reduced their headcount. instead of growing them and saying, you guys have to be ever vigilent and look for new forms of scams and new forms of problems, we pretty much handcuffed them and a lot of what took place in this crisis took place while we had the sec operating with one hand behind their back. i think you have to really revitalize those cops on the beat, they are essentially the prosecutors. and make sure that they're looking not just for little things, you know, the martha stewart and mark cubin cases were minor. i would like to see them use the same technology wall street is using to sift through the data. why is this trading suddenly happening with this stock a week before this news comes out? something is wrong here. a lot of techniques can be done and i don't think we are doing a good job doing it yet. it's going to take a full

revitalization for that to take place. >> host: barry, thanks for joining us on c-span and taking our viewer calls and e-mails and comments. >> guest: thank you for having me, it's been a pleasure. >> host: tomorrow we will look at medicare part a, b and c and way to better explain how medicare works and what impact, if any, the debate on healthcare will have on medicare and also on medicaid. the "washington journal" gets underway everyday at 7:00. thanks for being with us on this tuesday. enjoy the rest of your day.

? >> you are watching c-span, created as a public service. next, republican kind. at noon, a discussion on the role of immigration. at 3:00 eastern, a look at the recent presidential election in afghanistan. later today, jim moran will hold a town hall meeting to talk about health care. he will be joined by howard dean. we will take your phone calls after that event. it starts at 7:00 eastern.

after that meeting, cumbersome moran, we will have another town hall meeting around 9:25 tonight. and now to a town hall meeting with ron kind. their runs about an hour and a half. >> thank you all for coming. we want to get a state of the health care around the country, what is working and what is not working. we will be turning it over to you. there are a number of people here today. you cannot come up to one of the microphones up front. we will try to get through as many people as possible. we will hold up 32nd notification. if there is something of a more

personal nature, i will be around for wild -- i will be around for awhile. i want to thank the superintendent for the hospitality in opening up this high school and auditorium. it was very generous of him to do that. if you have been to my previous listening sessions, we usually do not have as big of a crowd. we have had to move it to a principle -- to a bigger forum. i want to help those who have worked on crowd control. and the other law enforcement personnel that were kind enough to help move people along. we have with us today a county board chair. those of you probably know him -- a vice chair.

you know the work he has been doing. he will act as the non-biased moderator to move things along. i thank him for being here. he has served on the board and he has been kind enough to offer to moderate. we have a registered nurse who has certain insights on the health care system. [applause] i will ask her to say some remarks. i have found in previous forums that would have to have the ability as a nation to come together and listen to each other and to act in a civil matter so that we can hear -- so that we can hear what each of us are thinking and the various ideas that are out there.

even in a family, we're not always in complete agreement. hopefully that is what this forum will bring out. i do understand the passions run deep. this is important for our nation that we deal with the health care system so it works for all of bust. let me turn this over to dick and asked if he will lead us in the pledge of allegiance. >> i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america. one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. [applause] i would like to welcome the congressman here to whitehall --

sorry about that. we appreciate him here today and an opportunity to share our questions and our comments. if i may refer to the sheik your handed when you came in. -- referred to the cheesheet you were handed when you walked in. no posters or signs are present here in the building. everyone will respect each other. no disruptions while we are speaking. there will be no talking over each other. everyone -- i am sorry. those who wanted to speak did fill out the sheet when they came in. there is a lottery. my guess is that if you're able

to be brief in your comments, probably more will be heard. just bear that in mind. there is a two-minute limit. there is a warning. when two minutes is up, someone will pinch me and i will say, time is up. thank you. >> i apologize. i know many of you will like the opportunity to speak today. we will not be able to get to everyone. we do have information sheets, and i will try to review all of them. you can try to contact my office. we do want to hear from all of view. i want to thank jeff smith who was saw out in the audience for stopping here today. thank you for being here.

as well as crest, the state rep. thank you for coming. -- as well as creshris, the stae rep. i have been working hard in madison. i thank you both for being here. let me turn it over to sue for some introductory remarks. 36 years as a registered nurse and a lot of experience in the health-care field. >> thank you. good morning. i am glad to see so many faces here. one of the things that we all agree on is that we all need reform in the health care system. i have difficulty calling it a health care. as of oran and said, i have had

36 years -- as ron said, i have had 36 years in the system. it has gone from a doctor- patient relationship to an insurance company-patient relationship. i do not believe that is what we deserve in the united states. there are some elements of this major reform that most of us cannot agree on. we need insurance market reform. we need for there not to be pre- existing exist -- conditions exclusion. if you start a new job and you have diabetes, you may not be able to get health insurance through your new employer. we need to have no artificial premium hikes if while you have health insurance, you do get sick and develop high blood

pressure or heart condition, in some instances your insurance premium goes up or your deductible goes on. we need affordability for everyone. we're seeing more and more of that more and more people are underinsured. the have high, high deductibles. they have high premiums. they often can and do go up every year. we need basic comprehensive benefits. we need to make this health care. not medical care. one of the things i've heard is the way to live a long life in the united states is to develop a chronic disease and take care of it. we should not have to develop a chronic disease. we should be able to live a long life by staying healthy,

and our system must enable us to do that. we need to expand coverage to everyone. there are many, many people. we have quality health care that is at a comparatively cost. unfortunately, that is not the case all over. despite the fact that they both start with an m, if you have a heart attack in miami, the cost will be higher annual get the same care. it needs to be covered for everyone. we need to focus on prevention and primary care. we need to be able to be healthy. we need delivery and payment reform. there are significant cost

savings that exist without rationing or increasing any other cost to the paris. we spend enough money now on the cost of people who are uninsured who go through the emergency or urgent care because if they are uninsured, they have to wait and they cannot wait any longer to go in. by then, it is far past time when we can care for the problem. cost effectively. those costs are then passed on to those of one who have insurance or who are paying our own bills. there are major disparities, as we have talked about, in efficiency. we need to have the same quality of care nationwide.

we are lucky to have quality care here. in my current position, i travel around the united states. i know is not true everywhere. finally, we know we need reform. we need it now. our current system is unsustainable and it is failing. it is very much like a sinking ship. personally, i do not want to be one of those people who is in charge of that ship, deciding who the people or that are going to get the life boats. thank you. >> thank you, sue. i will turn it over to dick and he will start calling out numbers. let me quickly bring you up to date on where this is pending.

there has been a lot of work in congress and the country with what should be in it and what should not be in it. it is still a work in progress. the bill in the ways and means committee, i voted no on it. i thought there were substantial areas of improvement that needed to be made. there have been a few areas of primary focus for me. getting back to where suit concluded, i do believe we need system delivery reform. payment flows to the volume rather than the quality of care of that is given. we're spending about $680 billion by year for tests and hospital stays and it does not

improve patient care. in too many instances, it makes it worse. that is why we have big differences in spending because of the way medicine is being practiced. i know we can go from a payment system to one that is quality- based because of the health care providers are doing it. they are showing us the way to the cooperation here in wisconsin. they are delivering high-quality at low cost compared to other persons of the country. this is what we should be striving for a nationwide. it will mebe more affordable for everyone. we wanted to be quality based. that $680 billion is the game

changer. that is what is going to make it more affordable for all of us. this is the fastest growing area for health care costs. if you're interested in balanced budgets, we have to look at this as one of the great cost drivers. the small group market has not been working well for farmers and individuals. it is too expensive. i have talked to family farmers who have said they are going without because of the high cost of health care. i have been working on a national exchange that would create a menu of health plan options for small businesses and farmers to go into and shoes with complete transparency.

we are cobbling fat with tax credits to make it even more affordable for small businesses -- we are cobbling that with tax credits to make it even more affordable for small businesses and farmers. i think it would be a significant help to a lot of people who do not have it. this cannot just be about a government program or what congress is working on. a large part is moving to a health care system as opposed to a sick care system starts right here. we know what we need to do. we need to eat better, exercise more, and take more personal responsibility in our health care why this if this is all going to work. unfortunately, it has not been receiving that much attention.

we can incentivize these programs in the reform package. a greater emphasis on primary care physicians. they are on the front line in order to help people. 80% of our health care costs are going to 20% of the population. they are dealing with chronic diseases and chronic ailments. if we can do more to prevent the onset of chronic diseases, it would create health savings. i am focused on children's health, making sure the children of this country have access to quality health care coverage and helping them tried to make the right lifestyle choices so that we're not dealing with chronic diseases throughout the rest of

their lives. those are some of the things i have been focused on. i am interested to hear your thoughts. i will turn it over to dick. he will call up some numbers. carrie will hold up cards. she will be the one to give you a one-minute warning so we can get to as many of view it as possible. i will be around after this forum. thank you very much for coming. i will turn it over to you. >> when i read the number off, if you could come forward. i would suggest may be off to the side. maybe we can alternate. ok. so if you do come up, a former

airline will line here. there will be four to start with. we will alternate back and forth. we will be calling more up as the numbers decrease. ok. the first number is 39, 3, 5, 2, 7. 527, the last three digits. next number is 561. next number is 502. next number is 512. 715. 546. 727. if you folks would just come on up and be prepared to speak when

it's your turn. this judgment was here first. >> could you repeat the numbers? >> 5020, 546, 727, 13, 715, 512, 527, and 561. [laughter] >> you knew that was coming. if you could please identify who york and where you are from. thank you. >> thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. i am allen and i am from wisconsin. i believe the cash for clunkers program is a prime example of the government not being able to

pay out the money to the car dealers. i think that would be a travesty to have the federal government in charge of our health care and providing 1% or 2% of our health care and the others waiting and waiting for payment. the dealers are going bankrupt waiting for this money. i do not think the government should be providing free health care. [cheers] thank you for coming. i believe health care is a privilege and not to air right. [cheers] thank you very much for your time. [cheers]

first off, let me thank you. >> let me say thank you for your years of public service. it is often a thankless job. i am a doctor with the zero clear -- with the eau claire city council. we see increases in health-care costs. we're looking close to 40%, 50% annual increases in health-care costs. these increasing health care costs force us to look at other course city services such as fire, police, paulinlowing the streets. it is critical we work to reduce

health-care costs. i want you to understand that if we do not bring down those costs and the way we provide health care seriously, it could bankrupt us in many ways and cause us to fail -- to provide many of the services we hold dear. we want our streets to be plowed so we can get to work. thank you. i am glad that you are focusing in on costs. i think a public auction would certainly bring costs down through the pooling of risk. [boos]

thank you. again, some sort of public option is essential to bring those costs down. i will leave it there. thank you again. >> thank you, doctor. [applause] >> my name is matthew. i worked and lived in this city of eau claire. i rise in support of the public option. i think all people should have the opportunity for a strong health care. it is currently off track. it is say for-profit system. we do need this reform. that is all i have today.

>> i am from here in wisconsin. i speak to help people understand the public auction. right now insurance companies comprise a lot. they tell us what doctors we can see. what equipment can bring home. what durable medical supplies. we are looking -- if we have a catastrophic illness, we could be kicked out of that you couac. that is where the public auction comes then. it would help with negotiating the prices. that is where we are. we have a lot of people who

would say, i am concerned about the government thing. how many of you are on medicare or social security? in wisconsin, thank you for the people who get senior care. my mother loves that. [applause] people are hurting. fdr was working on health care reform back in the 1940's. i am here to say that in life we need to remember the golden rule and we need to treat others the way we want to be treated. we're all on the same page. thank you. [applause] >> thank you for this opportunity. >> 39, 652, 579, 579, 678, 678.

671. sorry. go ahead. >> good morning. thank you for this opportunity. my name is john and i am from eau claire. i am unemployed. i am without health care coverage. i was diagnosed with cancer and a treatment regimen is extraordinarily expensive. that said, it was diagnosed fortunately during a preventative care physical. so i am a believer of preventative care. i wish i had done it earlier. however, during that, i arrived for an appointment, and they

looked me up and said, john, your schedule for a treadmill test for heart pain. and i said, i have no problem with my heart. >> "o no, you have hard issues." i said, that is not accurate. they said, after discussing it, the physician admitted that it was the only way that the insurance company would pay for the "procedure. " that has to stop. we cannot afford this. we may have to look for the money. but we can for this for everyone now. thank you very much. [cheers] [applause]

>> my name is jim and i am from eau claire, wisconsin. i serve on the county board of supervisors. we are beginning with a 0% increase on the budget. we're doing this without knowing what the 2010 insurance policy will be. the increase in the insurance costs has created a budget crisis. it is effecting our basic service like road repair. our needs have increased because of the current economy that is forcing people into the services. we're trying to change the way we look at alternatives. we're doing this with a lack of funding. we cannot begin these programs that will eventually save us money.

we need a health care policy that lowers and controls the cost of insurance. local governments face this problem. your help will be greatly appreciated. thank you. [applause] >> good morning. my name is dave usher and i am a family physician and eau claire. i'm going to try to stay from political issues. i want to speak to some cost control issues which are think we are wise to be paying attention to. thank you for voting to slow this down on little. [cheers] i agree there are a lot of things that need to be reformed.

there are a couple of things that i have not heard much about. maybe there are things in these bills that no one is talking about. what are we doing with medical mac -- medical malpractice tort reform? [cheers] as a practicing physician, i probably have less than this and other specialties. but the talk about things that do not work. 30% or more are used to prevent lawsuits against a physician. >> we have that reform already

in the state of wisconsin. >> i think we're much better off than other states. that is a good point. wisconsin has a lot going that is could afford. i just got a new partner last year. she says things are horrible. it is bad. if we do not control tort reform, will not change the way doctors do business. and that is not to say doctors do not have to be held responsibility for bed care. but there should be a limit. -- we need to do something to address a doctor shortage. unless you ensure 45 million more people -- we will have problems.

[applause] >> good morning. i am from whitehall. we heard about reform. now we're talking about health insurance reform and that will cut the cost. willie you tell me how we will cut the cost. -- will you tell me how we will cut the costs. the government does not have a good track record. [cheers] >> what i will do -- we will take a series of questions and comeback to them. that we can move quicker. >> come on!

>> i thought i did this early on. we're focusing on how we pay for health care. when you have $680 billion worth of care, it does not help. in many cases, it makes it worse. there are incentives in this built the move to what our health care providers are doing, and that is a team approach that his patient- focused. it is working. the president has been pointing to us and saying we have it. we have a team approach which is resulting in high-quality, low-cost. other regions of the country have not figured this out yet. that's what we're trying to address. sir? >> good morning, congressman. my name is lawrence.

i have a friend who works for a health-care network. there would only hiring as an independent contractor so they would not give them benefits. he was diagnosed as a diabetic. the insurance companies will not selling coverage or make it so expensive that it is on a tenable. his doctor visits cost him $110. last october he was in the hospital for three days and it cost him $15,000. is -- will you please keep the public auction in a health care bill? -- will keep the public option in a health care bill? the public option -- and must be such a choice if there will be any genuine improvement.

we cannot do any genuine health care reform because the insurance industry is holding us all hostage. how do you feel about the public option? >> let me take that real quick. that is one of the points of contention that we're hearing. the role that the public option plays it would be one of many options within this national exchange. i think it can work under certain conditions. the public auction has to compete on a level playing field with the other plans. it should have the same reserve requirement and it should be sustaining. it would drive competition in this national exchange that we're trying to set up.

it is important is on a level playing field. i hope people can be somewhat respectful of this. there are a lot of people that would like the choice of a public auction in the exchange. no one will force anyone into any public option that does not want it. but it would like a choice to go into it so they don't only have private insurance plans to get their health care from. i was riled up a few years ago when i saw the ceo getting over $600 million in compensation when he retired. it was coming from premiums and deductibles that was not going back into patient care. that is part of the problem.

>> we have some more numbers to read off. 604. 753. 716. 203. thank you. go ahead. >> good morning. your last statement reminded main -- my name is garnette, and i am from eau claire. in that last comment, i thought you're going to say bank of america or citibank. that was very similar. [applause] i respect what you said. you said it very well. my main concern is extreme apprehension of government. [cheers] my thought has been all along these lines -- why wouldn't it

be possible for president obama to call a summit? why doesn't he have a summit of doctors, nurses, insurance companies, other health-care providers, call them all together and let them sit down and go out each other for a number of days, but have some brain thrust of getting people together to talk this out. i know insurance companies are to blame. we need to go across state lines and to work together. i am a little bit frightened of a public auction because it would be government funded. when the government says, you can keep your own insurance, i do not know if they can compete with the government. yes. i am afraid that sooner or later the government would usurp all

of the involvement. we're frightened. my concern is that we need to work together across party lines. we are all human beings. we all put our underwear on one leg at a time. we all need a solution. it would be wonderful if we can get together. and thank you. [applause] >> maybe i was not clear. the public option has to be self sustaining. it cannot be receiving government subsidies to prop it up. on your first point, i agree with you. it is so important that we listen to each other to see if it is common ground. the president has had health

care summit at the white house throughout the year. i have participated in one of those health care summit is a few months ago. i was sitting next to a senator. at the end of the discussion, he turned to me and said, i have been down to this white house in the first six months in this administration than in my first eight years. i have personally encouraged the president to do more of that, to bring in different people and different viewpoints, even people who are disagreeing with what he wants to do so he gets a wide array of viewpoints. bobbie, thank you for joining us. >> thank you. congressman kind, we're so lucky to have a forum like this.

oftentimes women look at the quality of health care provided in rural america, it is probably a higher quality health care then provided in any metropolitan area. one concern is that the reimbursement process must pay as they pay from the large metropolitan area. nurses and physicians are as talented as anyone. we need to keep them. we also need to make sure the rural areas have access to physicians. maybe training physicist and giving them some breaks in their cost of education's would include more people becoming available to serve us. i do not know if it cannot build itself. but it is something i think we need to consider. thank you so much for coming.

[applause] >> thank you, congressman kind, for this forum. my name is terry. mine -- i am a resident of eau claire. i am chairman of the taft hardly trust fund and insurers approximately 900 families. our health-care system in this country is broken. we cannot continue to afford double digit increases year after year. it is not acceptable. it is our belief all employers should be required to provide insurance to their employees. health benefits in this country must not be taxed. there needs to be a strong public option to provide

coverage for the unemployed, the self employed, and the less fortunate in this country. thank you. [applause] >> thank you. my name is jay. i saw in the news you would have this forum, i thought i would stop in and see what the buzz is about. there was a study recently in our industry. i wanted to find out what percentage health care costs were in 1964 compared to today of the total compensation package. in 1964, our health care costs took up between 3% and 4%. today it is approaching 70%.

we have a real crisis. in 1964, most families or single-income families. today we have many -- income families that are paying into two different plans. we have an impending crisis. we're always able to come together after a crisis, like 9/11, like pearl harbor. we're able to come together among d.c. -- when we say the pledge of allegiance. we should stop looking for blame. we want to blame the insurance companies for gouging. they are doing it because they can do it. we want to blame the government, that they cannot handle health care. if that is your view, let's get involved. let's run for office.

we have the entire industrialized nation to look at as a template for the health care delivery system. if we come together, do not tell me we cannot get better. thank you. >> next numbers are 782, 664, 621, and 656. >> mr. kind, thank you for holding this forum. i run a couple of small businesses. my concern with what is being proposed is, i find it similar to the bailout of the automobile

industry. but there was supposed to be a great deal of transparency with the bailout. i was not able to find out how much money we have given the auto industry is. i cannot exactly get it. there is not a transparency of there. we do not know where the money came from, or rather, where it is going to. if it is loans, etc.. you have supposedly the brightest minds working on these things. i am afraid our health care, if you take it over, it will be stuck in the same situation. and no one -- my concern is purely financial. where is it going to stop? how will we know what is happening?

where is it going to go and where is it going to come from? that is a real serious problem. if auto sales are flat, what will happen in december? we have to give them another $150 billion? that is my concern. thank you. [applause] >> i am jerry. i have three brief points of light to make. number one, i am concerned about a once free people, a brave people. never trade freedom for security, or you will lose both. [cheers]

rep kind, i heard you say that in these debates, we should respect one in another. with that advice in mind, i would like you to tell nancy pelosi that we are not un- american. [cheers] i would like you to tell harry reid we're not evil maunders. i would like you to tell your fellow senators and congressmen that we're not a mob, mob,n azia, we have nothing in common with the likes of timothy mcveigh. we are americans, simply

exercising their constitutional rights. [cheers] also, please tell your community organizing the president to get used to an organized community. and finally, i -- >> i let some other people finish their comments. we will let him. >> i am going to " a wise man, c.s. louis. of all of the tyrannies, one

exercise for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. it would be better than under omnipotent, laurel busybodies. the robber barons cruelty may sometimes sleep. his stupidity may at some point be in ingratiated. those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." >> mr. chair -- mr. chairman, i

like to yield my time to the lady in the white stripes. go ahead. >> i think you were up. do you want to use your time? >> i thought we would do ladies first. congressman, i do appreciate this time. what a fabulous country we live and to be able to do this, i do not care which side of the issue you stand on. that being said, -- i am ken and a citizen of eau claire. i am on the side of liberty. this country was founded on liberty. when the lady before said she was apprehensive, i know i am apprehensive because i feel personal liberty being taken away by the public auction and this bill in general.

[applause] and i do not say that as someone who might be on the right side of the aisle. i also want you to know that i opposed the a patriot act as well because it infringed on personal liberty. so i walked both ways. there are portions of this bill that penalize business owners if they do not enroll in this plan. that is wrong. there are portions of this bill -- one struck me as bizarre. it prevents insurers from enrolling more patience after a certain date. i believe it is 2013. i am opposed to that. that is all wrong. we need to oppose this bill not just because the reasons you slowed it down, and thank you for doing that.

the final point i would like you to take home is please tell the president we're not concerned about his legacy. we are concerned about freedom and protection from government. thank you. [cheers] >> more numbers. 577. 772. 584. 767. go ahead please. >> thank you. my name is connie marshall. i am concerned because as a christian, i want to make certain that' if there is a national health care bill,

which hope there isn't, that there is wording in this bill that doesn't leave open this issue of abortion. we have killed 50 million people in this country since 1971. 50 million. that is a whole generation of people. this bill has not even addressed it. it permits abortion, but it does not prohibit abortion. that is my point.

there needs to be language in there that explicitly deals with abortion. >> let me address that. there has been some misconception out there. public funds for public -- it will not change in health care reform. no public funding for abortion services. it will not change under this legislation. >> ok. i just want to make another quick. , and i think is very important. the health care commission that will be formed or may already be formed to oversee this national health care bill will be able to pass rules that they themselves make after the health care bill

is passed. congress does not have to approve or disapprove. this is why i am opposed to the national health care bill. >> your time is up. you finished your point. we will move to the next speaker. thank you very much. [applause] >> my name is quinn. i live in whitehall. i did e-mail you about three and a half weeks ago along with senator kohl and senator feinstein about the question i have. i finally called and asked the question. i drove down and asked the question. i still didn't get it answered.

if the federal plan goes through, are you going to take a? [applause] if not, why? >> let me answer that real quick. i am not on the health plan. members of congress will not be treated any differently than any other citizen of this country. it will apply, equally to everyone. just to be clear. no one is forced into a public auction that doesn't want to go there. .

>> my question is are these politicians going to be taking the federal plan, like to asking everyone else to? >> if they want to accommodate hand. we're not forcing anyone -- listened. you can choose to believe that or not. under this plan, no one is forced into any public option that does not want to go there. >> it is good, why are you taking it? -- if it is good, why arent you takin it? >> 1 lasting. and when did the government auctioned become the public option? -- when did the government

option becomes a public option? we changed the wording. just like we change the bogeymen from the doctor and now it is the insurers. [applause] >> thank you for coming today. i appreciate your time and openness that i've not seen from the senators at the state regarding public horror. when you. -- thank you. i live in arcadia. i think you for the service you provide. my biggest concern, a lot of people have already raised this, the loss of trust. i think you could send that yourself. we can believe you if we want to

or not. there is an overall lack of trust in our government officials. it is getting worse. [applause] what will you do to regain our trust? are you listening to us? how have you voted? did you vote for the budget that was passed earlier this year? i am concerned about that. our people reading it? did you read it? are you listening to as? -- listening to us? call people and tell people how they feel it -- how you feel about the issues. do you listen to us? those are my biggest concerns. are you listening to your constituents? i think you for coming here

today. of one of the concerns is the federal debt. we're sparling -- spiraling out of control. and you cannot add an additional government program without increasing the debt. and we need to protect our to future generations and protect the jobs of this country. people are constantly shifting jobs overseas, and i would like to know what you're going to do to protect them. and [applause] >> thank you. the president has stated repeatedly he will not sign a health care bill that is not paid for. that does not add to the national debt. i agree with him on that. is it -- it is one of the reasons why i voted against the

new prescription drug plan five years ago because it was at $800 billion burden on future generations. i did not seek crowd like this morning. and-- forming. [applause] to answer your question, i voted against omnibus budget earlier this year because it contained 8000 earmarks and it, and i thought that was irresponsible. i do not earmark. i share your concern. the debt is out of control and we have to bring it back under control for the sake of our children. thank you. >> 776, 775, 811. >> my name is dan kremer.

i would like to know why the big rush? [applause] how many have even read this monstrosity and how many people can understand it? the next thing, the government has a very poor track record in getting things done right. and medicare is bankrupt. medicaid is bankrupt. look at the post office. but as social security. they are all big trucks. when ever government gets their hands on something, it goes bankrupt. -- they are all bankrupt. the reason we're seeing such huge crowd like we're seeing is people feel that they are not being represented. [applause]

we the people are speaking [no audio] [applause] just a lesson from life, if i go to work, my boss tells me something to do and i do something else, he will give me a warning. he will give me another warning and do it again and i might be down the road looking for another job. [applause] tahnhank you.

>> thank you for coming. i have been a resident of whitehall for 15 years. i bring you greetings from people on the call. and -- from people in the hall. [laughter] my main concern is how the federal government plans on paying for this. currently we have medicare and medicaid, social security, these programs are underfunded. now looks like we want to take on another program that i really have not heard how we plan on spending -- funding this program. >> i will address that because it is important. it is crucial that we're not adding to the debt of future generations. i believe in that in my very debt and being.

the irony is that under the congressional budget office, a non-partisan committee that tells us what is going to happen, they said that under the court reform proposal, it will extend the life of medicare by seven years because of the changes. >> the savings would be a net of zero according to them. >> they're saying the solvency of medicare is a extended by an additional seven years by what we're doing here. it is a very valid point, something that we have to be focused on as we move forward, how will we pay for this. >> we have three options. we can raise taxes, are a more -- barrow more, and we are coming to the end of barrowing

and [no audio]. >> there is another option where we changed the payment system. we waste money every year on procedures that do not work. [applause] >> again, we get back to the argument that danahethe cbo says the net savings is 0. >> they are not saying that. >> evidently some of the people did not come out [no audio]. the last four were 757, 716-

703, and 811. we now have 797, 487, 670. we have an echo in the back room. >> go ahead. tickle my name is dickinson. -- my name is chuck dickinson. this thing that i see the worst that is happening in our country is we are all down in this debt. we're taking on another program that is costing us billions and trillions maybe. we have to go borrow this money, correct? >we are borrowing money from the

chinese right now. billions and trillions to dollar and anyone else that has money to fund our debt. the one thing i do know is when you have that you owe the person. they control how you react. if we have a major financial situation in this country with all of this debt piled on us, how are we going to do it without coming to all of us and asking us to pull it out of our pockets? the other thing is, the tort reform, we have to get that in there. we have to get the legalities out. to call you raise a couple of legitimate concerns. -- >> you raise a number of legitimate concerns.

[no audio] over the last eight years we had the largest and fastest national accumulation of debt in our district. a doubling of national debt has spiraled out of control, and again, it is a bipartisan problem in search of a bipartisan answer to it. if there is when to be a spending increase or tax cut, you have to find an offset to pay for it. we have not had that. we have to change it. i agree with you on tort reform. it needs to be done. if we're going to be asking doctors to practice best evidence medicine, they should be given a safe haven. i like how wisconsin is setting up here. if some patient is accidentally injured, they're not just left

on their own. wisconsin does have the medical malpractice reform. that alone is not the answer to the health-care challenge that we face. so many states already have in place. >[applause] >> i call this the slow boat to china. it is the opposite of what we're talking about. i am talking about it hr235. for the last 20 years it has had various names. this bill has been collecting dust for more than 20 years. you are shaking your head yes so i know you know what i am

talking about. for the audience, under the reagan administration social security report was done at that time. there are various groups that had social security reduced by 75%. those groups are teachers, federal employees, postal workers, and others. this year there are 300 co- sponsors of the bill. according to my information, you are not one of them. the way this works is that giving an example of the nurse for 20 years and became a teacher after that, you then have social security reduced by 20%. -- 75%. in my case, it was reduced by 75%. what am i getting? of less than $200 per year. how about that? we know how your stimulus

bailout bill went through so fast. 20 years is a long time to think about how to finance the reform bill, hr235. one way to finance it is to look in your computer. it is a cycle of government waste. -- it is a site called government waste. i think that is all i have to say. [applause] >> thank you for being here today. i am a retired professor. i mr. martin from all clear. -- from o'claire. i would like to talk about the

concern that i have about congress and representatives having their own health care when they are putting a health care like this that is putting it on all of us. i know that you have said we're not going to have to do that, but i have read that eventually we will all be on this. that is the goal. i feel that really is a problem. i am for competition. i hope that our doctors would have freedoms. and their hands are getting tied more and more than ever. i want them to be able to be freed up to do things that they know will keel person truly, truly cure them without having peer pressure where pharmaceutical companies coming down on them. i need to see something like that in this bill. and also, the health care plan

is very clear from what i have looked up. the only acceptable plan is going to affect every aspect of our life. i am concerned with the families, the choice of parents being able to make choices for building up our own and use systems so that the health care really will not cost as much as it is today, because that is much lacking here. the way we're modifying our food and things like that has to change so that we can have this freedom to build our country with our families and with associates that we have here together. thank you for being here. i hope he will seriously consider these big changes that need to come into this plan before it can be voted on. [applause] >> thank you.

>> four more numberg. 607. 585. 538. [no audio] go ahead. >> i am from wisconsin. i am a retired teacher. i think most of the questions that i was going to ask have already been answered, and i have a few comments to make. i am 83-years old. i had heart surgery 30 years ago. i go to paterson's) which has senior pri feared and insurance is about half of what i paid when i was a teacher. -- i go to peterson's luther

an, which has senior coverage. we have some of the finest health care in the world right share. i cannot understand why we want the government to take over what is working and is good. [applause] i hope i have more than that but i do not feel like it anymore. i guess that is all i have to said. i do not see how anyone in this area would permit the takeover. [applause] >> my name is lloyd granburg,

and i think you for coming here. -- thank you for coming here. i am an electrician, semi- retired because of the economy. i am a united states veteran. [applause] being a united states that trend, -- veteran, i am luckier than most people, because contrary to popular belief, i have the best health care system and most cost effective system and it is run by the government. [applause] in the past decade medical costs have increased 119%. the congressional budget office

estimates that job-based health insurance could increase 100% in the next decade. employer based insurance cost for a family of four will reach $25,000. another study in 2007 showed that 62% of all bankruptcies or linked to medical expenses. of those who filed a bankruptcy, 80% had health insurance. not only is affordable health care reform morally the right thing to do, i believe that the u.s. economy will be dependent on health care reform. thank you. [applause]

>> i was reminded that those that have already made a comment or question -- these will be the last three. >> i did not realize -- thank you. my name is michael bryan. i hold medical assistant areas. i do not know if you remembered john who testified earlier about having cancer, but every single month i deny people basic medical care [no audio]. i deny people who had diabetes, and denied people who needed care if their income is over

$591.67 per month for a couple. [no audio] that has not changed for over 20 years. we're told it is un-american to get these basic needs to people. i went to a catholic school and i was taught that whenever you to and to the least of my brother, you do unto me. [applause] i reject the idea that it is un- american to give these basic services the least of my brother. [applause] i also reject the idea that everything we do for the common good is socialism. [applause] we have had social security was

and denounced as socialism. medicare was announced as socialism -- denounced as socialism. i do not think there socialism, i think they're the mark of a civilized nation. [applause] if we can get this reform of the health-care system through, it will be one more mark of a civilized nation. thank you. [applause] >> good afternoon, congressman. i feel like my heart is going to come out of my chest. >> can you identify yourself. >> i think we need to take a

deep breath and slowdown with this process. we have a lot of great minds in this country, a lot of great people, and this is a very important problem we have. i would like to say that righteousness of exults our nation. that is honored the most high. he will honor us. >> thank you. [applause] >> thank you, congressman for coming. i am 24 years old and have been trying to go back to school to finish my degree but i do not want to finish my -- with my full-time job because i do not want to lose health care coverage. are there any proposals in this bill that would allow people to

continue with health care of continuing their education? >> you are exactly right. for too many people in this country they are at a job because of the health care insurance has provided them. i cannot tell you how many people i have encountered that have said they wanted to create their own company and create jobs, but because of my employees sponsored health care and the fact that my wife or family member has a pre-existing condition, i could not do it . one of the ideas is to create this exchange. and so that it attaches to you, as opposed to attaching to the job. i think that is something that is important that we try to set up in order for students to be able to get health care coverage and for people who are on their own and do not have the

luxury right now of having an employer-based program. but to be cleared [no audio]. we are saying if you like your employer-covered health care, keep it. no one will change that. that is what we're trying to do. [applause] >> thank you. >> [no audio] if the federal government takes control of the system, how is any insurance company going to compete with that? the insurance companies will be wiped right out. you cannot sit there and say that if you like it, you can keep it. once this happens, it is gone. [applause]

i can tell you right now how you can fix a lot of these problems. first of all, we have a president who said he was going to scrub this bill clean of any waste. has that happened? joe biden was going to do that. well, forget about joe biden. if you want to fix this problem, you take these midwestern people who have common sense, fly them to washington and have them go through these bills and fix them. [applause] >> i am from wisconsin. i have been self-employed since i was 25 years old. if my insurance premiums have gone up 107% in the past 10

years i would be calling instead of doing this might insurance has gone up 807% exactly in the last 10 years because of my -- because i am an individual. when i started working i had health insurance for all of my employees. [no audio] i am sick of every couple of weeks someone's kid gets hit by a car and they have to go to the public so that they can afford their medical bills. [applause] there was an article that said if you are 65 and retiring in 2009, you need to -- you need $240,000 in the bank is just to cover health insurance for the balance after your social

security. that scares be enough that i quit giving to charities and quit making political contributions. [applause] >> on that note, help me in thanking dick miller. thank you for being here. [applause] most of all, i want to thank all of you. i know how busy people are, and for this type of turnout for and the important topic like this, this is astounding. it really is. i am proud of the exchange that we had today. i think it was civil and respectful. this goes to the heart of it. i truly believe that as a nation we really do have to figure out a way to come together in this type of format and other formats to listen to one another.

i am sure it by doing more of that and having and working hard to find common ground, that together we can solve some of the challenges that we are facing as a nation and as a people together. that is what i pledge to do. i will keep an open door. you know how to reach me. i will have more of these forums as we go forward. it is important that viewpoints be shared. i am going to be around for a little bit. i want to think you all again and think our law-enforcement here. they did a wonderful job. thank you all. [applause] >> in about half an hour, live discussion on their role of immigration and other wedge issues in american politics. the panel including e.j. dijion.

a discussion hosted by the center for american progress live at noon eastern here on c- span. earlier today, president obama renominated ben bernanke for a second four-year term to serve as federal -- chairman for the federal reserve. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] >> what is this renomination of ben bernanke me to the financial markets and the country as a whole? >> it means continuity. ben bernanke expanded the fed balance sheet by over a trillion dollars, many of the dollars funding emergency programs like loans to the commercial paper market, aig, it purchases of mortgage-backed securities. they have to unwind that to maintain confidence. >> one of the news reports said that the obama -- said bernanke meshed well with the obama team.

>> bernanke enter the fed as much of ththreea free marketeers alan greenspan. he came out more on the side of the obama administration on things like round my -- recommending banks modify mortgages, and sang perhaps they should take a hit on the principle because it would be better to keep people in their homes. after some prodding by congress, he strengthen consumer lending rules. i do not think there is any reason for them to be displeased with him on that score in terms of public policy favoring consumers. >> what did he say about his appointment to a second term? is this something he wanted? >> it was an interesting statement. the first thing he did predict there were three hallmarks in his comments. he called up to the federal reserve staff. that is a sign that this chairman is much more democratic

than his predecessor. he believes in the strength of the staff. it is very strong. and the second thing he mentioned was independence. as your listeners might know, there is a challenge to federal reserve independence right now i think ben bernanke has a lot of work to do in sending that off. >> the congress has been holding a number of oversight hearings. what are lawmakers looking into? >> here is the dynamic. the federal reserve, when the crisis started to unfold, did some extraordinary things. there was a law that allowed them to lend to anyone. they financed of bunch of dodgy assets that were once held by bear stearns. they stepped in and take off the creditors, including goldman

sachs, the american international group, and then they used the same statutes to go out and support the asset backed securities market and the housing market by buying up markets -- bonds. what congress has said, wait a second, this is not monetary policy. you are extending credit to the private sector. you are stepping into are germane -- into our domain. it is a discussion and a debate that is going on. they want to create a special

agency. the said look like to keep it inside. the second thing they would do is make the fed sold regulator of the largest financial institutions. they might be anywhere from 10 to 30. they would consult with the systemic risk council but then have wide discretion in setting standards for this industry. that is supposed to prevent excessive risk-taking and bubbles in the future. it is a wise-man model. the wise man will prevent this from happening in the future, as opposed to competing models by people like sheila bair. >> an update from craig torres of bloomberg news. thank you for joining us. coming up at noon today, the debate on immigration. until then, part of this morning's "washington j

ournal." "the people involved deserve our gratitude but do not deserve to be the targets of political investigations and prosecutions. he went on to say that president obama's decision to allow the justice department to investigate and possibly prosecute and decision to remove a 48 from the c in the white house serves as a reminder of why so many americans have doubts about this administration's ability to be responsible for our nation's security." guest: those are tough words from the former vice president, continuing his campaign since leaving office in january in an

attempt to portray the current administration and its intelligence officers as soft on secure. the message has been picked by many senate republicans. host: many headlines, but let's begin with yours. first of all, who is john durham a and what does he bring to the table? guest: he has been a prosecutor for the entire life first for connecticut and then as a federal prosecutor in connecticut where he now lives and works. his 59 years old, quite, and gray-bearded. he has had some of the most incredible cases of the past three decades. he has looked into improper relations among criminals and a long forcers which went on to become the material for a movie with jack nicholson.

he went on to investigate the destruction of videotapes which we think depicted very extreme scenes of water boring. host: what do you think he has seen? guest: he has not been able to see them because there were destroyed. what do exist are documents that describe everything that allegedly went on in the tapes. he has had access to witnesses before a grand jury in alexandria, virginia. he has been calling lawyers and others at the cia to speak to the grand jury. he is making a decision about whether to seek an indictment. host: the president in april said he did not to look back, but ford. then you had a couple of heated discussions early on between leon panetta and people at the justice department. could you walk us through?

guest: yes, the obama administration has struggled to find its footing on national- security issues. the president indicated a desire not to get stuck in the dispute in controversies of the bush administration which are still alive for many people. her lover, numerous court cases including lawsuits filed by the aclu, civil liberties groups have been presented to the justice department as well as evidence. a report came out yesterday. eric holder, the attorney general, says that he acknowledges some of these problems from the past but feels he must launch an investigation. host: let me ask you about the classified material. can you explain what is in this

report and what was cut out? guest: begin not entirely know what was kept out. there were numerous details about mistreatment that were kept in. when you of well water boarding, but did not know about the floor slamming, scrubbing a prisoner in about so badly that his skin was red. we also did not know about blowing smoke into the faces of prisoners until they regurgitate. surprisingly, there was at least one episode in early 2002 in which cia personnel repeatedly pressed on the carotid artery of the detainee until he became unconscious. he finally shook h back awake. host: there was one sentence in

your piece of one to share with the audience because it gets to the essence. it could mark the beginning of a pain-taking inquiry that test the boundaries of the justice department's discretion and its ability to by incomplete evidence collected. guest: thank you for highlighting that. i think it is the central challenge now. the problem has been that many of these allegations in as many as a dozen cases -- the evidence was incomplete. it was collected in prisons in iraq, afghanistan, on the battlefields. some prosecutors to me that they did not have bodies of detainees, nobody's of the victims to go on. it made the challenge to bring prosecution all the more difficult. john will have to confront a lot of serious problems concerning evidence which have grown weaker, not stronger in the

seven years since these incidents took place. host: based on that, how would you have a trial if the evidence is in complete? if they fail to prosecute the criticism will come from the other side. guest: already in case there is a prosecution, and i have doubts whether can be one, some of these lower level personnel will have all lot of defenses. two separate teams in the bush and mr. shen reviewed these. this investigation is relatively narrow be targeted to operatives who went beyond the four corners of the justice department guidance and the bush administration, which defines the category people under investigation at a very low

level. people want to point to higher ups on the chain of command. host: we will except your phone calls and e-mails. the numbers will continue to be on the bottom of the screen. i know you do not read the editorials, but you point to something that is on the editorial page of your newspaper. the real corporates and this story are the higher ups starting with former president george w. bush and former vice- president richard b. cheney. guest: all lots of democrats feel that way. a lot of human rights groups feel that way. eric holder's decision yesterday was praised by some moderates. it was unpopular with more of the progressive elements of his own party. it is viewed as a narrative -- near rearrow.

they were briefed regularly on these interrogations' and expressed interest on what sort of intelligence was coming from them. host: good morning on the republican line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i have questions for keri, but she is so obviously a democrat liberal that it would be hopeless for me to ask for any sort of question. she does not know what she's talking about. she has not talked to any of these prisoners, and when you are taking evidence from people who are behind bars, taking their work for something and then to get out here and spell out the stufff like it is the gospel, i cannot believe a word that she says.

let me read to you from the paper and then ask your question. "the wall street journal" has this conclusion, by threatening to prosecute cia officials the obama and mradministration is taking ownership of future troubles in a way that will only do itself harm. do caller: you are taking eric holder. so i cannot take anything he says as the truth.

one other question, is bernanke a democrat or republican? because i recall when he was appointed that people were complaining because bush appointed a democrat. what is he? did he change? has he changed parties host: no, he is a republican. he was appointed by george w. bush and now reappointed. caller: then, someone gave me the wrong information. host: we will go to eric in wilson, wyoming. caller: during this segment i'm sure that most of the people calling on the republican line will be christians to go to church, get on your knees, and pray to the prince of peace, and

another will be judged by their so-called god. they're supposed to be christ- like. this country is not -- certainly is not acting christian. not by telling the detainees that we will rape your mother in front of you in to your children. anybody who will say anything -- john mccain when he was tortured route at a statement defending the vietnamese -- he wrote out a statement defending the vietnamese. it is degrading. we should be ashamed of ourselves. host: any response? guest: i think that he has

touched on a point that many people are making from both political parties. this episode has tarnished the country's reputation around the world. it has complicated the ability of the justice department to bring prosecutions against the 200-odd people who remain at guantanamo bay. it is also the case that there is an ongoing debate about how effective any of this information actually was in helping to prevent terrorist attacks in a that has also become politicized. people in the fbi mostly in charge of interrogations' have said it is not all that effective. host: you say in your piece that the mandate is relatively narrow in terms of the investigation, but it could bottom. then a pointed out the investigation concerning a

particular woman. guest: yes, the prosecutor began with a relatively narrow mandate. he appealed to the deputy attorney general. he appealed to expand the mandate based on allegations he uncovered. he was given the approval to expand his scrutiny. fitzgerald wound up charging scooter libby. it is possible that john after investigating for a while will come across information that prompts him to ask attorney general holder to expand his purvey. host: our guest has been with the washington post for the last nine years. here is a message from twitter.

guest: a lot of these detainees already have civil suits in the u.s. courts seeking their release, habeas corpus petitions. however, some who have been in custody and then released to have ongoing civil suits against former government officials in the bush administration. many have been dismissed because it is very difficult to sue a government official acting in his or her official capacity. it is generally a source of a manatee. however, in one case in california a former detainee has an ongoing lawsuit against the university of california professor who had drafted some memos approving some of these most harsh techniques. host: our next call is from

louisiana. caller: i believe they should not be bringing up this stuff about these detainees. i think our country has forgotten. it is just a cover-up for what is going on in the obama administration right now. guest: many people do not want to look backward because they think we would just when the fighting with each other and misusing a scarce government resources. i think that the poles have borne that out to some extent. some people believe, however, including the president and attorney general that you cannot always look the other way, especially when possible evidence of a crime is

presented and the form of the report which happened yesterday. host: let me return to the statement by dick cheney at the national press club. he continues to talk about saving lives. he says that this intelligence said less and prevented terrorist attacks. it says that it played a role in nearly every capture. it says that the activities of the cia in carrying out policies of the bush administration were directly responsible for defeating all efforts by al qaeda to launch further attacks against the u.s. guest: i think that the documents will bear out that some of the intelligence used was useful. they also bear out according to analysts from both political parties that the cia often did not know what to do with intelligence it got.

it is a mixed bag. i take some heart in what a former state department official and lawyer, advisor to connolly's arise -- to condoleeza rice, testified this year that the situation is too murky to evaluate whether this intelligence was useful and save lives. host: here is the headline. and this is the reporting of our guest carrie johnson. james joins us from carlsbad, calif. caller: i know that it is tough to get information from the government through the freedom

act, but we have always had a history dealing with terrorists and how we treat them since world war i. we get into this quagmire of the cia. if there was something done wrong -- and i guess mr. dick cheney is turned to look at it as if we made the mistake, not the guy in the trenches. he followed orders. as a reporter i would ask you and your colleagues if you're going to do a story, dig into the fact, look at the administrations, the history we have now. look at who was giving the

actual mandates to the people down there. no matter what you or anybody says, 90% of the people in the cia are in the military, in uniform. guest: i will happily look into that. that has been a target for reporters for the past eight years and i have no doubt that more information will become available. what people knew in meetings at the white house, and the like will become numb. we know that there many meetings of the cabinet level itself. -- more information will become known. people it in many positions discussed some of these techniques. the president himself was not in the room, said john ashcroft, but for some of the harshest techniques we know that were

used were actually discussed at 1600 pennsylvania ave. host: this is your asks if you think we will ever be able to see a less redacted version? guest: i am hopeful. john durham is still investigating the destruction of videotapes from 2005. there is anotheare other reasons why this persists. there were tons of ore about how much information is safe and appropriate to release. in many of these cases the justice department and advocates for freedom of information have one. but it was discouraging of some people were reading this report yesterday of they to find that many scenes, including those of

bolling the highest value detainees were nearly complete redacted. host: there is a story focusing on leon panetta. the sidebar piece says that leon panetta is being vilified by liberal contempt. guest: guest: she is an outsider in the agency, and yet he is in the position to having to defend his people. -- he is an outsider in the agency. he issued an e-mail saying he was proud of their work. and in the few cases where they did not follow legal guidance, it was the justice department itself. he is walking a fine line, trying to keep his community have the and protect them from some of these attacks from outside.

>> that evil was the fifth in six months to the cia employees. guest: he has had a lot to talk to them about. to participating in top-secret assassination plans to this report, and earlier this year was the release of the justice department memos and dirk waterboarding and other nasty techniques. -- regarding waterboarding and other nasty techniques. caller: what really bothers me is we are the united states of america. be our nation of laws. the rules and regulations should be followed. -- we are a nation of laws. i am a united states military man. if i break a law, i get in

trouble. how can we say it is okay to break the law, but we tell our kids to do something different? i thing is i am a democrat, but i agree with republicans sometimes, democrat sometimes. my thing is, how can we condemn anyone else if we do wrong? that is why i think this needs to be investigated. i voted for president obama. i think he needs to get some backbone and trite -- and stop trying to please people and stand up for what is right. we are a nation of laws. . . guest: in the course of these controversies as they unfolded late in the bush years when no now that some of the people who objected most strenuously during the time as well as after were

military lawyers themselves. . . they want to wiretap people or to torture and things like that. then the want to get mad at the democrats when the democrats do things and that's why i am glad to be an independent. i watch c-span all day when you have republicans and democrats going at their debates and stuff. it seems like that's why nothing

in washington is getting done because all they do is fight and becker and can't agree on anything. i am glad to be independent because i don't agree with some of the things republicans are doing. if they want to be moral -- if they want to be morally valuable they ought to be moral and said of upholding the morals they want to impose. guest: no matter what your political situation, yesterday's disclosures, both of the cia report and that there is a investigation ongoing will prompt even more fighting. also very heated rhetoric from people on all elements of the political spectrum. conservatives may have it. when they raise the question of whether we should be read investigating -- whether we should reinvestigate in these things.

eric holder decided to go the other way but he is trying to keep a tight focus on what is being looked at today. host: let's go to the timeline a shoe for the special prosecutor. what is this time line to look at the evidence, at the 92 videotapes have been destroyed, look at the documents and come up with some sort of decision? >>guest: this is an excellent question and many people wish they knew. he was appointed in january of 2008 and has been going on for 19 months. we think he is nearing the end of the investigation. i asked yesterday from senior justice department officials along he would have to do this preliminary review of allegations announced yesterday. he has no time limit. we know him to be painstaking and a perfectionist based on former colleagues and defense lawyers. he will be operating very quietly, in secret, and he could take a very long time.

>> this is a center for american progress in washington. we are here live for a discussion on the role of immigration and other wedge issues in modern politics. the panel, including a "washington post": this e.j. dionne. this should get away momentarily here at the center for american progress.

>> i think we will get started. my name is angela kelley and 90 [unintelligible] thank you for being here. i think you're the only people who are not on vacation this week. i want to give you a little bit of background to this event and what the purpose is. a few weeks ago, my colleague, ruy teixeira, published a well- received paper called "becoming an of the cultural wars." as he will explain, the paper is premised on this emerging demographic trends suggest will be a more progressive outlook on a number of hot issues that have been at hot of the culture wars, including immigration.

we thought this was an interesting piece to dig a little deeper and that is the point of this. after the analysis, we'll have a lively discussion and i will play oprah winfrey, even though i am a shorter and not as rich, we will address the different aspects of immigration. we know this is not a new issue. it has been around for as long as the country has been around. the intensity is increasing. going back to 2005 when the house passed the deportation only bill that would have made felons of undocumented people and those to associate with them, that was followed in 2006 by millions who marched in cities across the united states in protest of the house bill. that same year, the senate- passed same bill with 23 republicans that would have legalized most people living in without senate. but in 2007, they failed to pass a less generous bill.

last year, we saw both candidates battle the issue, but not in the english language press. that is where the immigration issue was engaged -- in the spanish language press. we had high latino turnout in states like nevada alcatel rocco, and florida. -- talf -- like nevada, colorado, california, and florida. now many members are saying they want to engage, move, and pass the issue of immigration reform. is a country ready? are our leaders ready? how we look at this as a progressive issue and how do republicans engage in this successfully if they ever want to hold office again? but the introduce our speakers and we will get to a short power. presentation. my first speaker will be frank sharry, the founder and executive director of america's

voice. it is a communications organization focused on winning immigration reform. before heading up that group, he served as the executive director at the national immigration forum, an organization i know well. i was a deputy director there for many years. they have been at the center of every immigration battle for 20 years. following him will be e.j. dionne, who needs no introduction. he is a syndicated columnist for the "washington post" he is a senior fellow at brookings, and a regular commentator on radio and tv. ana navarro is also a well-known commentator and a highly regarded republican political strategist. her expertise is in florida with an emphasis on emigration. she was most recently the national co-chair of john mccain's hispanic advisory possible -- hispanic advisory council. she has played a key role as

strategist in several local and state races in florida. then, ruy teixeira, also needs no introduction. he is a senior fellow at the center for american products -- center for american progress and a visiting fellow at brookings. he has published many books, analyzed american politics, and he has made frequent media appearances. we have a rock star panel. we will do it oprah winfrey style. we will get into a debate and discussion and then open it up for questions. thank you very much for being here. >> the term "culture wars" goes back to 1991 was popularized by a book called " the culture wars." the author's argument was now and going forward, politics in

the united states would be polarized between warring cultural camps are run issues like guns, abortion, gays, race and gender issues, and so on. that would be the fulcrum of politics as politics developed in the 1990's. this did not turn out to be such a crazy idea as things developed. culture wars were very important in the early problems of the clinton administration in 1994. it was a huge part of the impeachment which undercut progressive legislative strategies and it figured in george w. bush's victories in 2000 and 2004. it was by and large quite president -- quite present and quite a focus of debate in politics. we wondered if we would ever get out of it. things have changed since 2004, it seems. if you look at the elections in

2006 and 2008, we have the historic victory of barack obama and a campaign in which court -- in which the culture wars issues did not play much of a role. conservative attempts to invoke these issues did not release exceed very well. witness the nomination of sarah palin, which likely hurt more than helped john mccain's ticket. things have seemed to have changed quite a bit in terms of these issues. why is that? one reason is that some issues have popped to the front which have overridden the issues. first iraq, then, the economy. but is that all there is to it. the argument of the paper which is available at our website and chock full of reading data and we will see some of it in the second, it makes the argument that it is deeper than issues. it has to do with with the

shifting demographics in the united states are basically reducing the level of conservative cultural views among voters and reducing the salience of them to politics, even more conservative views remain. let's take a look at some of the changes taking place that are moving us in this direction. while the first and most important demographic change that is undercutting the culture wars is the rise of the millennial generation, those born between 1978 and 2000. millennial are markedly progressive on every cultural issues you might care to name. they support gay marriage, they take race and gender equality as a given, they are tolerant of family and religious diversity, they are open and positive about immigration into the united states. in general, they are uninterested in fighting politics on the basis of these kinds of hot-button social issues. this shows you how much they're growing overtime in terms of

being eligible voters. in the 2008 election, there were 48,000,064 million. in 2012, a projection of 81 million. that's all lot of very culturally progressive, eligible voters. the next slide shows more detail about those changes. about 39% of eligible voters in 2020 were members of the alleles generation. it will be about 36% of people who actually show up and vote. it could be higher depending on turnout and trends. there will be 103 billion millennial to our adults in the voting age population. there are 90 million -- there will be 103 million colonial voters who are adults in the voting age population. let's take a look at the other

aspect -- their diversity. part of the reason they are so culturally progressive. this slide tells you that right now, millennial adults are diverts compared to previous generations -- about 60% are non hispanic white. as more of these millennial become adults, the ones becoming adults in years to come will be even more diverse than the ones to have already become adults. by the time they are in the electorate, there will only be 56% non-hispanic white. it is important to note that not only are the mondales progress of in general and cultural issues, but if you compare each one of the groups to the older counterparts, they're much more progressive. white millennial are much more progressive than the older generations of white voters. as our hispanic voters.

white millennial are more progressive at this point and the electorate as a whole. if you break down white voters and look at the working class and white college graduate millennial, it is striking how progressive in particular the white working-class millennials are in comparison to other white working-class voters. [no audio] buried within that bad result for obama was the fact that he actually achieved a high level of support among white working- class millennials in that direction. there's a trend in that direction between 2004 and 2008 that he benefited from. what this implies is very important. as we move forward, the white working-class, while it will continue to be conservative in general and cultural issues,

this will become gradually and inevitably more progressive as the white working-class millennials replace white working class older folks in the population. this is a very important change, but it's not just that we will have more progressive white working-class voters. it is also the case that we will have less of them. this is one of my favorite charts. measured by exit polls, the change in shares of white working-class, white college graduate, and minority voters between 1988 and 2008. it shows in this 20-year span, there is a 15 percentage point decline in the represented a of white working voters on election day. there is an actual increase in white crop -- white college graduate voters who are more progressive than working-class voters and among minority voters, or also much more

progressive in general, there is an 11 percentage point increase in the representation among the voters. if you look at specific states, there is a lovely table in the report that shows you for every state where we have data for 1988 and 2008, the changes in representation among voters of white working-class, white college graduate, and minority voters. it is striking. this issue some specific ones that were politically pertinent in 2008. in pennsylvania, 25% decline in white working-class voters. a 16% increase in college graduate voters. that's why it was such a tough nut for john mccain to crack. that tells you a lot about why that happened. he tried to appeal to an electorate that no longer existed. the same is true in many other

states. the demographic ground has shifted away from conservatives under these cultural issues. you can see the data for ohio, florida, and nevada. is this likely to continue in the future? yes. this shows where we're going in terms of race and ethnic positions. as you can see, about 56% of the population is non-hispanics by today. it will be down to 46% by 2015. we will be 54% minority, a slight increase in the black population, a doubling in the hispanic population and almost doubling in the asian population. this is an ongoing set of changes in terms of the competition of the electorate. we will also see the decline of the white working-class

continuing because the white population is declining and the educational upgrading and generational changes among whites, the weight of non- college educated whites will decline and college graduates will continue to increase. that tells you a lot about how these culture wars will be undermined overtime. or hispanics, more white college graduates, far fewer white, working-class voters who are substantially more conservative, particularly older ones. there are other demographic changes that are important in terms of undermining the basis of the culture wars. college education -- single and college-educated women. they're usually pretty progressive. single women will have gone up from 30% of 240% -- up to 40%. college women have tripled from

8% to 28% of adult women. professionals are hugely progressive on cultural issues. only 7% of the work force in the 1950's. it will have about one fifth sometime in the next decade. religious diversity is also important. by the year 2016, roughly -- we will no longer be a white christian nation. secular or unaffiliated adults are increasing dramatically. that got up from 5% up to 14% since 1944. they'll be 20% of adults by 2020. they are really progressive on cultural issues. if you take the data out far enough, it would appear by the year 2014, only more than one- third of the population will be white christians. only about one-third of that will be conservative right -- conservative white christians. that tells a lot about what is happening to the demographic

base of the culture wars. the front line people in the culture wars have been conservative, white christians. we're looking at a situation where they will only be 12 or 13% of the population. let's turn to emigration. -- let's turn to immigration. if you compare them to declining demographic groups, they tend to be more progressive and open and more supportive of immigration reform. that is why, and i think frank will talk more about this, this is the dog that did not bark situation in the last several actions. there's the night -- or several attempts to use immigration as a wedge issue in 2006 and in the present election in various congressional races in 2008. it just did not work. he has done good work in terms

of tallying up the tossup races where immigration, where they attempted to use immigration as a wedge issue and whether or not it succeeded. he will tell you more about it, but i'm not giving anything away by saying it did not seem to work very well. one thing that will be interesting to ask about immigration reform is that you say the climate will change over the long term in terms of making immigration laws of a hot button issue. surely the economic crisis is making people more surly about immigrants in the country to create problems and take jobs and use benefits. what's interesting to note is that we have data in the last several years that does not appear the economic crisis has had and aggravating effect on views toward immigrants. this is data from the pew research center. thinking about immigrants in the u.s. illegally, do you favor or

oppose providing immigrants to gain legal citizenship if they pass background ships and -- passed background checks and find jobs. these propositions are well supported by the public. if you look at 2009, it has not gone down, it has gone up. a 63%-34% in favor of this. there are several other results consistent with this. in this time of severe economic crisis, feelings about immigrants don't seem to have become more negative. in fact, we of more support for immigration reform. let's look at how these demographics are working at all. my proposition is going forward, we will see more positive use of immigrants and a more favorable time of immigration reform. this is data from the

progressive studies program poll about cultural and other issues. we asked a question about whether you agree or disagree if immigrants are a burden on society because they take jobs and these governments benefits. 55% of white working-class voters agreed with a statement. only 23% disagree. if you look at white college graduates, it is 46%, 35 at the other way. hence -- the hispanics number is not surprising. professionals are markedly progressive, 60%-23% that they are not burdened. then there is the millennial generation, which is structural in changing the landscape of cultural views in the country. this is the generational divide in emigration. i believe this is from the " washington post" abc poll.

73% of alleles -- 73% of millennials thought this was good. as we move on in time, that will move the views among the population as a whole toward a more sympathetic view of immigrants and more support for immigration reform. that is all the slides i have for you today. i think we will just move on to the discussion. thank you. [applause] >> a quick comment if you don't mind. >> [inaudible] >> there are some tough issues. what is remarkable about this, because it is relatively a new issue that confronts the political class. the conventional wisdom just a few years ago was that

immigration was and is a culturally charged wedge issue that is going to turn out conservative base the voters and will split democrats and make them look like they are pandering to a minority and will win over swing voters who are upset about illegal immigration. that conventional wisdom, in my view, was greatly exaggerated and yet is still embraced by too many in both parties as still probably true. the evidence for why i think it's not true is the analysis we referred to. we look at the 2006 and 2008 elections. tossup races where emigration was a factor, you had a comprehensive reform candidate, almost in every case democrat, against the hard-line republican. in most of these races, the republican attacked the democrats for being soft, for being for amnesty, wanting to

give benefits to illegal, and being soft on illegal immigration. in almost all the races, the democrat won in these tossup races. the theory that this issue was going to mobilize the base is probably true because the one place where you see evidence that a hard-line work is in some republican primaries. for example, the most notorious and important race in 2006, you had [unintelligible] replacing part of the armed militias against immigration. he famously said it someone in my views can win in this district, we can't win anywhere. that turned out to be perfect. in very few races did it turn out that a hard liner be a comprehensive reform best. in 2008, did try again but did not get as much attention. we looked at 22 races labeled as

tossups. there is a clear difference between democratic comprehensive reform and a republican hard- liner. in 20 of those races, the democrat won. for all its vaunted power as a wedge issue that was going to make it hard for democrats to win in tough races with swing voters being the determining factor just has not happened. the other part of the conventional wisdom, particularly among republicans, is the notion that it is ok to go after this issue because latinos don't care that much and they don't count. that has been turned on its head. the most underreported political story from my view and from work i do is tell bush and karl rove had a brilliant strategy to win hispanic voters. in 2004, among spent -- spanish- dominated hispanic voters, not going to use the overall numbers, but spanish dominated

hispanic voters, bush lost 52%- 48%. many new voters to turn out in 2004 voted for george bush -- voted for george bush. he was a brilliant and it for socially conservative, open- minded, not yet allied with a party latino immigrants. in 2008, same cohort, is estimated obama beat mccain 75- 25. that is a huge swing. it was at least a key factor in at least seven states going red to blue. the idea that this is going to win swing voters and not cost latino voters has to be stood on its head. now the question is, how can democrats use this either as a

wedge issue in elections or, or important for my point of view, use it as a tactic to get republicans to work with them on comprehensive immigration reform, which is the defining issue for latino immigrants. we can get in to swing voters more, but looking at the elections, the conventional wisdom has been wrong. the wide strategy has backfired. latino voters are pretty worked up about it. >> i want to say that i'm really happy to be here both because i very much admire the work. -- the work of the other members of the panel. ruy teixeira's book predicted what was going to happen with

this. if i have one small disagreement with the overall analysis, i agree with him closely, and i agree the culture wars are receding, but i was influenced by his earlier work because i grew up in fall river, massachusetts. i think the white working class has an importance for the future and you only need to list ohio, michigan, indiana, -- but that perhaps colors my analysis. we can talk about that if you wish. i am here is kind of a friendly dissenter. friendly because i to support and think comprehensive immigration reform is urgent. but i made the center because i think public opinion is a very complicated and it is extremely difficult. i told frank before when he offered this analysis to a 2006 and 2008 elections, you feel have a republican president, an economic meltdown and an unpopular war, it's very

difficult to make immigration work as an issue for republicans. i think the jury is out on how this would play on terrain that is less favorable to the democrats than 2006 and 2008 where immigration is politically vexing because of splits both parties and scrambles the usual radiological alignment. i believe there is no clear majority in the country on this. i think he agrees with me on this. one-third of america favors providing a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. one-third -- or less, these are all third, you can argue about the exact size. another third is opposed. then there is an ambivalent middle that knows the status quo is unsustainable and is sympathetic in principle to a comprehensive solution, yet is also upset about the government possibly to control illegal immigration. i'm going to offer a couple of numbers on this ambivalence.

in the obama administration, they have worries of the rhone. it's entirely true that the president won with overwhelming support from latino voters. they were very important in helping him carry mexico, colorado, and nevada, and arguably north carolina and indiana. but the margin for so small there, you could attribute the victory to any demographic group you want to name. latino leaders insist that the president keep his promise to fix immigration reform trade i think the president's message is yes we can, but not quite yet. there are couple of reasons for that. we all know that he has a lot on his plate right now. health care reform is more than enough. but also i think he understands this ambivalence and the difficulty of this. the president's comments earlier this year that we want to move this process and build

confidence -- ultimately he said i don't have control over the legislative calendar. this reflects a president who i believe wisely knows achieving comprehensive immigration reform requires some confidence- building and if there's one issue that will have to be bipartisan, it is this one. i say that not because i believe bipartisan solutions have aristotle-like perfection, but you'll never assemble a majority without a bipartisan solution. i want to close with two quick points -- part of the political problem here is that the issue plays out differently in presidential elections than in races about the control for congress. just take the states with large hispanic populations that are swing states, like arizona,

nevada, colorado, new mexico as a 42% population that is hispanic. those are states where obama is there carry them or in arizona, did better beware -- did better than expected, given that was john mccain's, state. but i looked at the 2006 election and i want to update these numbers. i identified 34 democratic districts that were potentially vulnerable to republicans. in only four of those districts with the hispanic population more than 18%. in 19 of those districts, it was under 3%. these were races in which republicans were tended to use or reduced immigration. in the 15 districts for the democratic incumbent received 56%, 11 had hispanic populations

below 10%. what you have is the politics playing out differently at two levels. frank is right about what happened in 2006 and 2008. but there are a lot of nervous democrats in those districts. i think the fact that you had a large hispanic vote in certain areas makes it easier at the provincial level to support comprehensive immigration reform. ambivalence -- with immigration, be aware of polling because you could make polls say anything you want. because of his ambivalent group -- for example, there was a poll in 2007 that shows 52% approving supporting all illegal immigrants and 64% saying we should allow illegal immigrants to pay a fine and learn english be able to apply for citizenship. some folks gave yes answers to both of those questions.

that is ambivalence. 50% favored public schools from kindergarten to high school for children who are here illegally, but only 35% favored entrance to state colleges where tuitions are subsidized for children of illegal immigrants. 64% said yes, at illegal immigrants should be built use emergency rooms, but only 25% of the same people say they should be on medicaid. that is ambivalence. this is what advocates of reform have to deal with. their success will ultimately depend on winning over those in the ambivalent middle and not treating them as the the focus or racists. the core argument for reform i believe, must be the presence of so many illegal migrants without any enforceable rights undermines the rights of all of us. the real message is a path to

citizenship is a way of guaranteeing all residents of our country be able to assume responsibilities as americans. moving us in that direction is not about doing favors for illegal immigrants. it is about strengthening the american community. i believe the president is buying time to try to make the case. thank you. [applause] >> but i was coming this morning completely ready to agree that we were coming to the end of cultural wars. then i read the front page of the "new york times" and there is a story about a guy named bob from macon, georgia. in 62 years of life he had never felt enough emotion about anything, not even the vietnam war, to protest or participate in a town hall or protest much to his wife's shock, he showed up at a town hall on health care

reform this week and the very soft smoke -- very soft-spoken salesman from georgia said he wanted his congressman to oppose health care reform. we have not traditionally looked at health care reform as a wedge issue. we like to think of emigration -- immigration, gave marriage, and then sells, but who would have thunk it? we would beat in the middle of a cultural war, i would say democrats are in the middle of a cultural war with themselves. liberal democrats and moderate democrats are protesting vociferously against each other. in florida, you have statewide protests going on against the senior center in florida, bill nelson, who could not be more moderate and middle of the road , if you want to call it a war, called a battle.

there is something that has ignited the american public. on immigration, i think you are right. i think immigration has not been a wedge issue. it has not been a wedge issue in the presidential primaries. the reason that has not been a wedge issue, and to their credit, and i know not enough time has passed by yet to say anything slightly positive about george bush or karl rove without having to confess to a higher deity, but the reason immigration reform was not a wedge issue in 2000 and 2004 was because there was no fertile ground for it from karl rove and george bush came from texas and understood it was a nonstarter. there was a lot of focus and a lot of other wedge issues that did influence not only the presidential elections, but local elections. in 2008, it was also not a

fertile issue. there was no fertile ground for this issue. it played in the primaries and i sit here today, telling you that immigration probably cost mitt romney the florida primary, which was a pivotal moment in the primary election. how could you have immigration as a wedge issue when you have john mccain as your republican nominee? if it was an issue of all, it was in the hispanic press and it was who was more believable on immigration reform and who was more believable in the promises they were going to deliver? i told john mccain some times during the election, i tried to convince them to no avail, that latinos wanted to hear a time line. the immigration activists wanted to know was going to be

simultaneous? would there be trigger mechanisms? with the enforcement? weatherbee legalization first? would it be within one year? -- would there be legalization first? would it be within one year? john mccain thought it would be irresponsible and he could not control the legislative calendar. barack obama committed to a time line. he committed over and over again. there are probably half a dozen interviews where he committed to doing it within the first year. guess what? just a couple of weeks ago, in the shroud of darkness, in the middle of summer in mexico city, he announced it is not going to happen in the first year. i cannot help but think what would have happened if john mccain had committed to a time line and won the election and had not committed to that. i think -- i hope immigration disappears completely as a wedge

issue. i hope immigration reform gets approved. but if it does not, will it become a wedge issue? will it make a comeback? will the wedge issue not be anti and pro, but whether you promise and did not deliver? it will be a good issue again for republicans is that were to be the case. we opened this discussion by asking republicans need to do if they want to win office. what do they need to do on immigration reform? the question is, with democrats in the white house, the senate, and the house, what do democrats need to do to hold on to the latino vote that put them in power? that is my ankle. [applause] -- that is my ankle. -- that is my angle.

>> what do you think? >> i think ana is right. democrats squander the opportunity with latino voters it will be a big mistake. i don't think latino voters in 2010 will embrace a party that wants to deport their loved ones. i don't think there'll be a big swing to the republican party. but in low turnout midterms in which the presidential party historically loses, turnout is going to matter a big deal. if democrats have not delivered on immigration reform, you could see that impact latino immigrant turnout in particular in a way that and have down dollar ramifications. i know democratic operatives are quite concerned about it. if obama does not move and get done and things may be 2011 is a better time to do it, i think our experience with george w.

bush, the laundry wait, the harder it gets. i -- the longer you wait, the harder it gets. i don't think they are going to come around in 2011 and said now was the time to get it done. if you imagine a 2012 presidential run in which barack obama's campaign promise is, this time i mean the promise, it's going to be hard to turn out the voters who turned out in 2008 to turn out again. it's a big problem and challenge for the democrats. i don't have any mistrust about obama's sincerity, but i wonder whether blue dogs and democrats will rise to the occasion because maybe the sense it does not play well in their district. -- but democrat that -- democrats have to realize the culture wars are receding. they were not hired to be

republican lights, but they want to have pragmatic solutions. i kept looking to see where are the closet nativists and races in this group. there are sometimes a couple, but they are pragmatists. they want solutions and that is why the polling at the pew center shows an increase in support for a pass to citizenship because people want this new gang to deliver. i think the democrats are going to have to embrace the with an argument and it should be about taxes. we're going to make sure people get legal, pay their fair share, and it's going to reduce the deficit. how was that for a centrist argument? you don't hear that yet. but if democrats made that argument that we would require people to get legal, to pay taxes, and raise billions of dollars for the coffers so everyone is paying their fair

share, i would love to hear that argument in these swing districts. we know it is controversy, but we're going to get done. that's the democratic party that has to emerge if they're going to take it vantage of the historic opportunity. >> let's assume they find their voice, but what is the republican response to that? it yet democrats leaning into it, making it sound case for raising taxes by requiring people to come forward and enforce the borders and have an employment verification system that works, how do republicans respond? given the recent vote on sonia sotomayor, how would they do that? >> republicans are waiting for this white house and congress to lead. if and when they leave, the best thing republicans can do is come up with an agreement and get rid of the issue once and for all. get off the table so we don't have this constant fight that we

have to be defending with latinos and we can go back to a ronald reagan believed. latinos are republicans, they just don't know what yet. [laughter] we could focus on all the other issues. if it cannot be done, it's going to be a hard case to blame on republicans when so much control rests in and the democrats. i know that the republican ads would be [speaking spanish] i think democrats need to leave -- at the democrats need to lead. if they don't, they're very vulnerable. i want to remind the democrats who are now holding hands with latino leaders that a couple of years ago, those latino and immigrant leaders were camped out at john mccain office. they know john mccain did not want to make them silent and

deport them. but they believed obama was a better sell for the immigration issue. if latinos are still swing voters, they can turn on a dime. they need to be courted and the need to be shown the meet, some liberals. those same leaders, those same activists camped out at john mccain's office and then did not support him could very well to the same to barack obama should they not feel he is the filling promises. it is a gauntlet and it's a very fine line they have to walk. >> what are your thoughts about reaching that ambivalent middle you talked about? >> i am persuaded about what he said about the last two campaigns and i do believe their arguments that have not been made that could be made in terms of everyone assuming their responsibility as a citizen

that have a broader appeal than other kinds of arguments. i agree with that. but in terms of the hispanic vote, bush got the hispanic vote for republicans up to between 40% and 44%. that was an enormous achievement. one of the interesting splits was between protestants and catholics. it's very important to look the evangelical and roads -- the evangelical in-roads where evangelical hispanics voted strongly republican. one of the things that happens as a republican, because we're so many of them were on immigration, they lost a lot of ground among evangelicals who are in many ways the natural allies of the republican party. the republicans don't need to carry the latino vote. if they can get around 45% nationwide, they can win a lot of states and elections, but

there are two problems. politically, as long as the republican party's loudest voices are identified as restrictions, the messages latinos get at the grassroots is that the republican party is hostile to them. what you saw -- what happened nationally is what happened in california when gov. pete wilson pushed referendum to limit benefits that went to emigrants. he won an election on that, but he pushed the latino vote in to the democratic column in california where they are to this day. the danger to republicans is what has happened over immigration to the last several years puts them in that same danger. i just want to give one plug to report that brookings and the annenberg center did on airport

and the media and immigration debate. there is a fantastic analysis of media coverage and i did a polling analysis trying on the -- that i am drawing on today. if you go back to the last battle in congress over immigration reform, it's not a matter of having gotten the courage, it is that immigration reform splits the very constituencies who are for it. one of the things we concluded is that opponents of a bill were united because it is very easy to get to no. he called it the triumph of no. supporters were not completely happy with their own bill. there were huge split between those who favor a large guest worker program and others who are more on the liberal side who

say guest workers undermine the rights of other americans and we need to move to citizenship. the very constituencies in favor of reform were ambivalent about the bill that were supporting. every concession made to the restriction is side undercut enthusiasm. does that sound familiar from the health-care fight? it undercut enthusiasm from the bill. this is a very hard political and legislative task. i'm sure frank us solve all problems and will tell us how, but we have to bear that in mind. it's not a matter of guts, it's a matter of -- it takes a lot of political and policy intelligence to put these things together. >>tell us how you solve the problem? >> i think i have led one of five progressive groups to work for the bill when there were

hundreds against it for various reasons. we are lucky that charles schumer is leading the way. if the background negotiations produced a bill that was just bad enough to anchor every major constituency, i think chuck schumer would be good enough to come up with a bill that is just good enough to keep everyone at the table. that's number one. i think you will play a big role. i think people are hobbled by the consequences of not getting to yes. i know advocates around the country that said let's hold out for something better, they realized what is happening on the ground is that the status quo -- it's an atmosphere where immigrants live under such siege and tremendous fear that there is a commitment to reform that i do not think we saw a couple of years ago. i have to say, it there is going to be a business-labor split. business says we want more workers and labor says too many workers will undermine american workers. but i hope we get to that debate

because then you have people on both sides to want reform figuring out whether there is a commission that can better manage all or part of the flow or do reforms. i can see a deal on that. the bigger concern is whether the forces of note are strong enough -- the forces of no. this is 2007 played. genet the grass roots, make it look like you're speaking for the majority, and integrate -- and intimidate democrats into backing off. then republicans who might make a deal say you have a primary challenger if you do. i get the playbook. this is the challenge. are democrats going to be susceptible to the southern strategy of old or to the new democratic majority going forward? the demographics suggest they should lean into this stuff, show a little heart and backbone and realize that in fact people want results.

that's what they really want. the idea that loud voices on the far right are going to intimidate people in the middle to me i find unbelievable. i think he added that message, but i think going forward, obama and the democrats, if they stood up and said we will lecture people are legal and employers are following the law and we will stop illegal immigration and do it in a way that is true to our ideals. if they lead with the megaphone that they have, they would find surprising support. i say this because we are then did the polling in districts you would never imagine what support immigration reform. if it is framed properly, a big if, i think democrats will find republicans will into work with them, will get solid bipartisan majorities and get it done by the spring of next year. >> taking the analysis yet done

and a plot -- and applying it to this debate, what is your sense? >> my analysis is about the long-term shift in the terrain, about what strategies should be pursued in congress is above my great. i am largely sympathetic to what frank is saying. the basis is there for moving forward on this issue. while there is an ambivalent middle, i think that ambivalent middle is very much interested in a pragmatic solution to this problem and it is framed right and pursued in a way that speaks to people's concerns and empathizes -- emphasizes pragmatic problem-solving abilities, it will be possible to make progress. for the republicans, is in their interests to take this issue off the table. the long-term demographic cents,

to continue to be on the short end of the stick with hispanics is a very bad idea and a lot of smart people in the republican party know this is true. it is hard for them to see getting off the short end of the stick without getting this issue off the table. they certainly do not want to be identified so closely with the forces now within their own party. they need to transcend that as much as possible. that is the basis for some sort of solution. it is in the political self issue -- the political self- interest of the republican party to move forward. that does not mean a lot of individual members of the republican party, particularly members in white districts with low hispanic populations, they will not see it as a problem. this is exactly where the forces of no will speak up very loudly. this kind of debate, if it falls apart, is identified