>> and finally a hammer provision. you don't see this referred to as much as you did in the '90s. a hammer provision is the congress saying, look, if you don't meet this deadline, ryan, this is what you're going to do instead. and the hammer is usually so draconian as far as the agency is concerned. they believe the hammer is a disincentive, strong enough disincentive for the agency to meet the deadline they have to. so on the hill -- you know, if you're on the fact that rulemaking will happen, that rulemaking is an arena in which you have to play, if you're going to be successful, the statute itself is the first place to start. then the attention shifts to the agency. and this is why -- this is why i think -- this is where the rulemaking process and the legislative process diverge in

terms of the way they're conducted. in my view, the key to a successful participation in rulemaking is the highest quality information you can put together at a critical point in the process. and what is the critical point in the process? first and foremost, look, the empirical work on rulemaking is still very, very primitive. now, this is not a field where the social -- where the social sciences, particularly the policy sciences, have spent the time and effort that's needed to give us confidence in a scholarly sense about who influences rules and how but there's one thing that's out there, the earlier you're in, the earlier you are able to influence the process, the more successful you're going to be. you can't get any earlier than

the statute, okay? but within the agency itself, it is at the moment of transfer of the statute to the agency. you need to have the capacity to track this stuff the way fedex tracks a box, all right? you need to know exactly where this things are and who has them. what type of information you need? you need five or six types. number one, you got to be impeccable on science and technology. i mean, that really is the currency of something like global warming, all right? you have to be very strong on impact. it's what abby mentioned earlier about cost benefit analysis. how much is this going to cost? what are the benefits going to be? and the rundown to the bottom here, who are the winners and who are the losers? 'cause high quality cost benefit analysis identify those with great precision.

yes >> rulemaking, how does an agency deal with competing science? you know, especially in global warming? >> oh, listen, i mean, it's -- that is the crucial issue. it deals with it the same way any high quality decision-making process would. it's going to be the weight of the evidence. and it's going to lead i'm going to tell you to rules that are incomplete themselves. because they know it's a developing science. i mean, and they have to be able to build into a regulation the capacity to amend that regulation when the sign dictates but at the end of the day, just like a court of law, the agency is going to have to make a decision based on the weight of the available evidence >> can i probe on that? >> yeah, sure >> you got somebody like representative barton, smoky joe barton. [laughter] >> former chair of the energy and commerce committee who doesn't believe that we have global warming going on. and that we have something like

that, it's natural. it's not caused by human beings. he comes and forces the committee to have an oversight -- an oversight hearing that really questions the scientific evidence, then we get into the politics of who do you trust? >> that's right. sure. and i'm going to come to bad to this >> no, we're going to loop back to congress but fundamentally, global warming is like -- i mean, take a look what the guys and women in financial finreg with financial products like attorney's fe derivatives. they were behind the curve they don't know what's going on and they are having to run as fast as as the industry does in developing the product. your point is well-taken. and that's where timeliness in becomes key because as the science is developing, how does the science get translated into a rulemaking process in real time?

now, the key to that -- and i i don't mean this facetiously is the quality of programs like the one that goes on in the school of public affairs because our school of public affairs and the top schools of public affairs in the united states populate these agencies. so if you're coming out of an mpa or an mpp program with an insufficient program with regard to the fundamentals of statistics, which underlie a lot of the science of epidemiology, as far as the climate science is concerned, we don't turn out physicists or chemists but the policy analysts and the heads of these offices have got to have at least a literacy in these scientific fields in order to weigh the credibility of the evidence that comes in. the implementation and compliance information is often overlooked crucially important. how is the agency going to translate what it just rule as a rule into an operating program in the field?

and you should be become as expert in that as you are in the technical content of the rule because you representing the people that you represent are either going to have to advise them on how to comply with the reg or if they are beneficiaries, to monitor the people you're trying to control to ensure they are complying with the law. so compliance and implementation are parts of the rulemaking process that really are just as important as the technical content. now, in the agency, it's all about relationships just like it is on the hill also. there's a set of political appointees who represent the president and his program. you should understand their role in the rulemaking process. then there are key officials in a wide variety of offices within the agency who can be crucially

involved. obviously the program office, let's say the air office at epa at the rockefeller would be crucial. the senior personnel, most rules and regulations of the size we're talking about here are written in a team that consists of offices in this sort in an agency. led by a program office. representation from the policy office which is really the agency's equivalent to the cost benefit shop at the white house. the general counsel has a seat always because it is the general counsel who ultimately determines the appropriate interpretation of key statutory terms for the agency's leadership. just like our general counsel at aeu advises me, the general counsel at epa advises the administrator. how do i obey the law? the budget office interestingly enough can be very important

because the budget office -- you know, rulemaking costs money. everybody sort of assumes that it's free. it's an expensive proposition to pull together the resources you need to write a rule. regional offices are the enforcement arm of most agencies. they're the ones who tell the guys in washington what you're writing is idiotic and here's why it doesn't work 'cause i work with this industry every day. i know how it's organized. you don't. listen to me. and then finally the communication staff. how do you think the average dry cleaner learns what the new wave of global warming rules mean for him or her? how many people have been to a dry cleaners in the last month? well, the rest of you should be probably, all right. but in any event, you walk into -- how many times when you walked into a dry cleaners and saw the federal register sitting on the counter?

i mean, dry cleaning establishments of the united states are a major, major source of potential air pollution. they've got to learn what their requirements are. they are going to learn it through a variety of means but the most effective means often is the very organization that you're currently involved in. so how you're going to communicate requirements is crucial. the white house, all right, now you want to up the ante. you're not getting exactly what you need from the agency or you want some insurance. the office of information regulatory affairs, jeff weinberg spoke to you about this a little bit already -- it's in effect the eyes and ears of the president of the united states for what the president has determined is the most important rules under development in a given year.

they review rules formally at the proposed and final rule stage, informally they are in constant communication through a desk officer or arrangement with the agency that's writing the regs. you have access to it just like all american citizens do but again, whatever you do will be open for public scrutiny. they, like the agency, need information. they have a lot of interest in cost benefit analysis since they're implementing executive orders that go back to the regular administration requiring benefit cost analysis on major regs. but they are also a source of potential inflow over the process. if you don't have any luck there, conceivably you could used domestic policy, the contacts you have, the trade office, the i.r. or national security agency if you have an international and global warming regs. you wait and see as this

develops how quickly international competitiveness becomes a critical factor in the discussions. so you think you got to know about carbon, you think you got to know about secondary chemicals, what you really got to know about is what the balance of trade impact is often going to be on countries participating. and then finally, and then i'll wrap it up with this, you go back to congress. jim just mentioned a member decides global warming isn't what everybody thinks it is. it's something else. i'm going to hold a congressional hearing. i'm going to bring all the agency personnel up here. you don't have to be -- you don't have to hold extreme views to stimulate a hearing of this sort. the easiest way to stimulate a hearing is to tell a member of congress, look, they are moving too slow on this and there's no

good reason for this. you need get them up here and get them focused. >> -- now that can easily morph about the direction the agency is taking. now, but step back a minute. now, remember, that's conventional oversight. what i didn't put up here is the rulemaking equivalent of casework. you got a particular point of view. you want that point of view at least listening to the agency. there's nothing quite as compelling as the agency hearing from a member of the appropriations committee or subcommittee that governs its budget that i, congressman smith, from connecticut, have a real interest in this rule and here's my interest. and you keep me informed about what's happening with this issue in the rulemaking. in effect, you the interest group are employing a member of

congress as your lobbyist. you know, just like a member would chase a social security benefit for a constituent. they'll take this seriously as well. now, conventional oversight is of all the stuff that you've already heard and read about. the hearings can be very compelling. you've got the congressional research service. you've got the general -- the government accountability office up there assisting the congress. but we also have some really fascinating research that demonstrates how targeted appropriations language can be used to both stimulate and shut down rules that powerful interests would prefer -- well, in latter cases not to see the light of day. very specific language in riders attached to any one of of a

number of legislative vehicles that tells the environmental protection agency you don't spend another dime on rulemaking associated with c02 emissions from public utilities in the upper midwest. end of story. you know, you start -- you lost the authority to spend public funds. if you can ride it for free, i guess you're on your own but it's very unusual that could happen. then there's an arcane piece of legislation which i hesitate even to spend a lot of time with, something called a congressional research act. excuse me, a congressional review act. that allows the congress to essentially veto a rule or regulation after its written if it's found to be incontravention of the statute and there's an elaborate process of how that happens. it's only been invoked once.

as it happens it was invoked in the role when jim thurber's wife worked on the agency -- >> the agency not her. she thought it would be overturned. >> she's right. the only time in history -- the act has been around for 17 years. so i wouldn't put this high on your hit parade on your devices to go to work with. but conventional oversight and activating members of congress of rules under development are a real possibility and finally courts. you know, this is kind of your abandon all hope thing. it's really the last resort. you can sue an agency but not until the agency has written and published the rule. that's number one. number two, you have to have standing to sue, which means you got to show that you can or have been damaged. third, you got to present the agency with the kind of legal issue that a court feels competent to rule on, which in

this day and age is almost anything, all right? and then finally, remember this. when you sue an agency, partial victories are not unheard of. but it's very rare for an agency to lose kind of a nuclear, you know -- agencies don't make those kinds of errors. what i'll conclude is the following, information is critical. as currency, it's more important in rulemaking than it is in any other phase of the public policy process in my view, all right? second, we're in an era where agencies are going to need that information from the outside more than they have ever needed it before. their own budgets for research are constrained. and they're going to become more constrained. there is a massive retirement of senior personnel underway in agencies. and that outflow of personnel takes some of the most

experienced, most knowledgeable men and women out of the agency and guess where? they're not playing the banjo on a porch in west virginia in retirement, all right? at least not most of them. what they're doing is going to work for powerful interests. leaving the agency in deficit relative to its external competition if that's what you want to call it. so information is power. and the better -- the higher quality and in the public interest, the most objective that you can muster, the better off you're going to be. third, coalitions are king in rulemaking. just like they are on the hill. you don't know everything. nobody knows everything. but a network of well positioned interests that represent, yes, a broad political spectrum but also a very broad reach of information can be enormously

powerful. and just like the hill. they don't -- these coalitions come together and blow apart very quickly. but don't -- don't ignore that. and then finally, just as a general admonition, i mean, i just think that the american people have no clue how powerful this process is. how perpetual it is. how it never stops. and how much of our lives, and the quality of our lives is determined by the quality of what is produced by it. so whatever you represent, whomever you represent, the public obligation you have, the ethical obligation you have to present information in honest and forthright ways can never be overlooked. so just like any other part of this public advocacy business, the ethics of information transfer in this world is critically important. so with that, i'll be happy

to -- [applause] >> we went over a little bit but will you be willing to answer some questions. >> yeah, sure. go ahead, matt? >> with the use of our imposing a deadline, would lobbyists ever be afraid that they're going to shorten that deadline because they had the information that the agency needs but they wouldn't want to do that for fear that the agency wouldn't actually accept is that information or might come across competing information? >> yeah, i think by and large agencies are hostile to deadlines >> is that a popular tactic among -- >> they achieved an awful lot. i mean, i was surprised to the extent it was used in major legislation that was enacted in the last congress >> the deadline? >> yeah. i mean, the reason why -- you know, deadlines are -- i just don't think -- i think what they -- it's an understandable

reaction to a crisis. we have to do something. we have to do something fast. typically, what an agency will do in a case like that, that differs from what is normally the case, is issue what's called a direct final rule. and this is something you have to be aware of. a direct final rule says, this ises the regulation. this is why we're putting it out as fast as we are. we are not allowing for public participation in advance. but we're allowing for public participation after it's written and published and if we need to change it based on public comment, we'll go back and do that. but i got to tell you, i haven't seen a lick of research yet on how often that happens, how often they actually receive public comment and how often they go back and make the change. but you're going to see that device used a great deal. and you got to be prepared for it which means you've got to be in even earlier if you're going to be effective. yeah? >> does have it to be through negotiated rulemaking or, of

course, that could happen potentially -- >> the agency -- there is a general statute written in 1990 called the negotiated rulemaking act that allows agencies that use negotiated rulemaking. you don't have to have it identified specifically in a new authorizing statute. you can rely on that general statute. however, negotiated rulemaking is also not terribly popular with agencies because it does -- it tends to require them to cede authority to the group. now, in order to conduct a negotiated rulemaking, you have to issue a notice in the federal register inviting people who think they should be at the table. it's sort of like the federal advisory committee act. but once that happens -- we study -- a colleague of mine here and i studied at a set of

negotiated rules out of epa. and, you know, we found by and large it's a pretty effective process. it's very time-consuming and it's very expensive especially for smaller interests, you know, you got to devote a good part of your organization of your life to it while it's going on but there's general authority to do it. >> the place like the fed, is rulemaking much different? >> well, you know, it's an interesting point. the fed issues rules that only a very narrow subset of the american people can either understand or participate effectively in. but the fed usually uses notice and comment process. but, obviously, they sort of define emergency. so the one thing to remember about all procedural requirements and rulemaking is they can be suspended in the time of an emergency or ifhe agency determines it's in the public interest. now, both of those can be scrutinized after the fact.

but when an agency determines -- the classic is airline safety. i mean, if they discovered -- i don't know. what's the super jumbo jet that -- >> the dreamliner. >> not the dreamliner. the one that carries 5 or 600 people. when the engine blew out of that, it got people's attention, you know. and so there were immediate -- what they call air worthiness directives that were sent out of the faa on maintenance of that rolls-royce engine. i fly a lot and i read a lot of directives. this is the kind of thing where -- you shouldn't. don't read the air worthiness directives. you don't need to. >> every time i get on an airplane it seems like i just read an air worthiness directive about the model. >> we have time for one more question. >> one more, yes, sure, go

ahead. >> what sort of transparency requirements exist in this rulemaking advocacy? 'cause like with lobbying there's the lobbying disclove -- disclosures on this? >> when you lobby the hill, jim and i have commented frequently about how astonishly few people seem to register relative to what they do. the more important transparency issue is on the information that you're providing the agency. and that's contained either virtually or physically in something called a docket. every time a rule is started, a docket is opened. and with the rise of reg.gov which is a website you probably ought take a look at, reg.gov. you can actually access all

public comment that has been received on a rule, anything that's been filed on a rule. and traditionally agencies are very good about listing the meetings they've had. and they summarized the purpose of the meeting. now, you're not going to see all the give-and-take that occurred but the value of that is that if you're a business interest and you feel environmental interests have been -- have been too welcomed in an agency or vice versa, you then have a means of addressing that by getting involved yourself. but the rulemaking process is remarkably transparent. the problem is it's very labor intensive. i mean, it just takes a lot of work to get the information, you know, once you decide it's important. i mean, it takes a lot of work to do research on rulemaking in order to get the kind of detailed information you need to make some judgments. but it's a very open system. and i'm tell you, i think we're

in a period where agency are going to be opened with participation by organizations in which you represent. >> >> thank you. [applause] >> we'll be back at 1:45 so if you could get back at 1:40 to be seated and we're live on c-span, too. for those of you who did not get this, c-span will rerun it tonight. if you're out of melatonin, it will work. [laughter] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> so american university advocacy institute taking a lunch break now. when class resumes, the topic will be fundraising. and we'll have more live coverage when students return at about 1:45 eastern right here on c-span2. a couple of things coming up that we need to tell you about. join us for this newly documentary on the supreme court. see inside the historic building and hear from court staff and judges including the newest justice, elena kagan. it gets underway at 6:30 pm eastern this coming sunday on c-span. and monday, a debate among those running to be the republican national committee's next chair. incumbent michael steele will face off a candidates winning to replace him. that's right here on c-span2.

>> this weekend on c-span3's american history tv, joy beasley manager on the recent discovery and excavation of 200-year-old slave quarters. and as the congressional black caucus marks its 40th anniversary, a never before televised oral history by a former congresswoman evan braithwake burke. then richard and steven ford share that i memories about the only man to be vice president and president of the united states without being elected. see the complete weekend schedule online at c-span.org/history where you can also press the c-span alert button and have our schedules

emailed to you. >> a quick reminder that at 1:45 we'll go back to american university's advocacy institute for discussion on political fundraising. s cable companies. it's good joining us, two familiar faces -- host: joining us, two familiar faces, david frum, former assistant to president bush, and william galston, former assistant to president client on domestic policy. how would you frame no labels in a sentence of what you're trying to do? guest: an effort to change the tone and content of our nation's politics so that the big problems that we have can be addressed successfully despite division of power between the political parties. host: mr. frum, why this effort >> guest: i think it is

always true. people say it is worse now than it was during the laste administration. during the last administration, people say it is worse than ever today.th my response is, they're allle right. t it is worse each time. we are arriving at a point of institutional breakdown, of inability of american government to work.wn we had this happen before a but never at a time when the economic problems were so serious. the fact that you can't get a governor on the federale reserve board confirmed, in 1997 that is amusing little annoyance but in 2010 and 2011, it is a critical. say one more thing. i worked in the bush administration. the things said against president bush were sopr outrageous and unfair.e a lot of my friends and colleagues who were around that time, boy, we can notto say to serve as we were served. my experience i s want to north of this ever again. the way politics was done then, this shouldn't be the template how it should be done forever. it should be a warning how

it must stop. >> host: as far as a template is concerned,pl mr. galveston, galston, republicans and democrats, independents trying to get a consensus to get things done? >> guest: well, number one as the name of our organization suggests, no labels, we're not asking o people to forget about the fact that they're democrats, republicans or independents.to that they have views. that they have commitments and they have principles., we are asking them to do two things. , stop demonizingem one another. understand that we're all americans, we're all in thisan together and we're not going to get out of it until we all work together. i and number two, rather than focusing on the differences, which areet there, which are important, why don't we start with what we have in t common and try to build out from there? that would really change the tone and conduct of our politics, if we asked that question, and put that

question in the forefront of our thinking. >> host: so what he is a thed main thing that all these groups have in common? is it t the economy?l >> guest: that's the boat in, isn't it? and it is pretty leaky right now. no t only, that our competitors are eating our lunch while we're squabbling over the seats at the table. it used to be that time was on america's side and we could afford to waste time. we were preeminent. we werean unchallenged. that c is simply not true anymore. i think most americans understand that we're in a tough, new competitive world. if we're not moving ahead we're falling behind. >> host: so mr. frum, as far as getting folks to set aside labels and so to speak and getting together ond issues that are important, t how do you do that practically? >> guest: i run a website which i modestly named afterr myself, and we talk about every day from republican point of view how do you have effective system of government? how do you make things work? how do you work through the

political decisions thatin republicans have to make with a view not causing maximum havoc to the other a side but making some improvements? canav republicans think about ways within our political philosophy, strengthens environmental protections.ys within our politicalen philosophy to raise middleou class incomes and raise equality and poverty? to enhance the strength and power of the nation and individual liberty? can we do those things within our tradition?n can we have affirmative defend today that offersti more than just anti-liberalism, criticism of liberals? that which is unfortunately what you get from the a lot of so-called other conservative side. >> host: ourf guests are with us for an hour. if you want to ask questions about o their effort and related issues. 202-737002 for democrats. 202-0820885 for independents. if you want to reach us for e-mail, journal@see span.org

you can also do that. reach us twitter.com at c-span wj. accomplishments that were done there in the laum duck,s, is that example of what you're ultimately trying to achieve? >> well it was certainly a start in the rightt direction. i think a lot of people were surprised that the administration and congressional republicans were able to come together and many democrats as well in congress on the question ofe taxes.ny now, obviously that's not a permanent solution, the deal that was worked out but the fact that there could be that kind of agreement at all i think was an encouraging sign. let me give you another encouraging sign while we're about it. the conventional wisdom about the president's deficit commission was that it would get absolutely nowhere. well, it did a lot better than that. because, you have the very rare washington phenomenon v of certified liberals like

senator dick durbin of illinois andie certifiedor conservatives like senator tom coburn from oklahoma whose was once known as "dr. no", actually saying yes to the same thing, that's what we're looking for. they didn't, they didn't leave their principles at the door whether they sat down at that table to talk about our fiscal future but d they found a way forward together. that's what we want. >> host: the commission, most of the folks there rejected its prince pills. >> guest: actually that ishe not true. there were 18 commissioners. 11 said yes to the plan. technically 14 weremi required. you don't get 14 out of 18ll people in washington, d.c. saying yes on a joint plan for where to have lunch, okay?n but the fact that you hadve most of the senators from both political parties, these are y elected officials now, not apunit pointees, signing onto the plan was surprising and encouraginghe and it provides a foundation upon which future fiscal

discussions can be built. >> host:tu talk about the d mechanics of no labels. where do you go from the formal opening you had last, week? >> guest: here is what i would like to see happening. this is a very loose group and i don't know that it has s a lot of the traditional apparatus of executive control and leadership. so i speak only for myself. one, i think we need to have a change in the expectations of americans as users and participants in politics. that every institution we have built over the past 30 years hass , i shouldn't say every, but some of them have existed to empower the angriest the minorities. it is not a fact of natureow that has to be so.ng it doesn't used to be so. so you can make institutional changes in the way congress works and way primaries work, in thewa culture of what is acceptable. it is always been true, for example, always been true,bl that, as long as anybody can remember, that by courtesy the leaders of the senate

would allow an individual senator to block an appointment he or she did not like. senators would use that poe where you occasionally. that is happening more and more often. that is cultural change. i the weapon was there, it is just getting used more and b more. you can either have a m cultural change, this is destructive, we will use this weapon less and less ory have an institutional change where the weapon gets taken away. this power is not in the constitution. it is not in t the law. it is not even in rules ofon senate. it is just a courtesy of the senate. >> guest: i wonder if ii could add to that? no labels is a grassroots movement. at our i launch event in newno york we had a thousand citizens from all 50 states to paid their own way because they cared so much for the future of the country. we have a plan and the plan. is to organize citizens groups in all 435 con fwregsal districts. those those groups are there to monitor the behavior ofio their elected officials, to hold them to account if theyci start demonizing each otherun

and if they appear to be part of the problem ratherta than part of the solution. we're going to the have town halls in states throughout the country that have the greatest density of independents. that is t our plan for 2011. in 2012 we'll start to flexs our muscles. >> host: start working with the independents is that the strategy then? >> guest: no. start working with everybody but focusing initially on states that have the greatest density of independents because theyy are a loud but underestimated voice in american politics. >> host: how do youoi ultimately gauge success for this effort? >> guest: how do you gaincc success for anything in politics? do things get better?ng do you see steady changes in and improvements that allow tow look backward and say, things are a little better than they used to be before. t it is very dangerous to imagine that change happens as a result of dramatic events, or even necessarily by changing the personalities in politics.

that you can have the same people behaving in better oric worse ways. and we have, i think invested a lot over the past 30 years, a lot of hope in, that you can change the culture by changing the personality.ot the culture of theng washington ends up altering the personalities to suit itself. >> host: gauging change? >> guest: i think the american people will be the ultimate judges. right now, trust in government is atim historically low levels. trust in the congress is, is hardly measurable it's son low and this is very bad forab our democracy. if those numbers start to move back up, then we'll seemo that something positive isbe happening. >> host: our guests with us for an hour. from michigan, republican line. pete,: goodhe morning. >> caller: good morning.n i'm kind of curious, maybe they can answer when i get off the phone how they came

up with the name no labels. just seems ridiculous to me. i guess, i tend to lean more towards the tea party people.en i think they are a lot of independen t people and they're monitoring and having meetings and i just, i think this is something like the coffee party which didn't work out very well either. and, you know i look at labels. there are groups inside the parties who try to be stealthy. and i think we probably allhe have read david horowitz's book, radical son. so we know what these people have done and changed their names over the years. and glenn beck is getting it there to the masses. i think we need to identify people and label them who they are, and not let them be t stealthy and, that is my opinion. >> host: mr. frum, you want to start? >> guest: let me start.st

you know, one of the changes that has come to the conservative world in myha active life, i've beenom involved in conservative politics since the electionli of 1980, has been when i startedi conservatives had a coherent program of reformon and change aimed upgrading living standards, making the economy more competitive, deregulation of industry,no reduction of tax, strengthening of national defense. we implemented a great part of that program and it has yielded incredible results. p that is the great conservative achievement. i think our inventory is acr little thin these days. the result of it is, that , instead of offering people a program,e what we too often do, theff caller, people, caller are unfortunately an example of this, excuses explanations things that have gone wrong, fringer pointing, theoriesin about how the assistant secretary of transportation for traffic, when he was in college studied with this professor and that tells you everything you need to know about the direction of the

obama administration. it is not, that is not thew way people want to govern the country think.th we, when we look at the middle east andto see the conspiracy theories prevalent in that part of the world, we understand that as a product of theo failure of the politics ofpr those societies because if they werste successful they would have programs to offer and competitive elections to help people. and that is, that is the direction that republicanism needs to go. i don't think of no labels being invitation to me to cease to be conserve tiff ory republican. a way for me to join others to change the rules of the game so we can be moree effective next 10 years than we were unfortunately as republicans last 10 years. >> host: plymouth, wisconsin, you are next. curt, independent line. >> caller: good morning., and thank you for c-span. i watched the forum on thisli no labels thing and the question i have is simple. where were you in 2006 whenti that nancy pelosi said, we

won, too bad? w all of sudden, 2010 thepe democrats get thumped. now all of sudden these groups come up. we're not going to believe any of you. i've been it every tea party meeting that has been held within 50 miles of my home. i intend to keep going. there you will find democrats, republicans, libertarians, independents, everybody comes to them and they're all disgusted with exactly what's behind you in that building, and that is what we're going to change. god bless you all. god bless america.bu and have a great day. >> host: mr. galston. >> guest: well, first of all, my hat's off to the tea party movement. it is a genuine grassroots movement. it hasll mobilized a lot of energy, a lot of discontent,

and americans who want to change the way things are going and make things better have been the lifeblood of our country from the very beginning. no labels is no different.e we are democrats,y republicans, independents, discontented with the way d things are going, and tryingde to find a way forward in very difficult times. and, i would ask you, sir,. and people watching thisld program, to suspend your disbelief. we are in very mistrustful times. david frum just talked about conspiracy theories.ul the air is filled with them. let's try to cool the temperature a little bit,ll and focus on the real problems that we confront. the real problems weob confront are not our political adversaries. they are tough economic problems, tough educational problems, tough foreign policy problems. a competitive posture in the

world that is slipping. f an educational system which, according to international tests is not performing up to world class standards. that's the ball to keep our eye on and not demonizing one another. >> host: i'll let you bothal respond to this. this is off twitter from susan who adds, at thisth point gridlock is good thing as is slows down rash decisions based on a political food fight. >> that is something you hear a lot. let me give you concrete example how it is not true. we're in, in the throes ofs this terrible, terrible economic downturn.n beginning in the summer of 2009 there were some signsur of hope that things were getting better.er the economy did strengthen through the fall into 2009 into earliest part of 2010. sometime around the spring of 2010, that improvement stopped and the economy slipped backward andme reversed through the summer. why did that happen?s there is a lot of debate. let me point to one thing which is very powerful gained tore. in april 2010, the federal

reserve decided economy had enough liquidity and stopped making more. why did the federal reserve stop providing leadership? at that same time the federal reserve doesn't have l quorum.ti there were four missing governors on federal reserve. the additional governors f named them.ul there was majority in the senate to confirm them, individual senators in one case one senator this person will not have a vote. because that governor did not get a vote the federal reserve was able, fell into much more paralytic approach. they stopped providing liquidity to the economy. the economy stopped growing in april and we fell into a summer of wasted time and discontent. having, the government has to function. a and the idea that you are better off by paying for this giant entity which has a series of important functions to do and having them not do them, evennt though you're paying for them i think that is just an illusion. that is veryn costly painful thing. the work of the government, i will, agree with thehi implied view of that writer, the government undertakes

too much. but that is not to say thatf the things that government is asked to do or tasked to do are unimportant things. they need to happen. >> host: mr. galston, what would you add? >> guest: well we have unemployment close to 10% still. underemployment is closer toos 20%. we have a federal budget deficit of more than one trillion dollars reach year, and the long-term projectionsye are horrible.pr gridlock is not going to solve those problems, i'm sorry.s obviously nobody is in favor of rash action and our political system was set up, designed by james madison and others not to be liable to rash action but we do need to act. >> n host: springfield, thanks for, springfield, virginia, thanks for waiting. barbara, democrats line. go ahead. >> caller: go ahead, this is james from tennessee. >> host: oh, james, go ahead. james, you're on, go ahead.

>> caller: i'm sorry. >> host: sir, you're on the air, just go ahead. >> caller: okay. yes, i would like to say that the republican partyer and the tea party and fox news networks are all one and their sole purpose is to get barack obama out of office and they're going to do everything they can if it o hurts the people in the t united states to get him outin of office.un thank you. h >> host: let's go straight to, --. >> guest: i will be voting against barack obama, i assume in 2012 and i would also like to get him out of office but you have to have more than that. you have to have some plan what you will do once you have the responsibility of governing yourself. and we have seen in the lastsi spell of republican

governance, which i voted for and supported and participated in, whatan happens. if you arrive in power and don't have a clear idea what you want to do.pa by the way, a lot of what went wrong in the obama administration comes from that same problem. they arrived in office ine 2009 and they did not adapt their program to the facts. that they inherited this d terrible, terrible recession. with great sympathy to them for that but clearly ine their thinking dealing withcl the recession was secondary concern to other agenda items they had made more primary. that is another cause of a i lot of our current problems. we need a politics where the parties are less responsive to their most militant minorities and more responsive to the general public. and there are institutional changes and cultural changesob we can make. changes the way primaries work. changes the way districting work. changes the way campaign finance work that would make politics more responsive to the concerns of the middle 85% of the country, not just extremes extremist 15%. >> host: from gulfport,

mississippi, richard, republican line. >> caller: good morning and i want to thank you for c-span. we know why no labels came up. it came up because people are on to liberals. people are on to progressives. people are on to every term these career politicians and career pundits have used.o so now they're down to, no labels because they don't want you to know their true beliefs. they just going to say no labels and i'm just a good ol'ou boy. i'm just an american. we don't want you to know i'm progressive or liberal or socialist. i'm just one of these good ol' boys with no label. well most folks out here understand what you're doing. thank you and have a good day. >> guest: just, i get called a lot of names. i don't know very oftengu

people call me a liberal. i started my political work in 1980 on the, giving out flyers and being noing on doors for ronald reagan in college town that wasn't very pro-republican. wen did win the congressional seat that year. we didn't hold it but we won it. i was in the bush administration and i've spent my life and career in conservative politics so, if, if no labels is stalking horse for some kind of liberal agenda they made a very, h very big mistake by including me. >> host: can i throw in theng opinions of frank rich which you probably read on your effort to which he said --. >> guest: i've even written about them. >> host: which he said thist: part of what he said. what is most disturbing about no labels, centrist, no doubt, well-intentioned leaders seem utterly clueless about why americans of all labels are angry. the realization that both parties are bought off by special interest and stack the game against the rest of

us. know labels is another manifestation of syndrome. he calls being started by mark mckinnon and veteran of bush and mccain campaigns and nancy jacobson who worked with hillary clinton. what do you make of theel accusation? >> guest: as i've written i think it is unfortunateen accusation because it really doesn't pay attention to what this movement is about and why people are so interested in participating to it. why are people flocking to our facebook page? why did 1,000 ordinary americans come to new york city from every state in the country at their owny expense? why is spontaneous organizing cropping up in states around the country? this is not being done out of some mysteriousth directorate in washington, d.c. weei have hardly any money, right? and the people, the people

who got interested in this movement early on would fit around this table. we don't have the power to do anything unless the people are interested in what we're trying do and theyer are. now, i agree with mr. richr that people are fed up and i don't think he is entirely wrong to suggest that they're fed up because a lot u of people feel underrepresented or you know represented in our nation's politics the wayte it is now being conducted. can mr. rich and i rather than throwing grenades at one another from our respective foxholes agree on that proposition and move forward now we've gotten ourge respective sleen our -- spleen out of system. i certainly hope so. >> host: talk about special interests and how you're funded. >> how the group is funded or how am i funded? >> host: how is the group funded? >> guest: the group is funded, i never seen any money spent in the group so i don't know there are any actual funds. i think the people paid their own way. i think some of the earlyo

founders of the group have generously put small amounts of money of their own into it. bill, you would know better than i don'tei like think there are any corporate contributions. i don't think there are anyor business contributions to the group? >> guest: i'm not reallygr sure but i don't think there are any big contributions to the group. because my understanding our total spending in the first t year of our existence was less than a million dollars. which is, which is trivial by the standards of modern organizations. and i can tell you that the people who are participating in it, as volunteers, are not getting a dime for their services. i have never gotten a penny for all of the hours that ier have contributed and i knowre that others, who haveer contributed their hearts and souls and time to the movement are doing it on a gratis volunteer basis. >> guest: i have spoken at know labels events outside of washington and chicago and other places and i paid my own transportation expenses for example. >> host: david frum, william

galston talking about the work of know labels. charlie, independent line.pe go ahead. >> caller: the united states is looked upon just as americans, kind of like you guys are saying. we've got an empire and justed like ottomans, just like thee romance, just like the british and world empires are expensive and citizens are taxed heavily. and that's, that is some of the problem we face.ns it is not just the welfare state. it is we've got an empire.ly we've got to pay for it. >> guest: well, there is a big debate among scholars as a to whether or not whether we have an empire or not. there are many who agree with you, sir. are but for sure, we have global responsibilitis. for example, the united states navy is the principlepl force guaranteeing freedom of the seas around the world

and, in so doing, we areom facilitating the flow of t global commerce, which is really the lifeblood of theoi world economy. and nations around the world are very eager for us to continue to play this role because the alternative is a return to anarchy. and yes, it is expensive, and there are many americansy. who wish, and i think correctly, that more of thes countries around the world who are benefiting from whatco we're doing around the world, o would pay something closer to their fair share.ld this has been a major goal of american foreign policy f for decades.a it has never made very much progress. and as americans i think we need to make a choice. are we willing to continue to pay for the position of global leadership that we now occupy, or would we like other powers like the chinese to step up and do it in our place? i know what i think, bute there's room for legitimate debate as to whether thisn policy should continue. w

>> host: rick in fort wayne,st indiana, democrats line. good morning. >> caller: good morning andne thanks for c-span. i'm an optimistic person because i believe that a problem, given enough time and mind, solutions willha come into focus but the, i see a problem, and i go into problem-solving mode. my mind automatically does that. our political leaders, some of our political leaders will look at the same problem, and they see blood. they see what harm they can do to the other opposing s party.th and, they are in conflict mode. so i don't think we can get there from here until, until there's a mind-set shift inmi our political leaders. i'll give you an example. mitch mcconnell, as soon as the political race was over this last one, came out and

said his number one priority was to get rid of barack obama. n that surprised me because i thought the number one priority were jobs? so, that's the mindset that they are in. i'd like to know what are the costs of our third war costing the taxpayer, the war that is happening on the hill? we've already had collateral damage from it. loss of homes. loss of jobs. the, the muck and mire of the financial system. >> host: caller, we'll leave it there.e if i may, to the caller's first point about political leaders and how they respond to this idea, we had senator john mccain on the floor and one of the things he talked about was the notion of compromise especially amongst political parties. i have you listen to what he had to say and get your response. >> there is a lot of talk about compromise. there is a lot of talk aboutur working together. you think what this bizarro world that the majority

leader has been carrying us in of cloture votes on this, votes on various issues that c are on the political agenda of the other side is somehow o think that beginning nextpo january 5th we will all loveom one another and kumbayah? i don't think so. >> host: harbinger of next, the 112th? >> guest: well, we'll see. this is what i took away from the lame-duck session i found most encouraging. president obama having had this defeat had a decision s to make, how would he respond to it. one of the ways to respond, i think the way president clinton responded after his defeat to get verynd tactical, to create a lot of traps for the opponents. put them in a position where, that you present them with votes that are booby-trapped with danger. you give them things that they say they want but connect them to things they t really can't abide. and you can do a lot of damage to the other side but you destroy your reputation for dealingyo in good faith that is also what happened

to the clinton administration. he managed to persuade the republicans he was so untrustworthy there was no dealing with him. that does not seem to have happened this timehe.un there is some temptation . .ning this time. there is some temptation to do so. on, for example, the repeal of don't ask, don't tell. that was linked early on to the abortion provisions that the democrats knew would be utterly unacceptable to the republicans. they gave a clean vote on don't ask, don't tell. we saw what happened. we will see if the president will continue to negotiate. he is in a more powerful position than bill clinton was in 1995. the country's problems are much more serious than they were in 1995. every day there are moments in washington to prove good faith

or bad faith. host: before we go to the calls, let me play one more clip. this is from president obama. i believe it is from the press conference before he left f or vacation. >> i will be happy to see the republicans test whether or not i'm itching for a fight on a range of issues. i suspect that they will find that i am. i think the american people will be on my side on a bunch of these fronts. host: the larger issue, getting people to work together, especially when you have issues that do come up when you talk about policy. guest: we will see, won't we? we will begin to see in earnest when president obama delivers his 2011 state of the union address. that will lay down the template, the path forward, as he sees

it, for the next two years of the country and his administration. my prediction is that after thinking for a strategy and tactics, he will decide that the path of cooperation is the best, both for the country and for him personally. if he is as smart as i think he is, he will come to the following conclusion. if i get to the high ground and stretch out my hand and invite everyone else to join me here, if they grasp my hand, good for the country and good for me. if they spurn my aunt's ranch hand, then the country can see for itself where the real obstacle is. just to show that no labels is not without internal discord, as a former clintonian, i just have to say that i do not accept that account of what happened during the clinton administration. the record will show that in

1996 and 1997, very important agreements were reached across party lines on issues ranging from welfare to our fiscal future. apparently, the majority of the republican party during that period reached a very different conclusion. namely, that bill clinton was someone they could do business with, and they did. i think history will record that was not a bad time for our country. just to show you that we are not all on the same page -- [laughter] host: what about the state of the union? guest: i have an article coming up in the next issue of "esquire" magazine. it goes through what should the president do? host: is there a picture of you? guestyou or a famously well dred

conservative. [laughter] guest: he will be fighting an overwhelming temptation to strategy and traps. the president has the inherent advantage. he is a single decision maker at the top. it's easy for him to coordinate than it is for the members of congress. i hope you'll resist that. host: john on the line for republicans. guest: first, the federal reserve is not responsible for growth. they are responsible for debt fueled inflationary baubles that eventually burst. the american public suffers the consequences we have not been telling you that we do not want gridlock. we do not want washington

getting bigger and bigger and creeping further and further into our lives and spending more money. i welcome gridlock. on christmas eve, an omnibus bill was passed that gives the fda to regulate all food growing in the u.s. we do not want you people in our lives anymore. we want gridlock. thank you. guest: one of the real barriers -- conservatives do not understand how much they have won since the middle of the 1970's. if we look back to 1960, the year i was born, it was illegal to own a telephone. the government regulated everything in the country.

it regulated telecommunications services. it regulated what was said on the airwaves. the scope of the government is smaller in every way than it was in 1966. the conservatives could of georgia that, i think they would be less apocalyptic -- if the conservatives could absorb that, i think it would be less apocalyptic. i wish the caller would review the recent history of conservative accomplishments and feel that kind of optimism that makes him think there something better to do as a conservative in washington than simply stopping things from getting done. host: pam on the line for republicademocrats. guestcaller: i think you have tt the money out.

given the recent united decision, i do not think that's happening. i think americans would cheer any political group that got together and started pushing a limit on the times that elections take place. in england, they have six weeks or something like that. we love a shorter campaign season. two, i think you should promote a turntable o cable off day. citizens are being thrown to the lions on a daily basis. as americans, we're sitting around with blood thirsty watching what you people do to each other. i think that promoting a hit to their ratings is one of the only ways to get it to stop.

thank you for taking my call. host: mr. galston. guest: let me give you a no labels perspective. we do not begin in washington with a no labels agenda that we're asking people to sign up to. our hope is that through the citizens' groups that will be organized in all 435 congressional districts -- i can tell you that having attended our launch event in new york', and having listened very carefully to what the citizens who came to the event said, is clear to me that the reform of the political system is high on their list, as it is on yours, and as it should be on the list of americans. there's no question about the fact that our institutional structure, starting as david frum said with the way we

organize congressional districts, to the way that we organize campaigns, is not working correctly. it's certainly not increasing confidence in our government institutions. the confidence is near historical low levels. i share your hope that citizens across the country will develop a robust agenda of political and institutional reform and carry that forward into our nation's politics. host: as far as your organization is concerned, is there a set of principles you're looking for as far as the end results of people coming together? guest: our principles are very simple. one, stop demonizing your opposition, whoever your opposition is. two, search for common ground. 3, be in problem solving mode. four, put the country first. beyond that, it is up to the

citizens to come together around solutions. that is why the local organizing will be the principal focus for 2011. we do not need one more washington center, washington driven agenda. we need a citizen-focused and citizen-generated agenda. that's what we will try to provide the arena for. guest: about what the caller said about cable news, there's obviously a big food fight atmosphere to a lot of people. i worry a lot more, not about the 3 million people or 5 million people who watch a lot of cable tv and get too much slanted political information -- i worry about the 125 million people who get much less political information than their parents and grandparents did. we are moving toward a world in which the best informed americans are so much more informed than they were a generation ago, but many

americans are much worse informed. it's that kind of information oligarchy that is one of the powerful and destructive forces in american politics. if you do not know what is going on, you will be taking advantage of. that's the backdrop to the financial crisis. all kinds of decisions were made that were too technical and too boring for people to follow. trillions of dollars turned. the object should not be to get people to turn off cable tv, but to persuade the 125 million people who do not watch enough political information to watch more. host: how do you factor in political blogs and web sites? guest: i think that is the minority within the minority. there are probably 500,000 people who also read a lot of blogs and are really informed. back to my parents' generation, they were very well-informed people. they're still well-informed.

in 1970, you read a couple of daily papers, and consciously watched the evening news, and special reports on the weekend, not only were you doing your part, but you were getting as much information as it was possible to get. today, that would be baileybaren appetizer portion. it was almost impossible to avoid the 6:30 p.m. news back then, because you had to get off the couch and turn it off, and do something before prime time began. today, it's easy to avoid and a lot of people are. host: richard on the line for independents. thank you for waiting. go ahead. caller: good morning. i'm concerned about the labeling stuff. if my memory correct, isn't mr. frum one of the speech writers for the bush administration? didn't you come up with the term, "axis of evil"? are we still live in the

consequences of your labeling, essentially, and bankrupting this country? guest: as bill said, we have some internal disagreement. i'm not quite as peace-loving in temperament as some. i do believe, sometimes, if someone throws a punch at you, you throw a punch back. i would argue more about inaccurate and irrational labeling then i would about labeling altogether. sometimes, yes, a lot of people say to me -- sometimes use a tough things. what are doing in this group? sometimes tough things have to be said. one of the real reasons behind a tendency toward extremism in our politics is that people who have -- too often, people who have moderate views on issues, it is naturaly linked to a moderate personality type.

every once in awhile, if you're going to stand up for a broad points of views, you have to give as good as you get and not say, "gee, i'm too moderate to stand up for myself." guest: let me just add to that. this is a widespread misinterpretation. no labels does not mean that people do not have political identities. no labels is not asking people to shed those political identities, if and when they choose to identify with our movement. it is asking them to think about a larger good that includes but also goes beyond the their individual identities. in a lifelong democrat. i have been in sixth democratic presidential campaigns. i served for two and a half

years in bill clinton's white house. i'm proud of every minute of it. having said that, i have never claimed that my party has a monopoly on either wisdom or virtue. i have never believed that people on the other side of the idaisle were evil. sometimes i have thought they are misguided. i'm sure they've got the same about me. we are not asking people to forget about the fact that they are republicans, democratics, and independents, liberals, moderates, or conservatives, but we're asking them to think harder about what it means to be an american and what it means to practice politics and what it means to be an american citizen. that's all. guest: just before christmas, everyone was talking about the new york jets coach that tripped

a player. people thought that was pretty reprehensible. was that man not a good coach? did that mean he was not committed to the new york jets? there are things we do not do in competition. it does not help the competition. it does not make you stronger. it destroys the possibility of politics altogether. the analogy is, there's a difference between playing as well as you can when you're on the field and tripping the players. host: james on the phone from louisiana. caller: good morning. can we please stop calling mr. frum a conservative? a true conservative would never advise the republicans to support the democratic health care bill. after november 2, it does not look like the american people like it so much. take a look at all the waivers the administration has granted.

the pre-existing conditions fiasco where 8000 people when they thought it was going to be 135,000 people signing up -- and now they sneak this end-of-life counseling into the bill in the dark of the night. do you still think republicans should support this? do you really consider yourself a conservative with these types of policy decisions? guest: i'm sorry. i accept you. second, if you read the piece i wrote in spring of 2010, i'm amazed at how accurate it was. what i said then was this. republicans that everything on stopping the health care bill. they refused to try to introduce their ideas because they were so confident they could stop it. i said they would not be able to

stop it, so you better try to fix it. republicans did not do that. the result was the health care bill that passed into law. the idea is that the people rejected my advice were more opposed to the health care bill -- without pat toomy -- republicans rejected it and they did not defeat it. it is here. it is here and all of its awfulness. do not tell me about the intensity of your emotions when your methodology has led to this disaster. yes,ca,re -- it would be a much better bill from my point of view. now, passing a repeal through the house of representatives, passing a filibuster, winning a presidential election, and finding a president who will sign it.

it is impossible. it is here. host: bingham, new york. kelly on the line for democrats. caller: good morning. mr. frum and mr. galston appeared to be the only -- people are attacking the idea. people are attacking mr. frum. when you have countries like china, india, singapore zooming past the united states. i just called american people can educate themselves -- i just hope the american people can educate themselves into the right thing for the country. host: what would you like to see? caller: i would like to see more people pay attention to it and stop cleaning themselves

to the media that gives misinformation. there are millionaires spreading a bunch of misinformation. it is just misinformation. when are they going to pick up a book? when are they going to reach something from a different idea and stop what is going on? host: mr. galston? guest: thank you very much. we have a movement for you movementsir. -- we have a movement for you, sir. i think your last comment was really onto something. for good or ill, the change in the media and information landscape over the past three decades has made it more and more possible for people to live in a world of information and opinion that reinforces and hardens their own prejudices.

that is making it harder and harder to have the kind of conversation that we need to have. david frum, a few minutes ago, referred to the now vanished era where the three networks and the nightly news shows dominated the information flow. that era was not all good, but it did require people to participate in a common pool of information. it did make it possible for the country to have a more robust political the sessiodiscussion s more center seeking then what we have now. the problem with these niche markets is that they are echo chambers reinforcing rather than challenging the opinions that listeners and viewers bring to them. that is not a problem for which i have a solution because the change in the media landscape is a product of decades of technological development,

decades of legal development that open up markets. the media, like the airlines, are much less regulated than they were thre30 years ago. there are many advantages to that. people were avid consumers of information have a lot more available than they did 30 years ago. people who have a narrow view simply have those reinforced. guest: i try to counteract this game by joining it. i run a site. we try to offer something that a little broader. host: nolabels.org. guest: i was actually promoting my own. [laughter] visit no labels, too.

host: if they go to this website, what information can they find? guest: they find out what's no labels -- what no labels is about and how they can get involved. those of the two most critical things. they also have a steady flow of information and commentary from different points of view. we're trying to build that up and make it more robust. we do not have a lot in the way of resources. we do not have all the bells and whistles that people have become accustomed to, but the basics are there. it is like the old folk story with a pot of water bubbling in the middle of town square. the two stew will be as good as the meat and vegetables at the american people bring to it. host: the people identified with your group, is there a breakdown? guest: we do not have the

demographics on that yet. obviously, before we get too far into 2011, we will start to have a better feel. i can tell you this. there's a very healthy mix in new york for our launch event in the seats and on the stage. host: there will not be any larger events? guest: there will be state and local events. frankly, national events are not what we are about. if this is not a grass-roots movement, it is not a movement. if it's not a movement, it's just a few people sitting in washington hoping for something better. host: allen, texas on the line for independents. caller: thank you. pedro, please do not cut me off before i have my points made. right now, the calls are --

well, there's a call for, one twitter for, and mine for seeing through what these people are all about. i commend my people from michigan, wisconsin, susan on the twitter, mississippi, and the article for mr. rich. i did not count that. that is 11 now. host: your point, please. caller: my point is that these people are social engineering. host: we will leave it there. guest: i do not think i am social engineering. host: mr. galston? guest: i've been called a lot of things. social engineer? i do not think so.

it is not social engineering. it is grass roots american politics. if i'm accused of participating in grass-roots american politics, i have to plead guilty. that's what i'm doing. i have said probably three or four times in this hour, and i will say it again, this movement is what citizens who are not satisfied with the concrete issue of our nation's politics are going to make of thait. i have my own ideas. i do not expect those ideas to be adopted. i hope they will be discussed. i hope a lot of ideas will be discussed, too. that is democracy. host: you had a chance to see the no labels national leadership meeting. that will be aired friday aired8:15 -- friday at 8:15.

you can see more about it and what it is about. we invite you to view that

>> looking at pictures now from american university here in washington where we sure they will resume life coverage of a daylong discussion on lobbying. they are in the midst of a lunch break right now. when they return, the focus will be a political campaign fundraising for female politicians. live coverage about 1:45 eastern on espn2. until then, a book on food policy from today's "washington journal." postcode this is "the wall street journal" this morning. he writes again, starting on saturday, those turning 65 in qualifying for medicare at a rate of one every second, a record 2.8 million will qualify and 2011, rising to 2.4 million

a year according to projections. and all the government expect and 76 million boomers will be john to medicare. even factoring death of the period, the program will go from 47 million today to 80 million in 2030. "the wall street journal," the "washington post" has the results of an associate press survey looking at the future of medicare, saying that 43% of americans between 1946 and 64 city to annex it to depend on medicare forever, while 20% think their medicare is secure. the rest have mixed feelings. the survey shows a willingness among adults among all ages to sacrifice to preserve medicare benefits, that most americans if they deserve after years of paying taxes into the system that were. so here's how you can weigh on it this morning. 202-737-0001 for republicans. 202-737-0002 for democrat.

and 202-628-0205 for independence. c-span.org is our e-mail. and if you want to go out the twitter, twitter.com c-span wj. just to give the suggestion of one of the proposals being floated, just as the tacos for extending medicare. some leading republicans and a few democrats have called for a phasing out of the program and instead of giving retirees a fixed payment or vouchers to help them by private medical insurance of their choice, the poll found doubts about the idea any generational debate. you may agree with that. you may not. what you can call in as well as many are doing this morning. jim is first up on our democrats line, lakeland, florida. what do you think about the sustainability of medicare? >> caller: well, there's going to be some modifications. i needier sold.

i'm of course i medicare. do you know there's been a lawsuit on-demand date of everybody who has insurance? but there is a mandate in medicare part d but nobody is ever mentioned no lawsuits or anything. the mandate is that everybody has to be in a qualified prescription drug plan. costco so as far as the modifications you are talking about going into your statements, what would change? would you change the drug program are there other aspects he would change? >> caller: well, if you are in medicare, you have to be in a qualified drug plan. in the drug plan, you can be on the county drug plan, state drug and for applied to a commercial

drug plan. but it's a mandate you belong tu one. >> host: you made that point, but what would young change? >> caller: what would i change? i think if somebody willf t su successfully suecc the mandate s unconstitutional under the other plan other plan, the obama plan, the mandate that everybody carry insurance, it would also stands to reason the mandate under the medicare drug plan also be unconstitutional. host: stephanie, independent line in washington, d.c. caller: people have to stop repeating the drumbeat that republicans keep going, it will not be there for you. they say the same thing about social security. stop thinking about the drum beat. it is going to be here and the people need to do what ever it takes for it to stay. what they can do -- and i am

absolutely against that privatizing -- if they want to privatize, the republicans want to privatize everything and i am not going to be into this privatizing medicare. what i think they need to do is stop the war on drugs, that stupid war on drugs but there are so many things that they could stop. they could stop the regular wars. but you are not going to stop medicare. most of the medicare is used during the last two weeks of life. what we need to do is pull the plug on grandma. and i am a grandma. and the last two weeks of life use than 60 percent as a total medicare patient. the other thing, these doctors are the biggest thieves, biggest pool of these left in america. host: aside from all of that, but nothing changed today use building medicare is going to survive? caller: of course, medicare is going to survive because we

wanted to survive. we got everything else out. we don't have to cut medicare or social security out. people, just stop repeating what the republicans tell you to repeat. host: another input from saved the usa, of twitter -- it is impossible to save medicare. we have $111 trillion in unfunded entitlements and the nation is bankrupt. another viewpoint from oklahoma. on the republican right. henry. go ahead. caller: medicare and social security probably what survive, but if the democrats and republicans and independents would start putting back the billions of dollars they borrowed from an over the years and quit wasting money, it would survive. host: you think there are changes needed to the program itself? guest: yes. democrats need to start paying back the billions of dollars

they borrowed from it. host: let me follow this idea, one of the proposals, this is from "the washington post" story this morning. do you think there should be a rise in age in medicare? caller: no, because over the years it has been paid for by hard-working people like myself. if it is, it should be half of the raise for social security. like the lady said a while ago -- all the crooks are doctors. she should have said the crooks are politicians and doctors. " wary about god -- yes, i said god even though people don't

like the word -- and the dollar bill instead. host: texas is next. democrats line. brenda. caller: good morning, and happy new year. host: thank you. caller: i cannot believe the oklahoma guy believed the the previous democrat. i forget her name but she was on target. it is the republicans would stop the scared -- they get a lie started and it just goes on and on a paired -- on and on. also regarding the oklahoma guy being a republican, i cannot believe he is all that concerned about social security given that they voted those republicans into congress this past fall. host: is the real problem a perception of people being scared, according to you, about medicare? caller: yes, i agree, people are just scared because the republicans get a live started and it goes on and on.

i think it is solvent. also, if we can keep the republicans at bay then we can get our country back. host: why do you think it is solvent and why do you think it is sustainable for the baby boomer generation? caller: because it always has been and we paid our money in. i just think it has always been there for us. we paid in this money, so where is the money? if it is not solvent, where's the money? host: can ask you if you currently receive medicare? caller: i don't. i am too young. host: springlike, florida. barry on the republican line. caller: hello. honestly, we are coming to a point in this world -- i have two views on the matter. one view is we are, to the point where we are going to have to start basically figuring out in the next 30 years who is going to live and die. we are talking almost 10 billion people over the next hundred years.

it is as simple as this right here, though. all the people in power are rich. they live off of basically subjugating the poor. but you can't blame them. survival of the fittest. but you have to look at the prices -- see, the problem is, once we fund the drug companies and give them all this money for research and development, the people giving them all the tax money are getting ripped off again by the drug prices and medicare is getting ripped off because you have $800 going out for something we did not pay for research and development for every single month. some prescription are more at that -- prescriptions are more than that. host: what would you change? caller: the talk about it once before, but if they need to just sit there -- it blew right past the democrats, they're gonna sit there and at what they are perfect, because they are not. they did not say anything about negotiating drug prices, either.

they are just as good as republicans. they are all liars. host: another from the story this morning, who writes about of this morning. again, we are talking about medicare. stories about its sustainability, especially as

the baby boomers start to receive benefits, saturday, january 1. miami, florida. independent line. judy. caller: good morning. i am so shocked i got three to c-span. i have been watching it for some time. i am a nurse for 52 years. i always tried to get out of nursing since medicare came into being. it is socialized medicine. the poor people are funding it. when you work and you only make about $75 a day, you still have to pay that 3% medicare tax. and they put it in several different things. anyway, it has nothing to do with -- we need to get -- medicare is fraudulent, it is killing people. you don't have a choice to see a doctor. i found myself on medicare. i never had insurance because my

grandfather told me years ago, don't buy insurance, don't go to hospitals and don't go to doctors. why should the federal government run a medical system for the whole country when it it should be run by the state because the -- like, in florida, there are so many people on medicare, it is so fraudulent. host: where does the fraud, income of those using medicare or the medical side? caller:, both. i saw "60 minutes, what the drug lords are switching to medicare fraud because it is -- "60 minutes," with the drug lords switching to medicare because it is more profitable. the governor with elected was into medicare fraud 20 years ago. the fraud is so rampant, medical device companies, medicare

agencies that provide home care -- i am one and now -- they are all being cut. about the time you start to get better they cut you off for three months. i have not seen a doctor for over a year for what is wrong with me. host: we have to leave it there. fort worth, texas. rebecca, democrats' line. caller: i have a comment and solution. when i became 65 years old,, texas retirement system, i paid into retirement and when i became 65 our trs picked a program with aetna and when i became 65 a nicely told me i needed to join medicare because they no longer were going to carry me. they were only going to pay 20% that medicare didn't pay, because medicare pays 80% and

aetna was only going to pay 80% of the 20% i was a state employee. we did not put into social security, only our teacher retirement. congress let the insurance companies make senior citizens, especially from a wealthy state like texas that prides itself on having a lot of resources, hear the teachers are taking off of the insurance -- state insurance and are told to -- that you have to join medicare. host: all that said. what would you change to make it sustainable? caller: congress needs to make the insurance continue to pay senior citizens full coverage. a high premium for aetna is higher -- i have to pay for medicare in addition to paying it at now premium on a monthly basis. host: what you pay for medicare?

caller: the price -- $100 a month, and you'll have to pay three months in advance. host: what do you get -- ? >> will leave "washington journal" at this point. you can see it every morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern. the next portion focusing on political campaign fund-raising. the speaker is mary jane olk. she has been introduced. emily's list is an organization that raises money for female democratic candidates who support abortion rights. this is live coverage on c-span 2. >> she's the senior finance tracker at the political department of emily's list. ms. volk has had a very long and successful career in fund-raising -- political fundraising both at emily's list

in their own political consulting, working on campaign committees on capitol hill were associated with the democratic party on capitol hill. she hopes people right now build their own campaign capacity to raise money, but it's helped work in many different capacities and different ways in helping people raise money for himself. as i said now moving more into training folks in helping them raise money. the reason why we asked ms. volk to speak of is there a lot of talk of a type of advocacy and lobbying that's a lot of i think caricatures and references that seem to be caricatures about money in politics, that money is simply about buying a boat and it's boat and it's all a glass corruption. i think that while there are people who violate the law and should be prosecuted, there's a lot that makes sense about my money is in politics come away from others melco politics. it is about the cost and challenges of running a

political campaign. and i think ms. volk will hopefully talk today about how you do raise money in the context of the system for people you hope that affect the system. emily's list does not lobby. they're not have funds l. going door-to-door build and lobbying campaigns on a particular issue. while they are very concerned about progressive issues and issues that are pro-choice, they work more upstream. they're trying to get the candidate that agree with them into political office and hoping that the rest will take care of itself and issue advocacy groups like the ones we're talking about doing, issue advocacy campaigns and organizations that we're examining over the next two weeks, that they take care of the business on a day-to-day struggle with capitol hill. so with that, i want to thank ms. volk for coming to speak to us. [applause]

>> thank you. it's a thrill to be here to speak with you today. i have to apologize in advance. i've been fighting a cold off and finally today it decided to creep into my throat, so i'm going to hope that you cannot hear me. please feel free to interrupt at any time to ask questions. as patrick said, sometimes money gets a bad rap in political advocacy, but just like any other organization, fund-raising is the engine that drives the train. and campaigns, we talk about the fact that if you don't have enough money, you can't run a good successful campaign. it's the same thing with starting any kind of organization. you have to have the funding to be able to get your message out to your audience into your potential donors. otherwise, you can have the greatest organization, the greatest message, but you don't have the ability to send that

message out and therefore keep funding your organization. so, fund-raising basically is marketing. that's what you're doing. you're selling your organization to potential donors. so in order to do that, you have to be able to speak about your organization, what it does, what its mission is if you have to be able to convince people to open their wallets, to help you in your mission. because again, if you don't have money for that mission, it's really difficult to get your message out. you know, we can do a lot on the internet nowadays and that's very good because it doesn't cost a lot of money, you know, to solicit people over the internet can reach out to people over the internet. but in fund-raising you have to use that is one tool. there are many others you have

to use as well. so you have to have money to do that. you have to figure out who are your potential donors. and no, the whole world isn't going to give to your organization. you have to pare it down and you have to target. i'm going to talk to a little bit today on how to figure out where your money is going to come from. i want to start by talking about two distinct organizations in the advocacy world, one being my organization, emily's list. and as patrick said, we do not lobby. we try to recruit candidates and help them win campaigns so that they're already in congress voting to pro-choice way that we hope that they will. so that's sort of, you know, we do it on the front end rather than having to go up to capitol hill on a regular basis and put forth our agenda. so with these two organizations, emily's list, our mission is

pretty simple. were dedicated to electing pro-choice political women to office. and then this might come of the mission statement is basically the first bullet. the second bullet is basically flushing out the mission statement a little bit. i took this directly off the chamber of commerce's website. the chamber of commerce for those on the progressive side has been quite an adversary, particularly in this last election cycle in light of the citizens united supreme court decision that allows corporate money back into politics. we think that's wrong, that corporations are basically treated like individuals. so i just wanted to sort of give you a little comparison between that organization and my organization and sort of how we raise our money and what our missions are. so to advance -- the chamber of commerce to advance the economic, political and social

system based on individual freedom, and then to come initiative, opportunity and responsibility. does anyone understand what that means? if you do, could you please explain it to me? so, so my point is without the benefit of the previous slide, do you remember what the mission of emily's list is? what is it? and somebody repeated back to me? right here in the front. [inaudible] >> right. and what about the chamber of commerce? can anybody repeat back to me with their chamber of commerce is? just as they thought. and so the point is that you have to have a mission statement that is concise and clear and that you can market to donors. if i'm the chamber of commerce, i think it's going to be really hard to, you know, repeat what their mission statement is.

but the differences -- bluffing just go to the next slide for a minute. the difference is that emily's list -- where is organized as a political action committee under the federal election commission is called a separate segregated fund. you know, word independent organization. we are not tied to another organization, unlike the chamber of commerce. their political action committee is tied to their parent organization. and they can only raise money from their members. but if you look at the difference in our membership, we raise money from individuals. myself, a few rich people. barbra streisand and susie buell. alex sink was a candidate, but she's been a member of emily's list for a very long time. if you look on the other side,

the members of the chamber of commerce are generally fortune 500 companies. so what does that tell you about each of our ability to raise money and this current political climate? the chamber is going to have a lot more of it, right? because all those fortune 500 companies can get unlimited funds. and for our part, we raise both federal and nonfederal money. i don't know if you kind of gotten into the difference between federal and nonfederal money? when they just really quickly. federal money as money face under the federal -- guidelines of the federal elections commission. it's money that is used to support candidates for president, u.s. commerce and u.s. house. first-rate individual limits. an individual can do i believe it's $2400 now per election. it's a 2400 in the primary, 2408 general election.

you know, that's not a lot of money really. in addition, we have a nonfederal side and an independent expenditure side to our organization. and we can raise unlimited funds for nonfederal activities of people who run for governor, people are run for state legislature. and we do support candidates at those levels. so we can raise unlimited amounts. but if you look at the difference, you know, with a couple which donors like arthur streisand. i personally myself for not rich. i get about $1000 a year to the organization. susie buell, i don't know if you are familiar with her, but she started this recall the name many years ago and she's a fairly wealthy progressive woman who was in san francisco. she supports a lot of progressive causes. she's a pretty big donor to us.

but nothing like these companies on the other side that gave millions and millions and millions of dollars in the last election cycle. emily's list -- i work on the campaign site, so i work directly with the campaign. we have an independent site, so we basically put there will and i don't talk to the people who honor independent expenditure side. they have to do their own polling. they have to do their own research about the campaign. we on the i can share with them anything that we know that's going on within the campaign organization. so it's all completely independent. and frankly, you'd be surprised how well that works. if there's any skeptics in the audience, bush is crazy. how can you not tied to our colleagues in a fairly small organization? really fascinates me at the end of a primary or general election, you know, we're talking about what happens, what emily's list is.

they say will be spent $3 million on barbara boxer and we get this, this, this and this. i was like wow, that's amazing. i didn't know about. i know some things because i'm a member of emily's list and i get their e-mails. and once information is in the public domain, then everybody can know about it and know it's going on. but i remember very, very vividly when allyson schwartz was first elected to congress in 2004 think it was, when we have a session talking about what the independent side of emily's list it in the campaign, i was just blown away. i had no idea what is not done so many doors, set up so much mail because my side of the organization is allowed to know that. so it actually does work. so emily's list in this election cycle spent about $6 million on independent expenditures.

a lot of that want to help reelect barbara boxer and patty murray because they are people we worked with early on. they are strong advocates of choice in the united states senate. and we felt very strongly that in the beginning of the cycle we didn't even think they had tough campaigns as it played out. and the tea party movements became more important than their opponent sort of became tied to that movement in some ways. we knew that we have to work really hard and find those two campaigns very specifically. so we spent about $6 million altogether on our independent activities. does anybody remember how much the chamber spent on mayors? it was an excess of $30 million. we can't really compete with that. but we do that very, very best we can. so, again, we go primarily after individual donors.

the u.s. chamber of commerce has five by corporate special interest money and you can see a very, very short list of some of the people that backs the activities of the u.s. chamber of commerce this election cycle and they were instrumental in defeating a lot of progressive democrats, unfortunately. ..

>> to have a fund-raising planet just like in a campaign where we have to have a plan to raise 3 million or 20 million, you know, sun u.s. senate races. we have to figure out the plan. we have to determine who's going to give and why they are going to give. and we have to figure out sort of what other groups of donors that will be for us. so who are the donors out there that emily's list can go after for money to fund the activities that we undertake? so when i do training for campaigns, we have come up with this model at emily's list that we use. people use it, so people don't but we think it's a pretty good way of strategically thinking about where your donors are

going to come from. so if you put in the middle of this bull's-eye the advocacy organization as opposed to the candidate, you can apply the personal ideological in the power circles to fund-raising for an organization. i'm going to explain that in a minute. this is my favorite training little guy, the kick them in the knees monkey. what do i mean by that, take them in the knees? every donor has sort of a neat and you have to fulfill it. so if i'm approach with democratic woman with emily's list are 25 years ago when barbara mikulski first ran for the united states senate, it was a top of the founders at emily's list to go out and find other women and men who thought that was an important issue, and ask them for money. so where did they start?

well, you know, if if you have heard the story about how emily's list was founded, our current chair of the board and founder, that interface it with the group of five, six, seven friends one day and they came up with this plan for this organization. and and/or do figure where the money was going to come from they all got out the rolodexes, their personal rolodexes and each of the seven or 10 people in that room when, remember that personal circle. each of the people in that room went to the personal circle. so they went to their sisters and their college roommates, and people that had worked with that they thought were interested in the choice issue and preserving a woman's right to choose. and ask them for money. that's what the seed money came from to start our organization. the same thing with any organization. right after the columbine shootings, i -- gun control is

one of my big issues and i decided to start this organization do, you know, to change the law, that gun laws that we have. and so i started out asking my mother for a contribution, and my mother was the first donor to our organization. the woman who cofounded it with me, asked a couple of her friends and they became part of our organization. what we learned though is once we got into the ideological circle the people who are passionate about that issue who would either lost family or, you know, part of the columbine community or any other community, frankly, we've had so many of these instances, while they are strong advocates and they will go out there in march and they will go to capitol hill and talk, they don't understand how to advocate with their pocketbook. we had a really hard time getting these people to write a check. and so the organization existed

for about two years and we folded because the only people we could raise money from were our personal circle, people who believe an issue or who believe in us, frankly. they gave my because this is something that i care deeply about and they believed in me. and so once we got into the ideological circle it was really, really hard to get those people to open their pocketbooks and you know he would have to advocate with your pocketbook in order to get your organization off the ground. so you have to identify the donors needs, and then you have to determine the method you are going to use to get to those donors. remember, i talked about mission statement which is a very important piece of the message. and then you also have two, once you determine your message and you targeted some donors, you have to go and educate them. so why is it that if they have $10,000 to give, that they should give it to your organization? you have to educate them about

how important this is and how a woman's right to choose its costly under assault in the congress and in that emily's list has done such good work over a number of years and elected a lot of women to office, we need your help now for us to continue that work. an ongoing organization as opposed to the campaign, is what we like to call donor maintenance, which is once a donor gives, you want them to give again and again. so you have to maintain a relationship with them. you have to talk to them. you have to let them know what's going on inside your organization, you know. any oldies we sent out a newsletter. now have the internet so we send out newsletters the of the internet, we blog, we have all kinds of interesting things on a website that talks about what we're doing. but you also have to try people to your website and that's a whole other, we could spend a

couple of hours on that alone. donor maintenance is important to the organization. so i want to now talk a little bit about developing the message, how you're going to pitch your donors. so as i said every donor has a motivation, and you have to figure out is. that people have the greatest motivation are going, want to give more money or give more often. people who believe in your cause. you know, women, our founder is in her early '60s. women of that age, that was right before abortion became legal, and they can tell you story after story about friends of theirs who had very bad circumstances and had to seek an abortion. frankly, while none of us want to before abortion, we want women to be able to make that decision on their own. that's basically what choice is all about. so you have to be able to articulate that message to a set

of donors that you believe i agree with that message. and you have to come you have to do research to find these donors. so again i said you start with your personal circle. these are some of my favorite depiction of personal circle. so you start with your family and friends and, you know, you're close -- you already know who these people are, right? [laughter] these are some of, twilight, the modern family tv show and 30 rock, popular, popular tv shows no. it's my illustration to you about how you reach out to your personal circle. just like i went to my mother when i was starting an organization, you go to the people that you know best and that your seed money. so the message for the personal circle is, remember i said they believed in me, and what i was doing. so basically it's a message of

love, fondas, friendship. people who care about you and want you, what you want to do. look at this young man that started facebook. he had let some capital, right? he had to go to his family and strength. i'm sure his dad helped him get that off the ground. so that's what you do. you go to the people who care about you and what you want to succeed him. that's your startup money. then we go to the ideological circles, and these are people who are passionate about the issue for which you are going to advocate. these people are risk takers. so they will give you money. they may not be a $10,000 donor, but maybe they can give you $500, you know, a couple of times a year. and that accepted these other people that you want to talk about, how critical this important issue is. the chamber of commerce use this over and over give with their members. they talk about their an

organization for small businesses. which i kind of find funny but a lot of the local chambers of commerce are members of the u.s. chamber of commerce. and a local chambers often do represent the communities small businesses. but they talk about the tax bill and how this president is going to keep raising taxes. you know, we can't afford more business and that was the message to a business that helped them get this $30 million to defeat a lot of progressive democrats. and so the message is really kind of together we can change the world. if we believe in this and we funded this, we can change the world. and i put his slides on the president signing the don't ask, don't tell legislation because they had a big victory, and he did change the world. and you know they found people, this gentleman that you see in the slide over the president shoulder, i think he was an

admiral in the navy, very high up in the u.s. navy. i think he became an advocate for getting rid of don't ask, don't tell. the same thing with a tea party. they started out as less taxes and they could extrapolate from there. but they have a message, and together we can change the world. that's sort of, that the ideological message that you want to use with the donors who might be able to give you money. and then there's the power circle. this is, in campaigns this is generally the skeptics. these are people do you have to prove that you can win. so you have to have a poll that says you are well positioned, you have to have raised a lot of money. these people come on board late. so after you got your moms money and your dads money to start organization, your sisters, your college roommates, then you sort of, then you start to feel okay, this has taken off, then you can go to the circle of people who

are kind of skeptical. you can find perhaps some investors there who might care about the cause that you're going to advocate. so i want to talk a little bit about a couple of these organizations. because the message here is that you have to demonstrate success a little bit. and so emily's list has been around for 25 years. amnesty international come if you can see up there, they say it right in their logo. they have been around for 50 years advocating for human rights. that's pretty powerful. i am a 50 year-old organization, and then you want to talk about all the good things that you have done as a, in the 50 years. i put strengths up there. it's one of the biggest organizations to feed the hungry in the country. the guy who started it, a democrat who worked for senator bob kerrey, and i remember in

the late '80s when he had started his organization i actually -- we had, we shared office space. he was struggling to keep his organization online. he had some chefs involved. he had a few small businesses involved. he was raising money from individuals, but he went up to new york a couple of times to pitch american express for his organization. i think it was in 1989, he started the organization and 87. it was either 89 or 90, american express decided to come onboard and they're going to to advertise for him and put the logo, the american express logo, and it really made that organization take off. if you go and look at the website today, they are partnered with amazing businesses and corporations. so, you know, in the 25 or so years that they have been around, 30 years, they have

really, they struggle in the beginning but if i got it off the ground. and there was the most successful organizations. susan g. komen, when you see a pink ribbon on everything, right? i have running shoes -- i don't run -- [laughter] i have athletic shoes that have a pink ribbon on them. we have water bottles that have pink ribbon on them. you see that pink ribbon everywhere. they've done an amazing job of advocating for an organization that was a sisters wanting to help, to keep the legacy of her sister who died of breast cancer a life. and to help other women, does you know, in the congress women's health was sort of put on the back burner. it was never a focus. now that we have more women in congress, women's health is always talk about what health care bills come up. who are the people are talking about it? debbie stabenow, claire mccaskill, the women advocate

for women's health. so that sort of the power circle. you get into that power circle, that's really going to help your organization take off. then the next thing i want to talk about is the tone of your message. so are you going to be aggressive and use red meat, or are you going to be matter-of-fact about your message and kind of, bonilla. this is really particularly important in direct mail and on the internet, which are generally important tools of fund-raising. i'm going to give you two examples of members of condit, democratic them as a card both of them were defeated unfortunately, but suzanne in florida, 24, both were freshmen members. betsy markey, she defeated maryland musgrove in 2008, so she had an enemy to talk about

in her appeal. she didn't have that enemy anymore. she had this very kind of nice young guy, what do you do with that? well, what she decided to do come her campaign did a great job of using karl rove and sarah palin as the enemy. i don't know if you remember, but early in the election cycle when sarah palin was going to raise a lot of money for republican candidates, she said that she was putting some democrats in her crosshairs. remember across her of her rival? and many of us found that just appalling. but betsy markey used it to her advantage. and betsy markey and suzanne collins were two of those people that were in the crosshairs. she was timid about their she didn't want to use that message. her district might event at a more conservative than betsy markey's. betsy markey went and used it with a vengeance over and over

again. sarah palin came to our district. they get a whole campaign on sarah palin come into her district and raising, we did know how much that sarah palin was going to race for a poet, but we made it up. said bill is coming and she will raise half a million dollars for my opponent. i need you to help me. so she was emotional. she used red meat, as i call it, and she was aggressive about it. karl rove spent a lot, american crossroads spent a lot of money in that particular district. every time we heard of money being spent, or even if we didn't, betsy markey, we concocted messages both in the mail and on the internet about karl rove is raising millions of dollars against me. and there were instances where you could actually cite things that weren't they were saying about the district. so in the and betsy markey raised, this is a house campaign, raise about $900,000 on the internet. that's a lot of money for house candidate. an awful lot of money.

suzanne on the other hand who was more timid, didn't want, even though american crossroads was in her district, sarah palin never came to her district, but sarah palin, when she was on sarah palin's list. they were afraid to put it out there. and use that as a message. their messages, they didn't send out as much e-mail. they can send out as much mail. and their messages were just kind of in different it suzanne raise about $230,000 from the internet. so you can see that that emotion and that sort of being more aggressive really helps your fund-raising. and so, but you also have to find a happy medium. a lot of times they call his arm twisters. that's all we do is go and twist peoples arms. you don't have to twist peoples arms. did you have a really good message you don't have to twist peoples arms. that message will help the money coming.

so another way to raise money is through specialized campaigns. we did two things this election cycle and emily's list. we created this thing called team emily. and basically what that was less what our members around the country could help to activities for all the women that we were supporting because you know that you can do by computer. and i have to do is dial into a certain number and it just comes up on your phone or on your computer. so we created this whole sort of campaign, if you will, around team emily trying to get people involved in what we were doing for the candidate. to help save barbara boxer, to help save patty murray, to help some african-american members of congress. and it worked. so not only were we able to fund the activities but we were able to help keep emily's list a life. so kind of works both ways of

specialized messaging. and i don't know if any of you heard about our sarah doesn't speak for me campaign that we launched on the internet where we had these women dressed in his funny grizzly bear outfits, some people thought they were funny, but that can't pay because we are going after sarah palin basically, we're kind of picking a sarah palin, that really helped our innovation to raise a lot of money from people who might not otherwise have given us money. by launching that on the internet, making it exclusively an internet campaign, we raised money from new donors. yes, sir. [inaudible] possibly, but we were talking about, sarah, you how sarah palin was talking about the republican women and how they're going to go to congress and they

were going to speak about these conservative values and so on. well, we disagree with are. we didn't think that all the women that she was supporting should speak for all women around the country. so we kind of tied it sort of to what we were doing. and you kind of have to do that a bit, but if you create a specialized campaigns, they really, you know, they just help your fund-raising. and the other thing that i know you have seen over and over again is a matching gift campaign. i think i just got one from, today. talking about we have a wealthy donor who will national contribution if you make to your installation. and so, you know, the dirty little secret there is that there really isn't always a matching gift, right? as long as you have money feeding the pipeline, theoretically there's a matching gift. and oftentimes there is a matching gift. so it's basically a specialized

campaign to encourage people to give money. so, you know, if your donation is going to be messed 10 to one you get $100 go a becomes $200 it helps us keep barbara boxer in the united states senate. does that make sense? so you're probably asking yourself, how do you message in this climate when we lost a lot, democrats, emily's list, we will lost a lot in the 20th election. how do you recover from that? how do you message around that? are we all say what that has done on our desk at the emily's list headquarters and kind of licking our wounds and hoping that 2012 is going to be better? hell no, we're not. we are trying to put our best foot forward, and what we are saying to our donors is this, we are saying that we saved all the democratic women in the united states senate.

blanche lincoln it should be noted was not an emily's list support a candidate this time and last time she ran because she doesn't, she had some bad points -- bad votes on choices. but barbara mikulski, barbara boxer, patty murray, and who was the fourth one? kirsten gillibrand. all those women were reelected, and we think that's a pretty good story to tell our members, even with this horrible climate, we got for critical senators reelected. so that's the message that we've been talking to our donors about. yes, sir. [inaudible] >> we do. we have a political opportunist bagram that works with down ballot races. statewide constitutional offices and state legislative offices. there's a couple of mayors races going on now.

we don't, because there are so many of them, we can't find them to the level that we found some of the other races. but we do make contributions and try to help them have a viable campaign. the other thing that we're talking about is that the percentage of women in the 112th congress is actually going to be bigger than the percentage of women in the 111th congress. why is that? because so many people lost, more men loss and women. but it sort of the way to articulate your message. we have still a strong number of women in the democratic caucus, and the house of representatives, and we can only get better, even though frankly it's probably the smallest number of women that had been in congress in a really long time. we're trying to put our best foot forward and talk about yes,

the percentage in the caucus actually went up. we are also talking about for women of color the emily's list helped elect the cycle, which is fantastic when you think about it because there are so few women of color that serve in the congress. we helped elect these four women members but i don't even know if you really are, but kerry down here from alabama, some african-american woman from alabama. how fantastic is that? frederica wilson from florida. she's the lady with a hat. you'll see her wearing her hat on the house floor. she always wears hats. then to the far right, colleen from hawaii who beat the short term congressman who won a special election back in may i think it was up last year. and then finally karen, this big of a california house, and is

now elected to congress to fill diane watson see. so that's a pretty horrible message to our members. he goes there are so few women of color in the congress, we like that message. we are out there helping to expand the number of women of color in the united states congress. people are responding to that message. and so we now have a big new marketing campaign that we are going to be unveiling. i guess i am unveiling it now. but coming up in 2012. there are six women united states senators up for reelection in 2012. did you realize that? that's a lot. and those are all women who are strong advocates for choice and for women's health, and are probably all the things that a lot of us believe in. and so our mission this cycle is going to be to keep the seat of

those women, protect those women, get them reelected. and i think it's going to be a very powerful message to our members who are kind of not happy about what happened in 2010, maybe not so happy with president. oh, my god, what are we going to do? well, we have a mission. we have to keep the six ladies in the united states senate because they are very strong on the issue that we advocate for. and so that's what we're going to be talking about. that's what you with the emily's list talk about for at least the first six months. and because of redistricting and reapportionment, it's going to be harder to recruit and get women to run for the house of representatives early in the cycle because we don't really know what all the districts are going to look like. so this is what our focus is going to be for a while, and not only is it going to be good for these women, but it's going to be good for us in our fundraising because very

powerful message we have to keep six women in congress. so i just want to sort of reiterate sort of the points that i covered, which is your mission statement is really important. so know your mission statement and hopefully let your mission statement be concise and one that you can repeat. the strategic. figure out who your donors are, go to your personal circle and then people who believe in the cause. and that's where your startup money is going to come from. develop a strong message, target carefully, roll out a marketing campaign, or several, use a motion in your pitches, put your best foot forward. so even if you have not such a great message, you know, you all here in washington we use the term spend, but put your best foot forward. characterize your message and the most positive way you can. and the other point i make up your is we solicit your donors.

if you're an advocacy organization and you have no limits, keep asking, keep asking, keep asking. in an organization where you may have a limit, you ask until they max out, intel but given the maximum amount. a lot of people think this is rude asking people over and over again, but i will tell you it is the single most important way that you are going to raise money. because somebody that's already invested in your organization, wants to see you succeed. so they're going to keep on giving money in order to protect their own investment. so resolicit your donors. there's a couple more points i just want to make your. so other tools for raising money. when you put together your fundraising plan, you need to try to utilize all these tools. so personal solicitation is where you get on the phone, or

go visit somebody and ask them for money face-to-face or over the phone. it is the best way to raise money, the personal solicitation because they can throw all that away, they can delete your e-mail, but if you're sitting in front of them or if you're on the phone with them, they are going to find it hard to say no. i also want to say about texting, i think that you can probably do some solicitation to buy texting, but i don't think it's very effective because people want to hear your voice. they want to see her face. you want to go make the case in person if you can't. that's going to be your strongest weapon is a personal solicitation. events, those of us in fundraising business hate them, but people love them. people like to see nbc. they like to go to events. they like to participate. and like to see who's coming, who is speaking. so you're going to probably do

some of events. they will cost you a little more money than a personal solicitation. a lot of advocacy organizations like one big annual event on hrc does their huge, they did dinners around the country regularly but they do a big event in washington, d.c., where they bring in lady gaga or whoever the person of the moment happens to be that supports their advocacy at gay-rights. and so events are a big piece of this. direct mail, why you think that people don't read their mail anymore, i'm here to tell you that a deal. generations older than you are very, very, very mail responder does. think about the retirees that sit around the house with time on their hands. they love reading their mail. and i don't know if it of your parents or grandparents are like my mother, but she will give $5 to everything that comes in the mail.

everything. and, finally, you know, you have to put your foot down and say, mom, you don't have to get $5 to every organization that comes in the middle. but if people are giving $5 every time they get a letter, that adds a. don't overlook the mail as a tool of fundraising. e-mail, you have to use it. in order for your organization to be viewed as 21st century, if you're not using e-mail solicitations or have a nice website, forget about it. that some people get their information nowadays. so we have to keep up with that trend, at all advocacy organization should be using the web and e-mail to solicit money. social networking sites, we reach out on facebook and twitter and others. we do campaigns that are built around facebook now, and again it's very important because your generation, that's where you're going. that's where you live. you to read your e-mail necessarily but you get your information off of facebook.

if i want you to become a donor to emily's list that's probably where i'm going to find you. so you have to kind of rapid altogether. and telemarketing, you know, again it's one of those sort of older i find it very annoying when somebody calls me during dinner and can you get to the democratic party of virginia comparable ever. when i was so two days before christmas, i got for solicitations. three on the telephone and one came knocking at my door. i was like wow, what is this? i think they knew people would be home or and so on, and so, you know, the telemarketing dust to work. you have to be very careful about a project to pick the right firm. he just had to be very careful about telemarketing. so if you're ever working at an organization, seek proposals from multiple telemarketing firms. and then the final point i want to make is about the board of directors.

most organizations have a board of directors. most people put, i would say, show horses on their board of directors as opposed to work courses. because you want your name, but really you're board of directors should play a key role in fundraising for your organization. and that needs to be spelled out when you are recruiting people for your board, that we need you to countries for us. they need to be donors themselves and they need to be reaching out to the own personal circle to bring money into the organization. when you're starting an advocacy organization are working for one or having to build one, one of the things when as a consultant we would always talk to our potential clients about or develop it. so do an assessment of who is on the board, are they helping with fundraising? if not to have the potential to help the fundraising.

if so, and they are not, can you train them, can you give them some training so that the asking becomes asia for them. but people do not like a fundraiser they would like to do anything else than fundraising. but remember the first five. fundraising is the engine that drives the train but if you don't have the fundraising, the organization can fold. so, you know, you can get trained for your board members are they will always want to write a letter. that's the first thing they always say. but what you really want them to do is get on the phone or to have meetings with potential -- and you want to recruit people to your board who have the potential to raise money for you. you want to set term limits for those people because you want, if your board is like constant and never changed that's not going to serve your organization. you want new blood all time. so they can reach out to their personal circle and, therefore, bring in more money to the

organization. and its, a lot of these advocacy organizations get very stagnant, and this is part of the reason why. at the same board members and so on. so you really need to kind of shaken up a bit and bring in new people to help raise money for your organization. so that's pretty much what it wanted to talk to you about today. and i want to see if you have questions. lots of them. let's start in the back your. in the blue. >> the chamber of commerce -- [inaudible] i know it's great to put them up there as the evil corporation, but in terms, i think you mentioned yourself how is a different type organizations, membership dues, does emily's list look at the chamber as a

direct conflict on the other side or are there other organizations that you look at that are built more like your own? >> i would say we look at them as a direct competition because we're never going to be able to keep up with a kind of money that they have, but the reason i use them as an example is because they are, they probably spent, the chamber at the american crossroads spent more money than anyone in this election. i just kind of want you to see the juxtaposition of those two things. our most opposite organization is probably a susan b. anthony list. they try to find pro-choice, they find antichoice republican women. there's also something that was started 15 years ago or so called the wish list. and they support pro-choice republicans. unfortunately, for them, either there aren't a lot of pro-choice

republican women, or they don't talk about it. they don't advocate for choice republican women. that organization has struggled because they don't have, they don't have an audience. does that and you question? >> as far as training or message, talking about, do you feel that, i don't know, at least sometimes emotions can be all bit of a negative of an ad offering of an ad? at least for me i think of like a spca immerses with the sad dogs and the music, i feel like i'm being used. do you think that's a hard thing to handle? >> this is why we pay consultant a lot of money because you can't have to to find that fine line. and it's also, it's also kind of about the environment that you're in. what worked in this election cycle didn't work the last election cycle and will probably

not work in 2012 because it's a completely different climate. and so you kind of have to know the climate. i think those ads were effective after hurricane katrina. when so many dogs were misplaced and so on. now people have kind of gotten back to real life and it probably does feel like a little bit of overkill. so, the other thing that you do with messaging like that, if you have money too, you focus group of those ads. you all know a focusing group is, tested and in front of a group of objective people and they say, or they say, i would totally give money for that. so you do some testing around it. you may not respond to it, but maybe lots of other people are responding to a. that's the thing about, that's why we are raising money you use all the different tools because you may not respond to that message but you may respond to something that they have posted

on facebook or an e-mail that you get. so everybody has different giving habits that everybody respond differently. generation tends to respond to mail and marketing. the younger generation not so much. a really good solid fundraising campaign utilizes all those messages of fundraising. -- methods of fundraising. >> i was wondering, looking at your bio, it looks like most of your career has been fundraising at different levels. i wonder if there any particular types of experiences that you think helps you get into that arena or helps you get into emily's list? >> some of it is luck. i have to say. and some of it is just, i actually got into fundraising accidentally. i was looking for a job in the early '80s and a friend of mine worked at the democratic at the democratic congressional campaign committee, and he said

we are looking for a finance assistant. and i was like okay, whatever, it's a job. i actually fell in love with fundraising. the finance director there, i learned a lot there. i don't use the same tactics that he necessarily uses, but i've learned a lot about how to avoid fundraising is. i think that you've -- here's the thing i say to people your age all the time. i've heard a lot of you talking earlier before we got started about it. i think you had -- those kinds of expenses are invaluable. i think everybody should work on a political campaign. i mean, you will meet friends for life or to have expenses you never dreamed up. you will meet people that you never dreamed of. fundraising -- i met barbra streisand. i mean, who ever thought a little kid from delaware would meet barbra streisand. do you know winning? so politics can open doors for

you, but -- do you know what i mean? you have to be interested. i helped my best friend from home's nephew has a white house intern coming up. i say to her i'm thrilled to do this because none of my nieces and nephews are interested in politics really. so first of all you have to have the interest. and then you know internships that either pay very little or pay nothing are just invaluable experiences for you building your networks. and for me personally every job that i went to i found, i networked with somebody, i found people that i could then go to when i was taking my next job. people come to mean out all the time because i do a lot of training. and we have wonderful interns at emily's list. in fact, i was telling someone earlier we have two fighters entered some american university for two semesters. we liked him so much we kept them on. so just, you know, find the

opportunities and, you know, like i said i got into fundraising accidentally. is sort of found me. and i was one of those people who planned my life out like many people do. i was always kind of jealous of that, but i found a profession that i think i'm very good at. and i just found it by accident. and it's paid the bills over the years actually. i don't know where we are on time. a couple more minutes? in the back here. [inaudible] >> so i apologize if this

confusion. we don't. i put that slide up there because i want to give you some examples of other advocacy organizations and kind of how they built themselves up. we did partner with, i found out after the election, we did partner with some progressive organizations. one of the expenditure side so that nobody could get a bigger bang for the buck if you were. i don't know if you are all for my with american those that start in 2006, i think election cycle. so that's the kind of thing where we will get involved with those kinds of groups, and because it's all the progressive organizations at the table. and what you do is, there are three organizations. we are not all duplicating efforts but we are focusing on, you're maybe going to focus on the west or maybe focus on my organization is going to focus on non-college-educated women.

another will focus on another group of pro-choice donors. so we definitely, we definitely partner and do some activities with progressive organizations and did some things with labor. so you find people that were supporting barbara boxer. they were supporting barbara boxer and patty murray. we were all kind of having the same, we all want the same outcome. so we kind of did some activities with them in order maximize what we all could do. because we had limited resources your we've done, work in some primary campaigns with seiu because they happened to be supporting the same candidate that we were supporting. so are independent side, work with seiu on the expenditures. so for those kind of activities year but for fundraising, it's sometimes hard to reach out to the other organizations, but you can, you know, if you craft your

message right, you can't. the president of hrc used to be the chief of staff at emily's list we can't have a relationship there on a personal kind of relationship. that's a you do it. you basically build it around your personal relationships and/or ability to network with people. one more question. a couple more, okay. >> you right there, josé. >> what's the average donation and how many other donors aren't repeat donors? >> a good question. i'm not positive i have the answer because i don't work in our development department, but our average contribution is generally about $99, so we do have some high dollar donors. but emily's list was built 25 years ago on the premise if you give $100 to the organization and then you support to candidates that we support with

a $100 donation. so that when hundred dollars is kind of stuck and actually we will start going back to that even more to bring in more donors. what was the second part of the question? repeat donors, a lot. i would say, if i had to guess i would say 75%. because we have sustained programs. we get into renew every year. and we have very aggressive fund-raising activities around renewals. so quite a lot, and that's sustained the organization over the years. [inaudible] [laughter] >> you would know. over here. >> my name is sam, from minnesota. one of the challenges which are cases where working on is we are not a campaign and unlike a lot of nonprofit that, you know, build homes or save puppies are what have you, lobbying is not

quite something that -- >> not sexy. >> you can't take pictures of his some of the things we had these meetings. how does that change things? do you have any ideas, -- >> can you do a little more specific? i don't of the organization your writing plans for. >> we are building lobbying plans, well, our side we don't necessarily have to do with fund-raising. organizations like human rights campaign needs a way to keep their organization running. but they don't quite have the focusing events like campaigns have, 2012 let's say, and they six set of women are what have you. and how does that change things? because it's not as stable of a situation. >> you have to be creative. you have to figure out what's going, what's going to sell, was

going to sell this organization? remember i talked about sarah doesn't speak for me with the ladies in the costumes which i thought was kind of a silly, silly ad. but they were being creative. and so they did something kind of silly, and people responded to it in a very big way. so you have to, you just have to be creative and think strategically about who your audience is and what your audience is going to be responsive to. remember, i skimmed over, but degree of benefit. so how much benefit to someone derived from helping your organization. you have to paint a picture for them. you have to educate them about that. so you just kind of have to, you know, there have been a lot of times when campaigns and organizations i've worked for have been like really down to the last penny. and what you going to do? one of the things that you do if

you're not a start organization is he going to we solicit your donors. you go back and say oh oh, my g, the sky is falling, or the sky really is falling. you create a motion around something. to help bring funds and to keep your doors open. and then maybe you'll get to the power circle level where you can go to an american express or a corporation and get -- look, american express, i think they gave him a million dollars off the bat, or didn't give them $100 million. they may have given them half a million dollars or a million dollars. but do you know what any? they wanted to see what they would do with it. i think you also have to keep your expectations realistic. does that help? yes, ma'am. in the pretty pink sweater. >> this may be cynical speak your too young to be cynical. >> more and more candidates are self financed and come from wealthy backgrounds.

have you experienced may be candid not looking for because they don't have that kind of a war chest, those kind of candidates being pushed aside in favor of a meg whitman? >> i think there's a little bit of that, but why a no decision like mine exist, right? because we help raise money for the candidates that we recruit and that we support. and so part of recruiting for us is, if you meet our criteria, we are going to be there for you. we'll ask our members. the way, we're considered a bundling organization but are evenly with the term? so basically if you have a fundraiser, fund-raising event you're bundling. but because we ask our members to contribute to the members, to the candidates that we support, we technically bundle checks for them. and so that's what we tell them, that we are going to reach out

to our now, we have about 127,000 members around the country. we are going to reach out to them on your behalf. we will help you put together the funding your you know, there's also how much money is too much money kind of thing. i mean, you know, when jennifer granholm was running for reelection against billionaire amway founder, we were scared to death. we thought he was going to spend $100 million. and there is no way that she could raise that kind of money. but you also use it as oh, my god, he's going to spend $100 million but i have had a lease 30. so will you help me? in the and i think he ended up spending 45-ish, which was way less than we thought. and she threw the party at her own campaign raised about 32 bit so that kept her competitive, and like how much tv can you buy? right? do you know what i mean?

sometimes there's diminishing return around it a little bit. and and sometimes they just, like they just while you. so you have to take it and turn it on its heel and use it to help you raise money. and state and again. >> step back from him and give your opinion. one of the consequences of lobbying, and this is kind of generally thrown out there, all this money in the system that is buying votes and that's what it really is all inherently corrupt. it's either explicit or implicit. in your experience in raising money for candidates, is the money following people that you agree with, or do you think the money is influencing their point of view in the way they act when they get to congress? >> i think there's some of both.

i do. and i think that nowadays with the microscope that we are under, i think that candidates and members on both sides are very careful about the quid pro quo. but in order, i mean, if you're being responsive to your supporters, i just think that there's a natural instinct to help. look, we have the example above, i hate to harp on republicans, but that's what i do for a living, you know, of the energy bill. the oil companies sitting in dick cheney's office writing the bill, or sitting in the minority here at the time, office, writing the bill. and i would say that i think that we do some of that on our side. unicom the clearest examples that come to my mind on the progressive side are the supreme court nominees and how all the progressive organizations really

get going, advocate and lobby, frankly. but i don't think there's ever any guarantee, and if -- i just -- money can be a dirty business if you sell it that way, but i think as a fundraiser you have to make a decision that you are not selling it that way. and i have run into instances where, you know, a potential donor will call up and say, i will max out, get my whole family to max out your candidate so-and-so if they will support whatever it is. and i think this happened in the florida senate race 2006 actually. and we have to say no. we don't want that money. that's not what we are about. >> do you think emily's list support makes pro-choice voters out of women without pro-choice otherwise? the?

>> that's an interesting question. i think that, yes, there are people out our questionnaire is very simple. a lot of organizations, in order to give the organizations support, have a questionnaire. some of them, you've seen them, some of them are pages long. and really complicated. ours is two pages long out and i think for questions or five questions. and basically all we want is a yes or no answers. there have been instances, and i say that blanche lincoln and mary landrieu were two of those that when you first saw our support they said that they would support partial-birth abortion to save the life and health of the mother. and when it came time to both vote, they didn't. and that's why we no longer support them. and so i think that, i think that perhaps they did state that so that they could get our support. and i know that when senator

lincoln was running for reelection, you know, after we decided not to support her, she really wanted our support and kept getting overture from various places. but she had so demonstrated that she was not as pro-choice as we need her to be, that we just never went back. we couldn't, we couldn't support a. so yes, i think there has been instances, particularly, you know, here's a vivid one. we worked through this one but when claire mccaskill did her debate on "meet the press," she basically said, she was only four coaches on pro-choice in some circumstances. like, the organization, the phones are ringing, what did she just say? and we had a conversation with her. clear, you said this. like what did you mean? that's not what i meant. it was in the heat of the moment, that kind of thing. so, you know, yes, i think that

there are unfortunately, that does happen sometimes. you know, it's really incumbent upon us as the organization to figure out genuine they are about supporting the issue that we care abou country and. which is why we don't, but for the senate six that we know have a track granted, we don't support every pro-choice woman that gets into given many that we have supported, and we kind of try to work with them and watch their campaigns a little bit, how the campaigns are unfolding, what they're saying on the website, what you're talking about -- >> sometimes it's hard to have -- it's not all black or white. it's not a great area. manipulating. thank you very much. >> thank you. [applause] >> take a break and be back at 3:15, please. thank you very much.

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> american university of its institute taking another short break now before the last lecture of the day. when class resumes that focus will be on lobbying rules and regulations. more live coverage when students return here on c-span2. and a live look at the u.s. capitol here with a 111th congress has got out for the last time part of this month. the 112 will get underway this coming wednesday. several dozen members are not

returning in january, including indiana democratic senator evan bayh. while we wait for american university's advocacy institute to resume, we will show you center buys a farewell speech to >> if i could be permitted begin my former remarks, there are so many people i need to express my heartfelt gratitude to here today. starting with, of course, my wonderful wife susan. i know we're not supposed to recognize people in the gallery, but i will break the rules for one of the first times here to thank my wife. we have been married for 25 wonderful years, and, frankly, mr. president, i wouldn't have been elected dog catcher without susan's love and support. i often remember a story during my first campaign when i met an elderly woman who took my hand, looked up into my eyes and said young man, i'm going to vote for you. i was curious and i asked her why. she said with a twinkle in her eye, she said well, i have met your wife. it seems to me you did all right with the most important decision you will ever make, i will trust you with the other ones, too.

,ou with the other ones, too. it's not uncommon in our state, as senator lugar could attach that people say they really vote for susan's house in. a darling, i can't thank you enough. she was a wonderful first lady, phenomenal mother. parents next, i'd like to express myy gratitude to my parents. the even though they were very busy, i never doubted for a momenttheo that was the most and are portending in their life. commi, there's no question my devotion for public service stems froms their commitment, something mr. president you can relate to as well. to spoke with commitment in helpint our state and nation. i'm proud to follow the specifics here in the senate ano to share his name. c my mother taught me that even from the depths of the ursaancer deacon, hope. she was dives at most withrom cancer at age 38, passed at age. 46, nature and are recognized to be much, much too young. i miss her, but i suspect, as sm

often in my life, she is watching from on high today.y w next to my wonderful son, nick a and though. our they came into our lives and is the governor and were barely s three whenwo i was in the secony l hope one day they will drawicl inspiration as i did from a ring of public service and will t better to devote themselves in some way to making our country y and state better places. i am so proud of you my sons. next to my devoted staff and used haphazardly through the senate. my personal stuff for the 12 years of making me the betterd c than i deserve them and that they have performed the servicei they've never let me down. thank so thes extent i have aeles cul-de-sac into the the public,w it thanks to their tireless effort and devotion. each can work fewer hours can si work fewer hours than me force money doing something else that they chose public service.

it has been an honor to work with you.touch through i will miss each of you andou could only hope we will remain in touch throughout the years. not one of some privilege to and have better support than me. to to the men and women who workedb in the senate and made it possible to do her job, a ropress their heartfelt p gratitude. you've always been unfailingly courteous and professional.n, the public is fortunate to havee the benefits of your devotion on behalf of a grateful nation ande the thankful senator, let me express my appreciation. next to my colleagues. simy say more about each of us later.e ie to me simply say this is my excl privilege, the privilege of my life tend to get to know each od you. there's not one of you who is a not exceptional in some way or about whom i do not have a fond recollection. each of you occupies a special place in my heart. i'm especially fortunate toor ra observe my career in the senate with senator richard lugar. i have often thought thathat we congress would function better

if they have the relationship we even though we occasionally identify specific issues, we have never tested on our commitment to the people of this date or to the strength of ouror friendship. thanks to you and shower so much.n. he read the definition of aost m statesman. finally to the wonderful people. of indiana for whom i've been privileged to work my entire adult life. d hoosiers are hard-working, patriot, devout and full ofembre common sense. we are middle america and embrace middle-class values.n, , the m tore india know we cannoty washington frankly, the better washington willer be. my t to my fellow hoosiers, let me t say wow my time ino the senate s trying to a close, my love for you and devotion to our state will remain everlasting. as i began my final remarks ons

my first speech as united states senator. it was an unusual beginning. rer i was the 91st senator to p deliver remarks in the first impeachment trial of a presideno since 1868. the session was closed to thee public, emotions ran high. partisan divisions were deep. wd as a constitutional crisis and the eyes of the nation and the t wrld looked to the senate. my first day of senator was sworn as they churned to the gae trial. there were no rules.re all 100 of his gathered in the old senate chamber.we allnew tht the debate was high, but we ther.e to each o we all know that the state of ll the nation and judgment of history, and far more important than party loyalty orin o sieological purity when ourlu hands. consensus was elusive. finally we appointed ted kennedy, the assistantblican tom colleague, a liberal democrat and a conservative republican to hammer out a compromise and thel

did. their proposal was adoptedrate,m unanimously. the trial of our chief magistrate, even in the midst on a crucible was conducted in duew process and the rule of law. t the constitutional balance of powers was preserved in the r presidency saved. the senate rose above the passions of the moment and did e its duty. three years later the senate was once more summoned to respond in a moment of crisis. in a r.e country has been attacked to and thousands killed in an act of suicidal terror. dea this bthuilding had been targetd for destruction and death and that would've occurred but for f citizens. a i wasss told not to return to mo home for fear that assassins might be lying awake, so i picked up my friends from their nt the nighte spe with the neighbor. to two days later, the centersre, gathered in the senate dining

room. there were no democrats or republicans there, just excep americans. dend without exception, we resolve to defend the nation and bring to justice the perpetrators of the horrible crime. the feeling of unity and common purpose was palpable. fast forward another seven years.alon in ocgtober 2008, i was summoned along with others say it ain't c to a meeting just off the sport. the financial panic that had ofe been campaigned for several months editing critical mass.poe the secretary of the treasury henryd paulson spoke her spirit he turned new head of the said federal reserve ben bernanke and said then, give the senators a status report. for nokia in his low-key professorial manner said, the noobal economy is in a 4 freefao within 48 to 72 hours, we will experience an economic collapse that could rival the greatilusis depression. it would take millions of jobs and thousands of businesses witw it appeared company as a of which all of you are familiartrl

will fail, trillions of dollars in savings will be wiped out. s there was silence. we looked at each other. democrats and republicans announced only one question. tht on the actions that emanated from f that meeting helped avoid an economic catastrophe. the jobs of millions in people'd were saying business in turn. the measures were required. my calls were running 15,000 to1 20,000 opposed in only about 100 to 200 in favor of that. the measures. p the economy teetered on the edge our duty. some sacrifice their careers, the economy was saved. what a re tcount these moments for mf 10 year to remind us about this body is capable of at its best,a when the chips are down and the stakes are high, senators are rs

regardless of party, regardless of ideology, regardless of selfl personal costs, doing their dute and selflessly serving the nation we love a are capable of great things. hangs on my office wall hangs a famous print, the senate in 1850. there is henry clay. webster, they are coming togethermas webster, thomas harkins, john c. calhoun, william stewart, stephen douglas, james mason and giants walked the senate in stil those days. my colleagues, they still do. and profiles encourage john kennedy tells the stories that t they committed a senators whosen acts of selflessness andescued fortitude rescue the republic is times of trial.and wom a serving in this body today are men and women capable e of equal

patriotism if given the chance. new profiles encourage waiting to be written. cri it shouldn't take a constitutional crisis, a terrorist attack or a financial calamity to summon from each off us and from this bodyapable collectively, the greatness of tich we are capable, nor canhae america be afraid to way.l we are gathering charges that will threaten our public.ur our growing debt and deficits dc ing unsustainable energyreas dependency, increasing global economicco competition, asymmetc national security challenge an aging population and much, much more., each of these is difficult.ot each complex. the solutions will not be but un aiversally popular, but all n be surmounted and i'm confidents that they will come with the right leadership from us in the right ideas. kno i am confident because i know

people.he i know all of the challenges wet have overcome, the worse, the economic hardships come the social k turmoil. another character of the people. our goodness and our courage and i know that we can succeed. but it will not be easy and wilu not happen by itself. it is up to a us.ach geratio america is an exceptional nation because each generation has been decision and yes the occasionala sacrifices required by their times. america is a great nation not because it is preordained, the e because our forebears both heree in the senate made it so.ions, t for 10 generations, the american people have been dedicated for the self-interest. and endowed by our creator with inalienable rights.freedom from the beginning, it is. freedom. the

freedom, not from the forance o benevolence, not by the forbearance of the majority, not by the magnanimity of the state, but from the hand of the almighty god.ors, the the freedom to enjoy the fruits of our labors. w the freedom to speak our minds and worship god as we see fit. the freedom to associate withthn those of our own choosing andes select those who would govern us. from the outside of each enough mead mate come to thele village grees at lexington and concord, to the halls of this great senate, it is always been the same.ng the innate human belonging fortt independent now finds its truest expression in the american experiment. we are the guardians of that rer treaty.ment each gene tration ofo americanss been called to renew our commitment to that ideal, often in blood, always a sacrifice. now is our time.

now is the time for us to keep faith with those who have come o before them to do right are o will follow, to liftanifes high the cause of freedom in all its manifestations within its surest sanctuaries, this unitedf states senate. all of this was put in day perspective for me one day i may visit to all trade armyed hospital. s i was visiting wounded soldiers. georgia. he'd been married three weeks ia before deployingq. to iraq. he was missing his left arm and both legs. his wife sat by his side. calm a look of dignified calm wasi a upon his face. neede i asked if he was receiving the care he needed. yes he said, he was. i asked if there is anything that i could do.. no, no that was not. anything he needed?

no. i've never felt so helpless are so insignificant. rm, i left his room, made my way to, the hospital front door, walkedh outside in the bright sunshine, sat upon t the curb and cried. all i could think of was what can i do? what what can i do to be worthy of us him? tat can each of us to? prepare look at what he sacrificed for america. what are we prepared to give? is it too much to think that the while soldiers are sacrificing lambs on our behalf that we cans look across the aisle he notlow enemies, but friends. not adversaries but federal can citizens. not the servicemen and women areartp laying down their lives. can we not become ourr a partisanship and rancor but forr a while. can we not remember that we are one nation under god, with a common heritage and a common div let us no longer be divided into red states and blue states, butb reunite once more as 50 red

states.s.blue it's the civil rights leader hae once reminded us, we may have different ships, but were all in the same boat now. has so my friends, the timeco has come, from the sons and daughters of lincoln and the to heirs of jefferson and jackson,n to no longer which were upon each other, but instead renew the struggle between speech and enemies demand.re ignorance, poverty and disease. that is why we are here. that is why. if i've been able to contribute even a little, to reconciliation among us, then i've done my duty. thi my prayer is that in the finest traditions of the senate by bots the nighttime in my father's may time in days before, we may oncm again serve to resolve oureethat differences come and meet the that await us. so doing forge a future whe

that is worthy of ourn greatte past. so when our children's children write the history of our time, they may truly say of us here were americans and senators worthy of the name. i thank you and i yield the floor. [applause] [applause] >> you're watching senator evan bayh farewell speech to the senate floor. he will be replaced by indiana senator mr. dan coats. he represented indiana 1899 to 1999 and served as your

ambassador to germany from 2001 until 2005. more now from american university's advocacy institute at the last lecture of the day features a session on federal lobbying rules and regulations. the speaker is michael berman, president of the washington lobbying firm. this is live coverage on c-span 2. >> well, jack obviously had got into a little bit of trouble in a context to which any of us but that it were of the view that there is no way she did not know and his partners did not know exactly what they were doing. the way they broke rules, either you could not read the english-language for you to intentionally. now there's a movie about him. kevin spacey called the casino jack. i don't intend to see it, but it's one in history. but there is a republic in the house but was forced to resign because of unethical and says.

he recently was charged in the state of texas and was just convicted in the state of texas. former number two person in the house convicted of an interesting money laundering scheme of moving federal funds into state races and swapping dollars for various purposes, convicted by a jury. the democratic chair the house ethics committee was forced to step aside temporarily amid allegations of financial improprieties. a member of congress have been convicted of accepting untold dollars in bribes. he's now serving time. there's a circumstance involved in which this particular member ended up with $90,000 in his home freezer. it was found. and one of the interesting sidebars to that case was while this was all going on, he got

reelected in indiana. he subsequently was lost the next times around she lost and he has been convicted. one of the interesting things was the question of whether or not the fbi could search his office on capitol hill, whether this was an intrusion of the executive branch into the workings of the congress. and that is still kind of unresolved, but they didn't need whatever they found their in order to convict him. a western congressmen was indicted for embezzling funds from a company which he controlled and put in $400,000 into his first campaign for election. the house ethics committee, which has been dormant for some time to finally have gotten a little bit of life to it. there's a new independent ethics investigating group, which i saw an article that the republicans are going to continue against existence. the idea is these are independent investigators to convicted allegations come

either made to them for the pickup on their own family to investigation and then they turn it back over to the committee of congress, which is made up of members is to a strip of action should be taken. as result of this work, charlie wrangle, a dear friend of ours just paste so censure, a process by which he had to stand in the house while nancy pelosi led a series of allegations against him. the california congresswoman is also being investigated by this group. something went awry at the investigatory staff and they were suspended for equipped. this has to do with whether or not she cast votes relatives had assisted an organization of which are housed in head start. so that's kind of the current history. when we look at the longer history, i found lobbying as far back as the time of the pharaohs, the egyptian priests

used to lobby the pharaoh about monotheism. the right to lobby has been guaranteed under the magna carta in june of 1215. 1619, the virginia house took it as a prerogative. colonial assembly saw themselves as custodians of popular rights, people with petition assemblies in hopes of testing its reach in the british parliament. 1765, right to petition was included in the colonial declaration of rights, mention the declaration of independence and of course the constitution. 1774, congress representatives were not there already by representatives of business interests are lapping on what they should do. 1787, during the tracking of the constitution, there were so many obvious that they locked the door of the homes which they were writing constitutions and did not keep a written record so

nobody could find an advance on what they were doing. 1795 -- excuse me in the state of georgia tried to sell some land to the federal government. offer was ejected. the decided to sell to land speculators. legislation was necessary and this particular case was reported every single legislator was bribed. people were indicted in jail and the entire legislature was thrown out at the next election and language was added to the state constitution, which made lobbying illegal. it's to the constitution until 1945. what they did in the early 30s and early 40s i have no idea. 1833, president andrew jackson set out to undercut power of the national bank. and to do so, he started withdrawing federal deposits in banks. the president of the bank's was a fellow named nicholas biddle. and then oversee the following letter for a member of the

united states senate. sir, since i have arrived here, i've had application to be concerned professionally against the bank, which i do kind of course although i believe my retainer has not been renewed for refreshed as usual. if it is worse than my relation to the bank should be continued, it may be well to send entertainers. naturally, i assumed this must be some ne'er-do-well member of the united states senate. lo and behold, jenna webster coming u.s. senator from massachusetts. i went back and look the other day and he ultimately saved a $10,000 retainer which is $833,000. not that for a single vote share. 1874, the supreme court turn on a claim by a lobbyist to suit a client for failure to pay. the court said the efforts for which the fee was charged were contrary with sound policy and good morals.

1875, the house of representatives passed a resolution that was enforced for one session. to require lobbyists to register by name and client. president wilson declared war on lobbyists. just leave it down there. does that create a problem for you? 1875, they passed one session. they registered and must be on the one session. in 1913 during this campaign he said the government of the united states is a child of the second interest. it is not allowed to do well. he declared that lobbyists were so thick in washington that you couldn't very in washington without seeing one of them. this actually ordered lobbyist to leave town. obviously we came back. 1928, the senate passed a law deregulation bill. it died in the house. 1929 the house passed the lobby legislation bill. it died in the senate.

1929, the senate censured one member for bringing a lobbyist into a closed meeting of the senate finance subcommittee running a tariff bill. 1936, senator hugo black of alabama got a bill passed in the house and the senate, requiring lobby legislation enclosure that died in the conference committee. first lobby registration act 1946, in 1954 supreme court decision made in effect this. excuse me. the basic structure that we're now dealing with and we'll talk with a little bit was originally passed in 1995 and restructured in 2007. 2009, president obama basically declared lobbyists persona non grata in his administration as to whether they can join the government at all. they made a couple of

perceptions and one for hhs i believe come benefits and not come up obvious have not been allowed to serve in the government. if you look at a public attitudes, there's a 1966 book called the lobbies written by james deacon. he says in the minds of a good many americans that conjures up disruptive suggests a sinister character, sink into the house of congress coming trailing behind thousand dollar bills. to the cringing congressman desperately in need of ready cash to meet his own money, the overhead on his yacht and the demands of his lolita, this card producer in return for which the legislature sells the public down the river. after the vote of course, there's an clergy at the palatial hands of a beautiful washington hostess who is having an illicit affair with this or that prominent senator. there was a period of time in

which washington during the days of capital was read by. it was not unusual that members of congress would go over for a bit of entertainment and their closer disappear after particular vote have been created and congress. there's a certain amount of history to our business. in january of 2006, 90% of americans believe that lobbyist gifts should be banned. 67% of the lobby should not be left to make political contributions. and for those of you who are looking up a very long report this just come up to the task that professor thurber has been involved in a number of others have been involved in, you will see some of these issues are starting to be aggressive report. in may 2006, 39% created a serious problem. in october of six, members or

staff would have contacts with lobbyists while relatives, regarding government matters. and then came on congressman foley, who we remember had a series of affairs if you will with pages and that kind of brought corruption into the 2006 election. and there are many people who believe that the fact that democrats had such a good year in 2006 was an off shoot of that particular episode. 80% of americans believe that interest groups have more influence than do individual citizens. that is likely true. most individuals are part of those interest groups. and that's where it gets a little bit tasty. 75% believe that congress is largely owned by the public interest. they see an independent class of people apparently separate from the individual organizations that hire them.

81% think that is common behavior for lobbyists to arrive with congress. 41% believe their member of congress has taken bribes for lobbyists. in québec, 41% of people think their member of congress has actually taken a bribe. you talk about lobbyists in independent class. you may have noticed while president obama had a group of business people in about 10 days ago, maybe two weeks ago now, to talk about how they go forward in the kinds of things that corporate america needs as we try to build jobs or whatever. at the end of his closing remarks, he essentially said to them, cheat, you are awfully reasonable. why is it that your lobbyists on the hill don't take the same position so you take? i've not been able to find out whether he's being facetious, but the idea that these corporate leaders are going to tell the president exactly what they thought which was zero to

nine. and lobbyists don't make up their own rules. they don't make up their own points. privacy hired to represent different point of view. but the points of view of the people that we represent. now i worked in this government as a lobbyist with this kind of transition to regulation, from information prefiling that most lobbyists don't file at all to the current regime of disclosure i lifted the transition of fundraising when i first came here and december 1966. there were no limits on contributions. there were no legislation, no disclosure. we did all of our work from the congressional offices. it was said on the phone by the hour, raising money -- it worked for senator mondale and people back home and around the country. everybody else did it. we did our planning or. that finally broke when a certain number from california

decided to do the lobbies on the floor and folks decided that was taken a little too far. but it was a pretty common time and now you pretty much can't do anything in the offices they relate to the campaign. now the rules. we're going to talk about registration in terms of reporting is a lobbyist. we're going to talk about gets gifts and honoraria, making contributions to federal candidates and improper behavior as it could affect you or your client. that's an important thing to remember. you can get in trouble for violating rules and regulations, which a client can find very come at very embarrassing. generally speaking when you get caught up in one of these situations, you don't have a client for a very long time because the first thing monday was cut the cord to you. this series of handout but i

think you have, one is a whole series of rules and regulations that are really shorthand version of what is a fairly good book. there is another sheep that local around in a minute. i added verbatim a number of the documents that the obama administration put out for several months in the administration, showing how they were limiting lobbyists have been in the government. so if you lobby congress, you have to register with the clerk of the house and the secretary of the senate. it is still the same thing. yet fail to registrations into reports of recorder with those two people. one of the things the report that tv is coming out that there be an independent office of at least a one time. i must say the burden is not particularly high anymore since you cannot file electronically. with the report you put the hadron went and had her another copy and send them off. you report quarterly.

and who is it that has to file? if you are paid more than $2500 in a three-month period by some client, make to lobbying contacts, to expend more than 20% of your time for the client or company lobbying during the three-month period. we're going to get that because this has become one of the more interest in the in turn regulation. what constitutes life he? anything oral or written, communicating with legislature to legislative branch officials. modification of legislation, rules and regulations and anything that has to do with government? the time you start preparing for lobby is also against the 20% rule.

so if you prepare a memo or the behind documents are going to work on the project are doing, those tomatoes time against 20%. but you may not have made any contacts. and so, while i'm working my firm now, just turns out in the last two years i have not made a single contact him the. i registered for everybody because that's what we do. nonetheless, certain lobbying is exempt public officials acting in the official capacity. if you're called to testify before congressional city that's not treated because you're not responding or stepping forward for them. officials include the president and vice president, which is all the assistance to the president, i would be very sorry the very stars the administration have appointed. political level of the various executive agencies are more

detail in the handout. members of congress and their staff. interesting enough, the officers of those two bodies. if you have cause for lobby and secretary of the senate, even though he or she we know well -- [inaudible] [inaudible] >> at any rate, it's interesting you play what people don't think about much but they have a lot of influence and if you have a good relationship but maybe work there or had some contact, they can be particularly helpful. they're not going to go on a lobby for you, but they can do a lot of good names for you. you finally registration within 45 days of the first lobby contacts or agreeing to lobby.

you fail quarterly reports, every 90 days at the end of the quarter. detailed information, subject matter, houses, lobbying, electronic filing is required. one of the interesting things, for example, if i were to go a month at the white house, i would note that the subject matter which i love you -- and i would note the white house incher sanely again in the aba report that they're doing now, i would indicate the suspect person at a lobby to the white house, which would change up rather dramatically, create a lap or need for record keeping. it's easy enough for me to remember that i would lobby the white house. every person, every conversation you've got to make sure the person is on your list reporting little more complicated. then one of the relatively new reports as filed pricier within 30 days at the end of the

six-month period, so it's buried at the that the industrialized and beginning of january. and it's disclosure of political contributions made by lobbyists. so for example, if i controlled the political committee, some kind of pact which i did for many, many years, i would have to disclose every contribution that packed me to remember as a result of this committee which i was the treasury of for 20 years and i'm no longer the treasure. you have to disclose a certain number of contribution, but you have to file for what amounts to bundling. if you raise more than $15,000 in contributions, exclusive of you have to remember, that's also disclosed in these filings.

there are certain nonpolitical event honoring members. so for example, if senator griffin invites me to an event for the children's and enhanced the honoree, i have to disclose my contribution to the children's and a connect it to its name. so increasingly what folks are trying to do with regulatory regime is to provide more and more information about the specificity of contact. what that leads to is the capacity of people to search even further for various kinds of connections and contacts. one of the things i liked most about this new report is that they are suggesting the lobbyists not to be allowed to contribute, which would be perfect. this is a sidebar. as a practical matter, on the average date of the session is up for tuesday's after the

election. i'll get anywhere from two to 10 of e-mail solicitations to fundraisers. and very nicely, it wasn't until the friday of election week that i began receiving the solicitations for the 2012 election. fortunately for me i'm no longer making contributions. i'm changing my life. they very, very -- can be a very expensive proposition . quite frankly, 90% of us, more than half the members i've never talked to in terms of any business lives, just because the democrats and we like them and they're doing the job they've got to raise money from somebody and we happen to be convenient. but to touch briefly on the foreign registration. this is a little tricky. it's gotten better over the

years. language is if you are acting for a foreign principal, you register with the department of justice. and this is a big deal. this is very different than registering with the house and the senate. you do this within 10 days of agreeing to become an agent and then every six months thereafter you have to fire a supplement. not for a long time, foreign interest was anything foreign. and i mean any business organization, and a foreign political party, certainly any foreign government. a number of years ago, that was changed so that you begin to get the opportunity to represent foreign companies, companies said that they were american companies. that is to say you still have to find a lobby registration act. you no longer have to file for them under the foreign registration act. and it has gone even further to

the point where you know in many countries businesses are owned by the government. if the business impact is doing what amounts to what would i'll describe as ordinary business that committee, you also never have to disclose even though the government happens to be the principal owner of the business. the reporting activities are much more extensive. for example, you have to disclose and provide to department of justice every press release he put out. and you got a bunch of people who are more oriented to policing to the department of justice than you do in the average house and senate circumstances. again, one of the things the reporters trying to do is to create essentially an independent office that would be only involved is taking care of a lobby registration. then we have the gift rules.

the basic investigate if you can't. but the biggest change for you and for me and pat and others like us than the old days and up to a few years ago, the gift rules essentially only apply to the government employee. so if you gave what amounted to an illicit gift to employee, thomas davis reached the bribery level, you can get nailed for it. but the employee was subject to whatever process you might be involved in. now lobbyists are also equally viable under the rule. so if you make about gift, the employee remains viable, the chernobyl are liable as well. gifts are defined as any gratuity, fever, discount, entertainment, hospitality, forbearance or anything of

value. so there's very little. you can't even buy a ticket, for example. so let's say that the rule is 25 bucks and i've got a 50-dollar ticket to the baseball game. you think a federal employee -- i can give them $25 for for half a ticket essentially and they would give me 25 bucks and it's covered. that's not permitted. so it's a pretty explicit ban. ordinary people, non-lobbyists -- there's only about 15,000 of us, so everyone else in the world can make contributions to these people for up to $50 in the congress, up to $100 a year. the rules to the executive branch is even narrower than that. however, there are 23 exceptions which i'm not going to go through any great detail.

they are always here. the most important exemption -- some of it is obvious, family members, et cetera. but to show you how the rule applies, not so recently, one of our friends got married. in order for people to get them wedding gift they had to get a waiver from the senate in order to accept the wedding gifts. and many still had to be in a circumstance where you had some kind of a personal relationship. but the personal relationship exception is the one thing most people thrive on. so there may be somebody, for example, we worked for many years in the senate would develop a social relationship. we've shared sunday dinners at each of our homes. you name it. we've given gifts for special occasions over the years back and forth. you can make the case in so far

nobody has really been caught, if you will or prosecuted for violating that kind of a rule. we can no longer engage as a lobbyist in arranging any private travel for congress. he used to be there is a great deal. if your company that she represented on an airplane or rented an airplane and the member was going to go out to kansas city, for example, to speak at a convention for your employees, the lobbyists would pick a member of, take them and put them in the airplane, fly with them for whatever length of time and be with them in kansas city and fly back with him to washington. in the meantime your pain and honorarium. that's a pretty interesting way to go. yes? that's all over. that's the bargain. the executive branch rules are 20 bucks instead of 55 and $50

in a year. so it's pretty hard in this day and age to think of anything much beyond a cup of coffee or a role that i've uncovered by the rule. now, they're interesting exceptions for the gift will. so let's say -- let's talk about the kennedy center. there's probably some of the members of congress at the annual event. the bottom line to summer and the $35 range. how do they get their? well, they can get there if they are invited by the kennedy center or by the institution. so effectively what does happen is that say that my company buys the table and the table seats 10. after i pay for those tickets i take the six and get them back to the kennedy center. the kennedy senator then uses those tickets to invite members of congress. and our occasion it's a member that you know.

but then again, people are relatively, increasingly careful. now the obama executive order obviously made a flat ban on gifts from lobbyists. you can't even give them a glass of water and ashes easy not to try. in the old days when i came to the senate, most teams members of congress received a certain amount of speaking honorary -- actually made the speeches and they would go and travel is way of supplementing their income. then the rule was imposed to stop by. the only thing a member of congress can do now is that if he or she decides to fly out to address a particular organization if you can except the actual travel as long as there's not more than one overnight involved. and you can designate that honorarium of up to $2000 be

paid to any bona fide institutional organization. so if you can imagine, there's been a considerable decrease in the number of people who have -- make honorarium trips given the opposition there. the executive branch honorary role know how never to accept if it's totally unrelated to any person does in the government. [inaudible] >> there are rules for that. you can get it approved. [inaudible] >> it's very specifically treated. there is a set of regulations that govern populations. there are some rules around it, but it can be done. so the best example i can come

up with of what would be acceptable as an honorary circumstance for a member of the executive branch is the following. if you take a nuclear physicist who happens to be the world's most significant birdwatcher, here she could speak to the audubon society for honorarium. it's not quite clear how much they could get, but don't be permitted under the executive branch rules. and when in doubt, there's only one piece of advice about his checker don't. and the thing to remember about all of these circumstances. there's not very many people have been prosecuted under these rules as a practical matter. but in the modern time of kind of ubiquitous media, there are all kinds of forms that you can't imagine what information gets out about some of these

circumstances. so it's almost as if the ubiquity of the media has become its own enforcement agent because people don't want to be embarrassed. they don't want to be the subject of some evening news program. campaign finance. this is something you will all be exposed to if you decide to come into the lobbying business on the private side. the basic campaign finance rules that exist now are limit on the size of contributions that you can make to an organization and limits on the total amount of money that you can give. so the current limitation are as follows. the most you can get for anyone election to a member of the house or senate is $2400. and they will collect $2500 in the coming cycle. there is a cbi tail on it. so in a given primary and general election you could then

give up to $4000 because you could get 2400 to each election. he can you five dozen a year to any political action committee. political action committees used to be organizations like emily's list. but now we have a new phenomenon called leadership pacs. and this is a circumstance where substantial members of congress and some not so substantial members of congress form a political action committee, which they basically control. now it's disclosed to the fec, money that flows through so it's not uncommon that one could get a call from the same fundraiser for a contribution to the political leadership pact as well as the campaign. or if you're going to make a contribution, they might say to you, would it be okay if you made it to the political action committee. but the one thing about that is it is all a very good at the end of the day, you can go and look

at the fec records, which is one of the better systems around, put my name into it. you can go back a good 10, 15 years now and find out within 97, 98% ackerson e. because i've tried it a few times all the political i have made over that time. the other limit is an aggregate limit to how much you can give to other federal candidate and political action committees and a two-year cycle. that number is relatively large. $115,500. so -- there are people who do each cycle. matthau lemmon also has gone up over time through the cpi indicators and changes in the law. every contribution of over $200 has to be disclosed someplace. and increasingly, it's the act

of having received contributions far more than the amount would be. so for example, you will see stories about the fact that some members of congress got from xyz industry $13,000 worth of contributions in their last campaign. but the story doesn't say if the campaign cost $4 million. so that $13,000 is a pretty small piece of the action. but again, it's all disclosed and it's generally used by media and sometimes if exceptions can be made, used by your opponents. now let me take you through a few other -- by the way, if you have any questions along the way, feel free. for all these years am i can usually remember where i am. there is -- if you work for the

house and senate, senate particularly, you are barred for two years when you do from lobbying either of congress. if you work in the house, however, you are only barred for one year the house. so the senate roll tends to be a little more stringent. a house rule only applies to the members who worked with. the senate rule applies to every single member of the senate. for a long time, one of the great perks of former members who got into our business was they had access both to the members only jam long after they've been in office in this well have access to the floor. so a former member can wander onto the house or senate, something which none of it in this room at this particular stage would be permitted to do.

that privilege has been taken away now for those members of congress, those two privileges who are registered lobbyists. my belief is, though i don't have anything definitive on this is that it was because members themselves were complaining about the fact that former members were standing with them in the locker room after a basketball game or whatever it is, talking to them about some client member. one thing about the gin. it is a place where a business is a business. and it's the two places where you really can't step away from the public at large. other people, et cetera. if you leave the senate or the house, you have to report the negotiations you have, relative to employment when you started.

earmarks. a lot of information about earmarks. theoretically, we're going to see an end of earmarks in this congress. i would be willing to bet if we all came back here two years from now, we would find out that there has been some other device -- not illegal necessary for members with particular power and authority over agencies to make note. it was one suggestion i heard yesterday on the air that every member of congress would be required to publicly disclose any letter, which he or she wrote to many executive branch agency. so that what kind of get in the middle that practice. it's gotten kind of a bad rap. but in the name, earmarks are

members of congress trying to get for the people in that district the advantage therapy appropriate by the federal government. that's what's important to remember about earmarks. there may be rare cases when something is actually added to legislation in terms of the amount of money. but basically the overall amount of pot has been created for the highway department is going to spend those funds. the earmark essentially permits a member to say you're going to spend one 10th of 1% of those funds of xyz. the other thing about earmarks is that it's not quite -- a lot of them are not what you might call public. they are there, but it's written in language. apart on 44th street in duluth will have a description of a facility in the place, which

eventually if you want to go the idea of what could your longitude and latitude you could figure out where it was. but it tends to be somewhat cryptic. let me slip over to the executive branch, which i think tends to be one of the most interesting situations in terms of lobbying. most of our lobbying and the regulations about lobbying for a matter of being reasonably diligent about recording information and reporting it. and increasingly their organizations built out. so when pat and i started the lobbying business, we've a beginner firms. we still do, who prepare our lobbying legislation for us in the fourth. if we started a firm today we return to one of a dozen law firms and accounting firms that do this work. do we fill out a form or prepare

information so that it's not particularly onerous, quite frankly to disclose. the thing that's always most important from my point of view -- because i've never been embarrassed about anybody it work for, is that everybody be following the same rules. so if i'm on one side of the oil and gas controversy and i am disclosing what i am doing, you may decide to people on the other side are better, nicer, whatever. that's fine. but the rules are just not that hard. and if you really make them a part of your life -- so when our firm every monday morning a form shows up at everyone of her our partner status. and as they go along during the week, doing a lobbying report for lack, they make a quick note. and for anyone is turned in, they take a quick look to make

sure something is that falling between the cracks, but basically it is there. .. now executive branch employees are barred from lobbying the agency of which they work for two years after leaving their positions so if you are an assistant secretary of hhs, you are barred from hitting hhs for two years.

the obama position is much more stringent. it is never the entire time they are in office. actually the clinton administration had a similar ban and one of the things i would point out to you about the obama administration which is to carry disclosure and regulation farther than anybody in the past is this is not new territory. so, during the clinton administration when i was in the government i did a lot of work preparing nominees who were going to have a hard time and in their hearings working for them as a volunteer in the government and, as a result of that, the clinton administration rule is, if i will give you an example. i help the original head of epa, carol browner, prepare for her hearing. and i was then barred from touching epa for a year, so on

behalf of a client or anything else, so it is not that it is necessarily new. other people have had some of the same kinds of restrictions. they just haven't been quite as public about it and to be sure these regulations have gone even further. essentially what the obama administration did i believe is that they decided to use the phrase federal eretz asked her to lobbyists as a metaphor for what is wrong with washington. they decided that the people in the country could understand that there was something not quite right and therefore that is what they did. you could not contribute to their campaigns, although if you are a spouse of a lobbyist you could contribute. and certainly they didn't hesitate to raise money for the people that hired me as their registered lobbyist. the point i want to come back to again and again is that we were

registered lobbyists. up all the various players, we look at some of her presser thurber's writings and some of the work he has done in the number of people and persuasion industry which is in the tens of thousands. there were only 15,000 of us that were registered, maybe 16,000 at the height so it is not just everybody in the system. we are out there. we are totally unembarrassed about the fact we are representing somebody and reporting where we have had contacts in reporting the issues in which, in which we do and every once in a while you would get a question from some reporter who would check a registration and they would call and they would say you know i notice you are registered on behalf of xyz corp. and you were working on x and what were you doing for them? our answer is always the same, we would not tell them. whenever answer questions about clients but nonetheless it was there and if they decided the fact that i is a registered lobbyist was supporting a particular position on the health of xyz corp. and they thought it was relevant to the story they could put it in the

story. but their role became the registered lobbyist could not have paid or senior positions in his campaign or any other position of influence which therefore include the transition but others involved in the efficacy business whether media folks are advertising companies, did not face a similar bar. you couldn't contribute to the transition. for those few that got into the transition, they had to agree quite appropriately that they would not lobby that particular department or agency for i believe it was a year after the administration had been in office. in january 20th, the day the president took office they put on the executive order that prohibited gifts from lobbyists. they made from the revolving door and regardless of what the

words were the net result was, if you had been a registered lobbyist within the 24 months preceding the time he were to be considered for employment you are ineligible for that employment. if you read the language that was put out, it had much more to do with the substance of what you might have lobbied on so if you read the language, let's assume that i was an education expert or a health care expert and i would lobby on health care and i lobbied hhs. you would read the language to say that i couldn't lobby hhs. working in a place i had lobbied which had been hhs in a particular department but in this case you are barred from the entire government. the net result of this rule has been there a certain number of people we know who have gone about the business of cleansing themselves and that is to say they vary scrupulously stopped

stopped -- they haven't violated any laws but they realized that a huge amount of what we do is not really reportable activity or registered activities. all the strategically went through four example is in a whole different category. so they have kind of decided, those folks have decided that there are -- and there are number of people. it has only been two years and i'm assuming some will make it at some point. the other part is that a large number of people, who registered as lobbyists because they thought it was the right thing to do in terms of what the lobby laws were set out to do have

delisted, because now you are being penalized in a sense if you have every interest in government service for having been a lobbyist. so if you aren't required to be a lobbyist, and some people have actually gone through and had the registration change where they can prove documentation wise that they weren't lobbying, they just did it because they thought the spirit of the law was such that they had to do it. so the number of i think lobbyist has dropped by two or 3000 in this -- anybody know the exact number? we will talk about that. are there 3000? so, there is not much point in talking about what they said in the original documents because the basic rule is if you are lobbying, you can't. and then they went through and there is a whole variety of

volunteer boards and commissions in the government in which a lot of people who are lobbyist and who have special expertise for members of and they basically had systematically not reappointed those people nor will they appoint a lobbyist to various boards and commissions. they have a revolving door rule. if you leave the government you can't lobby the government until such time as the administration is over and very similar to the rules that the clinton administration had. now, why have those of us who are registered lobbyists been chosen for this honor? i think there is a number of reasons. first of all, we are identifiable. on a quarterly basis we report publicly homely represent, the issue in which we are working, the house or -- the house of congress or executive agency we

are contacting, how much we are paid, to whom we made political contributions, to whom we made charitable contributions that might be honoring a member and oh yes we have to literally sign statement that says we have not made any illegal gifts and one of the things that is interesting about that statement that it is a felony to mistake that just because any lie is a felony regardless of what it is. and as a practical manner the administration could not take on the people we represent. let's take for example the aarp. they have dozens of people representing, listed as in-house lobbyists. they have at least four consulting firms at the time, lobbying firms at the time that a check. you have various labor organizations who have lobbyist. we have all that business organizations, trade organizations represented by

lobbyists. and you simply were not going to take on that group of people so again, using the fact that we register as a defining characteristic, that we were selected for this again, on her. repressor thurber has done a study which shows there is a whole lot of outside groups that are involved in the practice, so let's talk and you will see this is true, but if you look at the average lobbying campaign and you will -- i'm going to do this in shorthand that you will get this over the next several days. in a real campaign there is going to be some registered lobbyists. there is going to be a public relations firm. there is going to be in media advertising agency. there's probably going to be a grassroots firm. there is probably going to be a polling firm all of whom with the possible exception of the polling firm, all of whom have the specific responsibility to

try and convince members of congress to vote in a particular fashion, whether it is asked by the organization or some coalition of organizations, whether it is the kind of press releases one gets filed. and, the rest of that group, which as i say far larger than the lobbyist group, are exempt from this, so what is happened increasingly is that public relations firms in particular have become the source of, in some cases, the kinds of information that lobbyist would develop. so if you are basically are a pr firm and basically are hired to run a media campaign, you would certainly never get close to the 20% rule no matter how many contacts he made with members of congress seeking information are

suggesting whether it is absolutely legal, not violating any rules and that is why again in the aba proposal they vote -- they have proposed limiting the 20% rule and i think there is a much smaller number to be involved. so that you really, to start to begin to bring into the fold more and more people. they also have a separate rule that talks about the fact that those organizations which are part of the broader lobbying campaign have to be disclosed. now they might be disclosed by the registered lobbyists as part of his or her report but again, their effort and a lot of it has to do with the lobbyists, some of whom were involved in this group although the largest number of these are academics and practicing lawyers in that particular study -- to begin to say okay, it if what you want is

transclosure and if you want disclosure everyone not to be disclosed. and make the point, disclosure will never interfere with your business if you do your business legitimately. i have been doing -- i first registered as a lobbyist in 1981 and if you wanted to do the woro do for a couple of weeks you can go back and find that every person i have registered for, every act, every subject matter and -- there is only the house, senate and the government so there's not much definition in that particular part of the report. but it is all out there. so basically i think besides the fact that it may be obvious to you i think their position is unfair, it has led to less transparency. and hopefully some changes will occur that will re-provide some of that transparency.

another question that comes up is whether there should be a difference in the treatment of lobbyist for so-called business who are private interest and charitable organizations. my instinct is if one could come up with a good reason for it, charitable organizations, the red cross, the cancer society, whatever, if they have lobbyist, perhaps you should not be required to follow all of the same rules. i don't know about a very big difference quite frankly one way or the other but if someone could figure out a reason to make some distinction between charitable organizations and business organizations i wouldn't be particularly offended by that. and besides all of them have c-3's have specific limits on the amount of money they can spend on charitable activities.

and, i would like to list for you -- this was quite a while ago and it made a list of all the people i could think of who lobbied. so i mentioned earlier the ancient egyptian priests. english barons did that which was permitted under the magna carta and as i mentioned you can find it in the declaration of rights, the declaration of independence, under the constitution, doctors, lawyers and nurses all that it. truckers to do with 18 to 30 will -- when all these truckers came from the united states and simply closed on washington. you couldn't get anywhere because they filled up the streets. you couldn't even arrest them. they were just truck to truck to truck to truck and made for quite a scene. the farmers did the same thing only they brought tractors. fbi agents picketed the white

house, lobbied essentially in the white house because they were opposed to certain pardons that were being granted. mother stated in a march on washington. seniors do to protect social security and medicare over time. native americans marched across the country and set up a whole residential area in the mall. poor people of camps on them all. the following people were registered as foreign agents. dean acheson, thomas duly, joe louis the fighter and fdr junior. there are many many more. president lobbies all the time. when he is sitting in the white house in the oval office calling members of congress he is lobbying. members of congress do it to each other into their staff and among their staff. supreme court justices do it if you can believe it. lobby on one subject, the size of their pay. and reporters and columnists and editorial writers, they all do it. they do it through their expressions of their words

whether it is printed or on television or on blogs or whatever. essentially they are trying to make something happen by expressing their point of view. now there was something touched on earlier on this whole question of campaign money, and behavior. i would be remiss if i tried to tell you that there are some people who give because they are looking for some action or lack of action quite frankly. and i believe it is true that if you are, a substantial fund-raiser for someone, you can at least get access for them on a very regular basis. but quite frankly, i don't know if any particular circumstance in which i can say to you that an individual member of congress

congress -- obviously there have been some circumstances that i talked about earlier where people have done some things and like any system, there are mostly good apples but there are some bad apples. but i think they are not really being moved because of the contributions. and if you think about it, if you are the chairman of the agriculture committee and you are from iowa to boot, people who are in the agriculture industry aren't going to support you because they believe your position. they want you to stay there. i just don't think campaign money changes results at the end of the day. now, it gives me a choice between representing someone who has got 10,000 employees in a house member's district and the

ability to contribute any amount that might be possible and that might be legal, i will give you the employees any day because that is something which members to respond to. they respond to the economic circumstances of their districts. there are people that press to the edge. there are people that we called ethically challenged. we talked about some of them earlier. what i think what you should be comfortable about is, you can't operate in a way that will make you personally, let alone being legally not in any trouble but be personally comfortable. and you do that by being mindful of the appearance as well as the actual propriety of what you are doing. it is one thing to follow the rules and lord knows that is the baseline, but if you think about how something looks and the appearance of something, do you modify it in a way that affects the appearance of how it looks? if you do with the substance of

the politics and the issues being considered, you can select your clients carefully. in our firm, there are people for war one reason or another or industries for one reason or another we decided not to represent. you can make those choices. it is all about values. and i think that the current atmosphere, lobbying is going to be a little tense for a wild but it is not going to go away. i mean, the amount of information that members, even executives don't have time to deal with, that organizations and individuals who have an interest in the rules they are going to make are going to continue to look for people on the outside to try and deliver those messages. finally, i have what i call, and you have a copy of this i call

my 7r's in dealing with the congress and executive branch that have come up over time. so i'm going to go through them quickly. first of all something i mentioned several times regulations. he will it to yourself into your clients to understand what the rules are and to follow those rules. number two, show respect for the members and the process and the institution. keep in mind that they got their because a bunch of people decided that they should represent them here. something which in the main probably none of us will ever do. running for public office i remind people is a little bit like being what happens in grade school. every x number of weeks you take on this report card, as i remember it, and it has grades from your teacher and theoretically you are supposed to it signed by your parent or your guardian and then you bring

it back. the signature is their way of essentially saying i've seen this report card about my child. that report about you that is seen by the teacher, the parents and you and maybe not even your parents sometimes if you decide to push it to the edge a little bit, if you are a public official and you go on the ballot, specially for the first time after you have been elected or anytime for re-election, you are stepping up to giving a report card on the

if you are guessing are estimating, tell people, i am guessing and i have an expression i use called the web and i've often used it. it is a wild guess. they have asked me question. this is the best i can tell you but they know i'm making a guess. i try tried to mag it might as guess and tell them why i am guessing that but the point is there is nothing worse in terms of your relation is a member to provide him or her with a bad

piece of information which they then use in a conversation with one of their colleagues on the floor and this issue is being discussed and then it is found out in the information that you had. make sure that every member understands when you approach him or her the political risks that are involved in them taking this position. now you say why do you have to tell people you know what the downside might be for them? they will find out or got any good member is going to find out because they are going to check if there is any kind of controversial issues so you might as well be upfront and tell them that politically there may be some problems with this. because it is going to come up anyway. engage in what i call rep are today. this town is built on human relationships. it runs on human relationships. you can talk about all the rules and talk about filibusters and holds an rules or whatever it is

frankly it is relationships of people trusting one another, feeling good about one another. keep in mind that most members are voting most of the time on issues in which they are not experts. and which they may not think it is very important, so if what you are trying to do is save the everglades and that is your great cause i promise you most of the members from minnesota do not have that high on their lists. and the same is true if you are trying to save something -- the boundary waters canoe area in northern minnesota and into canada. so, having these relationships and so if a member kind of things you are good person and your organization is a good organization and you have a point of view, they will give you careful considerations. and then finally, remember to say thank you. whether or not a person does what you have asked them to do

or don't do what you have asked them to do, to never hurts to say thank you and it is not by some gift. it is a thank you, it is a note or some expression that lets them know that you appreciate what they have done. so my bottom line is you can operate as a lobbyist effectively within the rules, the benefit of yourself and your clients, you sleep very well. anybody have any questions? yes. >> for me it has made me think twice of any regulations about moving into lobbying because they also have an interest in possibly serving in the government and public service in the future so do you think these new regulations about the two-year period before moving in the government will remain in effect and if so what are your suggestions on how to approach that if you have an interest in government? >> i think that so long as the obama administration is

empowering from my point of view i hope it is for eight years, these rules will not change. the people who recommend the president they be enforced may all be gone, but there is no way to back away from those rules. >> let me ask -- are their designated positions in which the lobbying or even --. >> while the words talk about certain places if you have been a registered lobbyist you can't go, it is blanket. so if you are lobbying, he lobbied the health department you can't work in the war department. with one exception as we know that the deputy secretary was a lobbyist. so that is something you are going, in this next six years you will essentially be giving up if you become a registered lobbyist. whether you remain with the next

president will be up to the next president. i don't see this kind of regulation. i suspect we are going to have more regulation of lobbyist but i would be surprised if it is this kind of regulation and what we will get is more, if you worked a particular area, that you can't work in that area for some period of time. unless you work in an area that is totally different. >> there is a waiver to, right? >> yes, the seven waivers. the government had 600 political appointees i believe. about 600 had to be confirmed. you would be surprised the number of people who have gone and not inappropriately, especially people in big corporate organizations where

they just threw in -- everybody and as lobbyist and never lobbied and went back and prove that they had never lobbied so those lobby rules have changed and so they can be eligible to go into government. >> do you think it is possible there will be restrictions on campaign lobbyists? >> the truth is i have never thought about that. i don't think so. because if that were the rules, then nobody that ever worked in your campaign could ever come into your government and that is pretty much a common path. nobody seems to think it is wrong that you supported someone and aren't otherwise disqualified. >> one thing the reasoning is that allows them to be -- on lobbying is media advertising or

grassroots person working the same campaign is the lobbyist, literally but you can come in. you know the rationale behind this? >> i think the rationale was purely that the federally registered lobbyist with a definable class of people. there was no if's comments or buts about it. you don't have to define somebody or describe their activity or look at their activity. were you registered? you are disqualified. >> so you think that definition would include a grassroots person our media person? >> i think it is something like the aba task force were to actually be implemented the huge numbers of these folks would be "implicated." yes. >> would you like to see that happen? [inaudible] >> yes, i would. all i ever want is a level playing field.

put in any rule you want as long as everybody is playing by the same rules. >> i think the backend rules made eminent sense that if you are in government involving or being able to explore your experiences to your own advantage i think there is real reason to have a cooling off period map or. my concern and i'm glad to have that -- i think that is in the public interest i believe. what i don't get is why not more broadly -- because there are many positions within the government that have nothing to do with lobbying but where you have no restriction on the day after you leave, then you can materially benefit from the experiences you just had. i think that should be more broadly applied and not let

anybody cash on on what is going on so i would encourage them to go further. >> if they actually get this report turned into a piece of legislation, to see how many lobbyist, registered lobbyist i could recruit to be pro bono lobbyist on behalf of this legislation and i bet it would be in the thousands. [inaudible] >> you have got to stop basically. you have got to stop so a couple of people in a literally have not made a single contact on the hill for two years because one of, one of kind of the sub rules is that once you have registered

there are certain limitations on how quickly you can get out of what you have to do in order to not be registered so i don't want to suggest there are lots and lots of people but there have been goodly numbers of people and you can tell who they are by the level of their activity and trying to get into government. you say, how could you possibly think you could get in? they say well, haven't registered. i haven't lobbied and i haven't registered. what do you do? well, i build coalitions. and by the way i'm not suggesting for one second that those people are in fact violating the rules, and if i were 60 instead of 71, i would probably think about doing the same thing. finding a way to go into government because all of us, especially once you become what i will call economically secure,

government is great. it is a great thing to do. and quite frankly, far more people that end up in the lobbying business have their government experience first and their lobbying experience second so the question you raised more often than not it happens with a few people that have been around for quite some period of time but more often -- when you think about the number of people coming off the hill and a limited number of firms there are, the number of interesting jobs, you know it is a relatively narrow pool. >> they are doing the work because they are not in government anymore. >> i mean there are 2000 staff people in the house who lose

their jobs at midnight on january 4. >> they are not all going to be lobbyist. >> that is for sure. >> thank you, mike. [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> it is a feis session on the relationship between the u.s. and china. speakers include atlantic magazine correspondent james fallows who spent several years reporting from china and newly-elected senator chris coons of delaware.

the progressive policy institute is the host of this event. it is just under one hour. >> on behalf of the california washington center i want to welcome all of you to this event we are very happy. my name is bruce cain. and the executive director at the university of california washington center and a professor at the lyrical science at uc berkeley. we were very pleased to host this event and to give the space to the progressive policy institute. we feel that they do good work of course and that this is a really wonderful program. for those of you who don't know the university of california washington center is in many campus of the university of california and we have 280 students that come here every quarter, and they take courses

here and they take internships, including groups like the progressive policy institute. we also have many many students and many professors that are very interested in affairs in asia so this is a program that the university of california is proud to sponsor and a very distinguished program and we hope that you have a good day. thank you. >> thank you very much, bruce and we want to start this program today by expressing our deep gratitude to the university of california washington center for making this marvelous center available for us. i want to welcome you to today's forum which is entitled china's choice, regional bully or opal stakeholder. i know that is going to have have it. off that -- provocative or into lots of people including our chinese friends but i don't think that the use of the b word, bully is wrong, given what

we have seen lately. there was just this last week the arm-twisting campaign to prevent countries from sending representatives to the nobel prize ceremony of jiabao but that is raised a considerable amount of eyebrows around the country is not alarm also within the region. there is also, a hsing's assertion of sovereignty virtual complete sovereignty the south trying to see the confrontations there over a dispute over japan which led to a good deal of unpleasantness and the rationing of metal exports from china. there is a program of aggressive naval expansion, which they ppi and a wonderful series of three reports by michael chase whom you will hear from later from the national war college has really documented this naval

building program in a three-part series. we understand that like any great power, china wants to ensure the supply lines for the natural resources that empower its remarkable economic growth, but there is also the feeling in this country that this buildup of naval forces is also intended to deny the united states access to the waters in this part of the world. recently we have seen yet another unprovoked attack by north korea on south korea and china's refusal to condemn north korea for this aggression and in fact preventing the u.n. security council from taking up this matter and taking up a motion of censure which has led many people to argue that in effect china is enabling illiterate and dangerous behavior by the north korean regime, and while many countries in the region feel as though they are powerful and

neighboring beijing has been throwing their weight around militarily, there is the suggestion that china is not pulling its weight in terms of the global economy. obviously we are looking at huge trade and investment imbalances here as a result of a policy that is export oriented rather than oriented around increasing domestic consumption. the currency has become an issue of contention with united states. the expropriation of technology of u.s. firms doing business in china and intellectual property have all become contentious issues. so while china expects to play a global role commensurate with its enormous power and its status of the world's second largest economy, the world steering committee comes it seems to me with certain

understandings and requirements to respect the interests of other countries and to accept the responsibilities to the international community. now, the economy at the council on foreign relations has argued again provocatively that china may not be interested in fact in being a simple stakeholder in the global system but as he puts it and i'm quoting, china has become a revolutionary power. this follows in the category of important if true and bears hugely on china's behavior and the u.s. relationship with china. now i want to say that we are not alarm us. we are huge admirers of china's tremendous economic achievements over the last 30 years. we don't think antagonism and rivalry between our two countries is forwarding by history and we think that china's growth can bradley be accommodated in the international system that has been in large part shaped by a american foreign policy over the last several decades.

but we do need a clear-eyed assessment of the u.s. relationship with china, one that is realistic, that is reciprocal and consistent with our core national interests because this relationship is going to decisively shape global politics over the better part of the next century. our purpose today is to really highlight some of the critical issues that we think should be on the agenda when president president hu jintao comes to washington to meet with president obama in january. so without any further ado we have an embarrassment of riches today so a marvelous cast of distinguished speakers -- speakers. before we turned over to jim arkedis, our first speaker will be senator chris coons who is a good friend of mine and a welcome addition to the united states senate. he is filling the seat of vice president joe biden that has been held for the last couple of years by ted coffman and his election from our point of view is one of the bright spots in the midterm election, one of the

few and many people know senator coons is the man he kept a witchcraft out of the united states senate, a joke i am sure he is tired of but chris has been a great friend of ours. we first met when he was the county executive new castle county delaware collected in 2004 in two terms there, produced a remarkable record of pragmatic and effective progressive leadership, guiding that county through terrible economic downturn and producing budget surpluses and cutting spending and raising taxes that may soon be useful here in washington with any luck. you you know, in the senate he sits on the foreign affairs committee, the armed services committee and the homeland security, the trifecta of national security so he is obviously in a pivotal position to play a key role in the great foreign-policy debates and security debates in this country. without further ado let me welcome senator coons to our forum today and look forward to

hearing from him. >> thank you will for that kind introduction and thank you for your more than two decades of service as the president of the progressive policy institute since 1989. pbi has served as a hub of international -- and i want to thank you you and your staff for your leadership and commitment even while i was county executive. i found useful and constructive ideas from ppi and look over to working with you more closely in my new role. and before i begin i wanted to just briefly acknowledge the untimely passing of one of our nation's leading diplomats and everyone in the room knows ambassador richard holbrooke for more than 50 years a committed public servant dedicated his life to resolving some of the world's most difficult and most the tractable conflicts and his invaluable contributions to american foreign policy will be truly missed. my thoughts and prayers go out to his family as well as to those who served with him in the

administration or overseas and who will sorely miss his special voice in american foreign policy. i am honored to begin today's important policy about our relations with china and a prediction about its future role and how we might affect it and i'm humbled to speak before this truly distinguished panel of genuine experts are go though i wish i could stay for what i know will be a fascinating conversation i do need to return to the senate but i look forward to reading the comments of the others who will appear on this panel today. as i prepared my remarks i focused on the question of what i could possibly contribute to this conversation is a freshman senator with just a month of service under my belt and what occurred to me was that as a newly-elected senator, fresh off the campaign trail from my home state of delaware, i have seen and heard the growing frustrations and the deep concerns of the average american and their perceptions or misperceptions about the consequences and implications of the rise of china. americans are deeply concerned,

as i heard over and over, up and down my little state that we have lost our economic and particular in manufacturing it in the face of an economically ascendant china and they believe that washington has taken its eye off the ball when it comes to understanding, responding to oregon containing the dangers or the challenges posed by china and the demand of our response to them. i was invited in part i know because of my membership on foreign relations, armed services and homeland security committee but our relationship with china is frankly relevant to the work of every committee of the senate whether this agriculture, commerce judiciary or education. the range and scope of issues pertaining to our relationship with china are so wide that responding effectively i believe are part of the engagement of every committee of congress. and as we consider the many facets of u.s.-china relationship is worth asking i think at the outset at least from my.what can and should the senate due to advance and protect american interests? i will tackle these in into

separate question starting with the issue of what we can do in an moving to what we should do. with regard to national security issues, even for one who has just been here a month, we need only look to the lame-duck session and the striking ongoing delay in ratification of the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty to see some of the very serious political constraints and challenges we face in the senate. as you know new start enjoys bipartisan support of nearly every national security leader past and present them regardless of republican intransigence on new s.t.a.r.t. continues even after the senate has held 18 hearings on the issue and the administration is granted multiple policy and funding concessions. the persistent actions of a determined few and the acquiescence of nearly an entire caucus has needlessly end and my view recklessly delayed ratification of this critical tree and this display should concern anyone who believes as i do that national security imperatives such as new s.t.a.r.t. should override partisan consideration. the senate paralysis on s.t.a.r.t. forces me to wonder at the outset how constrained we will be driven by politics.

in the case of china then my opening question is will the senate ultimately be constructive, destructive or simply an irrelevant player in the ongoing relationship? these days we hear very ominous predictions of america being weekend i china's economic rise, something i heard across my stay. i'm comforted however better what i view as our national tradition of misjudging the so-called threats posed by ascendant nations. we are talking first about predictions made back in the 1950s that are being eclipsed by russia following the launch of sputnik and later being overshadowed by japan in the 80's as america's auto manufacturing dominance within the client. now there are key difference today with regard to china but i believe the future of our relationship like our relationship with both russia and japan does not necessarily exist as one extreme or the other. it is at least for now, hyperbole to speak of china overtaking america. in our increasingly multipolar world are reality is the world's

sole superpower has in fact change but at the same time i don't view it as a zero-sum game. china's rise is not necessarily have to mean the decline of america and a strong china can and should provide a range of economic and security opportunities through which it is possible to pursue shared interest in a manner that will ultimately be our mutual benefit. druidism very troubling trends. china has dramatically increased its defense spending. goldman sachs weaselly projected china's gdp will surpass ours by 2030. in a recent survey by the oecd found that students in shanghai have taught those not just in new york but all around the world and the most successful economic and educational system. china's ownership lasted $900 billion of u.s. treasury present a growing and very real challenge to our financial and strategic independence. what matters is whether we measure china not in terms of relative but absolute because in reality or total defense budget

is still more than four and a half times china. rezoned the six times as much in r&d and our per capita income remains 1000 times more than china. or higher education system in my view remains and give the world and we still manufacture more than china despite a persistent trade imbalance in the perceptions of the average american. but this growing trade imbalance and that really is in my view a critical challenge for us. and we have neither quick or painless solutions to either. that is the story in numbers but i wanted to just share with you or reinforce view the perception from the campaign trail. as i was going to the camden wyoming each festival parade in central delaware something i am sure you have all been to my wonderful 9-year-old daughter maggie was joining me as she softened it for campaign events up and down our state and that morning there have been an article in the wilmington news journal saying the chinese economy was now the second-largest in the world. musing on this as i drove south i stopped at a light and looking in the rearview mirror said to my daughter maggie honey, what is the most powerful country in

the world? without even looking up she said of code daddy that has got to be china. i said, why? she said because every single thing i play with in my room is made there. i repeated that story up and down the campaign and was struck at the strength of the response from average delaware ian's from seniors to high school kids drum veterans to teachers, democrats and republicans and i think it reflects a very broadly shared concern that we are losing out to china, we are losing manufacturing jobs today and as a consequence global leadership tomorrow. and it inevitably will impact not just our security but ultimately our prosperity. and while these challenges are real, measuring them by the rate of china's ascendancy i think is misleading and efforts are focused on the more pressing task that is really our cities such as increasing jobs and making our products ultimately more competitive. i think we need to consider how her own behavior is contributing

to our economic dependence on china for our failure to tackle critical issues at home such as our rising debt. in fact might be the most important actions the senate canon should take would be those that strengthen the united states strategic position in the face of an ascendant china through domestic decisions and domestic changes rather than things that are fundamentally born in nature or to use a more simple metaphor think the best way for us to drive forward is by looking through the windshield rather the the rearview mirror. a question of what we should do simply we need to reduce our deficit and increase savings to reduce our dependency on chinese lending. we need to improve our educational system to recover and maintain our intellectual and competitive edge. me to address critical issues in trade, intellectual property section and tax policies, to strengthen and sustain our capacity to innovate and we need to reinvigorate american manufacturing in order to renew our economic leadership and address our trade imbalance. if we cannot do these things, we cannot close her deficits reduce our debt and stimulate the right kind of economic growth we will

indeed forfeit critical opportunity for building a more stable and mutually beneficial economic relationship with china and ultimately our leadership in the world. at the senate canon should play a role in choosing which direction we take and it is my hope we can overcome the current bitter partisan divide and forge a common path. there is no question doing this will require compromise and sacrifice, two things that are increasingly difficult to come by in the partisan headwind that dominate the short-term political forecast. if we choose not to reduce our dependence it will constrain our diplomatic leverage on critical issues, north korea, iran and human rights. as marshall mentions last week's decision to bar the use jiabao from receiving the nobel prize demonstrated how far beijing is willing to go to make sure they silence voices of dissent and china's belligerence while unconscionable is not surprising given the nation's reflective posture with regard to perceived challenges to its sovereignty or

the centrality of the communist regime. more for the decision other countries demonstrates china's increase successful use of diplomatic pressure as a means of exerting international leverage. china's growing power both regionally and globally stems from its economic ascendance which does have wide-ranging applications. one needs only look at the issue of iran to understand the increasing interplay and overlap between security and economics. china's been at times both an obstacle and a partner. in our efforts to thwart iran's nuclear development. on the one hand china supported the fourth round of u.n. sanctions in jenin on the other their ties to the iranian energy bar could have taken precedence over the rear presence. china's the second-largest importer of iranian oil and is unwilling to respect critical relationship. as the senate now considers implementation of unilateral sanctions recently enacted by the u.s. and e.u. it is important to consider china's ability to fill the void left i energy companies.

is also important to consider the extent to which iran will exploit any perceived policy divide between the u.s. and china. as president obama prepares to host president who we are reminded of the critical responsibilities associated with global power and the need to highlight those in our ongoing dialogue with china. looking forward the u.s. relationship with china is highly challenging and complex and frankly at least for me raises more questions than answers at the moment. but it is our job to search for those answers and remember the concerns of of the average american who electives and members of congress here to be a part of the deliberative process. it is also important for us to keep in mind i think a few of the average american to take seriously the warning in their rearview mirrors that objects may be closer than they appear. that at least is what i plan to do. i take seriously the challenges facing our nation both internally and the international stage and i look over to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to bear down focus and address these critical challenges. i'm grateful to ppi for a chance

to be with you this morning and i hope i've contributed something from the perspective of a newly-elected member of the senate who wonders whether the senate canon will play a strategic role as we move forward in this relationship. thank you. [applause] >> i think the senator has time for one or two questions from the press. fire away. please identify yourself first. [inaudible] [inaudible] >> i obviously don't speak for the senate but i would say my

hope is that we will continue to weave a positive path for that allows us to recognize the success of both nations is interwoven and we need to be dealing with currency issues. and with trade issues in a common context and if we do that and if this meeting reflects a commitment to making progress on these issues that we can then succeed in a way that is harmonious for both nations. thank you. >> my question is in the next few weeks do you think the senate will take up the reform issue? i know two senators propose the bill yesterday. >> the time remaining for a lame-duck section -- session is very short and there are many issues clamoring for what is called floor time or legislative attention. i strong hunch is that that is not an issue that will see for time between now and the end of e