right thing to do. i really promise that i would do it when i came to washington. otherot have any regrets than the fact that i did not win. you say there must be another plant, another purpose. you pick up, and now i am working for the consumer group. >> anyone else? >> for nasa with the cit group. vanessa with the cit group. as a conservative woman, it has been difficult to find a mentor. do you have someone you would call a mentor? do you have any advice in that vein?

a great question. i really didn't. my father was my mentor. he inspired with a work ethic. problems, stare them down, and find a way through them. he would pick himself up. he was my inspiration. -- mentorsdifficult are difficult. we can talk about providing direction and resources to women. friendsy some of my need to do that. provide direction and support. it can be intimidating when you feel -- i had a dear friend who is a partner in a law firm. she is a conservative woman and she has been in practice for a long time. she was a trailblazer for women, very conservative, pro-life. you just wonder where she got the toughest to do that. she did it on her own because

the media makes you feel like warm and fuzzy. you fight against the odds. a lawhonestly, women in firm or in politics, it is a male-dominated profession. that is the reality. women, the more young women who get involved, were very clear in their purpose, and want to articulate their view, they are women-- who are so confident. to actually get into law or health care is better, politics is a tough venue. women do need mentors to help guide them through the system. race was own di