meeting with oregon senator jeff berkeley. later, the president of the federal reserve bank on financial regulations. saul alinsky defines what a rabble rouser is supposed to be. nicholas hoffman writes about his experiences in "radical." >> now, a discussion of this year's races for governor, hosted by the democratic governors association. speakers include former clinton administration officials. this is about an hour.

>> thank you for being here. we are going to talk about 1994 versus 2010 and how this election is going to unfold in the weeks ahead. we have a great panel today. starting from the right, a former deputy chief of staff to president clinton. a senior adviser to president clinton. former press secretary to president clinton. the executive director of the dga. they are arguably the best minds in democratic politics. they have seen in elections. they understand dynamics and tractors. they have been able to analyze how things are going to play out as well as anyone in the country. the way we are going to do this today is to start off with some

opening remarks. we will have a discussion. then we will open it to questions from the audience as well as the press. to paint the picture of where we are right now, it is fair to say this is a volatile election and a volatile electorate. we have seen this in the polls. we see this in the changing way the polls fluctuate. generic ballots go from up to an indelible one week to a tie in the other. there is discussion of whether this is a wave election like 1994. i would put it differently. this may be more of a whiplashed election. what i mean by that is arguably democrats let republicans frame the debate, to some extent. we have let the voters forget what republicans did. to some extent, maybe we did not sell our policies and the significance of them as well as we could have. even all of that being said,

when you look at the polling and you scratch to the surface of some of this data, a great amount of data came out this last week. what is fascinating is the argument this is not necessarily a wave election as some of those pundits would say. the stakes in this election are clearly very significant, especially women talk about governors. 37 governors. the issue of redistricting. the impact on 2012. it is all extremely profound. before we open the discussion, i want to highlight some of the key insights that i think people should on as we move ahead. as difficult and challenging as is -- election season is for democrats, what is also interesting is when you look at where the reality of the gop and the republican party is. the gop brand is broken. it is as unpopular today as it

was in 2006, when democrats picked up a significant seats. in poll after poll, the gop is still less popular than democrats. in the recent "wall street journal" poll, democrats were at 36, republicans were at 30. the gop is in the midst of a brutal civil war. we have seen this play out again and again in critical states. it has profound implications not only for governors' races, but for all of the national races. this has created significant targeted opportunities for democrats that the panelists -- needs and in particular -- natha n in particular -- will talk about. when you look at a recent cnn poll, the majority of the voters blamed bush and the republicans for the economic woes. even when there were asked, without bush or obama in the question, they still blame republicans more than democrats.

the one key thing that distinguishes this election that is the key dynamic to look toward is the whole notion of the enthusiasm gap. closing this gap over the next 60-plus days is the most critical thing for democrats to do. if we can do that, do that successfully, what you will see is a change of the dynamics of this election potentially dramatically. in stark contrast, i would say, to previous elections, you have the ability of democrats, particularly in the governors' races, to make a strong contrast between their vision as to how they will move the country forward as well as what the democrats -- sorry, the republicans, arguably a very extreme agenda and the implication that they have for their states. given that as the context, i will turn it over to the panelists. this will be a question for all -- i will start with harold.

to us your thoughts about a story line of 1994 versus -- give us your thoughts on the story line of 1994 versus 20103 how can democrats governor's mitigate what many are talking about as a wave election? >> first of all, it is a different year, by definition -- i will start with that fact. there are clearly parallels to 1994, and i think there are pretty serious the distinctions. it seems that the series distinctions are that we democrats were asleep at the switch in 1994. we were complacent, we or smog, and to put it bluntly -- we were smug, and to put it bluntly, we were again. that is not the case today. we have been on red alert for a long, long time.

no. 2 is that the republicans were identified in 1994. you mentioned this. they were unified in 1994. people forget the contract with -- some of us call it the contract on america. dee dee and i were talking about that. the white house was pretty smug about that. "no one is going to listen to that." newt gingrich, think of him what you may, and we have a lot of him -- he had atampa - lot of thoughts. the tea party has a downside for us and in terms of energizing the base that may not be as energized today. finally, the governors are democrats, but they are not of

washington, and they are continually making that case. they provide services and are balancing tough budgets and are making tough decisions people in -- and are making tough decisions. people in states don't necessarily associate them with the washington agenda. before shiftingt to cover, that we have a two central points. one is independents. we have to have enough to carry these statistics. -- to cover these districts. two, we have to carry our base. our base is unhappy, pissed off, rightfully so. politics is a long time, top business. it is fine when the tides are running with you. but you have got to be there when the tides are running

against you read my exhortation to democrats is that the tides may be running against us, but you of got to get out there and work. there are 60 guys -- 65 days left and you have got to go out and make it happen. >> i may be the only person in the white house who cursed more than half a world. -- than harold. it is interesting that you have covered -- gathered three of the architects of the greatest democratic debacle in history. [laughter] that is really lovely. my advice to democrats in 2010 is three words -- build an ark. it is not a wave election, it is a tsunami election. now, you can survive, if you have something to carry you through it. let me pick up the last point

howell ma -- harold made. the anti-washington, not anti- democrat. the republican brand move up, for the reason harold stated. newt gingrich had a coherent vision for his party. as the democratic brand has declined, the republican brand declined more. anderson cooper interviewed as the head of the tea party express, and she said, "we are angrier with republicans than with democrats." this looks like a wave election and are things -- there are things the democrats can do to .itigate that t in state elections, it is not a wave election.

it is an anti-washington election. we lost 10 governors' seats in 1994. i don't think that is going to happen this time around. there are two big things going on at the same time, and this is what is excited about this year. number one is that sometimes you have a wave election, and all you ought to do is paddle a canoe. but the other rule is that candidates and campaigns matter. they are sort of at war here. the wave is going to republicans, but the candidates and campaigns are favoring democrats. democrats are better prepared and they have better candidates this time around, they have more money in many cases, and they are going into a map that is pretty favorable for them. there is a pretty strong chance that democrats, for example, hold the governorship in new york, the third-largest state. there is a really good chance the democrats can pick up the governor's seat in florida,

california, and even my beloved texas, not to mention georgia. there is a whole lot of people that live in those five states. it's a tossup in illinois, to hold the governorship. that is a big deal. if we can do that, that tells you is not a wave. in texas, where i grew up, if that is a tossup -- texas is south carolina on steroids, politically. if that is a tossup, it is not a way or the republicans. bill white, democratic candidate, former mayor of houston, popular, successful mayor, taking not rick perry, who has been governor along with -- taken on rick perry, who has been governor longer than any governor in texas history, and they are tired of them. bill white as the perfect response, that he is the anti- perry.

he will spend 99% less time fixing his hair. [laughter] perry is just out of step with the times. when sarah palin resigned as governor as first- c-span.org -- governor of her state, rick perry became the dumbest and prettiest governor in america. we have a chance of picking up a big, big states. >> i always hate when i agree with begala. it makes me feel like a loser. [laughter] i like to think of him as the biggest loser. which he is. he primarily, harold and i can testify, was responsible for 1994. [laughter]

my memory of election day 1994 was that i was the last dope standing in the white house driveway. everybody else was going home. the only thing i could think of it to say was, "in kansas, kathleen sebelius was just elected insurance commissioner, and that is a really red state." that is how bad things were. i agree with what harold and part of what paul said. one of the differentiating factor is that in 1994, democrats were in charge for 40 years. republicans could climb to do things and away, and there was no evidence to suggest that their programs were not going to work, that they cannot do it, that their contract with america was not the contract on america. it was easy for the republican

party to pay themselves as a different kind of animal. there was unity. there was much more unity in the republican party. the contract was very specific, not the broad platitudes we are going to hear from john boehner next week. it was specific pieces of legislation. the party was so unified at that all but two republican members of congress signed onto it. we still completely ignored it and thought it was not going to go anywhere. there was another element, another kind of unifying thing -- we all ran against ross perot in the 1992 campaign, and thought he was ridiculous. but remember how much traction he got on the idea of balancing the budget. the thing on independent voters and moderates, it seems like a common-sense thing to do. there was one of the themes of the 1994 election, at the republican call to balance the

budget. then the controlled congress for years and what did we get? a doubling of the federal deficit, and never proposed a balanced budget. we have seen what republican leadership looks like. it is a huge difference. that is one of the reasons we have seen the republican brand diminish. it is impossible for them to argue -- they are trying to run as the fiscal sanity party, which the facts completely undermined their argument. the national context is much different than it was in 1994. also, the press has been talking about this nonstop for months. there was not as the conversation about, oh, my god, how many seats the democrats going to lose when the republicans take over? it was a very different in armond -- very different environment. people are attuned to the fact

that democrats could lose the congress. the country does not want it to every office to the republicans. they just don't want that. and the states are different. it is an anti-incumbency wave, i totally agree with that. hawaii is that the same as florida and california's -- not is not the same as florida and california is not the same as colubrid i'm from california -- not the same as colorado. i'm from california, and california is a tossup. midwood spent $20 million over the summer -- against -- meg whitman spent $20 million over the summer against jerry brown, who did not spend a dime, and it is still possible. although schwarzenegger had almost two complete terms and he cannot get along with the legislature.

the republican legislature is nuts. they do not want to work with the governor was not a right winger. she cannot run as a bright winter. jerry brown was -- she cannot run as a right winger. jerry brown was first governor in the 1970's. people cannot believe that the republicans provide a panacea. they are angry, but they want solutions, particularly at the state level. they want practical and common sense leadership. i think that is why there are opportunities out there for democrats and it is not going to be awake in governor's races. -- a wave in governor's races. >> let me address what is on everyone's minds right now.

carville couldn't make it. [laughter] that is why i am here. this year they are making bold predictions. 38 is what they think it will have at the end of november. not going to happen, and i will tell you why. the difference between the republican party now and the republican party of 1994 -- this party is ruled by division and cynicism and extremism. number one, this party is that the wounded -- party is badly wounded. the republican party grant is as low as the democrat party ran. there is no clamoring for a return to republican leadership. the polls show the spread their message is one of the cynicism. -- the polls show this. the message is one of cynicism. every time the president unveils sunday to help the country, the republicans yell no.

that is not what voters want to hear. two, you have the gop civil war, and that is our real phenomenon. when people talk about the enthusiasm gap, that is what people talk about. there's a lot of noise on the right, but that is not in these as some other republican spread that is a battle between a -- the right -- is not enthusiasm for the republicans, it is a battle between the right and the far right. there are only two candidates running this year -- there are the tea party candidates, rick scott and florida, bill brady in illinois, and then you have the candidates scarred by the tea party, like meg whitman in california, who had to go so far to the right to win the nomination that she is mounted in the general. .- wounded in the general t

dga is playing offense. there are seats that we think we can pick up. this the electorate is not a pro-republican electorate and i think we have it at points to prove it. we will pick up not only a geographically diverse number of states, but some of the big states. that will say a lot about where the country is. it will give democrats something to brag about on election night. >> you have a republican party that is divided. you have our republican party brand that is less popular or unpopular today as it was in 2006. you have our republican party that is blamed for the economic well -- you have a republican party that is blamed for the economic woes the country faces more so than obama and the democrats. i will ask paul first, how are

we losing to these guys? >> it sucks to be the party in power with 9.6% unemployment. people say the democrats have communication problems. no, they have a reality problem. the economy sucks. at the citadel, the states are broke. -- at the state level, the states are brooke road again to this dichotomy between a -- washington and -- the state are broke. i get to this economy -- again to this dichotomy between washington and the states. the people angry about the deficit in washington, for which blamed thengly

president, are also angry about state deficits, and it is republicans who screwed that up. yet i understand why there is a way of going on out there. you cannot walk into an economy this bad and expect people will throw laurels at you. >> i will give another question, to dee dee. what is the message here for governors, a gubernatorial candidates, to penetrate what we understand is it tough economic but in these, states, which you already mentioned, democratic candidates are competitive or a head. state after state. what is the message to focus on to win over the moderates and independents who are not going

to the republican brand but are still concerned? >> to use the old adage of politics, all politics is local. the candidates that doing well are proposing real solutions. it is important to keep the focus on how many of these problems were created by republican policies. but as bill clinton would say ad nauseam, all elections are about the future. we have to maintain some focus on how we got into this situation and how republican policies were largely responsible, but also to focus on the future. one of the specific challenges -- what are the specific challenges states? even in this environment, optimism is important. every election, with the possible as caption -- with the possible exception of richard nixon in 1968 and 1972, the optimistic candidate always

wins. optimism is born from confronting reality and having a plan to move forward. it cannot make it all about how bad the other guy is. it is about the future. >> i will shift a little bit in terms of a focus. when you talk about governor's races, 37 governors' races. the state in particular in this election are profound for one factor, intending redistricting, and the impact that will have on the country ahead. to harold, if you could talk about that, at the media in particular focus is on the federal and the national dynamics. this story, which is critical, if not more significant for the years ahead, really has not gotten the attention it deserves. could you talk about that what the stakes and implications are? >> i agree with you, and more

importantly, ed gillespie, haley barbour, and karl rove i agree with you. they understand as a general national republicans have a much more profound understanding of the importance of governorships that democrats do. you see the national republican leadership put their weight behind raising money and seek to increase numbers from their current 24 up to 30, and some republican leadership have talked about 38 governors'. we ought to hold them to the highest standard, for two reasons. one, they want to control state houses. two, they understand that this year is not unique, but close to unique in the context of reapportionment and redistricting. they have their eyes to refocus

on redistricting. it is a simple message -- they have their eyes and very focused on redistricting. it is a simple message, and when i talk to people about the pocketbook, they get it, but they don't think about it. rove and company have only to look to 2000. i would give you three examples. pennsylvania -- virtually every state has the legal right to engage in redistricting, and most of them will engage in redistricting, and that deals with the house of representatives. if people are interested in the future of the house of representatives, they have to worry about redistricting, as well as local offices. in 2002, pennsylvania loss registered because -- lost a district because they lost population they ended up netting

four republican seats for the 2002 election. florida got two congressional districts through reapportionment. a republican governor, republican legislature. they ended up, after all redistricting, netting four republican seats. two seats alone nett -- two states alone netted four republican seats. haley barbour and a sense that even if the democrats -- understand that even if the democrats hold seats this year, they are confident that if can take the house i.

texas netted six republican seats. now, they had time to lay down their -- they had tom delay down there. that is the reality, and it had very profound implications. think back to california. california in 1980 went through redistricting. they worked that system r, and they locked down california bid -- subtly as -- they or to that system hard, and they walked down california as a democratic state for decades. redistricting has a very profound short-term and long- term implications for democrats, and also has an impact on the 2000 count -- on the 2012 presidential race. we want to win them, but it has

profound collateral side effects, if you will. >> and building on the points harold said, in terms of the stakes of these governors races, dga is engaged in these races in a number of ways, and had come up with competitors on the republican side to -- hand-to- hand combat with competitors on , ledepublican side,, rga by haley barbour, who is very good at raising money. talk about the strategy for dga. what is the strategy for the next 60 days, what is the focus, and had you not just expand the field, but in states where is going to be a tough race? >> well, it is a great question. it's almost like we planned it that way. just yesterday, dga unveiled a

strategy for the fall, project extreme gop takeover. -- makeover. we can only play in states where we can make a difference. we will invest in states where we think we can affect the outcome and conserve our resources and use them wisely and strategically. number two, keep a local. governors are here to create jobs and invest in schools and deliver health care and services efficiently. they don't go in d.c. and a vote on federal issues. republicans will try to trap them into getting involved on federal issues, and it is a trap. governors deal with local issues. no. 3 is a rallying the base. paul mentioned it earlier, at this is something we can do and we have to do. just last week we raised $1

million from on-line supporters the parent company of fox news's contribution to the republican governors association. our supporters came out in a show of defiance raised $1 million for dga. it is that type of rally of the base that we have got to do -- rallying of the base that we of got to do. and we have to shine the light on the republican spread the types of candidates they are putting up the -- this year are -- we have to shine the light on republicans. the types of candidates they are putting up this year are not fit to lead. when you think of the maine republican -- maine republican party adopted it tea party platform as its own. he wants to teach creationism in schools, and he wants to throw out the bill that prevents the

employment discrimination ordinance. he sarah palin --picked candidate in minnesota thinks it the economy is faltering because waiters and waitresses are making too much money. he wants to strip away the minimum wage. he has appeared with the donated money to a christian group that has advocated -- appeared with and donated money to a christian group that has advocated the execution of homosexuals. in illinois, a candidate advocates the mass gassing of animals, which i still don't understand. and rick scott, the single largest medicare fraud in history. he pleaded the fifth at 75

times, including "are you currently the ceo of columbia healthcare?" he pleaded the fifth on that. the real issue is what kind of governor he would be. the type of person with that distain for government should not be governor of importance to it like -- should not be governor of an important state like florida. if we focus on its core elements, we will do well in november. >> for those who would like to ask questions, please come up to the mike, and after a few questions from the audience, we will take questions from the press, if there are any. second last question. in particular to harold, paul, and dee dee, who were in the white house, what is the role of the white house in governor's races, making sure

we win the critical governor's races? when you were there, the advice you have to the white house, changes, if any, to their focus? i will start with harold. >> i assume he would start with paul. [laughter] they can raise money. money will be very tight. i don't know what you doing on any of this, but when i was at the white house, it is something that we focused on. two, i think the white house has a very strong message to kerri, a positive and either negative, -- strong message to carry, positive or either negative. shining a light and republicans. they have no message. they have the message of no on everything. it started with the first stimulus bill. i know we don't like to use the

word stimulus and more as democrats. but there was high hopes that it would be but partisanship, and there should have been. the country and the world was on the brink of a massive depression, brought about by the princes of wall street and the republican policies. it was not one republican vote in the house of representatives, not one, and only three in the united states senate. it seems to me that from that point forward, it has been no, no, no, one or message. i think it is turned off independent -- once core core message. i think it is turning off independents. the president has the biggest megaphone in town, and he is starting to use it.

there is a big message there, if they can control, what will happen -- gain control, what will happen. >> i think harold is right. he can raise money, but that is about it. it is not like the government will swoop in and have a solution to the school testing issue in alabama. you're just not geared that way, nor should we be, to have the president come in and fix issues. in the broader climate, he can help set the table. the speech yesterday in cleveland was outstanding. he went to cleveland, took on boehner by name, used the words "middle-class" 11 times. i love that. if there's anything that defines the democratic party, it is the middle-class.

we are the party of the middle class -- we are the party of the american dream. the republicans are not the party of no. i don't like it when democrats say that. it is just narcissism. it is not that they are against good ideas, it is that they are for ideas that would the country in the second term. we should put this on file. we should say that they are for privatizing social security, eliminating unemployment benefits. these people are crazy. they want to force their particular views on to our children on science. they don't believe in evolution or gravity are for the synthesis -- gravity or photosynthesis. [laughter]

they have really extreme views. i think the media patronizes particularly tea party republicans. they don't vote, the parties on the upper west side -- they don't go to parties on the upper west side. i don't think we should demonize them, and we should not patronize them. how many jobs would be treated by the present meant it -- how many jobs would be created by privatizing social security? i know that people are upset right now, but they have no idea right now what republicans stand for, and that is on the part -- that is in part republicans' fault, but it is also democrats' fault. if you ask these candidates,

they think that social security benefits are on constitutional -- unconstitutional. they think they violate the constitution. the senate candidate in nevada since they are violative of the first commandment. "thou shalt have no other gods but me" -- social security violates that? every democratic candidate should read that, because it is great. >> how can i add anything to was just said? [laughter] there is not much that the president can do.

and the issues there are specific to the states and we do not want to federalize all the elections. the president can, exactly as paul said, set the table on who these folks are and create an atmosphere where we are more aggressively questioning what the other side is proposing and what they will do if elected. >> i will say this -- i agree with everything everyone has said. there is no question that this white house wants to do everything it can to win these governors races, and they understand the importance of everything the white house is trying to publish and the countries long-term prospects -- everything the white house is trying to accomplish and the country's long-term prospects. having said that, you cannot nationalize these races. when they try to nationalize the

races, you should know it is because they cannot talk about local issues. everything the government is supposed to do, about economic development and all the things that republicans claim to be better at, they are worse at the federal level. when it comes to the employment rate, republicans, who brag about that, five of the states with the worst of a planned rights have republican governors. -- with the worst unemployment rates have republican governors. of the 10 worst economies, eight have republican governors. everything comes at a cost of an opportunity. this, i think, basically for fits their opportunity to talk about what voters really care about, which is jobs in the

economy. >> last question is really short. it is election night, the states to watch that you are going to be focused on a in terms of how the light turns out -- how the light turns out with respect to governors, good or bad. >> i think it comes down to the arkansas governor's race. [laughter] if we win that one, lights out for republicans. there are three reasons that 2010 is so important. the impact on the 2012 elections, and of course, redistricting. the state that captures that better than any is florida. you have a clear contrast between candidates at the state level. it is important to the presidential race and 2012. and it is going to undergo redistricting. and it is a state where the governor is central to the process. florida is not only a bellwether

for the country is, but it will have a greater impact than any other state in the next 10 years. >> california, new york, florida, texas. if we win most or all of those, there will be more americans living under a democratic governors and then there are today. -- than there are today. >> texas is the most important state and always has been . georgia. i want to thank the republican voters of georgia for nominating a corrupt washington congressman add a time when corrupt washington congressman are as popular as venereal disease. [laughter] just watch this -- how can we be

this lucky? the republicans have put out a corrupt washington congressman in georgia, a pretty republican state these days. you might have a real chance of seeing a democrat sworn in as governor of georgia in what looks to be a pretty republican year. >> i don't have anything that. i don't have-- - anything that. -- to add. differents a very year. but sometimes happens is that we sisimplistically compare on election to a previous year's election. the notion of the d.c. as a gap -- of the enthusiasm gap is a critical element. it is a negative for democrats, but also a positive for

democrats. voters are still winnable. this is not an election where people have moved lock, stock and barrel to republicans and it is done. i spent time last night, because i have nothing to do -- nothing better to do with my life, looking at exit polls for 2006. if it is true for 2006, it is more true now. the key thing for democrats, particularly at governors' races, but beyond, is to make the stark contrast, make a clear case, as to how they will lead the state for, and make clear the contrast between them and republicans. if that happens effectively, you will see a very different story line, in particular with governors' races. on that note, i will open it up to questions from the audience.

who would like to ask a question first? would you mind coming up? we have a mike right there, actually. >> "daily caller." i have a question for dee dee -- you talk about optimism. what reason do you see for optimism? you guys have been somewhat optimistic about some things from a political perspective, but from a borders perspective, how do you go out and talk but -- from a voter's perspective, how do you go out and talk about optimism? who would like to see when a nomination on the republican side? >> it is critical. you cannot go up there and just say, "we are in such deep doo doo and it is all over."

i don't think that works as a campaign message. you have to talk about the future and what we can do collectively to build a better future -- investing in education and a green economy, whatever the issues are of the particular candidate. and why that translates into a brighter future. if you cannot sell a message that tomorrow is going to be better than today, if you cannot get people to believe that and get people to vote hopes instead of fears, democratic governors are not going to win. as for who i would like to run against t, i think it would be so fun to run against sarah palin. ?blast't that be a she is not really a politician, she is a performer. >> there is no one who faced darker times than franklin roosevelt. you think we have dark times

now? it was tougher then. it was his optimism that partly carried the day. ronald reagan was known for his optimism in the face of a pretty rotten economy. >> 1992 was a pretty grim time and he was able to win by being optimistic. >> it seems to me structurally that one of the biggest differences between running a campaign in 2010 compared to 1994 is the use of early voting. i'm wondering, particularly for nathan and harold, how does the enthusiasm gap played out in that? is it harder to get the ground game going in those circumstances? will that have more of an impact on democrats?

>> you are right, the early voting is going to have a big impact. i am dubious of the whole notion of the nbc hasn't gap, because a -- i thinkof -- of the enthusiasm gap, because it is more of a noise that. tea party members are more upset with republicans that they are with the democratic party. the notion that there is some sort of overwhelming enthusiasm for the republican party, i don't think it is there. they are electing people who just don't have infrastructures for his general election campaigns. in florida, i think we are going to out-organize

republicans. i think this will come out to our advantage. >> i do think that the early voting poses some problems, but people not as enthusiastic about voting -- i am not sure how that is going to affect the early vote. it seems that the increase is in doubt i am concerned about is the -- that the enthusiasm gap i am concerned about is the turnout factor. there are 65 days left and the atmosphere can shift on this. people who may not vote early -- they still have a shot at voting before the polls close. >> susan page, "usa today."

you say that presidents don't have that much to do with governor's elections, but when you think about congressional elections, what role did attitudes towards president and couldn't play in the 1994 election, compared to -- attitudes towards president clinton played in the 1994 election, compared to attitudes towards president obama this year? >> in 1994, the reasons were very different. the president failed with the democrats on health care, this president succeeded. did different things with the gun control, kay writes, -- gay rights, raise taxes, we put a chicken on the podium at the white house. but for the house races, this

the biggest distinction. in 1994, do you know how many house republicans lost? zero. i think they were kind of targeting democrats that year, the voters. that is not going to happen. the anger is more diffuse, less partisan. it is ideological, but less partisan. what the president can do is the stuff he did yesterday, not just fire up the bay's, but framed the election and the choice. the republicans are much more extreme today. it is really extraordinary. the party of ronald reagan was more extreme than the party of richard nixon, and a party of newt gingrich was more extreme than the party of ronald, and the party of, who, palin?

way more extreme than the party of bush. republicans took power in 1995 and they tried to cut medicare peoplan people freak out. they elected bill clinton. this is a way more conservative republican party. this president needs to use the agenda they have stated and make it the issue that the election is contested on, rather than his accomplishments. that is why yesterday's speech was so important. it was a pivot point away from give me a gold star for my accomplishments, and to >> [inaudible]

>> bill clinton was elected with 43%. he started from a position where there was a lot of skepticism toward him. as paul pointed out, we did a lot of really popular things, beginning with proposing letting gays serve openly in the military, which went really well. the biggest factors -- we were coming out of a recession. there was a sense of economic undies, although less so. the president's first budget, which raised taxes, it also cut spending and set the table for the next eight years of economic growth. people were angry and the republicans had a big, fat easy target. that and the failure of health care. president obama -- 9.6% unemployment, a huge spending to get out of what was almost the second great depression, it has

cost him. they could have done a better job -- it's easy to sit here and say this -- of framing the health care debate. i think that has become a big target for republicans. between health-care, stimulus spending, much of which happened under the bush administration but obama is being blamed for, it's a tough environment. it is not as personal as it was with president clinton. his personal approval numbers were lower and people were not satisfied with him. with obama, people still like him, they're just not sure about his policies. >> next question over here. >> haley barbour was in town, talking about how these are going to turn the republicans out. is that a concern for you?

do you have any candidates that will drive democratic turnout in some of these states? could you talk what haoles governor races are going to tie into some of the senate and house races that are happening? >> did he actually say bill brady is going to turn people out in illinois? 60% of people don't know who he is. we already talked about calif. -- meg whitman has spent 200 times what jerry brown has spent to date -- to hundred to one. and the polls have a neck and neck. i find that hard to believe meg whitman will be able to generate swell for a candidacy that she has not been able to generate with the first $120 million. in a number of our states, we're going to generate a great deal of enthusiasm. one is the strength of our

candidates and to is the republicans they are putting out. when we shine a light on them and talk about the stakes of this election, we will not only do what president obama shows we can do the war -- for shows the world will weaken do, but we can persuade independence. >> you have heard speculation about a potential government shutdown. dick morris proposes to conservative republicans at a recent conference. i wonder if you could speculate on that. i'm sure you think democrats will retain control, but should democrats talking about this more on the stump as a potential? >> i would not talk about it on the stump because it is an abstraction. i would talk about the specifics -- social security, medicare, all those things they want to abolish. but should it come, to "the

previous president, "beyond." independents particularly our the theoretical conservatives -- there against government spending, but there for teachers, more cops, for fire fighters, for social security -- would against to a specific, they like it. people are not running around holding up signs saying canceled veterans benefits. they're not saying unemployment benefits should stop. they're just saying as a general matter, i'm against spending. so republicans win when they say spending is bad. but when the democrat stands up and says what he means is abolish social security, abolish medicare, and veterans' benefits -- people say i don't mean that. the democrats just said another $26 million -- $26 billion to

the states to keep cops and firefighters on the job. nobody in colorado is saying i wish we had fewer firefighters in boulder. nobody is saying i wish my seventh grader was sitting in a class with 50 kids with headlights be as weak -- 50 kids with head lice because we should have fewer teachers. we should make it operational, not theoretical. >> thank you for coming. thank you to the panelists. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

>> in a few moments, texas senator kay bailey hutchison on border security. then, a town hall meeting with senator merkle y. later, we will reach their the democratic governors' association discussion on this year's race for governor. several live events to tell you about tomorrow morning. the u.s. naval institute host senator jim webb, a former navy secretary. that is on c-span to a 9:00 a.m.

eastern. here on c-span, a report on the evolving terrorist threat, including homegrown and networks. that is at 10:00 a.m. eastern. right after that at 11:00, live coverage of president obama as a news conference on his new economic proposals. >> the bottom line is that we need our borders secure and we cannot afford all of the illegal immigration. >> it has hurt us. it has hurt arizona's economy seriously. >> with the midterm election only a little over a month away, follow the debates online. it is easy to follow the candidates online, all free on your computer. >> now part of our coverage of a recent policy conference at new mexico state university.

speakers included texas senator kay bailey hutchinson talking about border security. this event is hosted by a co- chairman of the debt reduction task force. this is about 40 minutes. >> thank you very much. [applause] thank you, dr. barbara. i am so pleased to be here, and i think you are doing a great job as the president of this wonderful university. i have to say, when i came on this campus i saw the marin colors -- maroon colors, and i saw these great agricultural traditions that i am very used to, and i thought, did we take a wrong turn? [laughter] i will say the spirit you do not get to play the university of texas -- i will say this.

you do not get to play the university of texas. i want to say a word about why i am here. i love the opportunity to travel to universities, but i am here because pete domenici is an icon. [applause] no one fought harder or made sure that new mexico was in the game and taking care of them pete domenici. he was more than that. he was the person everyone looked to when there was an economic issue, a finance issue. he was a renowned chairman of

the budget committee. he was the one at that led to a balanced budget and to have a fiscal responsibility. so, when he called, and with all of the things we work on together, i would never be able to say no to people amenity. you are very lucky to have hit domeneci.e ameni you're very lucky to have him associated with this university. i also want to mention sam nunn. pete and sam worked on so many budget and national defense issues. sam as you will find out in another great introduction, i am sure, was the chairman of the armed services committee when i came on the committee. it was a joy to work with sam nunn, because when i came into the senate, we worked together

for the good of america. we did not look at party lines, we looked at what was right for america, and he is a great leader in national defense, and i am very pleased that you are here, sam. [applause] well, let me start by saying that pete asked me to talk about border issues and border security, and of course, as the mexico and texas, arizona and california know, we share thousands of miles of border. we share one belsen 400 miles between texas and new mexico -- 1,400 miles between texas and new mexico, and there are vast, wonderful opportunities because of this border. we have had economic and trade advantages that have been great for our country and our state as well as mexico.

our culture has been enriched by the mexican culture, where our histories are so intertwined. as barbara mentioned, my great grandfather signed the declaration of independence because texas was part of new mexico at one time. our history is intertwined. as we know, today we are facing many, many issues, the likes of which we would never have imagined. the drugs and arms trafficking, the human smuggling, the violence that we are now seeing on the other side of our borders is becoming an issue in the united states as well. there is no doubt that we must realize with the growing violence in mexico that there is a u.s. security threat now, not only on our borders, but

throughout america as well as mexico. just 50 miles from here, on i- 10, tel pass the residents are seeing firsthand the crossover affects -- el paso effects are seeing present the crossover affects of drug violence from mexico. stray bullets recently hit the city hall. the university was hit by stray bullets. we should be alarmed at this escalation. until now, communities on the american side of the border did not have a lot to fear because the spillover was not that great. but as far back as a year and a half or two years ago, i started getting concerns raised by my border residents about the rising number of kidnappings that have happened on the border that made them very concerned about going across, as we used

to do very easily. i am sure many of you have had the same experience of crossing over, crossing back, going to dinner, going to shop, going back, having mexican residents come across our border. there was an east at our border, but the violence has changed -- there was an ease at our border, but the violence has changed all of that. it has become one of the world's most dangerous places. president felipe calderón launched an aggressive war against organized crime in continuet the cartel's to operate with impunity. since 2006, the drug-related violence in mexico has resulted in 28,000 deaths.

28,000 in a board years -- in four years. so far this year, there have been at 3000 killings, including that of an american embassy worker and his family just across the border. last week's massacre, just miles away from brownsville, discovered that 72 people who were thought to have been brutally murdered by cartels running human smuggling operations were found. here is the "dallas morning news" today. "slaughter in mexico. a new low in gang wars." i will read you an excerpt.

"the terrorists have descended into an entirely new realm of inhumanity. migrants, in this case 72, lined up and assassinated in cold blood. migrants' pay up to $3,000 each to be smuggled into the united states, as some apparently too great to escape the notice of gangland criminals who want a cut of whatever action is heading north. in the lucrative people smuggling business, apparently a new price of passage must be paid." the editorial also quotes robert bonner, the former border commissioner and the leader of the drug enforcement

association, in which she argues that we can gain the upper hand in the same way columbia did, provided mexico and the united states are willing to take some difficult steps. he goes on to say that the difficult steps are that we, along with mexico, are going to have to target list, put up money, be willing for mexico to extradite criminals to the united states when that is warranted for trial, so that the drug kingpins know that they will face a court in the united states instead of just languishing in jail in mexico. he says that is what is missing right now. that is part of it. so, we are going to have to take this very seriously. according to a report released last year by the u.s. justice department, a mexican drug traffickers now represent the greatest organized crime -- the

greatest organized threat to the united states. texas, southern texas and new mexico represent three of the largest crime centers in our country. the others are arizona and california. we must accomplish a balanced strategy that includes more and well trained border patrol forces, and many of those great border patrol forces are being drained right here in new mexico. you have a wonderful facility -- being trained right here in new mexico. wonderful facility,

and training is key. adequate resources and technological advances to keep one step ahead. i have worked with my colleagues to strengthen our border patrol forces. we must make sure that we have the manpower to do this job. we also are doing other things. project gun runner is one that i strongly support and for which we have got to an appropriations, almost $100 million, in the last three years. that is to keep the sophisticated weaponry out of the hands of drug cartels, because what is happening is, the illegal weapons and firearms are being smuggled across the border from the united states illegally into mexico, and of course, into the hands of the drug cartels.

the sophistication of the weaponry of these drug cartels cannot be underestimated. so project gun runner is focusing on that, stopping the guns from flowing into mexico and into the drug cartels. senator bingham has been my partner on that for the last three years. because of the surge in violence, an emergency supplemental appropriations, doing much of what the former head of the dea suggested, was passed by congress and signed by the president. it's a $600 million investment. it will create specialized strike forces that will be deployed to the different parts of the border, designed to have the flexibility to focus on the areas with the greatest need for additional support. what has happened in the illegal drug trafficking is that when you close down one area, another

one pops up. they have the ability to go into a new area and create undue system -- create a new system to get drugs in. this task force should be able to go where the help is needed, because generally they choose areas that do not have very many people and are not guarded very well and have easy access over the rio grande river. we have to be ever vigilant end a whole lot smarter about where we strike. the bill also allows federal border enforcement agencies and state and local officials to have better communications assistance. when i talked to local policemen or state troopers, they will say, we do not have information. certainly, as a force multiplier with our border patrol agent,

today we have six ua these -- uav's operating on our borders. however, only three are on our southern border. the rest are on the northern border with canada. we are asking for supplemental appropriations to be able to so that wemore uav's, would have 24 hour surveillance all along our southern border, from california all the way over to the edge of texas and mexico. if we can have that 24-hour surveillance, it will help our border enforcement agent. it will help our border patrol to know where the hot spot is. it will be great for intelligence gathering. we are on the cusp, and i want to say that the faa administrator and the border patrol personnel are cooperating

now to understand this urgency end to get the pilots trained to perate the uav's. i am very hopeful that we have gotten their attention and that we will be able to use these drones. this is the technology that is a tenuous, and i think it will give us the best chance -- that is the newest, and i think it will give us the best chance for border control. i was very concerned originally about using the national guard, but as a violent end the epidemic proportions of this violence caused me -- this of violence and to the epidemic proportions of this of violence have cost me to change my mind. i have always tried to keep the

military separate from border issues, which are different, but now we need the reinforcements. as long as the national guard can back up the border patrol s, then i think it is warranted because of this emergency. today, texas has asked for 1000 troops. arizona has asked for 3000. in april, governor richards and of your state also said additional national guard support to new mexico's border. this is something that i think everyone is now in agreement that it can be a good backup, and in this time while we are adding the arbitral agent and training them -- adding border patrol agents and training them, we need to have all hands on tech -- on deck. i was talking to border patrol

and national park service people just a couple of weeks ago about how they were handling of the big bend and the rio grande river issues with the border, and they are in an unprecedented area now of cooperation between our park service's agents and our border patrol agents. our park service has not focused on security as much as they are now, but they are now, and i think it is a very healthy relationship. i am very encouraged by that cooperation, and the feeling that we are all in this together, and that it is in all of our interest to keep our parks safe, our constituents states, and to make sure that we are sharing information. in closing, i just want to say that i believe border security is national security. it needs of the focus that we have not had because really,

there has not been the violence and the associated violence and the human trafficking, but 28 fouls and the brutal murders in mexico is a cause for alarm -- 28,000 brutal murders in mexico is a cause for alarm. i know that you get reports about the brutality of these attacks and we just have to proactive.d thbe president reagan once said, "a nation without borders is not a nation." we have to now recognize that this is a looming issue for our country. id is burdening our courts, our legal system, as well as the safety of our constituents. i appreciate being asked to be here.

i again want to pay tribute to the service of pete domenici, the great love he has courtney mexico, and the service he has -- the great love he has for new mexico, and the service he has done for this country. in the annals of the history of new mexico, he will be at the top. thank you very much. [applause] i will be happy to take questions. i do not know what your timetable is. >> we are going to have student asked questions.

>> ok, super. >> check. hello. i would like to start by saying thank you for being here today. we appreciate your attendance and your participation in this conference. you talked about being a strong proponent of allocating more federal funds to increase the technology and personnel on the border for border security. could you explain how to elected officials and law enforcement assess the effectiveness of increased security? in other words, how do we assess that this is having an impact? >> that is a very good question. we tried different things, some mart successful than others. -- some more successful than others. i believe that well-trained border patrol are our very best asset. there are some technologies that have been tried that have not

worked very well. you have to have forced multipliers. give us a you to step up in intelligence, but also the infrared system -- give us a huge step up in the intelligence, but also the infrared system will give us access to things at night that we normally would not see. if we have systems to go inland, or say every 30 miles for different stops, then we can use the intelligence transfer at the next border stopped to use that information and apprehend. as a matter of fact, no one of

the -- as a matter of fact, a nigerian terrorist was looking for a base in west texas. he was caught, not at the border, but because the border agents noticed that there was something strange about this person. the border agent notified the next stop, and the border patrol and by the time the vehicle that had been reported came through, that person was arrested, tried, and is in prison today for actually being in al-qaeda at credit -- al- qaeda operative. these are the things we try to learn and to do. i believe that people, meaning border patrol, are our best asset. but your question is, how do we know? you just have trial and error.

i think we are doing a lot better in border patrol since we have increased the number. we have increased the number of border patrol from in the 3700 range when i first came into the senate to about 17,000. you know, we have a northern border. that is partly the northern border, and also some of the inland offices of border patrol. we have airports that have border and customs agents as well. we have done a lot. we are doing better, but we are not nearly where we have to be, particularly with the violence coming across now from the south. >> so are you have focused on -- so far you have a focused on the border between u.s. and mexico,

but a great deal of the border is coastlines. what steps have you taken to make sure that the security at the port is commensurate with the security at the border with mexico? >> that is an excellent question. it is an area that is being addressed, but it is later, much later in the enforcement system. i think that after 9/11, the coast guard became a much more operative organization in patrolling and watching our water borders, and they have done a great job for, like the oil spill that we have just seen out of louisiana in the gulf, and i think that today are really stepping up to the plate

and doing more in the security area as well. but, we have deployed more -- i say we. the administration and the previous administration has deployed more into our ports and airports, more customs and border patrol agents, because those are very vulnerable areas. some of the illicit activity ended drugs especially -- activity, and drugs especially, has come in through our ports. we have to consider all of our borders, including the coast. it generally, the ports provide a more finite place for our agents to operate from because you have to come into generally support, but airports have been increased as well as our water ports, golf, atlantic and

pacific. -- gulf, atlantic and pacific. >> in the past you have stressed the importance of working collaborative lee witt and the mexican government. can you briefly discussed -- withing collaborative lely the mexican government. can you briefly discuss the status of that corporation? >> president called iran has been very proactive -- president felipe calderón has been very proactive and has had a note tolerance -- no tolerance system in his government, but the

violence has been overwhelming. were the mexican myayors assassinated -- two mexican mayors were assassinated. the head of the police was assassinated. the cooperative effort has been very promising. i know that there is a lot of training that is being done with the cooperation of american trainers, american border patrol agents, american military and police are helping to train the mexican police and border patrol agents, and there is cooperation among the mexican and american law-enforcement agencies. so, i would say that the mexican government is definitely cooperating. however, having said that, it is

not a success yet. so much of this drug activity is, if you can sit down in one place it comes up in another -- tamp it down in one place it comes up in another. i think there was a time when people thought we would never lose the organized crime in colombia. truly, it was a mafia of huge proportions. it was a relentless, strong, american help with the colombian government and the colombian government taking responsibility itself for the betterment of this country, and i believe that mexico is definitely receptive to the help that america is willing to give. they are doing a lot with it.

they are beginning to extradite drug kingpins when there is an american in excess -- an american nexus. that has been gradual over the years as well. i think we have to keep making progress, and i think we are making progress, but there is so much more that we must do. >> along the lines with cooperation with the mexican government, is there action the united states can take to bolster the mexican government so that they will have a better ability to deal with issues internally? >> anytime you are dealing with a sovereign nation, you have to be very, very aware that it is not going to be america running

mexico's government or any other government, and the people of those countries are very sensitive about that, and understandably so. we are not going to try to in any way get involved in at the mexican government or politics, but what we will do is augment their efforts with their requests, and help to train their military and law- enforcement personnel to deal with something with which they have had very little experience. i think that has been positive, because we have had a strong law enforcement background in america.

we have had strong military. we have had strong police, and integrity has been a hallmark of our law enforcement. that goes across the board from our criminal justice system throughout the ranks of people who have the trust of being law enforcement officers. the mexican law enforcement has not been as vigilant, because it has been a different culture in a different time. i think that we can do a lot to strengthen their defenses, because they just have not had experience like this before. you know, they do not have a military to speak upof. they do not fight in wars since

the one my great-great grandfather was in. they just have had a different culture. i think where we can be affected is not in their politics. they have a democracy. really, since they have had a competitive democracy, i think they have been better off for it. so now, i think we just have to be working with them, arm in arm, as neighbors do, and try to respect their sovereignty but give them the help where their experience is certainly less than ours. >> in response to an earlier question, you had given an example about the apprehension of the terrorist. in fact, a common argument in support of securing our southern borders is that it prevents

terrorists from entering the united states. how accurate is this claim? do you have other examples or statistics to support that it is a very real threat, terrorists coming in to the united states over the mexican border? >> there are definite cases of people being apprehended that have all of a the suspicions of being terrorists. people who come in with the, i mean, they're clearly not from mexico. they're not from south america. there from areas where there are terrorist operations. some came from pakistan. some come from nigeria. other places.

in addition, some of the terrorists to have been caught in other parts of our country have come into mexico -- come in at throughout mexico. once they have been caught, they have been traced as having come in and throughout mexico. i cannot give you numbers. i mentioned this in one instant. it is not published in a data entry, but it is supported by many border patrol agents that they have found karan's -- korans, they have found arabic instructions on how to cross the border and get into the united states. these are clearly people getting in illegally with bad intentions.

the drug violence is the biggest crisis that we have, and the criminal element that go with that, but to this country is not free of terrorism, and we know that there are cells operating in the united states right now, and that they are looking for places to operate with little detection, and this past border that we have has many places where there would be little possibility of detection. so, we are a nation that is in a war on terror, and we must be vigilant. >> we are going to have to ask you back by popular demand. we have cars on which people have written you questions. -- cards on which people have written you questions. perhaps you could trouble your

staff to answer them. i have all of the questions right here. >> ago, good. -- oh, good. >> i just want to thank you for coming here to honor pete domenici. we as and neighbors in respect of the good work you have done on behalf of our nation and for the great state of texas. if it were not for texas, we would not be as wealthy as we are, because we have come up with all kinds of ways to tax you and to attract you to the mountains. >> i have heard many comments exactly along that line with regard to the new mexican view of texas. >> we would only ask that you be careful about claiming our

water. we are very sensitive about that. [laughter] again, thank you for coming to our conference in this a year. [applause] >> senator hutchison, this is a gift from a mexican artist who works in the native tradition -- a new mexican artist who works in the native tradition. >> thank you very much. >> give her a big round of applause. [applause] >> this weekend on c-span, commemorating the september 11th. a pulitzer prize winner speaks about the events that led up to 9/11. and we talk in detail but the

twin towers, their collapse, the cleanup and excavation, and the manpower it took to achieve it. afterwards, mariana huffington -- arianna huffington talks about the collapse of america and who is to blame. >> on the campus of the university of pennsylvania today, the democratic national committee held this event to promote their nationwide campaign efforts. we will hear from pennsylvania governor ed rendell.

>> i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, with liberty and justice for all. we are pleased to have our guest here tonight. he was raised in mill creek. he began his career in public service as an intern for former senator mark hatfield. after working in d.c. for a few years in both the pentagon and the congressional budget office, just came back home to habitat

for humanity in portland. he was elected to the portland house of representatives in 1998. in 2006, he became speaker, and held the post until he was elected to the u.s. senate. in 2009, he was sworn into the same seat that was once held by senator mark hatfield. jeff has been relentlessly focused on getting our nation back on track and getting our people back to work. in addition to putting to save jobs, he has worked to bring down the cost of health care, stop the abuse of credit card companies and investment banks, and investing clean energy. he says he prefers to look forward rather than backward because there is still very much to do to help oregon workers and business owners.

tonight, please welcome your senator. [applause] >> thank you for the introduction, and thank you for coming out. i am going to say just a few things, and then we will pick up the questions and comments. we ask that you keep your questions or comments reasonably brief so that we can get in as many people as possible, and also to recognize that no matter how passionately appeal, there may be someone who feels as passionately on the other side. we will ask that you be respectful when they are speaking, and that everyone else be respectful when you are sleeping -- speaking. [laughter]

no sleeping. a couple of things have been on the table that we will be returning to after the recess. one is the small business jobs bill. this provides a series of tax benefits to small businesses across america. it also has two provisions designed to increase lending to small businesses. that has been a key factor in keeping us trapped in this recession. one is the expansion of fda lending. the other is a provision that transfers funds from wall street to main street community banks so that they can get the funds out to our small businesses, because they really understand what can work and what investment makes sense. so, that is a key piece. a second key pieces the discussion over energy. energy affects us throughout our state. on the one hand, we have a lot

of clean energy opportunities, ranging from the possibility of a wave energy to solar energy, wind power and geothermal. on another level, we have an opportunity to create a lot of jobs by investing in energy- saving renovations to buildings. the nice things about that is that it literally puts the construction industry back to work at a time when housing has stalled out. it is considered by most to create more jobs for the amount of investment and then anything else we can do. scores as a positive as a lending program, because it does not add to our deficit. the other thing it does, is it keeps people not only working, but after the energy-saving renovations are in place, they lower the bills of our families and our businesses month after month, as long as that building is utilized. it is a benefit that keeps on giving.

one of the big issues in energy that i have been immersed in is to decrease or eliminate our dependence on overseas oil. we use a little more than two billion oils -- two billion gallons of oil per day. in positioning our nation to thrive in a world where energy is expensive, it is better if we can replace that oversees oil with an american-manufactured energy. keep those dollars here in our communities, in our retail stores, creating jobs here in america. those are some of the energy issues that are part of the dialogue when i return. rather than going on about other issues, we will just open this up to the matter would like to speak. are we using numbers tonight?

i have been asked to invite a longtime resident to ask the first question, and that is margaret demint. are you here? hello. >> let me get my paperwork here. i have lived here all my life. my interest is in the english- language bills that have been before congress or so long. 85% of people recently surveyed would favor making english the official language. english has been voted america's

official language in 30 states. why has the oregon delegation time after time refused to support the amendment? many good amendments have been offered in recent years that have never quite made the grade because some members have voted no every time. i asked you today, why? >> thank you very much. in just about every town hall in question comes up that has not come up before. you have taken that status right off the bat. my impression is that many people consider this a state's rights issue. you mentioned that 30 states have made that decision. 20 have decided not to.

i do not recall that there was a real discussion in any year that i have been in the legislature about this issue, but it does seem to me that this should be a decision for the people of oregon. the think it is something to take to our state legislature. >> when you get called out, wait until the microphone gets to you. we do have a national press here, wherever they are, so it is important. the next number to ask a question is 641. >> you might want to read those three at the time. >> that is what we will do, so

that people know who is expected. that person is out. the next question is 0616. there you go. >> before you get started, i missed something on our agenda, which was to invite our elected officials to let people know that they are here. commissioners and mayors and so forth. let us have a chance to lead knowledge to them, and then we will get on to your questions. -- let us have a chance to acknowledge them, and then we will get on to your questions.

duke we have anybody running for office who would -- do we have anybody running for office who would like to let people know they are here? please join in a round of applause for our home grown officials. [applause] >> the next question will be 06 to 3. -- 0623. >> thank you. you have been working hard to keep america's trade on the economy and provide employment -- keep america straight on the economy and provide employment. how you justify providing 125,000 temporary guest worker

permits every month? >> this is a point of concern. to give you an example, i went to a store this summer where the young lady working at the store at spoke with a foreign accent. i asked where she was from. she was from the country before yugoslavia broke up. she had come here. we have unemployment in this country. why should someone else not be sitting at that desk? the argument is that these jobs require skills and that no one inside the state can be found to fill. that is not the truth of what is

unfolding. are there jobs that are unfilled that could be filled by people ready to work here in the united states. thank you for raising that. >> the next question will be 0612. 0612? nobody? ok. the next person is going to be 960. there you go. >> a few years ago i graduated from the university of minnesota school of forestry. what the environmentalists have done to my profession should not be done to any profession. why are our elected officials,

and i am referring to the governor, agreeing with everything that they said? what is, in your estimation, and old growth? i can show you a tree that is 12 inches in diameter that is an old growth. i can also show you a treat that is 4 feet in diameter that it -- a tree and that is 4 feet in diameter that is not old growth. every time i go over the past i damn near cry. there are millions and millions of feet of wood that today are not allowed to cut because the environmentalists say it might hurt the ground. god forbid that was true. we never would have done anything, never.

we used to have a very high rate of employment with the relatively high annual average salary when the mills were operating. we no longer have mills. what in the hell are we doing to this state? >> while you have the microphone, do you want to share any thoughts on the east side forest plan that my colleagues have put together to try to get us out of this deadlock? >> it works sometimes, but every time something gets going, it goes into the cords. -- the courts.

we are stymied. we are just stymied. >> thank you very much. i can tell you that whenever i am hiking in the second growth area, you often see very overgrown second growth area that is not serving an environmental purpose, a timber purpose. it is a potential fire hazard. it is a lose, lose, lose situation. there are a number of things that we need to push forward on, and one is thinning and that produces a steady supply of blogs, us a stable ecosystem -- steady supply of logs, a stable ecosystem, and a true economy

that supports forest jobs. we have always depended on lumber. right now housing is completely down the tubes and will be for some time to come, but we have the potential to create a second market in biomass products. that might also fit very well with a deafening type of operation, and the thinning can produce, -- with a thinning type of operation, and the thinning can produce, may be small blocks, but a steady stream of logs. there is a group that is building the first ethanol plant from a tree fiber over in another county, and what they are doing is using the bacteria

from termites, and then they set up a chemistry that goes from paint thinner to event occurred to ethanol, but -- paint thinner to vinegar to ethanol, but they can stop the process at any point. over lakeside, there is a promising development where we proceed to produce both heat and energy. it works well in partnership with the sawmill. another bright point, a small step that has kept us out of the courts, so far, oregon has more storage agreements than any other state, and not up --

stewardship agreements and then any other state, and not one has ended up in court. there is an effort to bring people together in a much larger is stewardship agreement approach so that they can stay out of the courts and get jobs back into the woods. i want to keep pushing on each of these types of ideas to try to breathe life back in, and i will tell you, the thinking is, biomass could be a real part of a clean energy strategy along with the wind, geothermal and solar. . .

>> hello, my husband and i have had a trucking business. it's not real big but we have had it about 15 years. last year when we registered our trucks, and this is per truck, our registration went from a little over $800 to $1,600. that was a surprise. and when i called and i said i

have been filling out theelings forms for years, but i have obviously made a mistake -- these forms for years, but i have obviously made a mistake. yours the first one to come in. i got it right here. no, it's not a mistake, it's part of -- what it's called, oregon jobs and transportation act. so it's like, ok, we'll put that in the budget somehow, cut something else out. so we slashed our insurance coverage to make do. well, now this year in october starting next month, our t.u.c., our mileage tax on one truck will go up a little over $200. it will average per truck be about $2,500 a year and i got this letter with the rate increase and it's part of the in 2009 the oregon jobs and transportation act.

i feel abused. if our registration goes up, we're probably going to be done. and when i talk to people, they say, well, you can pass that on. no. we don't set our rates. loads that we used to get almost $600 a load for we're getting $500. we don't -- we cannot pass that on. if we don't take those loads, somebody else will. so my question is who else is paying for this oregon jobs and transportation act? i know everybody who fuels up their car, that tax, you know, goes towards this, but industrywise, i really feel some abuse here. >> this is the time i would like to represent your state representative or your state senator to explain what was passed here, but we don't have

a state representative or a state senator here, but i'll take a shot at it. yes, indeed, do you want to take a shot at it? >> i'm in the back row. what you were talking about was passed in the 2009 session. i did oppose the bill. they didn't listen to me. it went ahead and passed and there are a lot of components to the bill. one of them that engaged you as of october of last year with the title registration in place, the p.u.c. fees and nothing was exempt. it's forage culture, business, -- for agriculture, business, private individuals, anyone who has got their registration

update since october of last year. the typical automobile i think went up to $87 for the fee and the increase in registration and title went up $16 and $23 respectively, doubled in fees. as of january of next year, the fuel is going up six cents a gallon. the bat part of the story is not -- bad part of the story is not over yet. i did oppose the bill. some of the positive points, the county commissioners in the room will be excited to know that the city and county split for tax revenue off of fuel did increase, that should help the county road department and, honestly, it was probably the only bill that we passed out of the 2009 session that will really create jobs in the private sector and the state through road contracting and what not, but does that -- it

doesn't help, but does it kind of answer your question as to where it came from? >> john, did a lot of those funds go to fund connect oregon three? did it basically go into the -- improving the transportation infrastructure in the state? >> thank you, senator. that is a good point. madras, i think the meeting was last thursday, i believe, the final meeting and the madras airport got $1.7 million out of the commect oregon three which did come out of house bill 2001. >> this man has come to more town halls that i have held than any other state representative. he is working hard for you. he is thoughtful. he is serious. he is a major part of the conversation in salem. we should just say you're doing a good job. [applause] >> the next question will be for 964 after her.

we got one before you. you'll be after her. >> ok. >> hi, my name is michelle. i have three things. i want to thank you for health care reform and i think we still need a public option. we need a w.p.a. to repair our infrastructure and i want us out of afghanistan right now. thank you. >> thank you very much. i'll use that as an opportunity to talk a little bit about afghanistan. i went over on a trip earlier this year. i had headed over to go to iraq and afghanistan last november and the schedule changed for the senate. i had to come back and i went over to afghanistan, pakistan, and india because they're all involved in kind of the dynamic there. and quite frankly, i believe that our mission has creeped in afghanistan. we went in to take out al qaeda

training camps and now we have morphed into nation building. and this is a nation that has no tradition of a central government. it's a tribal society. it has the literacy rate of somewhere around 25%. they absolutely hate central government and they hate foreign folks being in their country. and then you throw on top of that a very different tradition in the way transactions occur. for example, i arranged to meet with six tribal leaders. they came in from far away and they were wearing their traditional dress as they do every day and each one of them spoke and had some version of the statement that the government is an affliction. i asked them what do you mean by that, the central government is an affliction? they said, look, the competent and respected people in our

community are never appointed to these government posts and it's always folks who are out to make money for themselves. the posts are sold from the top on down. i talked to the american team and the american team said, yes, everything from governors often down to school teachers are sold. you make money back at the next level. that's why it becomes an affliction. and then i went up to a training camp for the police force because we're engaged in trying to build a large army and a large police force and i heard a lot of problems about the police force, that the payrolls were stacked, another form of corruption, and that they were hired and then put to work in the part of the country where they couldn't speak the language so they couldn't do an effective job and they weren't respected. i asked them about these problems and the german briefer just kind of froze because he really didn't want to respond to these concerns. and so then the american

trainer came up to me afterwards and he said, senator, it's like this. the police in afghanistan are thugs. and then we equip them and we train them and they are now equipped and trained thugs. and that's the problem, he said. and then you might have noticed at the time i was there, we had an offensive and there were a lot of commentary on the television interviewing people and locals said we like the americans coming in and helping us, but please don't send in the police force. well, we sent in, i say we, the collective nato operation sent in the elite best trained police in afghanistan and it's been a disaster because even the best trained are still in a state where they don't, aren't ready and able to operate in a really professional capacity. the goal of taking out al qaeda

was exactly right, and there are by all estimates less than 100 al qaeda in afghanistan. and any training camps that are there, i think that we need to go back in and destroy them, but this state building mission we're on a do not think is proportional to, in terms of national security, the cost in the lives of our sons and daughters. i have been up to walter reed meeting with folks coming back missing various parts of their body from the i.e.d.s and it's not worth the treasure we're pouring in at $1 million per year per soldier. you mentioned a job program. well, $1 million would create 40 $25,000 a year jobs thinning our forests, building our infrastructure, improving our education system, and that's the type of thing we need to keep in mind as we look at the

overall budget. so i have real concerns about the path that we're on. thanks. [applause] >> the next questioner after this one will be 969. >> i'm jean olson from culver and i want to thank you for a lot of great things you have been doing for oregon and the whole country, especially education, we have been fortunate to get a lot of funding here through the stimulus and other programs here in our area and our county, but i do see lots of wonderful things and i thank you very much. also just a moment here. we're going to be visiting the d.c. area in a couple of weeks and we would like to get some passes to see your office perhaps and the senate chamber. we're going to be visiting our

daughter who is an officer with homeland security. we would like to always visit the d.c. area. >> well, for you and for anyone who comes to d.c., our team would very much like to help get you those kinds of passes. it's aaspca good time that sussanah is introduced. she is my field representative and she is an easy path. can you share your phone number? >> sure. i'm sus is annah. my number is 541-318-1298. i'm happy to take your calls and help you. >> and just a little tip. we can get lots of senate passes and tour passes, but if you want to go to the white house, six months in advance is

necessary. those are really hard. anyway, i hope you all will find some chance to come to the nation's capital because it's quite an incredible place. >> this gentleman will be 646. >> hi, my name is robert st. clair. i got one of your invitations. i thought what the heck. >> how many folks got an invitation in the mail? good, good, great. >> i thought if i had any thoughts or ideas related to jobs that maybe i should go and say something. i currently work at safeway as a frozen food manager at night and i used to work building homes during the day with an individual named gary at oakland construction. we built several homes all over this area in madras.

now he is out of work. a lot of the people that were working for him are out of work and i believe one of the key reasons for this is that the monthly mortgage payments are just too high for most individuals who are working class people, i mean people working at the safeway markets or wherever making $14 an hour but i'm taking $350 to $400 a week. basically i had some thoughts about possibly the government could potentially loan money to lower and moderate-income individuals over longer periods of time but at 0% interest. at 0% interest every payment the people would make would create equity, 100% equity on that payment. the bank is not to be cut out. they could issue credit cards for processing these loans for the government. as the people got this equity,

every payment they made, they could go out and purchase things which would put other people to work. anyway, i put a lot of this information together here about the mortgage tables and what not in this paperwork they have here. for example, a person that was at federal minimum wage making $6.25 per hour, 40 hours per week. a 50-year loan at 0% interest, $250 would cover $149,000 home, i mean, as far as their monthly payment. so if you could get people working at subway and taco bell and the markets and all of those other places to be able to buy into a home and earn equity and because when they rent week after week, month after month, decade after decade, they never earn equity and they can't buy anything

extra. if they started to obtain equity, then, like i said, the bank is not to be cut out for processing the loans, they could issue credit cards and maybe charge an annual fee or whatever and eventually as that equity built they could purchase more and more things for their homes and what not. it's just a thought, an idea, and i was wondering if it was a good idea, how long would it take for you to meet with larry summers or anybody that advises the president, would it be possible to meet with larry sommers yourself? >> yes. let me just tell you. i so appreciate you coming in and this particular idea. it's different than anything else i have heard. now, i used to work for habitat for humanity and we did 0% interest loans and put put back on their feet. they wouldn't have been homeowners. it's interesting how you had it

with the credit card piece. a couple weeks ago, i had lunch with president obama. we each had a chance to raise an issue. what i raised was our crisis in foreclosures and families underwater and that we needed to be as bold and as aggressive to help out families in this situation as we have been to put financial institutions back on their feet. and the result was a follow-up meeting, not with larry sommers, but with treasurer secretary geithner in which i laid out a couple ideas that are cousins of what you proposed. one idea stemmed from the when the farmers were able to buy back their farm at auction in the midwest in the 1980's, so a foreclosure rescue loan that enabled people to buy their house back at the price that it's being auctioned off to the public basically with a loan

that is not based upon fica scores but a fair analysis of ability to pay. that way the family would be out from underwater. they would no longer owe more than the home was worth. they would have a fair interest rate, a much lower payment and they would be back on their feet. that was one idea. the second idea was to do 6% refinancing, not as low as the 0% you're proposing, but 6% refinancing because at that rate, there could be a standard mortgage for the way it is right now at about 5% or each a little less plus an insurance to help pay for ones that fail so the treasury is not out any money. this would allow people who had subprime loans that had 8% or 9%, to come down 1/3 in their

payments if you could take the amount that they were underwater -- that is, if they owed $200,000 and the house was worth $150,000, the silent 0% mortgage could be paid off at the end. it splits into two parts. families wouldn't feel underwater anymore and feel more comfortable. i can make it and i'll invest in the house. i'm going to the hardware store and so forth. these ideas and these strategies, we have to do more to help our families or we're not going to put ourselves back on track as a nation. >> i have a lot of thoughts that i put together in this. >> thank you very much. >> i'll give that to you. >> thank you. >> oh, yeah. >> i put that together to help other people. i myself already have a home and it's paid off, but a lot of individuals that i talked to that work and what not say they

couldn't get into a home and this and that i thought, all right, i'll put something together. i'll come and say what i think can help as a possible idea. maybe it was good enough, maybe you could meet with larry sommers and all these other people and go over it. it would turn things upside down. the banking industry instead of loaning them at 0% almost, you would be lending to poor individuals. [applause] >> how many folks think that we should have a much more aggressive effort to assist families in home ownership trouble? [applause] >> thank you. >> this gentleman will have number 611. there you go. >> thank you and i think there

is a lot of feeling that the stimulus package has been spent for the banks and this and that and i would appreciate it if you guys would spend it on -- i have heard 100%, 100 meg download throughout the united states and instead of blowing up money in afghanistan or whatever, if we could spend the money on roads and fiber throughout the united states, that would put guys to work hanging fiber and it will be forever and we won't be stuck with slow speeds. the electric infrastructure needs to be redone and this is all money that we could be spending on america having jobs

for guys here working and then you're left with it. it's not just gone, blown up. anyway, neutrality is extremely important and if you'll continue supporting it, i would appreciate it. >> thank you. let me just note that net neutrality is the concept that every user of the internet gets access at the same speed, that there are special deals cut so that some people get put into the slow lane or the very slow lane and that everyone that it serves everyone equally. is that a fair description of it? >> yeah, if you have internet through time warner, they won't slow down your connection to fox or somebody else that is not part of them. >> i'll repeat that since you were not on the microphone. also that your internet connection is through time warner, they don't proceed that

anything do you that connects with fox, they don't deliberately slow you down and so forth, a fair even speed for everyone. thank you, and i do support that. >> after jim, the next one is 627. the next one is 608. >> my name is jim. i have a question for you, $13.3 trillion deficit and our $506 trillion unfounded liability that we have, the only way we're going to do this is to cut the size of government drastically even to the point of being draconian. can you give me some specific examples of how you would cut that and try to get this out-of-control spending under

control. this is not sustainable. >> yeah. i must tell you that one of the things that really was very exciting to me was when nine years ago we were running a substantial surplus and it looked like within five years we could pay off our national debt and have a debt-free america to our children. and it isn't just that we are going deeper into debt. it is that that debt is no longer owned by americans. now, when i was a kid in grade school and i suspect some of you might have had the same experience, every friday we would have a chance to buy savings bonds. anyone have that in their schools? a few of us. well, at that point, america owned its own debt. if a interest payment was made, it stayed in our own economy. a growing share of our debt is owned by china, saudi arabia

and so forth. so in addition to our oil payments going out of our country at $1 billion a day, we also have debt payments going out of our economy each and every day. so the -- there are -- behind every program, there are advocates, right? there is no program that there isn't somebody who wants it. now, for example, there is a second jet engine that is being developed for one of our new jet fighters. there are two separate engines being developed. the secretary of defense says it's not needed. the join chiefs of staff say it's not needed, so on and so forth. and so i voted to wipe out that second engine. but i can tell you that the places that those parts are being built are screaming and protesting and they want that second engine built and they're

going to keep trying to build it. there are additional copies of an earlier fighter that same story. the department of defense say they want to ship the money to the new fighter. it will be a better deal for our national security, that we don't need any more copies of the old fighter and yet that's in the budget, so i voted against it. you just get a big bill on the floor. but we do have a challenge. the budget bill that came out of the budget committee basically laid out a three-year path to get back to the point where we wouldn't be digging the hole any deeper. now why didn't it lay out an instant path? the reason why is if we shut down very fast right now while we're at this precarious point, we wouldn't be looking at the level of unemployment we're looking at. we would be looking at double that. therefore, there are decisions such as i supported sending

support to the state of oregon for medicaid and for education. and oregon just got $117 million. it's a support the school districts distributed in a formula throughout the state and hopefully help our local school districts get through this difficult period. similarly, there would be some cost to an aggressive effort to help people in home ownership. but we have to be extremely cautious or we'll end up in the position like greece with an unsustainable debt and that is not the legacy we want for our children. thank you for raising your concern. >> after this gentleman, the next number is 621. >> my name is jeff swanson. i didn't mention it before, but i have been accepted as a city councilman, i just haven't been sworn yet.

>> congratulations. [applause] >> if i don't pay my rent, i get kicked out of my house. if i don't pay my electric bill, my electricity gets turned off. same with the water, sewer, if i don't pay, if i don't have money for gas, i don't drive anywhere. this gentleman was talking about the net, we use our blackberry for a modem and you want to talk about slow. what i'm wondering is why if we have to live by these set of rules, that if you don't have the money, you don't spend it, why doesn't the federal government have to live by the same rules? [applause] >> quite frankly, over the long term it does. if it doesn't, we end up like a family that has spent on this and this and this, maybe

somebody in the family has a gambling habit and the family is unsustainable and they go belly up. in the short term, the federal government is able to borrow and is able to pay back. if you shut down, it's kind of a countercyclical thing. if you shut down spending when consumer demand drops, you add to the drop in economy. the drop in consumer spending was $3 trillion over the two-year period starting from the end of 2008. now the stimulus bill, which was designed to help fill in some of that gap was $800 billion. so $800 billion versus $3 trillion, a little more than the quarter of the consumer spending. it had three components. a third was tax cuts. the second and third was support for medicaid and education and public safety to the states because the states' budgets were in deep trouble.

the last third or a little more than a third was direct spending on jobs. that included transportation, infrastructure, the half billion dollars that we lobbied for for healthy forests to put people to work in the forests. those kind of things, that was a third. in the end you had less than $400 billion in terms of direct spending filling in a $3 trillion hole. so it was designed to assist and hope to create a bridge across the recession, but not to fill in the entire hole created by the recession because then we wouldn't be looking at the debt that we have. it would be much, much, much larger. so it is a tough task. we saw what happened under hoover with the great depression when he said i am going to -- while our economy is collapsing, i'm going to balance the budget because there is less revenue. he drove us into a deep dark

depression that was awful. at the time that we passed the stimulus bill and unemployment was going up 1% a month every month here in oregon and higher in many of our counties and so the goal was to try to prevent us just completely nose diving. but the basically philosophy you're expresses is the philosophy we should have. it's a philosophy families and i have to live by. the truth is, yeah, i have borrowed money. i borrowed money to buy my house and so on and so forth. the nation is borrowing money to help us get through the time. we have to pay it back. we have to be careful not to borrow too much. the budget committee has this three-year path going back to where we're not digging the hole any deeper. >> the next one, 650.

no? 644. there you go. >> i have so many questions, i don't know where to start. i'll try to narrow it down. >> pick your best one. >> first, i'm just going to state that it looks to me like congress is under the impression that the american people want the trillion dollar deficit, borrow crats running our health care, open borders, closing our car dealerships, higher taxes, it's frustrating. and i'm also wondering when democrats are going to take credit for their own responsibility for the mess we're in, you know. it's always bush. somewhere down the line it's going to have to be obama and the democratics. anyway. no one has ever spent us into

prosperity. if i were out of work and in debt, i wouldn't go on a trillion dollar trip. how can congress do that? i don't understand what they're thinking. then they turn around and close car dealerships and they won't let them continue drilling in the gulf. where is congress out of touch with people? thank you. [applause] >> do you want me to pick one of those pieces? >> how about closing car dealerships. how in the sam hell does that help us? >> the decision on car dealerships was a decision by the motor companies and they were doing their best strategy to try to make themselves viable again and so that's not

a decision by congress. it's a decision by a private company. quite frankly, i lobbied for them to back off from that because i didn't see how that was going to, by reducing the places they could sell cars. but then i'm not running the private company. it's their responsibility to make those decisions. and they did restore some dealerships, but overall, they didn't much. and i guess we're going to find out whether it worked for them or not in the hard knocks school of capitalistic competition with other companies. >> after him, it will be 958. 954. >> my question is this. the working class took a hell of a hit through this economic crisis.

so my question to you is what is your plan and what are you doing to help out the working class through the economic crisis that is going on right now? >> a huge hit. a huge hit from loss of jobs, a huge hit from retirement savings and certainly often when people lost their jobs, they lost their health care and then the value of homes has plummeted and for most of us, that's the major way that we build up some equity in life. so a hit from every single angle. one of the things i did was to support the extension of the cobra health care benefits and unemployment benefits to be extended from 26 weeks to 99 weeks to help create a bridge through. a second is i have been pursuing every possible angle to try to fight for us to take on the issue of the loss of value in homes and home ownership much more aggressively than we're doing right now. and then a third thing is to

really fight to put our economy back on track. i have already spoken at some length, so i won't spend so much time on it, but getting lending into the hands of small businesses so that they can create jobs and then also creating jobs through energy policy, putting our construction world back to work, if you will, with energy-saving renovations. so those are some of the set. that is essentially a very -- i mean, it's not they just took a him. the hit is ongoing. housing prices are continuing to drop. we're further underwater. more and more families are owing more than their homes are worth, etc. >> we're down to our last lucky two people, so 613 and after 613 will be 626.

>> in the bulletin there was a story about the forest service, i think it was this week that they had money given to them by the federal government to clean up the forests and they outed by a bunch of other people, undered by, and hired foreign workers with that money instead of oregonans. there something in place to stop that from happening? >> are you saying folks from outside oregon or folks from outside the united states? >> i think it was from outside the united states? >> could you give me a copy of the u.s.a. >> i believe it did say outside of the state. like contracts with california workers or i think -- because i read that article, too.

it basically was for fighting fires, just like oregonans go to arizona to fight fires, they go to california to fight fires , the fire workers here in oregon sometimes get outsources. other sources were hired to come in and help fight with the fires that were here. so they weren't oregonan firefighters. i don't know if it wasn't enough of them because the article wouldn't go into that. i read that article, too. >> i want to give the floor back to her. i would love to see the article. and if the gentleman is correct and it's from another state, that's not unusual. our workers get hired from other states and other states get hired here. i can tell you this. anytime with our forest help projects, we can proceed to hire people closer by, nearby, it creates a lot more support for the local economy. it should cost less because people aren't traveling a long distance and you're creating

expertise related to that particular forest that other private contractors can tap into when we get more money to work in the forests. i understand they have to do a fair bidding process or whatever, but it certainly is hugely advantageous to have those jobs connected to the communities that are tied into the forests as so many of our communities are. >> i'll talk with your person. >> she is tracking it right now. follow up with her right afterwards. >> i have one other question, too. >> i'm going to ask you to come up and talk to you afterwards and raise your other question. thanks. >> thank you, senator. i had a multitude of questions, too, but when you were talking about the small jobs bill that's currently going through, i listen to the talk on the

other day and the question, he said it was already paid for. my question is a couple, three, anyways, how is it paid for? does this need to be appropriated? secondly, nothing was said about what it did cost. thirdly, congress has not passed a budget as yet and this more or less gives them an open check blank to spend it anyway they want. why don't we have a budget in congress? thank you. >> so the way that it's structured is we adopted a pay-for statute that says essentially we have to establish a set of programs we're cutting or adjusting in order to pay for something we're creating and that pay for is a way to start exercising fiscal restraint. that doesn't apply to everything. for example, it doesn't apply to unemployment benefits which have traditionally been treated, no matter which party

had been charged, had been traditionally been treated as an emergency. i can't specify for you the list of pay fors because it's a whole bunch of things cobbled together reducing this a little bit and reducing that a little bit. we will get you a list of pay fors. just follow up with me and we'll get your name and your email and send the list to you. but that's part of the goal that i think probably resonates for most of us of trying to establish some form of fiscal discipline. so on that note, thank you all for coming this evening. thank you to our host and the commissioner for emceeing and i'll tell you this. democracy is in a lot of trouble if we're holding town halls and nobody is coming because that's when things are

really going to go off course. so thank you for coming and sharing your views. oregonaans are sending in letters and we're getting 10,000 letters from folks across the state. this is much more valuable to hear person to person what you're thinking. if you didn't get your question in or your comment in, please come up and ask and thank you very much. [applause]

>> in a few moments, the president of the federal reserve bank of kansas city on financial regulations. in about an hour, a democratic governors association discussion on this year's races for governor. after that, texas senator kay bailey hutchison on board security. later, we rehear the town hall meeting with oregon senator jeff merkley. on "washington journal" tomorrow morning, we'll discuss b.p.'s internal report about

the gulf of mexico oil spill. author kate zerni kate zernike taking calls about her new book. and dylan loewe will focus on the fall elections. "washington journal" is live on c-span every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. >> he defies all the stereotypes of what a rabble rouser, etc., etc. is supposed to be. nicholas spent 10 years working for alin is sky and rights about him. it's sunday night on c-span's q & a. >> more coverage now of the recent public policy conference at new mexico state university.

speakers include the federal reserve president of the -- the bank in kansas city. this is a little less than an hour. >> thank you very much, laura. laura, one of the things i did do is get a special permission slip from richard fisher at the dallas bank so i could come down here and speak to you. i'm not out of territory to speak to you. we're very careful. i'm glad you mentioned thelas2 regional banks to let the senators now. they're extremely important in my opinion to the kind of grassroots development of economic policy in this country. it is my pleasure to know that you also serve on the, i think the board at the el paso bank and we have kathleen avalo here who is from new mexico, northern new mexico and served on the board at the denver office of the federal reserve bank of kansas city. so thank you both for your

service. i also want to make a note, this is the first time i have ever spoken before senator or just after senator domenici and senator nunn and senator kay bailey hutchison. it only gets better from here is what i want to tell you for sure. to the president of new mexico state, thank you for welcoming me here. i very much appreciate it. to gary, of course, for hosting and for giving me the opportunity to speak to all of you. i do want to mention senator bailey hutchison with a little bit of a special note. in the recent regulatory form legislation which i am going to talk about, she played a key role in keeping the regional

banks, the banks in the midwest, the banks in texas, the banks outside of washington and new york involved in the national policy efforts around banking. in my opinion, where that bill was going was to make the federal reseicee system the central bank of wall street instead of the central bank of the united states and she stkeeped up and really helped u in that. i want you to know, even though she is not here right now, how much the presidents in the federal reserve ssytem appreciated her support during this change. e.ow, i'm going to spe ta on regulatory reform, but senator domenici mentioned the fiscal deficit and the total debt. i have spoken on that and i will tell you from a monetary policy point of view, i hope you're very successful. we cannot do our job in the next decade if this issue isn't addressed. you have my great gratitude for taking this on, senator.

it is one of the mosdw if not the mse,t important issue that faces the united states going forward t d we want to continue to be a major industrial power in this world today. i wish you all the best in that very, very significant effort. now, my comments today, i will tell you are dis isected to the students and so if i seem a little bit narrow to some of you, it's on purpose. i want them to know about some of the changes, some of the experiences we have had and i want them to feel free to ask me any qsdstion on that i won't speak about the broad economy, but i will certainly be happy to t tae questions if there is time at the end of this. it's you ery important. these times, i'm the first to admit, are extremely dt dficult times. i'm not going to pretend they're not, in all phases, in our economy, in our fiscal deficit, in our regulatory reform deficits that we have to t tae forward. it is a fact that in just this

pastsfulary the president of th united states signed into law one of the most significant pieces of financial regulatory reform legislation in u.s. history. at 2,300 pages, the bill is considered to be the most sweeping reform of u.s. financpecil rgnulations since t great depression. this legislation, of course, was in respo wealth from the stock market, from the housing market, it's been devastating.

making this all the more frustrating to many americans including me where the causes of this crisis and this economic collapse. the financial industry had lost its appreciation for the risks that come with some of the investing and lending that was going on at the time. speculative ventures in housing were widespread as was trading in arcane and poorly understood financial instruments including many tied to the real estate market as we all know. as long as housing prices continued to decline, it all seemed to work. the tide turned, the losses began to quickly mount, especially among some of our largest financial firms. the fifth largest investment bank, bear stearns, suddenly couldn't makes its payments to others and confidence was shaken. the federal reserve stepped in and helped finance the takeover of commercial bank j.p. morgan

and the crisis was temporarily averted only. then fannie mae, freddie mac, the two largest housing companies in the world came under pressure. the federal government bailed it out. soon after that, lehman brothers came under pressure, the fourth largest investment bank. it failed and was not bailed out. the crisis became a panic pushing an all right weak economy into a severe recession, we know that. these events left congressional lawmakers with a challenge of taking steps to not only prevent the repeat of this crisis, but to improve the means for responding to future crisis regardless of their cause should it come. that is an exceptionally tall order. and needless to say, the dodd frank wall street reform and consumer protection has numerous provisions focused on these goals. i appreciate the challenges

lawmakers faced in crafting this legislation. from my first day on the job in 1973 through my appointment to the presidency in 1991 and continuing up until today, i have been directly involved in banking supervision. although i would be happy today to get into the details of this financial regulation, i will instead touch on only a few aspects of the act. they include the resolution authority which i think is extremely important, the vocal rule which i will talk about and capital standards which i think are highly important. not only do i believe these three are among the most important provisions, i also think they do a good job of illustrating the complexity of the issues at hand and the challenges we face in creating the necessary stave guards around the financial system going forward -- safeguards around the financial system going forward. finally for the students, i will talk about what needs to be done to ensure the success

of this legislation and the stability of our financial system in the future. this financial crisis and recession had some kind of direct impact on every american . so it is important to each of us that this legislation achieve its goals. if you are a student who does not yet have a job or a house, do not fool yourself into thinking you escaped the crisis unscathed. in addition to the taxpayer costs associated with some of the unprecedented steps taken during this crisis, the depth of the recession had resulted in the expected and difficult slow recovery. that, of course, could have real implications for those of you looking for a job in the future in any field. for those of you looking to move into the business world in

areas such as banking and finance, the impact may be felt more directly as future employers consider the impact of this legislation will have on the way they do business and the way credit is extended. so the resolution process then. as you might expect, given the issues, the dodd frank act is extremely complex, highly technical, and requires the interpretation and implementation of hundreds of new rules that are yet to be written. one of the most important in my view regards establishing a process of dealing with those institutions whose failure would have adverse so-called systemic effects on the u.s. and global world commission. during this crisis, we were not willing to risk the potentially far-reaching consequences that might result from the failure of exceptionally large firms. as a result, the fed and the federal government took the

unprecedented steps as i mentioned earlier and as a further result, those very institutions are larger today than they were when this financial crisis started. these firms which are oftenly collectively referred to as too big to fail are heavily entwined with one another. as commentators noted during the crisis, are important in the plumbing of the financial payment system. for decades there have been discussions about firms being too big to fail. so this was an issue well known in the financial community in advance. because these firms believe the government would not let them fail and the markets believe that the markets would not let them fail, they had incentives to take on excessive risk as it turns out and they were able to attract capital, borrow money, and expand their presence at far lower costs and smaller competitors in the united

states. in this case, the buildup of excessive risk led to the greater risk in other segments of the economy. the effect is negative on the competitive environment and harmful to consumers and businesses. the dodd frank bill attempts to address several issues in this area. it provides a long needed resolution process that allows for, hopefully at least, an orderly winddown of systemic important financial institutions when they fail. this process would be implemented stheffed a taxpayer funded bailout. it calls for the winddown of a failed firm to happen in a manner that imposes appropriate costs on stock and debt holders, both, and senior management rather than the taxpayers. it provides for a priority of claims when a systemically important financial firm fails so the stock and debt holders bear