leaders wanted to come out to it. in 2007 we changed the name to netroots nation. we were bigger than one web community. netroots is something composed of a lot of different communities on line. composed of people that primarily are on twitter and facebook or people that use online organizing techniques to organize their community around some kind of issue. host: you are meeting at the the david lawrence convention center in pittsburgh. .

>> that basically decide if they want to follow us around. 9÷they are trying to grab onto what we are doing, regardless of which city is in. host: c-span has a presence at both conferences. we will be covering today and tomorrow, some of the panels that are taking place, including a conversation with congressman suspect and arlen specter who will be speaking at the event with the former dnc chairman howard dean.

where do you see the netroots movement going into next three- five years? guest: what will happen is that the past seven or so, we have worked on the electric-politics. it has gotten pretty sophisticated. there has been signs among activists and victories and money raised on line. you'll start seeing people translate that into techniques that are effective for governments. getting things like health care passed, getting the cat and trade bill passed, in the future things like immigration [inaudible] [inaudible] >> raven brooks joining us. how did you get involved in all of this? guest: i am an activist myself.

i can run as a volunteer for the first one to do a workshop and cannot with a documentary boat -- book. i work my way up to do more things every year and that is the way we operate. they use a lot of their own money and time and time away from their loved ones to help us out with this. it is about how i grew into the organization. host: what did you hear from president clinton last night that stood out in your min? > guest: i think he had a good sense of where we are in this unique place in history and the opportunity that is presented to us. i think he was trying to get across that we, as activists, have to do -- have to pressure our elected leaders to do the right things. we are not out there and make sure they know that there will

be consequences to face if they don't do the right thing, they will cave in to pressure from the other side, pressure from the media, or pressure from contributors to their campaign that have deeper pockets. host: raven brooks, a native of san francisco, a is an executive in netroots. a reminder, we will introduce you to a number of authors with their newly-released books. you can always get schedule information by logging onto our website, c-span.org. you can upload your video from comments you may have or scenes that you capture at the town hall meetings that continued this month on the health care. thank you for being with us on this friday morning. we're back tomorrow at 7:00 a.m.

and have a great weekend. hos[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] >> progress of bloggers from across the country are beating in the pittsburgh for the netroots meeting this weekend. pennsylvania senator arlen specter and u.s. representative joe sestack take part. we are also covering making political change in impacting the supreme court. president barack obama had to montana today for a town hall

meeting on his health-care plan. the rally is planned in the conservative suburb -- suburb -- belgrade. you can see live coverage on c- span 2 at 3:00. conservative bloggers are meeting in pittsburgh today, as well, for a two-day meeting for strategies. we will have live coverage at 7:40 p.m. for the americans for prosperity organization. >> the newest supreme court justice, sonia sotomayor, attended a reception with president barack obama. we will show it as part of cspan's america and the courts saturday at 7:00, eastern. >> three days of peace, love, and music. 40 years ago this weekend, half a million people gathered for woodstock. saturday, the co-founder will take us behind the scenes. that will be at 9:00 p.m.,

eastern, on both tv. >> how is cspan funded? >> donations? >> federal funds, grant funds? >> maybe contributions. >> austin, i don't know. >> i would say from commercials. >> advertising? >> something from the government? >> 30 years ago, america pause cable companies created cspan as a public service. it is a private business initiative with no government mandate, no government money. >> while we wait for live coverage of the netroots convention in less than one hour, conversation with one of the conservative bloggers meeting in pittsburgh this weekend from this morning's " washington journal per-ql." host: tell us what you are representing.

guest: i am here to talk about conservative activism on line and become larger participants. people across the country can act with one voice. host: we have been checking with reporters from pittsburgh who are covering this. they say that even though conservatives are holding their own convention of online activism in pittsburgh this weekend, they are not trying to directly compete with the giant netroots nation. if they did, they would be squashed because online starting tomorrow at the sheraton station square, we will have 1/4 of the netroots activists that are there. what does that tell you where all of this is heading? guest: conservatives still have a way to go to become competitive on line. back when the right was out of power, they rallied around the available technology of the time which was talk radio. when the left out of power in

2000, they rallied around the available technology of the internet. the right has always to catch up. i don't think there can be a competition between the right and left right now, given the size and many people on the right are focused more. the left has been successful about being focused on line. host: what is your view of the obama administration and what is your message to your readers? guest: my message is that we need to rally together and work together to push back on some of these issues. i definitely think polls are showing, and my readers realize, that barack obama is further left than most people thought he was. he is pushing the country in a direction we cannot afford to go in and don't want to go. host: one of your postings is the issue of the so-called insurance czar, saying it would be imported -- appointed by the

president. this would be the 33rd federal czar appointed by the president since his inauguration. can you elaborate? guest: it is amazing that this white house, having criticized the bush white house for summit autocratic moves, now has 33 czars or at least intends to. these are people who are not approved by congress. they are picked directly by the president. they have a lot of influence in making policy. they cannot call the shots for they have to bring people together but there can be some very effective czars. restarted in the 1980's with the drug czar and we have the green jobs are, the insurance czar, the car tsar, we are being overrun by the czars. host: we are talking with eric erickson in pittsburgh. york convention starts to manner -- tomorrow. guest: we are on opposite sides

of the city that river separates us. the real buzz on the right is that they are -- there is growing optimism that the republicans may be able to take back the house of representatives or at least make significant inroads in 2010. that is encouraging to folks on the riper there's a solid -- there is a growing sense that the right is getting more competitive online. you were saying a lot of the larger left sites are starting to reduce and leadership. sites like ours is booming. we have one of the few businesses that barack obama is not hurting. host: the gop thinks the unthinkable victory in 2010. one writer says that the polls are doubling moving in the gop's direction. it is a possibility that many republicans speak in whispers and democrats are just now beginning to face. does this feel like 1994 all

over again, from your perspective? guest: a degree, it does. i think there is cautious optimism. when you look at 1993, some of the early indicators for the number of special elections each in state letter to legislators that democrats took over. we have already picked up 15 seats in special elections and it looks like we will win the virginia and new jersey seats. there are early barometers and measurements we can look at. it looks that way. the difference is that in 1994 there was a message that republicans rallied around as far as what they wanted to do, a governing agenda. right now, there is not really one other than opposing the policies of the president. host: how did an attorney become a blogger? guest: some friends of mine started this website in july, 2004 and asked me to start

writing about politics. at the time, i was doing election law and needed a guy like that. they asked me to help run the site and, over time, i did more and more and now i do it full time and no longer practiced law. host: do you also tweet and if so, what is your web address? guest: i amewerickson on facebook and twitter. host: this argument that the government is taking over health care, many of those are on medicare. what is your reaction? the dow guest: muskrats are so dismissive of republicans talking about the assisted suicide pact that we may be on with section 1233 of the legislation. if they want us to take this seriously on the medicare,

medicaid, and social security, they will have to treat seriously republican concerns about assisted suicide host: host: should the government advise a family member if their loved one is facing a terminal illness? guest: i don't think that is the role the government. i think that is the role of families with their doctors. i understand the argument on the opposite side, section 1223, does not force people into having these conferences. the government never really forces people to do anything. it kind of suggests and pressures you to do it. this is the first step. we see what is happening in oregon where individuals who cannot afford cancer treatments on the state insurance programs are given letters from the state saying we will not pay for your treatment. here is a referral to an assisted suicide specialists. host: are the rumors of false

from the right-leading blogs? guest: some of the rumors are overstated but i see where we are headed. we have physical emmanuel -- ezekiel emanuel was rahm emanuel's brother. there is control and care and what services can be provided. he wrote about as only in extreme situations like organ donors. when we put 45 million people on a government-run program and there are not enough doctors to go around, we will have just more than the extreme situations where we have to ration care. host: we have our first caller. caller: good morning. . erickson, you guys are rich. do you watch tv or do you spend most of your time looking at the tabloids? guest: i walked up to a lot of

the door of the explorer with my child caller: that is about as much taxes you have. i highly disagree with you. i, as a liberal, i am not the kind of liberal that is very biased. i watched fox news. i watch cnn. i want to msnbc. i get on different blocks. i get on different internet sites. i went on your internet site. it is pretty good. i will give you credit where credit is due. the on portion part of that is you guys are worse than the tabloids. you need to run a fact check on the stuff you put out there. most of the is dispelled. host: your response? guest: i get this a lot on the left where they talk about facts. the same people who say we need

to check our facts frequently have to check their own. host: next is carol joining us from ohio. caller: thank you for cspan. i have not read your blog. i gave up on right wing blogs a long time ago because the go to wedge issues and try to turn the people into not thinking for themselves. on medicare -- i am on medicare. your side has totally frightened the senior citizens of this country i have had cancer twice. i have personal feelings on death. i had a living will 20 years ago. i refuse to let machines dictate my end of life. i want to die with dignity. i want to die naturally. as a christian, i will die at peace.

if any of those out there are listening, if you are christian, come to terms with your own death. because that is what you have to do anyway because no one is getting out of this life free of death. another thing -- the republicans were totally against medicare in the 1960's. no republicans were for it. where would we be without medicare today? guest: i appreciate that comment. people need to come to terms with their salvation before they come to terms with their debt. my parents are actually on medicare. i don't think there is a republican out there who is interested in getting rid of medicare. i find it ironic that people said republicans need to check their facts or say that republicans want to kill medicare, which is not true. i would say that maybe we should consider a world where we did not have medicare. we might have something better

in place without the government involved. host: another tweed says -- guest: i actually think there are more voices online demographically that are on the right than the left. the most vocal people on line are probably on left and the largest political sights are on the left i think is interesting that the hot air website is as big as it gets. host: how do you intend to get your site back to a role in saving the gop after being cozy with dick cheney in supporting the bush agenda? guest: generally, i really doubt that people say they are republican and for when the dick cheney and george bush ties know very much of what they are

speaking up. it is clear that in the second administration, there was a great deal of distance between dick cheney and george bush. probably, the administration had been -- would have been better off had they listen to dick cheney more. we took on george bush on harriet miers and we fought among immigration and the bank bailouts and tarp. we were willing to speak our mind. we get criticized among republicans is that we frequently throw harder punches at our own side than the democrats. host: let me share with you this headline. the vice president on cloaks his frustration with bush. did you see th peace? > guest: i did, it was very interesting. i don't know the background there. i saw it described in the story. i know there was tension there. there are many republicans, particularly among the conservatives, that believe that the second bush white house was

really a different white house altogether than the first bush term in 2000. by and large, that seems to be because dick cheney was marginalized in the second term. many people on the left don't like to believe that. that's that seems to be the case. host: the support of the vice- president -- he said," when the president made decisions that i did not agree with, i still supported him and did not go out and undercut him. now, i have strong feelings about what happened and i don't have any reason not to forthrightly express those views." guest: i think we will see that. before he left office, i was able to have lunch with him at the vice president's house. there has been a lot of conservatives on capitol hill who have told me that during the bush administration, particularly during the second term, that as policies were coming out the white house, they would see people in the voice

presence office offering suggestions and advice how to undermine the policy sprint -- the policies. i don't know if vice-president cheye was behind that. my guess is that he was. i guess he will be more free to speak his mind. while he was in the white house, he was probably the most loyal allies present we have had a long time if only because he did not have a further political ambition. that was more for president bush to do that and to have a vice- president who he never had to second guess because the vice- president was not planning on running for office. at the same time, there was a leadership vacuum in 2008 that we saw were the vice-president was not the presumed leader of the party with the president leaving. but caused problems for the party i think. host: the drop -- the web address is redstatenation.org.

caller: good morning. i am a republican. i have been a republican all my life. i have been to the bay of pigs and the cuban blockade and in vietnam. i have been in law enforcement. i'm a working, poor man. i have been been that all my life, hard working. i know the republican party. i could read a book on it. you are not part of it, son. you are part of the group that came in 1994, too young to know with the republican party was. i believe in the trickle-down theory. i work and kate -- take care the boss and he will take care of you. i don't like government running the country. i know the government does run this country. i also know the war hawks and

oil people control that and you are part of that, son. since 1973, you drag us down to a low level. i notice that the young republicans are controlling this government. more money is stolen from the taxpayers and put in the pockets of gun runners and that is exactly what you are part of. host: we will get a response. guest: i don't know that i have a response to that. maybe it is a generational thing. i am an elected republican in macon, ga., on the city council there. i have always been a republican. it was not just the conversion in 1994. host: our next caller is from colorado. caller: good morning. i really appreciate what the older gentleman from tennessee said. he is correct.

the republican party has gone so far right. in the marketplace of ideas on your blog, do you allow an open exchange and an open forum of ideas? guest: we have comments that anyone can write and anyone can debate in the comments if it is respectful. caller: i have noticed that i did try to comment on the redstate blog. i tried to be respectful but you don't seem to tolerate any disagreement whatsoever yet, you are the very people who are advocating that all these republicans go to a democratic town halls when you do not allow democrats to post on your republican internet site. that does not seem like a free and open exchange of ideas to me. guest: i would disagree with you. we had senator dormant for rob

illinois post about issues. one of our contributors is very for to the left. we have democrats regularly engaged in comments. the issue becomes the people who come to the site and tend to disrupt it. i am not aware of anyone we have tossed off the side who is there because they disagree with us. we generally delve into issues of respect and toleration of other people. host: one of the stories you posted yesterday was that obama's brownshirts tried to silence glenn back. that is a reference to what we saw in knotty germany. why that reference? guest: kohlberg wrote about liberal fascism last year. he talked about how woodrow wilson actually ran a group of citizens out of the government that shut down newspapers and bullied people and harass people. now, we're seeing a situation where van jones, the president

paused green jobs are, started an organization that is out trying to shut down glenn back and get advertisers to pull out of his show. this is an issue the right to care about, particularly as the democrat tries to push for fairness in congress. the right will have to stick together on these issues. the left tries to boycott and get sponsors to cancel shows like plan back, we need to pressure those sponsors to stay on. host: fox news white house correspondent with robert gibbs created this exchange. >> i want you to know that i am keeping a picture of my hero, major garrett, close by all the time. he is the only one with the giblets to ask the tough questions. god bless you, major, we are praying for you. >> hello, america. i have been watching the media

watch the town hall protest. do you remember the initial reaction? i believe it was after a tour. these are fake aggressors. these people are not even real. centre barbara boxer says the last time she saw such a nicely dressed up big protests -- fake protests was in 2000 in florida with al gore, which i lived in florida. maybe i was responsible for that, too. i was there. that was not they can appear that was real anger. host: your reaction to glen back and his comments? guest: i think he was spot on. we have harry reid, the senate majority leader, calling the protesters going to these town halls evil-mongers. we have nancy pelosi saying that they are dressed as the nazis and using not he-like tactics to silence people. -- nazi-like tactics.

if you go on craigslist on the classified as a new type in obama or reform in most major metropolitan areas under the subsection, you will find the csiu and you will find people being paid $16 per hour to go to these town hall meetings. i don't know if anyone on the right is being paid to show up in this town hall meetings but i guess that you have to be financed by george soros to be a real act of desperation host: host: this caller asks for one republican who is promoting fairness guest: \ guest: many people have suggested and john kerry said he would like to see it come back in place. the democrats are not

legislating desperate they are appointed people to the fcc, the body that impose the fairness doctrine that will start to do this again. we're starting to see it, setting local standards and community panels that the local radio stations and tv stations have to be responsible to. this is a way to bring pressure to bear on local media outlets and national media outlets to get them to not air views that liberal activists don't like. host: good morning. caller: when i heard nancy pelosi call people nazis -- i am a 17-year veteran and put my life on the line defending this country for 17 years. they are calling us names. the congressmen need to be sent home packing. they don't need to be there. what do you think about that? guest: there are no recall laws

for congress. they will have to be beat at the ballot box. whether you are on the right and left, if you disagree with someone in congress, get out there and work against them very give money to the other side, knock on doors, get involved. host: our next call is from cape cod, massachusetts. caller: you were doing a great job. we really appreciate you taking my call. there is so much frustration listening to cspan because you get away from the issues, the real issues and the real truth, if you will. that is why i am an independent. i would really like to see cspan, not so much congressman from left or the right, usually the guy from the right, everybody else is left is that he does not agree with or a hitler-type, etc. i am not into blogging.

there is a reason why i have been independent. i believe that 50% of this country are independents, or are like me and cannot stand the right or the left. in any of the world, -- in any other world -- in 2002 with a idig, or whoever's selling the r to this country with the bush administration and good old vice-president janey and telling us how sharon was a peacemaker. that was the last straw. anybody who is a republican and wants to take these lies is just got something going for him or something. maybe he wants to be republican blogger.

the world -- the real world of people who read and think -- they know what the truth is. 80% of canadians love their leftist-communist health care program. all the european come -- countries have medicare-type, single-payer that works. host: we only have a few minutes left. guest: we have had several callers, this being the latest, who dealt into these facts and statistics, many of which are not actually facts. left and right can accuse each other of not knowing the facts. at the end of the day, we are left with a situation of whether people like their health care in canada or great britain or not. the fact is, they know nothing else. we in this country know

something more and we know the people statistically from canada and great britain who can afford it come here in droves to get health care. when the president tells everyone that if they like their celt -- their health care, nothing will change. at some point, you have to ask why we need a total overhaul the system if nothing will change. host: do you continued the grand old tradition of tearing down the left or want to rebuild the right? guest: we try to fight the left also fight the right. one of our most high-profile issues has been the intraparty fight over the florida senatorial committee picking charlie crist who is further to the left and we think the republican base deserve or wants as opposed to a very dynamic guy like marko ruby. we return the right about

rebuilding the party. i have that as a focus on the side. host: we are joined from new iberia, louisiana. caller: good morning. thank you for the opportunity to speak. i would like to encapsulate everything that has been said, that this young man said about the republican party being successful. the news media on tv broadcasts and ronald reagan opened pandora's box when he did away with communications law. this said you could not lie to people. you also have the rise of the right-wing media because pandora's box was opened. the out and out lied to people and scared them and misrepresented the truth. the internet was created as an alternative to this spirit you will never dominate desperate all your money from rich people will never dominate this. this is our answer.

host: 90. guest: i don't know that i have a response to something like that. the great thing about the internet is that anyone can get on there and set up a block and there boys can get out there and the dominant voices rise to the top. i have been blessed to be at redstate where our voices are rising to the top. host: our next caller is from north carolina. caller: keep on keeping on. i don't really listen to many blocks but when i hear something about george sorus and people should research. you'd be surprised what george soros stands for. he has nothing but a racist organization. they talk about going back.

he researches everything he does and people better wake up. i watched senator grassley is town hall meeting last night. there were two or three busloads of organizations but they are nothing but a bunch of crooks. ?geverybody in the white house s crooks. peter but people -- people better wake up. you have a great day and keep on keeping on because -- have a great day. guest: i appreciate that. host: we go to virginia on the independent line. caller: good morning. i have some comments to say about the republican party.

the republican party, under bush power, all bush was interested in was the war and the oil. also, bush lied to the american people about not using taxpayer money to pay for the war over there and rebuilding of iraq. also, the wall street banks failed under bush. also, the last thing was that bush spent trillions of dollars of money and raped this economy. host: i will stop you there. we are getting feedback. we will get a response. guest: this goes back to what i was saying -- they're my people that think the first bush administration and the second were vastly different operations.

had the president's counselors listen to vice president anymore, many things that happened would not have happened. there were also many things put in place over time that led to the bank collapse. i don't necessarily think it is right to blame it all on the bush administration. i do think that towards the south end of the second bush administration, it was ridiculous what the government was doing. republicans have a long way to come back on that because it was their response -- it was their administration's responsibility for that. the plight in florida is important for the party. will the republicans get back to being small government, fiscal and social conservatives, or will they drew closer to left? i would like to see us return to small government conservatives. host: this tweet asked to

explain the difference between republicans and conservatives. guest: on fortunately, there are too many people in republican party who view themselves as republicans before they do themselves as conservatives. the republican party is a party about the accumulation of power, just like the democratic party. whether you were little or conservative, having some sort of background in believes should guide you as opposed to just the raw acquisition of power. in both parties, there are too many people who are committed to holding onto power as part of the party apparatus instead of actually having ideas to move forward. i am no real fan of barney frank but i agree with him when he says that you should be a liberal or conservative and moderate stand for nothing. i think he is right about that. having a foundational core believes is important host: eric erickson is an editor of

redtstate.org and he is joining us from pittsburgh. beckham for joining us. guest: thank-you. >> live coverage starts at 11:00 eastern of the netroots nation concert. it is an annual gathering of progress of loggers. while we wait for the discussion with arlen specter, this morning's "washington journal" discussion with the mayor of newark new jersey on his leadership there. host: we continue with our look at some of the nation's local mayors. we're joined by the mayor of newark, new jersey. guest: banks for having me on. host: the centerpiece of your campaign was public safety. how are you doing? guest: you're never satisfied when crime happens in the city but we have made progress. we are down about 40% on shootings in the city. we're down about 1/3 on murders,

the largest decrease in the nation over the last three years. any newarker will tell you that we still have a battle. the city exemplifies the greatest transformation in public safety. host: new work may view that as the final stop before heading penn station. tell us about your city and what it is known for guest: new work is the third-founded city in the nation. new work has led american cities whether it has been an industrial revolution. some of our greatest inventors from thomas edison on have been there and it is a city that was known from jazz and the arts to the big beer barons. it wasn't one of america's biggest cities in commerce

because it sat between new york city and philadelphia. it has famous athletes and authors and now, newark is a major center for education. it has the largest are rihanna and the largest museum, art galleries, it is a city that is the second-fastest growing city behind boston. i am more of a yankee fan by boston red sox fan. we are booming in population vary with the business is moving back to the city, of companies coming in, and we're starting to position ourselves like a mid- size american city which is redefining what the future of american cities will be. we're trying to change the narrative of what our urban cities kenbei. host: you are trying to keep crime rate down but with the unemployment rate at 14.3%, how do you do that? guest: it is a challenge. the unemployment rate in america has grown more than 20%.

newark has grown about 14% which is unacceptable. we will still focus on the potential of our city and their community in the 21st century economy. we are working on innovative ways. any challenge in our nation's history has been a challenge to the imagination of the people. we are trying to empower our people to succeed. whether we open up our financial empowerment programs where we get millions of dollars back from the federal government in earned tax credit money, it used to go unclaimed. whether it is finding ways to help residents get jobs or start businesses, we started a very aggressive loan fund with banks and traditional lenders when they retreated, we put forward in the city, making millions of dollars of loans and opening up many businesses from pediatric dentistry to coffee shops and

ice-cream shops. local residents are providing jobs. we have attracted the new economy. we believe the future of america will include green dreams. we have attracted three solar companies. new jersey is now the second- biggest producer of solar energy. we have biofuel companies in the city of newark. we got residents into local guinness to weather a recession and energy upgrades. we're proud of that. we are lowering energy bills for senior citizens and help our city's environment. and starting businesses to comparing contractors, to come getting local people to get involved we attract new businesses and because we sat on the best transportation superstructure in the northeastern seaboard in terms

of goods coming in, all the major highways and railways, we realize we can be competitive in the region and the global supply chain by getting more warehousing at airports. we just finished at eight new warehouse that is employing thousands of people. we get companies to realize that they can invest in places right on transportation lines, they can reduce the cost of doing business. we are positioning ourselves to get businesses back to the city of newark. our governor, jon corzine, passed one of the best stimulus bills in america which is a tax- credit bill that makes buildinga classmakes office space in our city for about $7 per square foot. we're bracing ourselves as many developers are coming in to have one of the mac -- best building. in our history.

host: it was written that you like being the mayor of newark. this is having a work is described. he says there is a new downtown arena, some bright residential complexes, and the gestation of a hit her scene. he also says that north is still a drug-infested, a poverty- stricken place where rubble piles up and the chablis hotel riviera's across the street from -- from an abandoned five story building. guest: the best thing i experience is when people come in for a show at our new performing arts center for our new arena, they are shocked. the image of new work is frozen in a time that does not exist anymore. as companies come back and we build new residential and double production of affordable housing, we have the largest

expansion in the public-private partnership of parks in over one century. newark is transforming rapidly. we're focusing on core values and our common objectives and making tremendous progress we will shock many folks as they come in and discover are setting fong. newark, new jersey led the nation the last two years in reductions of shootings and murders. i think we will have another year like that. newark is stepping -- setting the standard by being in about it. we have ex-offender programs that allow reentry. we're in a bidding in our public schools in ways that are creating models. the highest performing public school in all of essex county, which it will become a is a new

work public charter school. from health care to education to ex-offender reentry, to technology and crimefighting, new work is an early adapter to new ideas and technology. it is becoming one of the cities that will point the way to the future. one of the reasons why i believe that "time"magazine has done a profile on us, and many other periodicals are waking up in focusing on in newark, new jersey, is because we are starting to show the strength of our community, the strength of our city, and what can be done when the americans pull together and are determined not to talk about rhetoric but to talk about progress. we are seeing it in unassailable ways. host: we're talking to the mayor of newark who is thearned his de

from harvard. with the name newark come from? guest: there is a lot of debate about that going back to the 1600's. some people think it has biblical implications as being the new park of the covenant. that is the one i like the most. i believe our nation was founded on lofty ideals, on a powerful covenant among people. it had focused common ideals. i think it goes to the founding principles of what our nation is about, this ideal that we seek, he poured his poem. out of the many making one. e pluribus unum. out of the

many, making one. i get fatigued with the national left-right debate that pulls people. it forgets about moving forward. we have everybody from right- leaning groupst to traditional left groups. it is about making progress. that is why newark is showing innovative possibilities to ongoing challenges. host: we have a caller from kalamazoo, michigan. caller: i cannot start my day without your program. it is wonderful to watch and get information. i would like to know a question that involves homeland security. i wonder, sir, if you have received any threats to your city. if so, as homeland security been

involved in squelching those threats? has any of the money helped to bring the city back and protect people and make your city stronger and more productive? do your citizens feel safer and businesses feel safer to move to nwark? i live in the mid an excuse me i live in the midwest. tell mode -- kalamazoo does exist. that's where i live. i like to know if our money is well spent, from homeland security, if you are receiving funds to help us -- to help you grow? if it is not, good for you. host: thank you for the call.

we have some information that you can put on the screen, in terms of the stimulus money. about $58 million in stimulus money is being spent with $3.5 million being spent for crime prevention. guest: there is also money for summer jobs programs for kids. you cannot track bed on the city website the important question is about homeland security. i feel like the grandson of michigan because my grandfather moved there in a northern migration, like many african- americans, and feel lot of loyalty and respect for the state of michigan. we have to focus on homeland security. there have been threats. the prudential building was

threatened. we are very keen to focus on homeland security. when you set a largest transportation superstructure in the northeast, you have to be very awarem your airport security, airport security, the security of roads. these are critical points in one of the largest consumer markets in north america. i am really focused on that. i want all of us, as americans, as i try to focus all the time, that we have a fear of the immediate threat of terrorism. we cannot allow the long-term threat to our national security to go unnoticed. i had a conversation with colin powell added dinner when he talked about terrorism, nuclear proliferation, and i raise my hand and asked what the greatest threat to our democracy over the next 50 years is. the great general and statement did not miss a beat and without hesitation said the greatest

threat to our democracy over the next 50 years is our inability to educate all of our children in equal and high levels and the divisions that still exist in america between one american and another. as a young man who is in a city every day, who sees what is happening on national level in education, we must recognize that we are now competing our national strength is in direct competition against a global reality. america is not number one in education for its young people. we have to begin to think about what that means and the long term -- in the long term for our country's competitiveness. if you look at just measuring gdp and mckinsey did a wonderful story and in new york times about the cost for the r gdp for the local high-school graduation rates that we have.

and how would have an impact on gdp in the trillions of dollars. we, in america, have to understand that we can educate all children. they can be no excuses. every city has examples of schools where people come from high-property environments and are achieving at the highest level. we have numerous schools in newark that the law the national average and take kids from challenging environments and send them to howard university, hampton university, harvard university, and so forth. we decided that there are these islands of excellence in newark and the only challenge is if we have the will to expand islands of excellence into hemispheres of hope. we have a number of programs that we promote very -- energetically. i know that our long-term success is dependent upon the third graders or fourth graders that are now in school. they are now the ones that will

make america secure in the future. we owe them more than you're giving them now. host: our conversation is with cory booker, the mayor of newark, new jersey caller: hello, mayor booker, how are you? i worked in newark and i went to college there. guest: would you please tell the time magazine guide at newark, new jersey is changing rapidly? caller: i have to admit that the downtown area is nice. the prudential center is good. you have decent public transportation. i think you have improved on what has been done. my question is, will you do what you can to bring the new jersey nets to newark? guest: despite the nickname of

brick city, which might because of the khmer's drop shot, professor paul belongs in a newark. nets are being moved to brooklyn. they have not been broken ground there but we hope there will be an opportunity to buy the team and keep them in new jersey. we think it can drive tremendous revenue and create excitement and energy in the city of newark. that will stimulate and supercharged downtown development. i am in agreement with you. we are working on that. we're hoping the owners of the team can see from a spreadsheet analysis that the team will most succeed in a brand new or renew in newark, new jersey. host: is the new york giants or the new jersey giants? guest: i'm good friends with the

owners of those -- of that teens. they did the special dispensation that i could call them the new jersey giants. they play in new jersey. we celebrate them in new jersey. by employing them for my own i will let n.y. keep the yankees, even though that is my favorite team. as far as the giants, we claim host: them in new jersey the same with the jets? guest: we will claim both teams. victory has many fathers. failure is an orphan. the jets and giants are doing pretty good, the giants especially. we claim as one of our own host: host: jessica from across the river in queens. caller: we saw the documentary "street fight." guest: that was an academy award

nominated documentary on my first election for mayor, done by a martial currie. it won the tribeca film festival but lost the academy award. it lost to "march of the penguins." i'm a vegetarian but i will eat penguins. caller: mayor booker, what we want to do is to keep clean. you will not find this with people on the right and left. be careful. the country and those of us who are black and successful and have fun and we are of substance, many times, we stay away from issues or various people because we see and negativity. what i am saying is, you turned the city around.

you are a positive. i wanted to stay focused. you have a lot of negativity. you have a lot of people who come from an ancestry. you have those that were driven from england jails and prisons and they have sons and great- grandson who do not understand the fact that you got this and you'll love it. .

there were many in your area that left the area and went and came to my area or the south, dealing with problems like general motors and chrysler, mccain into cities like alabama -- and they came into cities like alabama. host: let me catch up on his point, because president obama asked if you would serve in the administration. and you said, nope. guest: first of all, i did not get formal request. but i felt i could best serve the president by continuing microlithic role and showing newark as a place that many of his ideas could flourish. i feel blessed to serve our president as we all do, republican and democrat, we are all americans. i think what the caller said,

there is a lot of truth in it. i don't think democrat or republican -- america is a great country, because it does not matter who your granddaddy was, who your grandmother of -- was, or your father. we deal with people where they are. i believe in the goodness of people, whatever their background, faith, and religion. the thing that bothers me most -- and this is show that -- this is a show that i really like because we have democratic and republican minds, but i am less interested in what divides us. newark has become a place where ideas matter and ideas work. i lived in an american city. you can look at jack kemp, a person who originated ideas like enterprise zones, driving billions of dollars into american cities, and you can

even look at our current president with some of his ideas around education and his education secretary, doing phenomenal things already to the transformation. we are a country that has benefited from ideas from all corners, because we have more that unites us rather than dividing us. host: a couple of more minutes from the mayor of the newark, new jersey. mark is on the phone. caller: how are you doing? a quick question from a rural part of the state. how do you feel about us getting our funding cut, john corzine stealing money out of washington to further a political career? guest: i think all of the jersey is hurting and getting money cut. unfortunately -- all of new jersey is hurting and getting

money cut. unfortunately all of us has had state aid cut. this is the problem. they can continue to divide new jersey, or we can realize we are all in this together, that we have one common destiny. as king said more eloquently than me, we are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality -- injustice anywhere in new jersey or america is a threat to justice everywhere. what goes on are the kinds of things that ultimately will affect everyone. we have got to have a vision or a plan for the whole state. our cities have to become engines of economic opportunity. already newark has 100,000

people all around the state that, and to work every day. in the port area alone, 100,000 people just working in that area. the majority of them don't come from the city of newark. it is a city, in terms of producing revenue, arts and culture for the state, but imagine what would happen if we supercharged that? if we go back nearly a century ago where the cities where producing the engines for the entire domestic economy as well as the state's economy. if newark fails, new jersey fails. if it succeeds, new jersey succeeds. i know one cannot be successful with the other. if we continue to bash each other just because a person happens to be a democrat or a person just happens to the republican, we will get nowhere. if we begin to come together to

say, what are the strategies that work for all of us, what can we do? john corzine, whatever you say a bottom, as i analyze him on issues of economic empowerment for the entire state in a bad and difficult time -- and by the way, democratic legislatures, republican governors, all of them going back to the 1990's were spending like crazy, building up debt. that was not a democrat or republican problem, but a problem with our government. i think all of us could come together on solutions that will not only in power newark but everyone. if we can do anything but bash each other we will tear down our state and nation. that is not the history we have. we have a history in this country of good people, black people, white, democrats, republicans, coming together to do what is necessary, whether storming beaches in normandy or freedom rides and the south. >> we will leave "washington

journal" at this point to go live with pennsylvania democratic senator arlen specter and joe sestak, democratic congressman from the state's seventh district, facing each other in the 2010 democratic primary for u.s. senator. this is part of the netroots nation conference going on in pittsburgh. live coverage now on c-span. >> who am i? i am a fellow who has a good job -- he would like to keep, running for reelection to the united states senate. i am here because i like to talk to people generally, and especially if i'm in a campaign and would like support to be reelected. do i think i have some messages which will help me on their reelection? i think the answer to that is, yes. you can take a look at my

record. i have been consistently pro- choice, supporting a woman's right to choose. [applause] i have been at the forefront of civil rights -- [applause] objected to president bush's warrantless wiretapping and his signing statements. i voted against waterboarding, press to have a military commission is the depressed to have military commissions -- i pressed to have military commissions. a decisive vote in defeating judge bork for the united states supreme court, and had he been there instead of justice anthony kennedy, roe v. wade would now

be history and equal protection would not have included women or the disabled. i have effectively joined the president obama democratic team when i voted for the stimulus package, provided a key vote. there would have been no stimulus package. out of the 10,000 votes that i have cast, that was the most decisive. in that vote i became a member of the team. and a defacto democrat and made the formalistic changed later. i was invited by president obama to join his health care summit, and i have been working hard to structure legislation with a robust public auction. [applause]

] option -- option. i have attended town hall meetings -- maybe you have heard of them. tuesday, in lebanon, i was astounded to find three networks, cnn, msnbc, and fox covered the entire session. even the surfers couldn't find any place else to go. while the "usa today" has on its front page, members of congress on willing to face hostile audiences, that is all i have been doing all week, four of them. it and i carried the president's message. -- and i carried the president's message. >> i have to stop you there. you are not in the senate -- we are not in the senate, we cannot

do filibuster's. >> i always think of you as arlen, you are like those one word names like cher. you represented me individually for 40 years -- could it really have been 40 years? i was a philadelphia resident when you ran as the day. young and tough. >> i am still tough and nobody owns me. >> which leads me to my first question. i thought i would condense -- condense what a lot submitted on-line because they were all variations on a theme. what they were asking was, why should we trust him. i have a two-part question. to what republican ideology positions due use still feel such loyalty that you could possibly see yourself -- do you still feel such loyalty that you could possibly be at odds with the democratic leadership and obama? what, if any, progressive

position can you tell us you will absolutely go to the mat all the way on? >> you should trust me because i have a record of being candid, honest, and trustworthy. you should trust me because joe biden, a man i have known for three decades, knows me very well, trust me, urged me to become a democrats on countless train rides. you should trust me because ed rendell has known me for 45 years, i gave him his first job out of law school and when he calls me repetitively and once help, as he called me 10 days ago, unemployment compensation was running out and he wanted money for the stimulus package, the republican plans of and is said it would not vote for it but i called some of my friends there -- the republican

pennsylvania senate would not vote. >> but what i have seen specifically as a blocker the past six years through the bush administration -- as a blogger the past six years, you would say i would not support this, this is american, you would get press coverage and then you would vote for it anyway. i think that is what people are concerned about. >> well, you can point to an isolated example or two, but there are good reasons. one question which i was advised to answer was, why, when i thought habeas corpus was a constitutional mandate that i voted for the military commissions bill. but i did so -- and this is one where people say you said one thing but did another. but the military commissions build the find the status of anime, that is, for acute --

precluded use of coerced confessions, it outlawed torture, it provided procedures and military commissions to provide process -- the bill defined the status of enemy combatants. this is where i have taken a strong stand for habeas corpus but would for a bill -- but voted for the bill because the balance was very important. when you've had a question about the telephone companies that i thought to subpoena when i chaired the judiciary committee, and to this day, and you cannot take away jurisdiction of a sentence -- san francisco federal court, i made an amendment to substitute the government for the telephone companies so people can continue to sue for invasion of privacy

on warrantless wiretaps. but the balance had and warned provisions. if you take them one at a time, i am consistent. >> as you know what the voting we have had an advance, the habeas corpus issue came up, and one of the things the several readers said they were not left with the impression when you went to the senate floor and said it was a constitution -- and constitutional and it would set america back 900 years, that they were not under the impression that you were for the bill. this was an issue that came up in the primary race. you are basically saying you were glad the supreme court took legislation that you supported and declared it unconstitutional. usually politicians have the opposite reaction. >> i am saying at the time, when i made a motion to have habeas corpus inserted and lost it 51- 48, at the time there were other

provisions in the bill, that i walked out of the news conference and said it is unconstitutional to exclude habeas corpus. but the balance had a lot of important points. it had the right to counsel, was against conversion, defined enemy combatants and its strength and what existed otherwise and there was one provision that i was i right about and said so. i said, even though this bill had an unconstitutional provision, that it would be corrected because i it was confident the court would correct it, and i was correct. >> let us move to a few audience questions. we solicited on web sites and had an open boat and we will now take a couple of questions that were the most popular -- we had

an open mode. >> maureen from massachusetts. will you call on democratic senators to vote for cloture on democratic bills so that these bills can proceed to an up or down vote? [applause] >> a vote for cloture it is a procedural vote and i would suspect to support senator harry reid on a bill he wants to bring up to cut off debate on a motion to proceed so the issue can be taken up. that was illustrated when there were 49 republican senators a couple of years ago, and employees free choice act came out, i was the sole republican who voted for cloture so we could take of the bill. it was not to say that i was for the bill, because i am for the

principles of a union certification and first contract, but that is an illustration on a procedural issue where i would vote to take up the bill. i think the legislation ought to be considered by the senate. i am not saying there might not be an extreme case where there was a first amendment issue, or if somebody wanted to cut back on the way i supported hate crimes legislation, or the way i have supported fairness and equality for gays, that i might not if there is a constitutional issue. but i expect to be a book to support cloture. -- i expect to be able to support cloture. >> next question? >> senator specter, i am a constituent of yours and i would like to know, the house of of presented as a recently passed a

comprehensive bill dealing with climate change -- house of representatives. the senate is expected to vote on similar legislation later this year. what is your position on the house bill and climate change legislation in general? >> to repeat, the question is on president obama's climate change legislation, where you stand on that, the house and senate versions. would you be supporting a stronger version, even if that did come out of the house? >> i support climate change. i think the global warming issue is long past due, and i supported a bill that was cap- and-trade. the senate does not yet have a bill. i took an assignment on the environment and public works committee because of the importance of the issue, and i want to have a seat at the table.

i am working with senator boxer, the chairman of the committee, to have a strong bill. i support what president obama wants to do. [applause] >> we will go to the third question, though. in stitching these together, is it fair to say on the climate legislation and employee free choice, and public option health care, would you be voting with the majority for cloture to have up and down vote? >> yes, no doubt about those three issues at all. >> we will take a third question. >> senator specter, i'm herman from boston, massachusetts. what is your position on d.c. residents' civil rights, and the titular, d.c. residents being denied the right to have a voting representative -- in particular, d.c. residents being denied the right to have a vote in congress? >> full voting rights and congress. >> i favor that.

the issue came up years ago when the issue was whether there ought to date two senators from the district of columbia -- whether there ought to be two senators. i was the only republican to do so, because obviously it's not the senators from washington, d.c., would be democrats -- two senators from washington, d.c., would be democrats. >> i thought this was interesting. you always had friends on both sides of the aisle, both in d.c. and in pennsylvania. i was kind of interested because in philadelphia, the mayor is talking about making some rather draconian budget cuts in light of the state budget. because republican senate majority leader said, no new taxes. i was wondering, are you going to intercede in this? have you tried interceding in

this? >> i have talked to the mayor about the issue, but i have talked -- and i have talked to governor ed rendell about the issue and i am available. i would point out, this is slightly different but very close to the core of the issue, that the stimulus bill, which mayor nutter lobbied hard, brought 16 -- $16 billion to pennsylvania. without my vote on the stimulus package, philadelphia and the state would be in much, much worse shape. they are in bad shape, but it would be much worse shape. it has got to be kind of weird, though, that all of a sudden you have to sort of let everything over when you are talking to people you have known for years. >> come on, i have been talking to at grendell for whatever -- >> i don't mean that. lobbying on behalf of democrats,

which is different. >> i was yesterday in bedford, counted, and i was visiting with democrats and the minority commissioner was a democrat and he told me a story i had forgotten -- bedford county. i had been there for a republican meeting and he had come. he told me how cordial i was. i hired ed rendell, did not know he was a democrat and didn't care. when i hired lynne abraham, she was a democrat and i didn't care. i always talked to the other party. it has changed, but the other party. >> i do want to look at that with some data. in the blogosphere you can begin -- have you heard of neat silver and the specterometer? ? no.

he is a statistician, he built in endicott inspectorometer. he basically did a voting analysis of what he calls a contentious votes, the big floor votes with the parties have significant disagreements. andy found that basically what you were a republican going into april, you would vote with the democrats up to about 44% of the time. after the party switch, that spike up to 69% of the time. and then since may when it became clear that there would be a challenge from congressman sestak, 97% of the time. [laughter] that is one person analysis of the votes. but what he and a lot of people have said, including conversations we had online prior to your parents -- many people in this community like that you are up to 97%, but, many are concerned that this of a product of this challenge,

that the data suggested came with the primary challenge and if you were reelected you would go back to that prior record you have. what would you say to those people and to the specterometer? >> i say you have to take a look at the individual votes. i can tell you exactly why did each one of them. i will tell you that before i became -- before i vote on the stimulus package, which i said was crucial, that i voted for legislation to give women equality, overruled the supreme court. i would say i voted for schip, a big bill to provide child-care. that if you take the votes one at a time without the generalizations -- but i will tell you also that as a democrat, i don't have to look over my right shoulder. and it is very comfortable. >> you say you don't have to look over your right shoulder,

is the 97% -- is that your new natural place, is that is what you're saying? >> ieds respect congressman sestak, and i am not trimming my sales are concerned -- i respect congressman sestak. when president obama said he would support me and -- vice president joe biden, i did not ask that the field be cleared, it was not discussed. i am ready to take on all comers and i will stand behind my votes won by one. i don't believe in these statistical generalizations. s make about a vote, and i will tell you what i did what i did. >> i have a question that disorder related to that. you have been in office and public service for a really long time. and i think that in the last administration, you kind of did have to look over your right shoulder. it so, what i wondered was, in a

positive sense, what progress a position can we expect to see out of you that you kind of could not give in to your natural instincts previously? what can we see you taking a leadership position on? >> let me refer to the town hall meetings. i am out there fighting for president obama health care plan and nobody and the democratic caucus has been out there with four town meetings. nobody has done it. [applause] if i could to my own horn just for one minute, as an advocate, i can stand up and do things that are pretty effective. i will not compare them to anybody else. i was before the international trade commission 13 times for the labor movement, united steelworkers.

it is not only the fact that the price is right, 0 for the united steelworkers, but that i am effective. one item that i have taken, which is very progressive, pretty much a lone voice, is to televise the supreme court for accountability. bloggers would like transparency. well, the supreme court of the united states is the most opaque, and accountable constitution imaginable. and i have twice got legislation out of the judiciary committee. i have talked to senator read about it. i think this time we introduce more legislation and will get it out. i question of the nominees. senator joe biden at the time, and i, wrote to chief justice rehnquist to televise bush vs.

gore, president bush won the election by one vote, and i spoke out at the time, and i was a republican, and spoke out at the time about scalia's reference to rep alarm with the most ridiculous thing imaginable. and i wanted -- [applause] i wanted the supreme court televised and rehnquist wrote back and said, no, but they released and audio. on judge sotomayor -- i think i was more effective, more so probably than other democrats -- although i did not want to do my horn to much -- and a wise latino woman. , is there something that you've -- may be a legacy piece of legislation, is there something you had in the back of your head that you did not have support from the republican party that you feel you might initiate now? >> take stem cell research. stem cell research, i have

absolutely no support. i was in the back seat of the president's car one day -- there were three of us. bush, -- and made. we had a hell of an argument. the vote was 2-1 against me. and twice we passed stem cell legislation. first of the specter-harkin when i was chairman, and then harkin- schechter when he was chairman and both times it was vetoed. i took the lead again with tom harkin, harkinnih funding -- increasing nih funding. those are pretty progressive moves. >> you mentioned the town hall. let us return to health care. president clinton was on the stage last night saying he supports the public option, that we got to get the conversation back about helping people that has been sidelined by a lot of misinformation. really the country's eyes was on your town hall meetings. what can you do, what are you doing to deal with allies better

coming out of talk radio and coming out a lot of your former allies and colleagues in both the republican party and a larger conservative movement, and specifically, do you think you can help president obama get any of these republican senators that he says he needs to pass this legislation? who would they be and what would they do about it? am i think i would be helpful to him with senator grassley, very close, came in at the same time. " full with senator collins. you don't need any help would senator snowe. senator voinovich, quite a few of them. but what i can do this week, i have done. i have gone out and put my neck on the line. and little conversation overheard in the lancaster restaurant last saturday night -- that is close to lebanon, where we had the meeting on tuesday -- a group of men were talking. we don't like what the congressmen are doing. we ought to go out to do them

in. actual death threats. these were raucous meetings. you saw the guy on the front page of "the new york times." he was about ready to explode. >> do you blame anyone? a lot of people sang the rhetoric is out of control, people like muehlenbeck are being irresponsible. they have a right to speak but they are speaking irresponsibly and shot -- sowing hatred and that is the poison part of this debate. again, some of these people close to you. >> a muehlenbeck is not close to me. let us start there. >> but, senator. >> i don't know glenn back and i don't care to. >> but senator grassley was just seen the other day talking about how they want to pull the plug on granny. senator grassley was just seen the other day talking about -- they should have something in there where they will pull the plug on but grandmother. >> he is in "the new york times" this morning, and he is wrong.

the proposal to give counseling on advanced directives, living wills, is as pure as iris know. nobody should decide for anybody else what kind of medical care they will get in the last few days of their lives. but to have an opportunity to be counseled with your families before -- absolutely correct. the last line in the times today, he said, nobody should pull the plug on grandma. the next time i see chagres live -- i will tell you this. i will call him up today. i think his position -- i want characterize it beyond saying that it is not correct. he is not correct on that. it is not a death squad. it is a sensible provision and one study showed 27% of health-

care costs in medicare are in the last few days of a person's life. >> i want to give voice to a few people who said, call him now. but i don't want to give up any of our time. if you want, you can call and backstage and let us know what happened afterwards. >> whoever said that, join me backstage and watch me dial. [applause] >> you have a date. you said senator grassley is wrong. you still think he could still come out for obama's public option? a lot feel there should be less by partisanship. >> reconciliation -- i am prepared to go that route of worst comes to worse -- but you cannot get it for the entire bill. we can get cloture on health care. there will be, i predict

confidently -- which i don't ordinarily do -- there are 60 votes for cloture. i think there are 61 here i will put snowe in. >> one last thing. because i think this has got to be on everybody's mind, in the back of their head. at what point did the discourse in the republican party but, about winning at all costs rather than actually working together with democrats to make the country better -- you have a very unique perspective. i am wondering if you could share a little bit with us. >> the republicans made a decision not to work with the democrats before january 20 of this year. when we took up the stimulus package, in the week of february 2, 13 days after the president was sworn in. already this mentality -- this

mentality, like they were fighting a foreign power. we are going to break obama. i am not telling tales out of school from a confidential caucus, it is on the public record. no republican accept snowe, collins, and arlen specter would talk. that is why it is difficult to spot -- a bipartisan bill now. >> where does that come from? how'd we break through. these are people we pay a lot of money, give a lot of power, who are a lot more concerned with, i don't know, a school yard fight than actually caring about things that affect real people. >> you can show that -- and this is self serving -- you can show that by a person in my position who faced down the republican caucus and in the face of a lot of pressure, took a lead in voting for the stimulus package and saying, if you became a

member of the obama team by voting for the stimulus package -- and really, that package is saving the country today -- say, as president obama did and joe biden did and ed grendell did, you are welcome to the democratic party. and we will support you and reelected. >> senator specter, first of all, really wanted thank you for being here today because i think you are pretty brave to come out here and face us. >> no, i'm not. this is easy compared to yesterday. [laughter] [applause] >> really quick, before you go. i would like to give us your elevator speech. you are trapped in an elevator with a blogger -- why should i support you? >> you should support me because i have a lot of experience, and when tough

issues, of and president obama needs a spokesman to go out and face hostile crowd, i can do out and do it effectively. because when there are tough issues which require a revision, light nih funding and stem cell research, i have the stamina to go out and do it. on the subject which we have not touched and is very important to a progressive approach, on foreign policy. i have long believed that you make peace with your enemies, and not your friends. and i personally talked to saddam hussein and to yasser arafat and to chavez and to castro and visited khadafi in his tent on the desert in libya. and believe that an active foreign policy and diplomacy and wrote about it in " washington

journal" it is the way to the future. i can help the country a lot of i am reelected. >> ok, thank you. [applause] >> thank you for being here. >> good to be here. >> now i would like to introduce the other person running in the senatorial primary, congressman joe sestak. [applause] >> it feels so weird to be on a first name basis with so many

politicians. i spoke to joe early on in his campaign and shared a lot of stuff about curt weldon, which i used to cover the seventh district as a reporter. you haven't been in office that long. i assume someone in your staff has pointed out -- nate silver did a statistical thing saying your votes were very similar to arlen specter's. i kind of wonder, why do you consider yourself a progressive? what are you absolutely willing to go to the mat on for us? >> first of all, thanks for having me. my experiences obviously based on 30 plus years in you the best military and i tend to tell everybody that every military officer is a democrat, they just don't realize it. everybody in the military has health care.

i was away 11 1/2 months at sea with the afghanistan war. my four-year-old, or at the time one-and-a-half year -- we all have health care and my mind was on the mission. when i had my battle group, we would not promote you to senior chief petty officer unless you earned an associate college degree in a technology, my money, your time, because we understood the value of education. and that wonderful army saying, come on in and be all you can be economically. so the principles of the democratic party, which i consider practical or progressive, whatever name you want, are ones i got in for. i got into pay you back because when she was four, my daughter, and i came back from the war she had a brain tumor and you all gave me the best health care plan i think can exist, tricare

in the military. i got into politics for one simple reason, everyone should have what i had. that is my commitment. those three areas is why i want to health subcommittee, fought to get out of the intelligence committee where steny hoyer wanted to put me, because i was in the anti-terrorism unit, to get in the education committee and labor and then went to small business to show you congress has a sense of humor, as a freshman, vice chairman, and i work hard because small businesses is what creates jobs. that is my commitment. then i would guess from the questions we got and the feedback we got in advance of this form, there are a lot of people in this community who actually would be more inclined to support you and senator specter, who was just out of. but there are a lot of people and pennsylvania who have been saying that, that is nice, but you are just not positioned after only a couple of years to do what he is doing.

the senator was out here saying that he was fighting for health care, public auction, working with people from across the aisle -- senator grassley, saying he disagrees with them about the pulling the plug on granma lies but also reaching out to him, calling him. he also has this close relationship with joe biden and barack obama. he said he respected you and touted the fact that president obama was also popular, is not supporting you. people and pennsylvania need now and power. part of the argument of course you are running into the next several months. how do you say that with a straight face when you don't have anything near senator spectrum's background and relationships? >> i can only measure myself against myself. so, in the first two years i was in congress, steny hoyer put out a list that said joe sestak was the most productive member of the legislative package -- class.

the first movement into of his and in 12 years in the u.s. government. 29 million last year, 50 million this year. i am a member of the artistic caucus. first bill in 17 years to pass the house of representatives -- elder abuse, because there was a senior beat with a belt buckle six times to have alzheimer's. we keep our constituency office opened seven days a week. not because we wanted, but we have to. we handled in the first two years, 10,000 cases. the normal congressional office does 3000. and so, this year i have more bills passed than either center in pennsylvania. so i intend to take joe sestak's application for working not for my job, but for their jobs. second, if you are happy with how the stories of the u.s. government got us into this savage recession, how 10 million americans lost their health

insurance as premiums went up 120% since the clinton health care reform bill was derailed, and if you like the fact that if you are sitting and pennsylvania and the cost of public tuition and the past eight years, health premiums of 86%, went up 100%, then i am not your guy. that is the spirit that is her. >> let me bring you back to the obama part because some people say that matters. >> i can't tell you how much i respect president obama. but he did not get as a first term senator, become president of the united states, and even more important, to be the first generation, a son of an immigrant from africa, to become president, because of political calculation, because the establishments -- establishment blessed him. he did it because of audacity. if we democrats only one to have those who we anoint get up -- and i mean that for every individual. we come to america to be all we can be, then i believe the

democratic party will not remain in power. he is there because he took on -- taking on the issues that were large. he tackled them. that is what i wanted it. i owe pennsylvania in spirit going around the 67 counties like i did in july, and you are not worried about established. you go to the vfw post at night, a man looks you and i and says, joe, not, who do you know, but who endorsed you, but what are you going to do for me and my daughter who lost her health care? that is all i care about. i want to earn your respect year. i want to earn their vote and anybody else's doesn't matter. i mean that with great respect. [applause] >> my next question is -- a lot of people brought this up. you voted in favor of the fisa

bill, one of our big issues, and you already explain your vote in great detail. you have gone on the record. my guests -- i guess my question is -- maybe not for you specifically what you are kind of a surrogate of all the people we supported and voted for the things they told us they wouldn't -- i accept your explanations for why he did it. it seems very reasoned and rational, and you talk about the safeguards in the bill. why didn't you look at all of those things and had of time before you told us that you would support it? we would like to hear a lot of that earlier on. the other thing is, usually when people have been part of the early support movement for a new candidate, if they are going to go against something that was one of the key tenets of the people who supported you, i don't know that we heard from you about that before you were

going to vote against it. >> if i could, town halls on health care. i have held two cents i have been out on recess and i have sounded more scheduled. but i held eight before those and 38 summits since two years. i agree with the proposition that you should not just all of a sudden this something and go out and explain it. on the fis of bill, i made it very clear that i did not want reversed part and to be done -- reversed targeting to be done. but i made it very clear that i was not in support of immunity and that the requirement was that it would have to end up at the district court for final deliberation of whether immunity should or should be done. i stated that up front as a requirement. so, i agreed with president obama of voting for the bill, but for different reasons. i had clearly stated in a press

release that i want immunity only if a district civilian judges -- i think his name was wagoner, calif. district judge -- who had consolidated all of the cases, if he was given the opportunity to determine yes or no. and in fact, that is what happened. in fact, as you know now, the case by the a.c. yellow -- aclu is going to appeal. >> that is not exactly what happened. >> true, what did happen is that the attorney general, the real misstep, if there is one, giving permission to make the first judgment upon whether he fell they had done it by the law or not. then it was given to the judge. the law did read some of the legislation, that the judge could on his own anybody before him, and the cases may be for him and over will that decision. >> there may not be enough coffee and a room for us to

spend some much time -- >> it is an intricate issue. >> but many but at netroots were upset that many people in congress, including barack obama, said they would have accountability and ultimately, as you know, the legislation that emerges clearly tilted toward immunity and had other certifications the people called window dressing, which is what happened. now to take it to today and the campaign you are running, is there any reform you would do for surveillance? any accountability? president obama has been silent. we actually didn't get to it for senator specter. he touted about things that he did in committee. anything to change the architecture given what you know? >> there is one major one. but again, my answer was to hers, saying i did make it clear that as long as it got through district court i would be supportive of it. now, on that, yes. i think these letters that can be signed, that were signed during the bush administration, almost by an agent to say i need

to go ahead in -- i think they were called letters of -- i forgot. the amount national security letters. >> i think those should not be committed -- permitted. if you want to see anything, it must be by a court, period. that is why we have a third branch. it has been prostituted at times, were banned. but that is what i firmly believe. >> questions from the floor? >> i will say briefly, these are some of the most popular questions voted on for you in advance of today. >> janet and words from pittsburgh, pennsylvania. -- janet and words. pennsylvania voters. the house of representatives recently passed a comprehensive bill dealing with climate change, energy security, and green jobs. the senate is expected to vote on similar legislation later this year. what is your position on the house bill and climate change

legislation in general? [applause] >> yes. i co-sponsored last year the waxman bill and co-sponsored this bill. i was disappointed in this bill because i thought it was eviscerated during the process too much. [applause] i did vote for, however, because it is better than not having it done. i speak to that because i waited until the day before to say -- and you get whipped on how he got both, and they were shocked that i was not going to say, yes. i had about a dozen amendments before the rules committee. in fact sent speaker pelosi asking -- letter asking for to be changed. renewable energy standard. instead of being 20% by 20202 and 8% kumbaya governor's choice could be by efficiency, i think it should be mandated, period, 20% and 10 additional percent side done by efficiency.

is a bill -- is the build good and necessary? without a question. will it cost us? about $82 per year per household beginning in 2012, but by 2020 we salvage $750 per household in efficiency. in addition, you are sitting in allegheny county. you all are sitting in a county that is in violation of ozone and air particles. we can't grow up our children in such pollution geared besides that, we need the president to go to renegotiation for kyoto treaty with something of a moral standards saying i have some cap-and-trade and now i need to bring the international community together because over the last eight years when lost our ability to lead the world, and he needs to do that, not just of how we approach afghanistan or how we approach human-rights but also clean energy. finally, green jobs. i have in my district the largest company in the world, creating wind power, it is

spanish-owned. where is g.e., those young entrepreneurs? extending the investment tax credits for geothermal, wind power, etc., so we create jobs, is exact way another reason i'm for this bill. i just wish it was stronger. [applause] >> i'm mark anderson from san francisco. congressman sestak, the question is, what is your position on the health care reform bill, and you support a public auction? >> i am 150% behind it. we were the first committee, actually ways and means beat us by a couple of hours, to get it out of our committee. i purposely went to the employment labor and pension subcommittee so it would have to go through my committee. i am 150% behind a public auction. and here's why.

republican option. here's what -- behind what -- option, and here's what it is right to cover uninsured. also it makes economic sense. it does not even count 82 million who lose their health care in one or two months of the year. but the public health care plan option is a necessity. you sit in pennsylvania. two insurance companies have 70% of all health insurance plans. that is a duopoly. it is a cartel. the public health care plan option says, there is a big market, private industry, 47 unemployed -- 47 million uninsured. we are not just on to give them to you. we will make it competitive because we will have a public health care plan option where we are not paying $23 million to a ceo or a severance pay like we just a bit here. and we will make it a

competitive field. so, this public health care plan option, this choice is an economic necessity. there are so many other good things, minimum benefits, that woman will have a mammogram at 40 every year, colorectal exams, why? we are going to let you have free copays for those. why? not only are you more healthy, but we pay less in society as we bend the cost curve. this is an absolute necessity to get this through. >> the thing, though, when the senator was out here he would leave every one the impression there's not any difference between you two. he says he was fighting for the public option all week. is this not an area of distinction for you? >> i can't speak for him except for what he said publicly. i know on "meet the press" i know he said he was opposed to the public health care option, and i gather here and elsewhere he says he is for it. look, i respect arlen -- you

can't be in public service and not respect someone. but he hangs in his office a trophy, the poster board that he and bob dole took around this nation where it said, president clinton's big government health care plan reform. and because that failed -- which congressional public -- congressional budget office said would increase premiums 3% and would reduce the budget slightly, we have had 10 million americans lose their health insurance since that time. i just know that i accept what he says, but leadership is out there doing it at a moment, not of crisis, but preventing crises. we are in a health care crisis. we are in an economic crisis, we are in an educational crisis.

go around these cities and what you have seen is that promise of the american dream broken. your children would have an opportunity based on their god- given talents -- talents to better than you probably get here? it is not just leadership. it should be accountable leadership. i take him at his word. the point is, we ended up here. and the navy when a ship goes of ground, we believe the stories, the captains. this future takes a new energy and ideas, someone in it for others, and i want to be in it every day for pennsylvanian spiriti owe it for my daughter. [applause] >> congressman sestak -- >> sorry. >> my name is michael j. wilson from washington, d.c. what is your position on d.c. residents' civil rights, in particular, d.c. residents being

denied the right to have voting representation in congress. for example, you are running for senate in pennsylvania and hundreds of thousands of d.c. residents did not have senate representation. >> i voted for the bill, as you know, to give you representation, that passed the house and not the senate. . >> i believe he is for it now. he says he is. i'd taken at his word. i just think the future -- and

this thing with washington, d.c., as a whole, in the past decade, is where prince of matters and * over politics. you had a wonderful question for me. do want to burn your respect and support? yes, but i want to let you know where i stand early. i still want to listen, but when i went into politics, i put on my website the exact plan i am supporting in congress today, the alpine and the massachusetts health care plan. i fought to get on the education committee. i want you to know where i am going and be consistent on it unless you can show me a fact that says that i need to change. >> this is an odd question but i think is something that comes up a lot at this conference, and is

what i will call the netroots, will you still love me tomorrow centrum? -- syndrome? [laughter] we go out with candidates come monday by us all the right things and tell us we are pretty. [laughter] and then, they do everything they can to get as far away from us as possible. we are like the girl that we had under the bleacher, but will not take to the prom. [laughter] i took a look at your campaign contributions from the first race, and netroots was her biggest supporter. [applause] and this is not a gripe, per say, because i believe leadership goes beyond support, but there is no way in hell we

can refer to you our candidate the way that boeing could refer to curt weldon as theirs. i will ask you for some feedback for us -- how do we, as a group, get to a level where we get back courtesy call when someone says, i know i supported this, but there has been some changes. how do we get that kind of respect? >> just call, literally. if you call my office at 9:00 tonight, someone will enter -- answer. we tried to get back to everyone. >> in general, the candidates that woo us when the money is

important early on, then it is, i am an incumbent and i do not need you. >> what i am here from you is a constituent services, which is important, but i think she is also talking about the power dynamic. this is a relatively new political community trying to find its place, so what makes a difference to you as an elected official? >> to me in make a difference when you do call. first of all, if you have an incident where we have not been responsive, i need to know, but you are talking bigger picture? >> yes, if you are going to vote on something that has become more nuanced than how you said you would support it, why is there no proactive out rich? it is not just you. >> you have a point in that i

have approximately 23 advisory groups, a small business advisor group, higher education, in your office -- a nurses and the eyes of the group. i do not want peopl>> part of tr to develop a strategy whereby we look at national races around the country that were not in our own districts, and we said, we can make it a strategic difference and get a progressive candidate. we pulled our resources and that that person the early backing they were looking for, but because we are so diffuse, we are not seen as a legitimate constituency. >> i think you are right. i have called to ask to come to

this convention. i spoke to some people at a harvard forum, and my whole speech was about the blogosphere, and how this is such a wonderful thing. parents want to be able to communicate when they want to, and this is it. but i have not reached out to you consciously as i do to labor, for example. here is this issue coming up, let's discuss this. i will commit to talking with anyone. >> is it geographic that you know exactly who to call if you were meat -- reaching out to them? >> i have a couple of people on my staff that do nothing but this.

in the last year, a navy captain that i know said that we had not been communicating well in the new era. so we finally hired two youths higher -- help me to go up there. i never go not anywhere without someone on a wireless twittering or what ever. but i think you are right. i have not thought this through. i would love to have a point of contact. it does not mean that i accept everything when i talk to labor or business, but there needs to be a more determined in discussion. >> let's go back to in policy. president clinton when he was here was asked about don't ask, don't tell, and evolution of his position. we have several questions for

you on that. given the opportunity to vote on repeal of the defense of marriage act, how would you vote, and why? how would these issues, if they change in congress, affect your vote in congress? >> i said the day i announced what i thought about don't ask, don't tell. i have been to war with men and women, which we know by public surveys were day. how can i come home and say that they should not have equal rights? i am the co-sponsor of the bill that gives equal rights to everyone. [applause] 12 weeks of medical leave. they should all have the scores of benefits. i have co-sponsored everyone of

those bills. on the discrimination bill, we should have had the t in it as it passed the house, not just glb. to me, it is simple. the military is a great leveling experience. you live in a small room with 20 people and you find out that everyone is equal. they used to kill me when i was a commander of a ship and someone said to me, please don't, you are too good to lose. a navy captain asked me what i thought about don't ask, don't tell, and i said that a few months the supreme court will be overturning it. i do not know what i have not i wrote an op-ed a few weeks ago saying i understand we have to

salvage our economy initially. getting health reform bill through, but this year, before we break in december, we must get don't ask, don't tell repealed. [applause] >> it has been delightful having you. thank you for coming in speaking to us. if you come up with any ideas on how to get to the prom, let us know. [laughter] >> i got turned down a lot in high school. i will let you know. i believe the imf representative first, who has to listen and then explain why he does things. i love these town halls. second, i make congressperson who legislates. you cannot do that unless you communicate with everyone. >> now it is your turn for the

elevator pitch. you are trapped in an elevator with a blogger, and you have two minutes to explain why they should support you in the primary. >> i have been very fortunate. i have done everything i have wanted to do in life, commanded a ship. i got married late in life. 47. i could not get a prom date, could not get someone to marry me. then my daughter had her tumor. and not in this to pay back. you go throughout this state, this wonderful place, where it is the birthplace of freedom, and people are hurt, and we've begun -- we forgot. when i see a man in the county and ask him how is the recession

hurting you? he says not that bad because we were hurting so much anyways. something happened to the united states. i believe this president has it right. i wish we were more bold and more aggressive, but i believe he is on the right path. this is the most tragic moment we have had in the history of america, since the great depression and world war ii, and i want to be part of the team of leadership, accountable leadership leadership that says, these are the facts, and that is how you have to see it. but i want our children to be all they can be in their educational opportunity, because we need them to lead america again. health care reform is an absolute requirement. the dividend we get from it in the navy is what you see in how we accomplished our jobs. america has to have that.

in our economy, it is what it is about. entrepreneurialship should be the norm, not the exception. to have all the answers? absolutely not. experience? yes, i dealt with sailors on a nuclear ship, but the average age was 19. i just want pennsylvania to have leadership in the future that is working for them, and i promised to do that every day. thank you. [applause] >> thank you. >> i would love to follow up, thank you. [applause] >> a thank you. thank you to both candidates, to everyone who put this together.

>> live coverage of the netroots convention continues at 1:30 this afternoon with a discussion on how blockers and other on- line activists can create a change in the political system. later at 3:00 eastern, a discussion on how the progressive movement can influence the supreme court in congressional issues. -president obama will be holding a town hall meeting in ottawa today. -- montana. organizers expect up to 500 people. live coverage on c-span2 at 3:00. the loggers are meeting in pittsburgh today. we will have live coverage of the right online conference hosted by americans for prosperity foundation.

it is a two-day meeting on strategies and techniques for online activism. book tv begins primetime tonight, with an in-depth interview with christopher buckley, the author of 14 books, including "thank you for not smoking." >> british voters are expected to go to the polls in national elections last -- next spring. this sunday, david cameron and how it tory government would change british politics. radio talk-show executive brian jennings on the new fairness doctrine, why is a bad idea, an alternative to censorship. he is interviewed by monica crowley. this fall, entered the home to america's highest court and the

grand public places to those only accessible by the nine justices. the supreme court, coming the first sunday in october. >> chuck grassley hosted a town hall meeting this week to discuss post health care legislation. he also takes questions from constituents on other issues as well. lawmakers across the country are holding similar meetings this month. this is from the united methodist church in afton, iowa. [applause] >> could i ask a favor of you? could you stand with me, and when people raise their hands, could you call on them? would you call on everyone else? you can pick them. it is a tough job. >> i can be first. >> ok.

this and gentlemen is going to ask the first question. i will make a few remarks before we start, but he is going to stand up here because i do not want anyone to think of one to avoid taking questions from anyone. there will be three times as many people raising their hands and we will have time to answer questions, so if you do not get your question asked, i get mad at him, not me. [applause] >> that proposition was made only if i got to dance -- ask the first question. [laughter] >> the other thing is, i want to thank the methodist church for opening of their facility for us. [applause] i want to thank the mayor for making those arrangements for us because we were going to be down there. i have been in the afton city

hall before, and it was big enough, but there are a few issues now. we want to accommodate as many people as we can. the last time i was near the pulpit of a methodist church, except as a person sitting in the pews was when i got a lot of invitations to speak on sunday for the sermon. i suppose they wanted to find out if a person in politics could be a believer in jesus christ. [laughter] always used to speak about second corinthians 5:17-21 about being an ambassador for jesus christ. hal being saved, it take the responsibility of spreading the word about jesus christ, and those sorts of things. i have not been asked to do that

lately, so maybe i am not much of a preacher. prior to 10 years ago, i did it about six times a here. well, we are here, in the first place, because you know my policy of getting to every county every year, to have a town hall meeting. you are the 2844th town hall meeting that i have had since coming to the united states senate. and i have two more scheduled. some of the things that i have been doing on health care reform are reflected in what i have learned fromiowan iowans in thet few months. also, we have a large crowd here today because people fear for

america. [applause] i believe it is a culmination of things that the health-care issue has brought to a head. nationalization of factories, banks, things of that nature, deaths that will be tripling -- debt that will be tripling. when i was voting on these issues, when i voted against the stimulus bill, gm bailout, appropriation bill, the $4 trillion budget that would triple the national debt, and i tell you i would not want to

hold a town hall meetings had not voted that way. one of whether to open up before you ask the first question is just to say a little bit. first of all, we will take questions on any subject. this does not have to be health care. if you want to bring up other things, bring them up. i think we are having these large turnout because of the health-care issue. i wanted to bring up, because there has been a lot of legitimate concern, expressed about what my views and the and when i'm doing in washington, whether i am listening to the people of iowa. first of all, i want to express to you that i think we have the best health-care system in the world. that does not mean it is perfect. there are things that can be improved. it is costly.

some people have a hard time getting health insurance. insurance is expensive. and a lot of other things. but my goal, the principle that i go by -- and i will not express all of them in the opening, and some of them will be revealed in response to your questions -- would be that i'm not going to do anything that is going to nationalize health care in america. [laughter] [applause] i do not intend to do anything that allows government bureaucrats to get in between you and your doctor. [applause] i am very concerned we do not do those things that needs to the

government avenue in england and value wayne a dollar amount on line so the older you are the less health care you might get as opposed to someone younger. i think every life has value. i think we want to make sure that if you like health insurance that you have, you ought to be in the to keep it. i do not want a government-run plan because that is a step -- [applause] that is a step in the direction of a canadian-style health care system. based upon studies, 120 million

people of 177 million people will be crowded out and pretty soon premiums will go up. then you have the government running everything sooner or later. that is something that you can legitimately fear. the people who are promoting that use the word that we need competition, but i see government not as a competitor, but as a creditor. [applause] from that standpoint, we have to be careful about taking that first step. i'm telling you that i am not for that but i hope most of you -- i have been on television so much this year you have heard me say that before.

i know that you are all working hard and paying taxes, and doing what you have to do to support your family. you probably do not watch as much television as i think you do. there is probably a lot of other principles that ought to go into, but i think they will come out in your questions. amy just a note to. just in case -- i do not know what you read in the papers, but you get in in some places. grassley is sitting down with a couple of republicans and democrats to talk. talking is about finding common ground. if i was not doing that, the

last four months, standing around with my feet up on my desk, i guess -- sitting, rather. i think you hired me to stay on top of things. i believe that you will be on top of things if you are in the room instead of of time. another thing you have to realize this -- you study this in government. we have a checks and balances system of government. congress checks the president. the president checks congress. but within congress under a two-party system, one party should be making the other responsible. that is more true in the senate than it is in the house because you need to have a super majority to get anything done. it gives the minority some might. now, the republican minority is not very big right now. the democrats have 60 votes that

they can do anything they want to do, but there are a lot of democrats who have some question about a lot of the other democrats want to do. sometimes by working together, you can bring some stability to it. if you cannot, then you just say what is right about it, and fight it that way. it seems to me that there is nothing wrong with talking. if you heard the president at his town hall meeting, and he was hinting that he was about ready to ask his people in congress to go ahead with the partisan bill anyway. if he wants to do that, he can do that. i am not walking away from the

table, and being pushed away. i figure, you pay me to do my job. these are the principles that i use. you can talk and maybe reach agreements. the way i do things -- there is no agreement until you have it totally. that is where we are. i think i am ready to take your first question. you are going to see me taking notes here. that does not mean that i'm not paying attention. if i do not read something done -- by the way, if someone wants to call me up, i have enough

lawyers to do that. i could be a terrorist in baghdad. >> this question is not directed at you personally, but you can fix health care by newer one of two things. eliminate the 1100-page document that congress will not read and simply give everyone in the room here the same health care plan that covers congress. [applause] if that is not agreeable, and then we would like everyone in congress, all elected officials to be under the same health care plan that we are. [applause]

at root of the problem is distrust and lack of integrity, and do what is best for america. to not tell us what is best for america to revise our health care plan when the congress will not even participate in the plan. [applause] >> i always start -- i will start with where one when he talks about a government plan. my goal was not to have a government plan because that is the first step towards canadian- style of government-run health care. but if there was a plan like that adopted, i think congress should be a part of it. let me say why, and it is not because i am here to look good to you, but i need to give you

background where i did something similar 13 years ago. it took me about five years to get it done. prior to that time, congress had passed several laws affecting u.s. business and lawyers. minimum wage, civil rights, probably 15 of them. we are in full years in congress. congress exempted itself from everyone of those as they adopted them. i thought, how can i represent particularly small business? big business can take care of themselves. how can you represent small business if i do not have to abide by the laws that you have to, and i hire people for my office? osha never came to my office to see if everything was safe until

i passed this law. we have two sets of laws, one for the rest of the country and one for capitol hill. so i had the government accountability act passed in 1995 so that all those law that apply in congress apply to you. [applause] >> thank you for being with us. i have a question about cap and trade. you have expressed in the past that you probably will not be voting for cap and trade. if electricity standards were independent of cap and trade, would you be willing to support that? >> i know cap and trade, i know the renewable portfolio standard issue, but what is your

question? >> if it was independent of cap and trade. >> the answer is, of renewable portfolio standards would simply state -- renewable portfolio standard would simply say as a matter of policy, that a certain amount of the electors to do should be generated from electricity ports. or from renewable sources like wind. the answer is i would support it probably at a 15% rate. some people would want 20%. the further out is, 2020, i am more apt to that. i have voted twice in the last few years for that. so i am for a renewable portfolio standard. does that answer your question? >> thank you for being here.

i have more of a statement. i am more terrified now because before i felt like my government was going to affect me. now we have the car industry getting taken over. banks are getting taken over. now maybe our health care. i feel like we are moving to socialism, and that scares me to death. [applause] >> i heard what you said. if people do not ask me a question, i think i can listen to more people. >> right now we know that liberals control things, so how do you and other conservatives control them? how you control their movement?

>> the question is, what can conservatives in congress do about the things that she fears? she mentioned a trend to socialized medicine, using examples of the general motors, banks, things of that nature. what can we do? well, we are in the minority. to the extent that you are in the minority of 40 or less in the senate, it makes it difficult. sometimes you have people in the other political party that thinks things are not going right. so they may join. that is assuming republicans can stick together. you cannot always assume that. it seems to me we have two responsibilities. one is to see if we can change

programs that are far out so that they can get bipartisan support, and change them, and if you cannot do that, or even if it is not enough, then you have to expose what they are. you do that through debate, and through a no-vote. it seems to me, if you are going to be irresponsible minority, no, then you have to have an alternative. maybe you offer it and it is not adopted, but people ought to know what the other political party stands for. let's say -- i alluded to the fact that maybe the president indicated that he wants to go his party's way on this. we are in the position as

republicans to think that the things that we think can improve our health care system, to offer those. there are conservative senators and i can work with in regard to that. the chances of getting that adopted are probably not merely good not -- not very good, unless turnout's like this across the country changes the minds of the majority party. eventually, every few years you have an election and an opportunity to express your views, and there are significant. in time when the elections -- periods in time when the election had meant serious implications. you can study history and find out that people change their mind some time.

>> in no. i've heard bandied about is 40 million uninsured. 10 million of that, another no. i have heard -- 10 million of that is illegal immigrants. that is 30 million. that is only 10% of 300 million. if only 10% is the problem, why do we fix the rest of the problem? >> i think you make a good point. right now, it is based on the proposition that more things ought to be done. one of those principles is to make sure that the people who do not have insurance have insurance. you are not affected on that. i think depending on what these

town hall meetings need to different congressmen around the country, that if a comprehensive program does not go through, or cannot get through, then you will find incremental changes that deal along the lines of what you are suggesting, more of a rifle shot approach as opposed to a shotgun. >> [inaudible] >> let me suggest to you why there are people in congress who are already concerned about it. there are people in the other political party in that are already coming to the conclusion that some other things being proposed are not good for their state. i had won senator of the other political party who i did not expect to say -- and i will not give you his name --

>> why? >> because i think a private conversation should be kept private. he said to me, you need to slow things down. he says we need to do things more incrementally. you did not use those words, but that is what i would say. in other words, dealing with one problem here as opposed to 100 public is what you are asking us to do. -- problems is what you're asking us to do. >> thank you for coming. my question is what can you do to get the government out of our lives and let us use our god- given abilities and talents to make things better for everyone?

[applause] well, i suppose the easiest answer is to not vote for new programs. that one of thomas minute because i think there are a lot of things out there already that you would like to have repealed. i have found it easier to stop -- to cause program from not getting larger and not to establish new programs then i found doing away with older programs. and being a person who wants to limit government, i have found

the best way to do it is through tax policy. in other words, if you limit the money coming into the federal treasury, then you are going to limit what can be spent. you still are having over spending, but i do not buy the printable -- principle that an increase in taxes is in dollar reduction in expenditures -- deficit. a dollar increase in taxes does not result in dollar decrease in deficit. when it results in is probably $1.15 to $1.20 more being spent. so if you want government to be less interested, then the tax policy is the best way to do it. maybe that is also partly because i sit on the committee that has jurisdiction over taxes. my principal is to keep taxes

where they have been on a 50- year average. i do not have charts to show you, but this would be easier to explain, but whether we have high marginal tax rates as we had when kennedy and eisenhower were president, or whether it was below 26% when ronald morgan must president, and now it is -- reagan was president, and now it is 35%, and if the president gets his way, 36%, then i can show you on a 40-year average about a 16% to 18% of gdp comes through the government for 535 members to decide how to spend, instead of you. then in the year 2000 when it gets up to 22%, i'm chairman of

the senate finance committee and we had the biggest tax cut in the history of the country. so we are back down to that range of 17% to 19%. i think that is the best way to keep government from being interested, as you said. -- interested, as you said. >> i want to thank you for your integrity and for sticking to the principles of the constitution and the bible. [applause] i would like to have you know that you are in our thoughts and prayers. i think this country really needs it. i see a parallel between what happened in the early 1930's in germany and what is trying to be done by the leadership in this

country now. step by step, they are overtaking the freedom and choices and the privileges of this country. we had a health care reform bill. clean water. the bill that limits freedom of speech by broadcasters. even among pastors can say from the pulpit. we have caftan trade. [applause] it is being run by the white house instead of congress. is outrageous. my question to you is, this clean water bill act, are the words navigable water being changed to waters without a federal government can have control over all water in the united states? >> the answer is yes, but i think i need to go into this.

this is kind of a complicated issue. by the way, i am against that bill. she prays for people in government regularly. i prefer president obama every day. we have responsibility to care for people in government. all you have to do is read to timothy and it tells everyone of us to believe in christ and that we need to pray for people in government. at lunch one time, i told the president that i prayed for him. anyway, let's go back to this issue. in 1972, there was a court decision that gave the army corps of engineers control over

just about every drop of water that fell. in 1978 in the house of representatives we changed it, but not enough to protect private property. in the last 10 years we have had four supreme court decisions that have restricted the army corps of engineers to what is termed navigable waters. navigable is a legal term that says if an ocean-going ship -- or a ship of a certain size -- can go up the river, that is army corps of engineers control. so people who want to control your private property want to take the word "navigable" out. so what?

you had a bottle of water here and a bureaucrat could come to regulate it. one of the things that i went over justice sotomayor was this issue of respect for private property. i think she made some decisions in the second circuit court of appeals that did not show the proper respect for private property and that was one of the reasons i voted against her. [applause] could you, a little closer, please? if you cannot, i will come closer to you. >> obama said that people will have a choice in their insurance

and they can keep the insurance they have. it was mentioned on the news today and then on page 16 of this bill, that it does not give that choice. i am confused. this is under the grandfathered health insurance coverage, and it says in general except as provided in this paragraph, the individual's health insurance issue were offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of y1. what does that mean? >> that would mean the first year that the bill would take effect. >> insurance companies cannot take on new enrollees in that time? >> i am not sure i can comment

on that. i can answer your question as far as where i'm coming from if that will satisfy you. i think it mean when you shearer, but i am not sure. -- what you fear, but i am not sure. maybe my staff could help me. let me try. what the president said in the campaign is in danger, not because he has changed his mind because people in congress have something else they want to accomplish. it goes to this public option thing. that is only part of it. that is an important part of it because you have heard me say before, based on a study, a think tank in washington, they say 120 million people will opt out for the government plan.

then you have about 50 million left. rate in premiums will go up. pretty soon others will drop out. it makes the president's promise unworkable, if you are going to have a government-run plan. in the house bill you are talking about -- and this may be part of what you are reading from -- but in the house bill, there was a law passed in 1974 that gives companies who are self-insured the exemption from state mandates because they operate nationally and internationally. through this law, they are exempt. but the house bill does away with that exemption in five years, which i read -- and i do

not want to be taken word for word on this because i have not read it completely -- anyway, it seems to me that john deere would not have its plant. or any other company operating under this law, being self- insured. those two things need me to believe that after a certain period of time, if you like your health insurance you will not be able to keep it. if i do not hear from my staff i will go on. if i am wrong -- that is the pelosi bill. i'm going to vote against that. [applause] >> thank you for being here today.

we have not yet heard of a senate bill being placed. when will that come to pass? first question. second question, what are you looking at for out-of-pocket and lifetime caps with the bill presented to us? >> i can answer that for our committee. we are still talking. we may not reach an agreement, but we are talking about not having a cap. the other bill is the kennedy- dodd bill. i cannot tell you exactly what they do, but if you are asking

me that you do not know about that bill, they voted out of committee, but they do not want you to read it between now and labor day. and it is not scored either. the cbo has not given in a score. we kind of thing there is a subterfuge there, because if you found out how much it might cost, it may double the size of this room. >> [inaudible] my health care cost on a monthly basis for medication is over $900,000. i am required to have a part- time job just to put food on the table. we are looking at what are our out of pocket caps so that we

can be productive members of society. >> i think the policy is summer in the neighborhood of 13%, 15%. but again, i want to make clear, we are talking in there is no bill right now. >> i have been a practicing pediatrician for 55 years. i am the lone survivor of my credit. every single bluecross blueshield born in the country was nonprofit.

we ran an operation with 15 doctors in 15 hamas killed business people. the director was paid $75,000. $93 of every penny payton was paid out. now there is not one single bluecross blueshield organization in the country that is not for profit. also, a lot of insurance companies like well market using bluecross blueshield. the retiring president got an extra bonus at $8 million. i noticed the head at aetna, his salary is $15 million. there were a couple of others and i had written down but i cannot find right now. they were making so much money and we are spending twice as much per person as any other civilized country with health

insurance. to the best that i can see, -- i was going to say something. our country ranks 12th in health care. in longevity we are 12th. in maternal mortality rates, newborn mortality rates, and in general, we rank 12th, not the first. it is great for people who have insurance, but there are 45 million people who do not. something needs to be done about insurance companies and their rates and their profits. [applause] i had to move to texas, and there, our hospital delivered

300 babies a month. if they had medicaid, they were fine. if they had insurance, they were fine. when we had a month a pediatric meeting, there are always about 30 to 35 people who came to the emergency room in labor never before having seen a doctor. i think that is ludicrous in this country. i think it is hard to legislate morality. it tried to do that with alcohol and it was a failure. even now, alcohol causes more problems than all the drugs put together. drugs were all legal until 1923 after which it became illegal and then we have murder, robbery, all kinds of gang wars.

drugs are cheap if they were legal. we would have 50% less gangsters. our prisons would be anti by about one third. all that money could be used to rehabilitate the people who did it over use those drugs. my last statement. afghanistan is a total quagmire. we tried for 10 years to do something with it. russia tried for 10 years. the me sent troops to train people on the border that we are now fighting against. the sooner any kind of creation can occur, we need to get out of afghanistan. i have a lot of this in a letter that i will get back to you on. [applause]