middle class -- and giving people ladders and steps to success. it was about putting the american dream within the reach of all americans -- not just some -- no matter who you are, no matter what you look like, no matter where you come from, everybody would have access to the america dream. [applause] i don't have to tell you we're not there yet. this historic recession, the worst since the great depression, has taken a devastating toll on all sectors of our economy. it's hit americans of all races and all regions and all walks of life. but as has been true often in our history, as has been true in other recessions, this one came down with a particular vengeance on the african

american community. it added to problems that a lot of neighborhoods had been facing long before the storm of this recession. long before this recession, there were black men and women throughout our cities and towns who'd given up looking for a job, kids standing around on the corners without any prospects for the future. long before this recession, there were blocks full of shuttered stores that hadn't been open in generations. so, yes, this recession made matters much worse, but the african american community has been struggling for quite some time. it's been a decade in which progress has stalled. and we know that repairing the

damage, climbing our way out of this recession, we understand it will take time. it's not going to happen overnight. but what i want to say to all of you tonight is that we've begun the hard work of moving this country forward. we are moving in the right direction. [applause] when i took office, our economy was on the brink of collapse. so we acted immediately, and the cbc acted immediately, and we took steps to stop the financial meltdown and our economic freefall. and now our economy is growing again. the month i was sworn in we had lost 750,000 jobs. we've now seen eight months in a row in which we've added private

sector jobs. [applause] we're in a different place than we were a year ago -- or 18 months ago. and let's face it, taking some of these steps wasn't easy. there were a lot of naysayers, a lot of skepticism. there was a lot of skepticism about whether we could get gm and chrysler back on their feet. there were folks who wanted to walk away, potentially see another million jobs lost. but we said we've got to try. and now u.s. auto industries are profitable again and hiring again, back on their feet again, on the move again. [applause] there were folks who were wondering whether we could hold the banks accountable for what they had done to taxpayers; or were skeptical about whether we

could make infrastructure investments and investments in clean energy and investments in education, and hold ourselves accountable for how that money was spent. there was a lot of skepticism about what we were trying to do. and a lot of it was unpopular. but i want to remind everybody here, you did not elect me to do what was popular. you elected me to do what was right. [applause] that's what we've been fighting together for -- to do what's right. [applause] todon't have our finger out the wind to know what's right. that's why we passed health insurance reform that will make it illegal for insurance companies to deny you coverage because of a preexisting

condition. [applause] historic reforms that gives over 30 million americans the chance to finally obtain quality care, tackles the disparities in the health care system, puts a cap on the amount you can be charged in out-of-pocket expenses. because nobody should go broke because they got sick in a country like the united states of america. not here. [applause] that's why we passed wall street reform, to finally crack down on the predatory practices of some of the banks and mortgage companies -- so we can protect hardworking families from abusive fees or unjustified rates every time they use a credit card, or make a mortgage payment, or go to a payday loan operation, or take out a student loan, or overdraw on their account at an atm. laws that will help put an end to the days of government

bailouts so main street never again has to pay for wall street's mistakes. [applause] that's why we made historic investments in education, including our hbcus [applause] and shifted tens of billions of dollars that were going to subsidize banks, and made sure that money was giving millions of more children the chance to go to college and have a better future. that's what we've been doing. [applause] that's why we're keeping the promises i made on the campaign trail. we passed tax cuts for 95 percent of working families. we expanded national service from americorps to the peace corps. we recommitted our justice department to the enforcement of civil rights laws. we changed sentencing disparities as a consequence of the hard work of many in the cbc.

we started closing tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas so we can give those tax breaks to companies that invest right here in the united states of america. [applause] we ended our combat mission in iraq, and welcomed nearly 100,000 troops home. [applause] in afghanistan, we're breaking the momentum of the taliban and training afghan forces so that, next summer, we can begin the transition to afghan responsibility. [applause] and in the meantime, we're

making sure we take care of our veterans as well as they have taken care of us. we don't just talk about our veterans, give speeches about our veterans; we actually put the money in to make sure we're taking care of our veterans. [applause] and even as we manage these national security priorities, we are partnering with developing countries to feed and educate and house their people. we're helping haiti rebuild, following an unprecedented response from the united states government and the united states military in the wake of the devastation there. [applause] in sudan, we're committed to doing our part -- and we call on the parties there to do their part -- to fully implement the comprehensive peace agreement, and ensure lasting peace and accountability in darfur. [applause] as i said in ghana, it is in america's strategic interest to be a stronger partner with the nations throughout africa. that's not just good for them; that's good for us. [applause] that's what we've been doing, cbc, at home and abroad. it's been an important time. we've had a historic legislative session. we could have been just keeping things quiet and peaceful around here -- because change is hard. but we decided to do what was hard and necessary to move this country forward. members of the cbc have helped deliver some of the most significant progress in a generation [applause] laws that will help strengthen america's middle class and give more pathways for men and women to climb out of poverty. but we still got a long way to go -- too many people still out of work; too many families

still facing foreclosure; too many businesses and neighborhoods still struggling to rebound. during the course of this recession, poverty has gone up to a 15-year high. so it's not surprising, given the hardships we're seeing all across the land, that a lot of people may not be feeling very energized, very engaged right now. a lot of folks may be feeling like politics is something that they get involved with every four years when there's a presidential election, but they don't see why they should bother the rest of the time -- which brings me back to ossie davis. ossie davis understood -- it's not the man, it's the plan. and the plan is still unfinished. [applause] madell the strides we've in our economy, we need to finish our plan for a stronger

economy. our middle class is still shaken, and too many folks are still locked in poverty. for all the progress on education, too many students aren't graduating ready for college and a career. we still have schools where half the kids are dropping out. we've got to finish our plan to give all of our children the best education the world has to offer. we've still got to implement health care reform so that it brings down costs and improves access for all people. and we've got to make sure that we are putting people to work rebuilding america's roads and railways and runways and schools.

we've got more work to do. we've got a plan to finish. now, remember, the other side has a plan, too. it's a plan to turn back the clock on every bit of progress we've made. to paraphrase my friend, deval patrick, the last election was a changing of the guard -- now we've got to guard the change. [applause] because everything that we are for our opponents have spent two years fighting against. they said no to unemployment insurance; no to tax cuts for ordinary working families; no for small business loans; no to providing additional assistance to students who desperately want to go to school. that's their motto. no, we can't. [laughter] can you imagine having that on your bumper sticker? [laughter] it's not very inspiring. in fact, the only agenda they've got is to go back to the same old policies that got us into this mess in the first place. i'll give you an example.

they want to borrow $700 billion -- keep in mind, we don't have $700 billion -- they want to borrow $700 billion -- from the chinese or the saudis or whoever is lending -- and use it on tax cuts, more tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. average tax cut, $100,000 for people making a million dollars or more. now, the next few years are going to be tough budget years, which is why i've called for a freeze on some discretionary spending. if we are spending $700 billion, we're borrowing $700 billion, not paying for it, it's got to come from somewhere. where do you think it's going to come from? who do you think is going to pay for these $100,000 checks going to millionaires? our seniors? our children?

hardworking families all across america that are already struggling? we shouldn't be passing tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires right now. that's not what we should be doing. we should be helping the middle class grow. we should be proving pathways out of poverty. and yet, the man with the plan to be speaker of the house, john boehner, attacked us for closing corporate tax loopholes and using the money to keep hundreds of thousands of essential personnel on the jobs all across the states. he called these jobs -- and i quote -- "government jobs," suggested they weren't worth saving. teacher jobs, police officer jobs, firefighter jobs. ask your sister who's a teacher if her job is worth saving. ask your uncle who's a firefighter if his job was worth saving. ask your cousin who's a police officer if her job was worth saving. ask your neighbors if their jobs were worth saving. [applause]

because i think a job is worth saving if it's keeping americans working and keeping america strong and secure. that's what i believe. that's what's at stake in this. [applause] they want to hand washington back over to special interests. we're fighting on behalf of the american people. they want to take us backwards. we want to move forward. their main strategy is they're betting you'll come down with a case of amnesia, that you'll forget what happened between 2001 and 2009, what that agenda did to this country when they were in charge. and they spent almost a decade driving the economy into the ditch. and now we've been down in that ditch, put on our boots -- it's hot down there -- we've been pushing the car, shoving it [laughter] sweating. they're standing on the

sidelines, sipping a slurpee [laughter] -- watching us, saying, "you're not pushing fast enough. you're not pushing hard enough." [laughter] finally we get the car out of the ditch, it's back on the road. they tap us on the shoulder. they say, "we want the keys back." we tell them, you can't have the keys back. you don't know how to drive. [applause] you can't have it back. [applause] that's right. you can't give them the keys. [laughter] now, i just want to point out, if you want your car to go forward, what do you do? you put it in "d." you want to go backwards, what do you do? [applause] that's all i'm saying.

that's not a coincidence. [applause] that's not a coincidence. all right, we've got to move this program along. [laughter] there are those who want to turn back the clock. they want to do what's right politically, instead of what's right -- period. they think about the next election. we're thinking about the next generation. [applause] we can't think short term when so many people are out of work, not when so many families are still hurting. we need to finish the plan you elected me to put in place. [applause] and i need you.

i need you because this isn't going to be easy. and i didn't promise you easy. i said back on the campaign that change was going to be hard. beetimes it's going to slower than some folks would like. i said sometimes we'd be making some compromises and people would be frustrated. i said i could not do it alone. this wasn't just a matter of getting me elected, and suddenly, i was going to snap my fingers and all our problems would go away. it was a matter of all of us getting involved, all of us staying committed, all of us sticking with our plan for a better future until it was complete. [applause] that's how we've always moved this country forward. each and every time we've made epic change -- from this country's founding to emancipation, to women's suffrage, to workers' rights --

it has not come from a man. it has come from a plan. it has come from a grassroots movement rallying around a cause. that's what the civil rights movement made possible -- foot soldiers like so many of you, sitting down at lunch counters, standing up for freedom; what made it possible for me to be here today -- americans throughout our history making our union more equal, making our union more just, making our union more perfect, one step at a time. that's what we need again. i need everybody here to go back to your neighborhoods, to go back to your workplaces, to go to churches and go to the barbershops and got to the beauty shops, and tell them we've got more work to do. tell them we can't wait to organize. tell them that the time for action is now, and that if each and every person in this country who knows what is at stake steps up to the plate, if we are willing to rise to this moment like we've always done, then together we will write our own destiny once more.

thank you. god bless you, and may god bless the united states of america. [applause] ex-president obama returns to the campaign trail tomorrow appearing with democratic candidates and meeting and a democratic fund-raising dinner. continuing coverage on c-span and c-span.org. >> from washington journal, a hot line reporter talks about candidates who have won primaries with support from the tea party. >> "washington journal"

continues. host: we welcome the editor in chief of "hotline". i want to start with christie and o'donnell. she is supposed to be on two sunday talk shows. she canceled those appearances. why? yout: one of the rules is never book in appearance and pull up at the last minute. she is last to win unexpectedly and capture the national attention. rand paul did this in kentucky. the national media descended upon them. rand paul then canceled an appearance on meet the press and stopped talking to the national media and it started only talking to his state media. sharon engle in nevada came

under a firestorm and only started talking to them that the media. -- the nevada media. christine o'donnell is latest candidate to shy away from the media. they do not want the national media to have the opportunity to confirm that. host: is that strategy working for them? guest: i think it has. if those races become about sharon engle or rand paul as opposed to the national mood? harry reid is doing everything he can to make that campaign about sharon engle. if she reframes the debate, she has a much better chance to win that seat.

host: ok, so christie and o'donnell. democrats want to make it about who she is. what are her qualifications? guest: she has run for office several times. she has never held elective office. her qualifications are questionable, and i think that was the point that mike castle was trying to make before she beat him on tuesday. the reason she was able to win is she captured the ethos of the tea party movement. she convinced republicans that castle was a republican in name only. she was able to convince voters that she was the more

conservative candidate. host: she has a psast in washington, d.c. she had a couple of jobs -- the founder and president of the saviors alliance for lifting the truth. she was on our program. we had to go back to our 1997 records of when she was on to find some bio information. after she won, her website was scrubbed. there is now more information on her website. according to the bio posted on her website on saturday, she has served as a market and media consultant to them mel gibson film "the passion of christ," the vatican's first female

the sea isainters, n alumnas she is listed as a of the claremont institute. what are her chances? guest: slim. she is the most conservative candidate. delaware is more a centrist-moderate state. no one thought of him as a liberal. -- joe biden as a liberal. they are centrists. they are close to the credit- card industry. they are jokingly referred to as the senator from mbna.

mike castle was in that mold. they have reputations for working across the aisle. but now the alternative is somebody who is clearly very conservative. that will give republicans a very difficult road, even though went mike castle was considered the front runner, he was considered a big favorite to win that seat in november. host: she was able to get 30,000 votes and the primer. our people are underestimating her? guest: that is a question we will find out. democrats are doing the best they can to portray all of these candidates who have tea party backing as out of touch. rand paul, ken buck in colorado. they are the more conservative candidates, they were in their primaries. the question now is whether or

not in november of voters say, i do not care. i will vote for them anyway. they are better than the democrats. we have not seen evidence that is not the case. host: let's go to alaska. the tea party candidate got sarah palin's backing. he was a private practice attorney, a former judge. at looks like on paper that he is a qualified candidate for this job. guest: absolutely. there is no question. i do not think there is any question of whether or not joe miller is qualified. he is the front runner at the moment. although, that race has gotten more interesting, considering that senator murkowski has decided to run a write-in campagin.

ign. republicans have a majority in alaska. as they split the vote, there is a chance for democrats to sneak through. joe miller is probably still the front runner in that race. candidatesthang that the have in common is the tea party express. sarah palin gets a lot of credit in the national media for her endorsement. it is one of the first things anybody mentions when they do a profile of one of these candidates. the real fact is, the tea party express, based in sacramento, has played a huge role. they have paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for advertisements on tv and radio that dropped in the last couple of days. they give these candidates momentum. they have a great winning

record. demavend profiles of sal russo who headsd th the tea party express. there are big profiles of him in "the wall street journal" on friday. we've highlighted him in "national journal magazine." they deserve a lot of credit. host: how does lisa murkowski run against a candidate that appears qualified? guest: it will be a tough road. there has only been one candidate, strom thurmond, w2hho won on a write-in campaing. gn. lisa murkowski said, back then, strom thurmond it did it without the benefit of facebook, twitter, social media that are

able to organize people. that is a really interesting idea, that a candidate might be able to build that kind of organization, to turn people out, educate them, and teach them how to spell murkowski right. i am not certain that lisa murkowski is the right candidate to test these kinds of outlets. you need to have a cult of personality. president obama showed during his campaign that he was able to engage the social media outlets because there was a cult of personality following of him. lisa murkowski is a centrist, somebody who talks about bringing a preparations back to alaska. i am not certain that is the right message. but it is a possibility in the future. host: she has $1 million in your war chest. how much does a joe miller have?

guest: he has raised more now. the tea party express has delivered money. christie o'donnell has raised nearly $2 million since her election on tuesday. when miller was elected, he had only raised about $250,000. host: we will talk more about sharon engle. and rand paul in kentucky. amsterdam, new york. joe, democratic line. caller: do you really think the american people are ready to slash unemployment benefits anddivided bysocial security and medicare under the guise of cutting the budget or rewarding rich people and

giving them tax breaks? one has to ask if these high income earners are people who create jobs, while aren't the taxs created at t6hhe low rates? about teare talkinga bou party candidate. guest: the democrats will try as hard as they can get to portray these candidates as being out of touch. talking about closing the department of education. rand paul wants to end farm subsidies. joe miller made controversial comments about social security. virtually all those candidates made some comments about social security that will show up in democratic campaign ads. the goal democrats have is to

try all of these candidates as out of touch and to scare voters into keeping the status quo because the other guys want to cut your benefits and kick your retired grandmother out into the street. republicans will fight back. that is really the democratic strategy, what the caller is talking about. host: give our viewers a preview of how it will be over the next six weeks. guest: we are starting to see the most negative campaign in history. i spoke with one democratic aide and he told me there or about 46 members of congress that had already started running television ads before labor day. the conventional wisdom is nobody pays attention to politics before labor day. the fact they are up with television advertisements tells you how scared they are about

it. how many are negative, i asked. all of them are, he said. the idea is to make the republicans unacceptable. the goal is to make them an untenable option. that has proven ineffective message. it is exactly what senator harry reid is trying to do to sharon engle. he is running neck-and-neck with her because he has portrayed her as a candidate he does not have the values that voters wants. host: let's go to a tweet here, talking about the alaska senate race. lisa murkowski is a perfect example of why moderates should

be voted out. guest: i am not sure that is accurate. lisa murkowski is one of the more moderate senators. she is a target of democrats looking for votes frequently. way. castle, the same the front-runner that sharon engle beat was the same way. i do not think it is all of them, but one thing we are clearly seeing is a reinvention of the republican party. it is still happening. as republicans talk about how they want to expand the tent, they are engaged in the process of picking out moderates. the 112th congress, it will be a different republican party. there will be fewer senators like lamar alexander, lisa

murkowski, willing to work across the aisle, and more senators like joe miller, and it ight leadmike lee, institute, t express their anger because they had a republican in office with george borscht. they were angry with president bush, who they believe did damage to the image of the republican party, when you talk about hurricane katrina, ought to control spending. -- out of control spending. now that president bush is not in not in office, they are talking about changing their own party, too. i thought it was notable that yesterday's at the values of voter summit that mike pence

won the presidential straw poll. he is the number 3 guy in house leadership, but that does not mean he goes along. he is the only prominent republican and leadership who voted against the tarp bailouts of october, 2008, which tea party members and candidates relalally hate. hate. the fact that mike pence voted will play ait, that big role. host: let's go to colorado. the republican is ken buck. he is the current district attorney.

he is a former justice department prosecutor. what are his chances? guest: this is one o ftf the marquee races of the year. buck is the -- a very prominent. he has come to prominence of very quickly. he had a good education. he went to law school with elena kagan. he made a comment about how he she was editing the law review. but he was third in his class. he is a candid that engendered a lot of support. the most interesting thing about the race is the world that outside parties are playing. for the first time, we will seek a outside organizations come in

and out spend the democratic candidates by huge amounts. host: american crossroads. ed gillespie. guest: americans for prosperity. that is one that will spend a lot of money. the tea party express will spend a lot of money. hundreds of thousands of dollars are pouring into these races. in colorado, michael bennett has already seen hundreds of thousands of dollars spent in ad buys against him. republican organizations are looking to spend money against michael bennett. that will be a big advantage. that is the same thing that is happening around the country in house and senate and even governors' races across an the nation. colorado will be the test case. it is two relatively unknown candidates.

the outside groups of spend both candidates. . . my husband has a blood condition and he is oven a drug that costs $9,000 a month for 28 cap sules delivered. and i looked at donna edwards yesterday. , steny hoyer, carden,

mccullski, van hollen, all of these people need to be voted out of office. i am tired of them. and i can relate to the tea party because all of this spending that's going on and, washington, d.c., they're just not listening. they can't hear anyone. host: all right. guest: it's interesting. i think it's going to be very interesting to see what role health care, the health care vote plays in this year's mid-term election,. and i would be willing to bet it would be quite a small role. health care was a hugely controversial issue that got people out to the capitol rallying about it and gave democrats a really undercut their support in the polls. but at the end of the day the economy is still the most important thing. and the thing i've been saying since february of last year, this election will be determined, will be decided based on how american voters feel about the stimulus

package. and voters still feel it spent too much and didn't work and create enough jobs. no amount of studies that come out of the congressional budget office or the government accountability office or any place here in washington, d.c. is going to change their mind about that, while unemployment is still hovering at 9.6%. host: republican line, good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. i want to say mr. wilson, i'm a huge fan of the hot line and read it religiously almost every day. afe two-part question. the first would be, with the tea party, what side do you see them playing within an internal party elections? when you look at the rnc and dnc, do you think they'll play a role in electing chairmen or members? and the special election today in new york, who do you favor? thank you very much. guest: i hate to say, local new

york elections, i'm not terribly versed on. but he brings up an interesting point. the tea party movement is going to play a role in republican politics in now going forward. the current chairman michael steele has engendered quite a lot of consternation among the 168 members of the republican party for some of his comments. but he has spent a lot of time reaching out to tea party members. he has had several long meetings with them. he is currently on a bus tour hitting 115 cities across the country in which he is spending time talking to these tea party movements. if the tea party is going to have a big impact, it's going to happen from the state parties and largely from -- in places like arizona, nevada, idaho, several other places like this. the tea party movement, tea party supporters have been able to infill trait, i don't say that in a if he nares way but they're trying to get elected in presifpkt officers, fill

these slots of the local guy who walks around the neighborhood and hands out fliers and gets people out to vote. there are a couple of state party chairmen around the country who believe their jobs are now in jeopardy because these tea party supporters are growing in influence within their own party and they will soon have the ability to kick out any state chairman they don't like. michael steele recognizes this. he is paying attention to them. whether or not these tea party groups have the influence by the time the chairman's election comes up in january i think will be interesting to see. host: this is the "new york times" this morning. it says that the tea party is a double-enled sword. they found that while most americans had not formed a view of the tea party, the percentage of independent voters who view it negatively had increased. but the tea party has brought a swell of new participants into the politic the trick is to take advantage the party out of power. of the tea party passion and

stay away from its extreme. celebrate the genius but don't get into the particulars. it also talks about these candidates and how they have not answered certain questions on how they would vote on legislation pending before the congress. bush tax cuts. candidates like rand paul are not saying. host: candidates all across the country are being very ambiguous about what they -- how they would vote, how -- well, anything like that. joe miller in alaska won't say who he would vote for for majority leader in the senate. he won't say that he will vote for mitch mcconnell. he will say he will vote for a republican. sort of these candidates don't want to get into specifics because once they have specific democrats can attack those specifics. in a coup of weeks the democrats will unveil what looks like the contract with america. we're not going to have the

same signing ceremony that we had in 1994. it will be sort of a governing agenda that will come out of official house offices, legislation that they can introduce and very sort of generic. and general. there's going to be a lot of talk about a balanced budget amendment and reading a bill before it's actually voted on. there's not going to be -- there aren't going to be specific policy proposals or at least very many policy proposals because democrats will be able to attack that. democrats will be able to say look how out of touch republicans are. the one thing we have seen in terms of a really specific policy nish 2if6 from any member of congress is congressman paul ryan put out a roadmap for a better america, i think he calls it. he calls it the roadmap that presents some pretty harsh austerity measures to get the budget under control. democrats have attacked that as wanting to cut social security and medicare regardless of the fact that it would reduce

budgets and raise taxes and do various things, at the end of the day democrats are only talking about it in terms of the november elections. anything republicans come out with and really propose on a policy front democrats will be able to attack. host: let's take a look at dr. rand paul, his biography here, republican from kentucky medical doctor and founded the kentucky taxpayers unite. he is running in kentucky and these candidates running in delaware. are these candidates home groun? are they from these states? or have they moved to these states? guest: both of their cases, they are not from those states. rand paul is the son of ron paul. he was raised in the but he has been there a number of years. one thing that's going to play out, tip o'neal's old line is all politics are local. rand paul has not been, as demonstrated at least, an unfamiliarity some aspects of

kentucky politics. there's an annual political event there called fancy farm put on by a church, a big event where all the politicians come where they rib their opponents on stage and tell funny jokes, which is difficult if you're a politician you've got to find a good joke writer. but rand paul made a comment about how he didn't like fancy farm because people had been drinking so much beer and that was a tiny example, there is no beer in fancy farm. and an experienced kentucky politician would have noun that and wouldn't have -- they he then had to apologize to a church. in a larger sense, one issue that's going to play big on a local level in kentucky is the drug issue. there is a serious problem with drugs in rural parts of kentucky and youth who get who take too many of the drugs. rand paul has said that's -- that should be under local

control and that the federal government doesn't play a role in that. the opponent has taken a hard line against rand paul on this. his big accomplishments in office have all been about reducing the use of drugs in rural kentucky. he has been able to take rand paul's statements about the federal government shouldn't have control over drug issues in rural kentucky and use that very effectively to drive a wedge between rand paul and kentucky voters. we'll see if that's going to be a big factor come election day. i think rand paul's race is the sort of the bell weather in kentucky polls close first on election night. we'll get to see where the votes are coming from. if rand paul is able to win, then i think the tea party movement and the candidates who democrats will say are too extreme are going to do a lot better than we think. rand paul is this, this race is becoming about rand paul. and if you're a democrat that's a great thing.

you want to talk about the republican candidate rather than your own record. that gist jack conaway a chance but all the polls we see have rand paul leading. hartford, north carolina. beverly, democratic line. good morning. caller: good morning. where do i begin. ? first, i just want to say it's very disingenuous to even say that these tea party people are against republicans. remember the r after their names. and remember that they were formed only a month after the election of a black president. i think really that they are the, what, the vocal people. they're very vocal with their kkk ideas, radical ideas. and so the big boys at the top are just sitting back and letting them run. host: have you heard about this new book by kate who writes for

the "new york times"? she wrote a book looking at different tea party members supporters called boiling mad. we had her on this show and she talks about there are fringe elements to this tea party movement and some of themselves are racist. but in general, they're not racist. how do you respond? i think we lost her. guest: i think there's an important distinction we need to make here between the tea party and the republican party. they are largely those who are tea partiers are republicans and they're going to vote republican but there are two sort of sets of the republican party right now. there's the set that is sitting here where we are that's inside the 495 beltway and then there's the set that lives out in the rest of the country. the folks who live here are the ones who are pushing people like charlie crist if for senate in florida, mike castle in delaware, sue for senate in nevada, jane norton in colorado

et cetera all over the country. and then there are the voters out in other parts of the country who call themselves republicans, who are sort of trying to take back the party from the beltway set. and those people from outside washington, d.c. have been very successful this year. all four candidates i just mentioned lost their primaries. or, in charlie crist case, he abandoned because he was going to lose so badly. so i think there's a big movement across the country to take back the republican party from the folks in washington, d.c., the long-term impact is going to be fascinating to see because the folks in washington, d.c. are not necessarily more moderate or conservative. i think they're less ideological and more practical in terms of who can actually get elected. and instead, the folks on the outside are these people who are more conservative in zwrenl and not necessarily the message disciplined and when you interview them or when i interview them they're going to say some impolitic things

because they don't have talking points in front of them. host: jacksonville, florida. independent line. go ahead. caller: yes. i'm an independent person and voter. i've been that way for several years now. i don't think that branding of the independent nor how people are branding the tea party members are necessarily correct. and i just preface my statement on that. in addition to this, i think that the issue of racism as it per tains to the tea party is a valid discussion. and i also feel that many people are trying to skate over that. you have fringe people in the democratic party, republican party, independents. but the fact of the matter is i think it's deeper than that when you look at the fact that we have an african american president and the work that this man has done in the last 24 months and then compare it to the work that was done by previous presidents in previous

times under some similar situations. host: that was david independent line in jacksonville, florida. we're going to kathy on the republican line, also in jacksonville, florida. caller: first i'd like to comment to the caller that just hung up, i believe that this president has destroyed this country by the things that he has passed, and i think you're going to see that in the future. but as far as the comments that we're making right now, i believe the gentleman that's on there has made the comment that we, the tea party, is not going to be a movement that we're going to see down in the future as being very strong. i believe he's incorrect. i believe we're going to see that in the future that he also doesn't know what he is talking about. i believe our country is heading down the wrong path and i am all for the tea party movement. i'm not a part of it but i do plan to join it. and i see them nothing but being a strength for this country and trying to get it strong where it needs to be again. that's all i have to say but thank you.

guest: she makes a good point that the tea party movement is playing a big role here. we've seen it in these republican primaries from around the country. but when the economy changes, when the economy gets better, the tea party movement will become something else. every party evoves. every movement evolves. and when in economic tough times, these sort of outside groups tend to spring up. they are always subsumed by one of the two major parties. i think we're going to see that happen to the tea party movement. it's not -- it will have more of an influence on the republican party than maybe some previous movements have. but, at the end of the day, it's not going to crop up as its own third party. tea party folks themselves will tell you they would rather work within the two-party system than they would bring up their own party because they believe, i think rightly believe, that if they do create a third party, that will give democrats more opportunity to win because

you'll be splitting the conservative vote. host: the issue is all over the papers this weekend, today's included. and it's also the topic of the front page of time magazine, tea party time. how conservative rebels are rattling the establishment. caller: great work on the hot line. read it all the time. i think that the democrats are going to do very well in november as opposed to what everybody thinks. the tea party i think the candidates that are winning right now are going to split the vote when you have people like mur cows kentucky in alaska deciding to come as a write-in candidate. all those republicans who lost, if they continue to run, i think it will be in favor of the democrats. also, i think that it go to republicans can't vote.com, i think you'll see where we're trying to distinguish that the republicans are taking the country backwards. and that's not where we want to go.

guest: i think it's -- we've seen a very bizarre election cycle so far. we've seen not only -- we've seen more incumbent senators lose their primaries than in any year since 1980 when republicans had a great year in primary elections and now we're seeing one of them is running as a write-in candidate. another former favorite, charlie crist, left his party and is now running as and independent candidate and polling in second place, for that matter, where as the democratic candidate is in third by a long, long ways. this is -- this has been a very bizarre election cycle. there are going to be members of congress on november 3rd who will wake up and say, wow, how did this person lose? and then we'll take a look at the rest of the results and say, wow, how did that person who was supposed to lose, actually win? i think we're going to see a very different kind of election this year. host: bill in kentucky. good morning. caller: good morning. i'd like to say that there's no

question about it, mr. paul is going to win in kentucky. and i would like to address something that was said earlier that, remarks, as to how this president accomplished so much. this president accomplished so much because he had such vast majorities in both the house and the senate. had he not had those vast majorities we never would have got the health care bill through and i think everybody knows that. that's about to change in this next election. and i've got a lot of friends and associates who are democrats and i can tell you this they're not enchanted with this president or this administration or the direction that this country is taking over the last two years and i think there are going to be quite a few democrats, possibly the reagan democrats, the ones who are left over, who are going to vote against the democrats in this upcoming election. but they're also going to vote against liberal and wishy washy republicans. and that's what this election is about and that's primarily what the tea party is about.

host: comment? guest: one fascinating we've thing in terms of president obama's approval ratings is sort of inside the demographic numbers. president obama did very well with white voters, something that democratic candidates don't necessarily do. john mccain still won white voters but president obama did very well with them. support for his agenda and his approval rating among white voters specifically among those who have been to college, folks who should be democrats, is just tanking. these are voters who have not seen the results of president obama's agenda and he is cratering among them, even among hispanic voters who are becoming more and more of a democratic group, he is losing some popularity. so this sort of specific demographics, you mentioned some democrats in kentucky. those are the folks who are starting to say, well, i'm not so thrilled about this guy. and those are the folks who president obama now have to focus on for the next two years. another point he made, was

talking about the democratic agenda that has passed with such a big democratic majority. that is going to change. there are going to be much slimmer democratic majorities, maybe even republican majorities in one or both chambers, probably not the senate but in the house republicans have a great shot at taking back the house. president obama will be able to sort of triangulate as bill clinton's team used to call it back in the 1990s, when -- triangulate by focusing on what republicans are doing and drawing a contrast between himself and republicans. it will also give him the opportunity, give republicans, i should say, the opportunity to stop the obama agenda and instead start talking about sort of other issues where there may be room for compromise. they're going to have to deal with a budget, with appropriations bills, and when you need 60 votes in the senate to move basically anything these days, it's going to be a more bipartisan place unless it becomes a completely partisan

place, and then everything is going to shut down and we can see a repeat of the government's shutdowns under knut gingrich. host: we're talking with with reid wilson, editor in chief of the hot line here this morning. if you were expecting to see brian powell, unfortunately he won't be with us this morning. we'll try to get him back on the program at some point. but reid wilson will be with us then. we'll extend you until 9:30 this morning and then turn the segment over to another directed question. let's try to get a couple more phone calls in here for reid wilson first. philadelphia, pennsylvania. go ahead. caller. caller: yes. host: you're on the air. caller: i'm calling on a democratic line. my name is lor rain. i'm calling from philadelphia. host: go ahead. caller: am i on the air? host: you are. caller: ok. the gentleman is right when he said the tea party's agenda is to stop the obama administration from ever

achieving anything. i can show you an instance that proves that the tea party is made up of racists. and it's all about proving that a man of color, forget black, but a man of color across the board cannot run this country. they can not allow for a man of color to get in office, to do a good job as a president because they feel as though that somehow diminishes white superiority. but let me say one thing do not hang up. the tea party came into existence on february the 29th, 2009. that's one month and nine days after president obama was inaugurated. the tea party showed up on the mall screaming and hollering on april 15, 2009 about taxes when they were paying the same taxes they were paying under the george bush administration. it was the -- host: we've got your point. guest: i've heard a number of

callers today bringing up the word racist around the tea party movement. i'm not willing to call the tea party movement racist. sure, there are people in the tea party who are but there are people in every organization or movement who are. there are people in the democratic party, in the republican party. ok, there are fringe elements, we get that. but at the end of the day, i mentioned earlier, the monitor polled that all state and national journal do, 703r9s of americans who have a -- 70% of americans have a close friend or relative who have lost a job. the economy is in real trouble. unemployment at 9.6%. 21% told us that they were looking for a job. one in five americans looking for a job. that's unbelievable. and it cuts across all, the wealthy, the middle class and the poor. it cuts across white, black, asian, latino. every possible demographic you can have is feeling the effects of this recession. i don't think there's any question why the tea party movement has sprung up. there is an anger and a fear in

this country. ok, yeah, it happened under president obama who happens to be african american. i think it would have happened under a prt hillary clinton or a president joe biden or whoever it happened to be john mccain. there is this fear in this country that the economy is still bad, that people's own lives are being affected. that their children will not have the life that the positive parts of life that they have had, that they will be leaving something worse for the next generation. that they really deep-seated fear. and i think that's why the tea party movement exists. host: you said it cuts across for black voters as well. the president was speaking last night to go out and continue what they did for him in 2008, to do it again saying the work isn't done. can he motivate black voters to get out? guest: that's going to be a critical element of the democratic's game plan. it's not just black voters, it's hispanic voters, young

voters. the democratic national committee has pledged to spend $30 million turning those voters out again. we'll see whether or not they can actually do it. and if those voters go out, if they vote democratic as strongly as they did back in 2008. but that's a key element to the democrat strategy this year, is to turn voters in a typical poll when somebody is asked how likely are you to vote, there's a 1-10 scale, one being the least likely i'm not going to vote, 10 being the most likely i'm read dwroy march out the door and vote. what republicans at the moment are all 9st and 10s. they're very high intensity. they want to go out and vote, and vote the democrats out and vote their guys back in. democrats are lower on the scale, on the intensity scale. what president obama must do in the last six weeks, president obama and all democrats around the country, is turn those fouffs and fives and sixes into athes, nines, and tens and get them to the polls. turn on the democratic machine that's coming in the last several weeks. host: denver, colorado, tony, independent libe.

go ahead. guest: real quickly. with -- caller: when you look at these observations, probably 20 years out in the future, what i think is what's happened is we've seen republicans with their policies and the wealth that's concentrated at the very top and now at the very end of the bush administration and the beginning of the obama administration, trying to rebalance and save the economy. and what the tea party will probably be credited for 20 years from now is saying something was wrong and it had to be fixed. and i think that's how the two parties will be viewed along with the tea party 20 years out. i would be interested to hear his comment. guest: i think he brings up a good point. one thing for the first time in a long time when voters are asking what issue affect youse the most, spending is creeping up. the second most important issue after the economy, the economy

is still overwhelmingly the number one. but spending is getting up there. there is an ongoing debate in the this country largely within the republican party right now, democrats talk about it a little bit but not too much, about the federal deficit and how to reduce it. and sort of the long-term answers, long term really ah stert measures that we saw in great britain or in greece or some of these european countries that have had some tough economic times restraining the growth of government, restraining the growth of these deficits is something we'll be talking about for a very long time. paul ryan's roadmap projects reducing the deficit in 50-year chunks. so we're talking about over the course of a couple of generations in bringing down what is becoming a huge issue. host: tweet here from a viewer. guest: in 2006, i think i'm

getting these numbers right, i may reverse them. in the primaries democrats turned out more than republicans by about a 3 million vote margin. this year so far, republicans have shown up at the polls more than democrats by a 4 million vote margin. so it could be 4 in 2006, i can't remember which but it's a 7 million vote swing. that tells you a lot about the enthusiasm. one thing republicans should be concerned about, they should keep this in mind is what happened in pennsylvania's 12th congressional district after john murtha died. the special election to replace him all the republican polls showed that the republican candidate was winning. but what the republican polls didn't ask was about voter intensity and the democratic candidates themselves, the democratic polls did ask about voter intensity. in the last few days before that election, the 7, 8, 9 -- the 5, 6, 7,'s became 8, 9, 10.

democrats turned on their machine and now the democratic is a congressman and the republican candidate lost this race by 8 points when republicans expected to win. so democrats will become more engaged. they will turn out more. the question is whether or not that enthusiasm can really be there and whether or not it's enough. we'll see if it's enough. but the commenter has a good point. host: one last phone call here. orlando, florida. john, republican line. go ahead. caller: good morning. i'll make three points. first, i'd like to commend this gentleman for making the comment on the fact that there are racists elements in every phase, in every race, every whatever it may be, every group. so i think individuals cheapen their debate or any discussion when they try to make a tea party out to be a racist. i'm not a member don't plan to be, but i like what they're doing. and they have the right. number two, when people keep

trying to make everything just be about black, he's black because his daddy was black. but his history of growing up partially in indonesia and the majority of his life was spent growing up in hawaii. hardly any blacks there. he really did not become a part of the black community until he got to chicago. and that doesn't -- in which he began to be more cult turd in dealing with the black community. number three, i think until people begin to stop allowing pundits, the media, and everyone associated us with just party affiliation. if you're a democrat you've got to be good, if you're a republican you have got to be good. it should first be america, what's best for the country. host: we're going to leave it there on that point and ask reid wilson here before he goes, what when you look at these tea party candidates that we've talked about today, what should viewers be watching for as indications of how these may end up? guest: in kentucky, i think we're really watching whether

or not democrats can sort of have the impact that they say they can have on rand paul. even the republican establishment tried to bring down rand paul in the primary elections. none of their attacks worked. democrats say they can make this race all about rand paul. i haven't seen any evidence. and if it's not all about rand paul, i think he's going to win. and neither candidate is going to be popular by the end of the race, but harry reid needs to be less unpopular than she is if he wants to keep his seat. share ron angle, the race is already about her. that hasn't proven a game ender. in several other states, democrats are really trying to make all, er single bit about f of these contests about the candidate. about ken buck in alaska. even in california across the country the focus is going to be on republicans and if republicans can fight back and

talk about the national landscape, the national economy, and what democrats are doing wrong they've got a great chance to win the house, they have a chance to get close in the senate. host: front page of the "new york times." bloomberg vows to help bolster political center. says he is going to be campaigning, fund raising for democratic and republican candidates who are moderate. and we're going to ask our viewers to weigh in on that issue. is there room for moderate voices? what do you think? guest: there should be. the great senators of history were all moderates. the great members of congress in history were all moderates. even extreme partisans like orerin hatch and ted kennedy were able to work together a lot. one thing we have seen though over the last couple years is the influence of the extremes on both sides. you've got democratic candidates kowtowing to -- well, most liberal part of their base, you've got republican candidates being obsequiesce to the most

conservative parts of their base instead of really talking about the middle, talking about the mike castles of the world, the bloombergs of the world. host: can michael bloomberg make an impact? guest: this is the problem, people get excited by the extreme, by y ople who are

. . .

>> the swift agreement with the u.s.a. gives people the impression they are being spied on. people have the impression that the individual freedoms are being curtailed. there is a growing political

correctness lobby. look at the debate in germany the identity of europe is threatened. the place in the world is also in jeopardy. i'm afraid europe is a joke. apparently we are paying all the bills but not setting the table what we have is a your peer

union. everything is regulated. outwardly things are weak and unable to work in interest. that's the state of european union. a union which is no longer ready to defend the interest of europe's people and citizens. >> today on c-span. lynned say gram is a speaker. live coverage starts at 12:30 eastern on c-span.

american history tv all weekend on c-span 3. >> senate hearing on regulating railroads. that would change the current policy which he says allows we are here again.

he also announced to maintain

the rail. clearly, a central role to play as part of a row bust transportation network. we appreciate the support we have received from this commity as we work in this commission. that includes a strong freight rail commission serving on its share. we see access to the private at financial markets as a critical way to help fund the movement needed to help expand this role. we also need to remember that cost effective transportation is a critical element of the domestic economy. we need to ensure a balanced system we insist on tangible

performance outcome to ensure we sustain stain improvements regrettably the difficult of

agreements between the state railway workers has put things on a slow pace. ensuri ensuring passenger service preen portla between seattle and portland oregon. america's future and its economy depends on an efficient, safe,

reliable rail system. we are finalizing a progress report on our first ever national rail plan that will serve as an effective blue print in achieving these goals in the month and the year ahead. >> i'll be happy to answer any questions. >> thank you. >> good afternoon. thank you for your comments deputy secretary. thank you for your invitation to speak today.

these include looking at how much we charge to file a case with the board. first, i want to thank the committee for the hard work it has done for the first work of authorization since it was created. by reaching across political lines, this committee worked together to create the bill.

>> for similar reasons, i also believe it is time to revisit several of the board's ruleings

i would like to review of the level of filing fees and complaint cases i understand agencies need to cover their costs but i am discouraged with the high fees. they will reinvent the agency to an engaged problem solve r

finding the right balance that is the approach i will follow going foerld. thank you for your time. >> i will start we have allowed

them to make a virtual contact and done so relatively quietly. most of the time, people in washington just accept the numbers numbers of the railway system. it may be the most powerful effective lobby in town. i'm sure he'll be happy to hear that. we've looked at these companies and what they file with the sec

among all it doesn't matter if the quarter is bad or if there's a recession. they are doing extremely well. they continue to make extremely large profits there is this

concern that railroads are able to use the market dominance with respect to competitive access. i believe that the arena has changed since the act was put in place in 1980. at that time, railroads were suffers and broke. as you described and azure report describes well, things have changed significantly. we have the hope of looking at something as a way to look

towards looking at some of these serious issues with regard to market dominance. >> what sp interesting to me is that everybody understoods that passenger trains are less profitable than freight trains. you have to be good to passengers and feed them and take care of them. jo you have this term. maybe you are about to get rid of it. i don't know what sufficient add

question si is. they have interpreted that. because people don't follow these issues. they get away with it. wall street understands and is pleased by what they see. what they focus and what they charge people who have their own choice if there's only railroad into their factory or grainry. they are like, we'll for get that. i was in a commerce committee.

this was an effort to buy my good will or something. life can't work like that. i was knowledgeable relative lyi thought we'd get more bang

looking at the access. i think it affects more shippers that are captive as opposed to revenue add questionsy that i think is a baro meter we use. it would only really affect shippers that bring the rate cases. we thought going forward, our emphasis should be somewhere where more people would be interested and effective. we thought the access was the way to go. revenue seems like something i did seriously consider. >> my time is up. it goes to the vice chairman

>> from what you've said, it does seem you are trying to get the right parameters to be fair and even handed. the railroads have urged the board to use replacement costs. what impact do you think replacement costs would have on the costs that would need to run the railroad add he kwasy.

the replacement costs in the confidenting of of the revenue, it would drive up the asset base allowing them to earn more return just know that that is my priority. i'd like to ask you a texas

question. when the stimulus money on high-speed rail. this would be for you more likely. the secretary criticized the department of transportation for not having its act together. what do you think the texas department ought to be doing to put itself in a position for high-speed rail. i am a strong supporter of having high-speed rail in texas. there are some areas that if you could just get pieces of a system by passed or gone through, then it would allow amtrak to be more -- well, a better service.

texas is in the same position. there isn't much capacity to build high-speed rail lines in

many cases take a number of years and not have been done. it's a replace we are trying to build a national network in partnership with class one railroads are just not there yet. i know texas is moving ahead to get that capacity.

are you saying they are now focusing better and beginning the processes to lay the groundwork? they are clearly getting there. the first winners you see in high-speed rail, california, for example, have been at this for 10 years. florida is looking at high-speed rail between cities.

creating a core i door between orlando and tama will create jobs it is clean, efficient and safe. i'm glad you are are trying to create the dominance you spoke in your opening remarks about the fact that you have been emphasizing mediation.

want to see what your mediation going forward is on these cases. they are required to come to us. that's not the case in every case that comes before the court. we are very pleased to see the

settlement. mediation to me. i hate to see the litigation costs sxended if they can be resolved through a simpler way. mediation has proven to be successful. we are hoping and have asked for we have the case. we are looking to be ready to go forward i ask that you keep at

it. that you create further incentives. sometimes people have to be pushed. it is for the benefit 6 your concern. there will be additional funds made available in the future. the last thing we want is to build half of the high-speed rail.

ultimately, tampa, orlando, miami. we have tried have a competitive process we are working closely with others on that. the right of way is there. it is an enormous advantage. it won't have any issues associated with that. that did very well for the future. there won't be any guarantees for the process. the ones working the hardest and

making tangible improvements. >> thank you for your sefrgs and for this hearing it is my impression that the railroads generally pay for everything. they've born it all. it is my understanding that that is not the case csx has something called the national

dpat way core i door. they are building a new terminal in ohio. they are trying to build tracks and tunnels along the coast. my understanding is that half the funding comes from federal, state or local resources they leave out the federal governments and states. can you elaborate the view. >> there is some frustration on that part.

there's a very real reflection of that. there is a 1.5 million merit based process wherefore the first time we understand how important freight rail is to the solution. how insignificant the public funding.

there are large projects around the country. it is our expect aths that we get the public benefits with that we make sure as we rebuild the system we partner with class one railroads to do that. we have worked hard in the freight railway of the system. knowing that 25 years from now, we'll have 70 million more americans.

freight rail is very important but passenger rail equally is. we want to move forward and we are asking our industry partners to embrace the system with us >> is it not also the case that i have in here somewhere i think that continues that the government basically turned over about 7% of the entire land mass of the united states to the railroads? >> i believe that's the right number. it's the one i have heard. in the late 1870's, that was a way to build the future economic

prosperity of the country. it was a grant to spur that development we certainly see the national freight rail system as a national asset that benefits the country. we do expect some national benefits from it. in turn of that long ago development making sure freight and passenger needs are accommodated in the future is the bottom line. that's what we need to do as part of this. when you do something like that, you expect fairness and some return on the public investment?

it is -- again, it's imperative that we have divined the public investments. whether generations ago or today, it's a continued investment. we hoped to be on the anding side with railway in particular. >> we had trouble making agreement withes state, is it not? that agreement clearly sets the

stage for the future. in return for public investment or high-speed rail, there will be defined benefits. you could look at north carolina and norfolk south, virginia and csx. there are many other states where we don't have progress. irnl one or both of you want to terry briefly and then get back to my main interest which is captive shipper rates >> they really get lost in all of this.

one of the things troubling is the massive use of stock repurchases. i think one would have to look at a balance you say, well, people have a right to reward their share holders. they are encouraged in people to invest. along with that is the whole question of capital shipments.

that's really why we are here. i would like to hear from you, a sense of your path to fairness of the captive. shippers come to see me all the time. they come from all over the koirpt country. i'm not a lawyer but i feel like one when i think of all the cases brought before the itc or stb and feeling short changed.

they are always up against you can win or loose because you have a system. you sort of discuss the release in some of these papers i am reading but it is a case of timing. the classic technique is to stall. the longer you stall, people can't afford to have lawyers. i can think of many cases where people will just get it on. it doesn't mean they are not mad or offering a product for freight railroads to carry. when they felt they were being overcharged and they were being

overcharged. freight railroads have to do that to make up for other expenditures. i don't think they include stock options and things into that. i need to know of what your personal road map is. in terms of trying to give shippers -- i don't mean the categories of 5 billion and 1 billion and above. how you work and it will take time and help from us. we can make it work. this is why we are here. in response, the first thing i've done since i've been at the board. i did reach out to the captive

shippers. my first week in office, i called all the shipper groups and invited them to come to my office. i saw that there was some distress that i hear in your voice also in the agency. i wanted to invite them in to show them there whereas a safe place to come to bring their rate cases. i've noticed since i've been at the board that more people have brought rate cases it seems like rate cases are coming in. it seems like a desire. you are looking at the big picture. in the bigger picture, when we look at the balance and the ability to earn revenue and make

these large investments encouraging the rates. the way i look at going forward is looking at the competitive access issue. when i look through your bill, i see that as one of the biggest issues that needs to be looked at. . .

>> should our agency be available to them to regulate them. lastly with respect to service at reasonable practices, i am hoping to take a careful look at reducing the $20,000 to file a case to find out whether it is reasonable. those things and allied with the other things about openness and transparency as far as alternative dispute resolution is to make some of these go away before we litigate is the pet bicycle forward. >> they are not excited about

resolution arbitration, are they? the railroads. >> i have recently put out requests for comment on arbitration. i do that have the opinion of the railroads set forth yet because the opinion. hazmat expired yet. i would think arbitration would be the average interest because it reduces litigation costs. i feel the arbitration is a good thing that takes cases that are worth spending millions of dollars of litigating and bring them to us. we need to do a lot of work on that to make a place where you can bring a case. we have not done a good job of that and we need to do that going forward. by looking for to hearing the

railroad's opinion and see if we can do something. we don't have the power to -- we can require people to arbitrate before us. we are aware of all other arbitration process is that have worked and gotten the railroads and ball. we're hoping to follow that path. >> i have a great deal of faith in you, mr. elliott. i am really glad you were there. isn't it a question also that you will have to prove the stb's effectiveness? i would like to see you as five people rather than three people. is it that you have to win the confidence of captive shippers text if you don't they will not bring cases. based upon history, there is no reason why they should bring cases because they know they will lose by the classic maneuver of the delay.

that has been the history of the last two years. i have had to go back to the captive shippers that they are curious that me. they say i am giving away too much to the railroads. the railroads have to set up to this deal. i am trying to get the roads over here and the captive shippers over here and the railroads have got everything in the captive shippers have done virtually nothing and you have to move to a central point and that is a hard thing to do. these votes behind me spend their days, weeks, years in these meetings. the railroad people come and they talk in terms of individual railroad mergers. that is not of interest. what is of interest is what the

railroads want, what are their top five priorities? we all about that prospect and they simply don't reply. they stall, which they also do with you in terms of expediting cases when they have the right to do that because they have all kinds of lawyers. the shippers have to have, but it's a new engine will have to prove yourself to them or else many folks coming up the big shippers, they will to -- continue to bring cases, but the small ones and often the most poignant ones will not because they have long ago realized that it is not worth the potential it. they can't afford its of they don't. they can -- they cannot afford it, so they don't.

do you think you can do that? >> i have heard those spots. -- those thoughts. our staff asked why they don't bring a case and the response was exactly what you said. it is an uphill battle. we have gotten off to a good start in gaining the trust of some of these groups3 . we will continue to make our process as open and transparent as possible. i find that having a relationship, and actual personal relationship with people is very helpful. it has been helpful to me so far. if you have a place to put with the issue, i think you get more

trust that way about i am looking at you and seeing the faces of your predecessors in my mind th. >> they can come in then they are the votes from rural west virginia or north dakota or wherever and they don't particularly like going to washington and which they did that have to. they get their first impressions from her body language and your face and your expression. is it open or not? the people i'm talking about work working for the railroads. that is a nasty thing to have to say. mr. secretary, you indicated when we talked also that some

states have been able to reach agreements that some have not and roads have four he enumerated reasons which are particularly troublesome to them at one of them as climate change. -- is climate change. what i would be grateful for is if you would be willing to give a fairly regular reports on how those meetings with states go. that will tell in a lot about what progress is being made. is this hearing amounting to something? is it because we will have a series of hearings? i have finally gotten to be chairman after 120 side of --

after one of the 27 years that i will solve this thing. -- after 127 years and that will solve this thing. if it is that the call for you to do this, i am not a lawyer so i don't know, i would like to hear from you. even if we meet fairly frequently on an informal basis, do you see a change in the way of their behavior? do they seem to be so oblivious to the possibility of legislation because they may do better in an upcoming election? they want that. i see that as a specific strategy on their part. we will have different people or brown and may be jay will not be chairman but will allow work out that way in the senate.

you can read them if they have a change of behavior. i go back to the original meeting that they asked for. and i went happily to the meeting and i said i believe to the railroads and remember going mesolite to tucson on the railroads. they have to be fair to everyone including captive shippers. that is a large responsibility are new. we are willing to do everything we can to help you. in either of you think of other points to lead to make? >> first, we would be happy to

periodically update you on progress and keep you and your staff and the committee informed. want to go back briefly to the future and what america will look like in 25 years from now with 70 million more people. we see the future for railroads both freight and passenger as very bright even if we did not think it was part of the transportation system, we would have no choice but to make it an important part of a balanced transportation system. we need to lay the groundwork right now to do that. the sense of urgency from the administration is recognizing the future of recognizing that the progress we have made as a nation is really because of the sacrifice and generational investment in infrastructure

made by our parents and grandparents and great grandparents. we are not doing the same and that is where the sense of urgency is coming from. say there's a project in west virginia where they want double decker and go through tunnels that only takes a gulp deckers and atolls have to be made higher than it has happened and they are paying for part of it but you are paid for half of it, too. -- i wish there was a way that we could have more public discussion on this and did that have to just confinement to the commerce committee and a few members who over the years have followed this. the attendance here is not what

i would hope. on the other hand, everybody knows the way i feel. more importantly, kay bailey hutchison feels the same way. this was a day bipartisan bill we pass. i like that a lot. we tend to be a very bipartisan committee. we pass a lot of things unanimously that would seem to others to be controversial. we get unanimous consent agreement on the senate floor because people know that we tend to operate in a bipartisan fashion. in essence, i am trying to make the comparison to captive shippers and grows and each of them giving up or getting what they need to in order to arrive at parity. that is less subject to a

formula. that is subject to the will primarily of railroads. for the most part, i have had to restrain captive shippers from wanting more than they can properly get of expect the roads to go along. when i get that and they growl at me a bit and they know that i am for them, their roots ticket benefits of that. i just called off all meetings. in july. it was meant to be a pregnant pause of the people who would notice we called up meetings and it would be a signal to the railroad to say that we mean this. they have to bring their priorities to the table and we will deal with that. we're good at doing that.