congress in recent memory. it is the most productive congress and which i have served. so they failed, but they gave the impression to the american people that we could not work together because that was their strategy. they have now made pledge to the american people. it has banned pointed out that, not by me or the speaker or the democrats, but george bush's speechwriter said, of this new document, a pledge to do nothing. speeches are fine. the american people want performance. on every criteria of comparison, this congress is moving america ahead. i have to leave now. but this congress has been extraordinarily productive.

although, it has been contentious. i claim some degree of credibility in working in a bipartisan fashion with others on the foreign intelligence surveillance act to make america secure, on the help america vote at to make america have a better democracy, and other items for the security and welfare of our nation. and for july, the party of note -- unfortunately, the party of no developed a strategy of obstructionism. as a result, it magnifies the assertion that nothing is done by their pledge to america. >> the house took the lead to

work with president bush to work out of the financial crisis. we were told -- and because we ask, not because they felt it was their responsibility to tell us -- on september 18, 2008, we were told that, if we did not act immediately, there would be no economy on monday. that was a thursday night. there would be no economy on monday. this is how far down the road into financial crisis the bush administration had taken us. we really had to do some reform. we did it. we did it in a way that was different than the administration proposed. we did it to make the tax payer whole. that was a very big level of cooperation with the republicans, that not even the republicans in the house of representatives gave to their

president of the united states. it is no wonder that mr. boehner wants to talk about process. they have no substantive issues to take to the american people. they want to talk about process? we can talk to them about that. but we would rather be talking about progress rather than process. progress for families is what the president said, the progress made by the senate. >> tomorrow, the president is expected to pick pete rouse to replace ron emmanuel -- rahm emanuel. >> rahm enjoys a great reputation and even affection among his former colleagues in the house of representatives.

we all wish him much success. i extended those keys to him when i saw him this morning at the white house. the only thing that matters is does the chief of staff have the competency of the president of the united states. we salute him and offer cooperation with him. >> would you endorse him, madam speaker? [laughter] >> thank you. ough>> in a few moments, meg whitman talks with

reporters about allegations that she knowingly hired an undocumented worker. after that, house minority john boehner on what his agenda would be if republicans win a majority of house seats. later, we will reappear the news conference with house speaker nancy pelosi and other democratic leaders. on "washington journal" tomorrow morning, jamie court on his book. joseph henchman with the tax foundation looks at how raising taxes has affected state budgets. we will be joined by sidney friedberg. he wrote an article on how military families are affected when service members are returned from deployment in iraq and afghanistan. >> the republican candidate for

governor in california spoke about allegations that she knowingly employed an undocumented worker. this is 45 minutes. >> hello. how are you? good. this is my husband. i think many of you have met him. we are about to reiss -- to release a statement on this gloria allred-jerry brown issue. we will go through the statement and then we will take question. i will be here for as long as you want to be here. first, let me walk you through this statement. make no mistake, these allegations are completely untrue. they lack any merit whatsoever. this is truly a political smear on me, on my family, and based on lies. it is designed to divert attention from the issues that really matter to california

voters. to know what? our state is in its fiscal crisis. we have two 0.3 million people without a job. r k through 12 education system is rated near the bottom of it -- our case through 12 education system is rated near the bottom of the all 50 states. we're talking about a distraction, things that are not on point to the crisis that must face.rnians i believe that californians deserve a debate on the real issues. as i said in my statement yesterday, niki, who was our housekeeper from 2000 to 2009, she was a great employee and an extended member of our family. when she confessed to us that she had falsified her employment documents and hiring records back in 2000, we were surprised and shocked. we saw iniki as a part of our family. but once we learned that she was an illegal worker, we had no

choice but to let her go and terminate her employment with us. it was one of the hardest things i have ever had to do. i family and i loved niki, but she had lied to us for nine years. more than not -- more than that, she had broken the law. i think there are only two questions left in this matter. first, attorney general brown issued a statement yesterday criticizing my actions. i would ask our state's chief law-enforcement officer of what he thinks i should have done instead, ignore what i was told by nikki and break the law? i would be interested to hear what jerry brown would say he would have done in a similar situation. jerry brown should be ashamed it with his allies to try to do here. . perhaps jerry brown has been in politics too long to know any other way to do politics. this is a baseless smear attack

and he should be ashamed. i feel very badly for niki. she is being used by cynical people with a selfish agenda. brown and support -- brown and his supporters care nothing about her. i am truly sorry that she has been put in this position. her plight is why we so badly need a be -- and e-verify system and a temporary guest worker program so that good people like nikki can work in this country legally. in my view, it is time to move forward. i am confident that the voters of california will take this episode for what it is, politics at its worst. they will reject it and we will move forward to building new california together. now i would be delighted to take your questions. right here, first. >> i want to know what you have to say about the accusations in regards of you using mickey and making her work extra hours

without pay and not reimbursing money of mileage and gas, especially when she asked you for medical leave when she was pregnant. you said that she had to find replacement or lose her job. >> it is completely untrue. mickey came to work for us for $15 -- 15 hours a week for $23 an hour. she said that she would like to take wednesdays off to be with her youngest child. we let her work monday, tuesday, thursday, friday. many weeks, she did not work 15 hours. sometimes she worked 10. sometimes she worked eight. we said, nike, get the job done as efficiently as you can and then you can go home. with regard to mileage, she never asked us for mileage. she ran a few errands around menlo park. but she never asked us for

mileage. on her maternity leave, she came to me and said, i am pregnant with my third child. i have solved this problem for you. i have a friend who would like to work in my place. if that is right for you, that is great for me. when i am ready to come back, my friend will go back to her job and i will come back to work for you. i said, that sounds great. >> there is no matching in data for the information that the employee is providing a. >> that is not true. neither my husband nor i received any letter from the social security administration. if there is a letter out there, i do not know how they got it. it is not in our house. somehow, it ends up in jerry

brown's hands or gloria allred says. we never saw that letter. as i and stand the process, normally, if that was to happen, they would have sent a letter first to the employee. then it would be sent to its letter to the employer. we never saw any such letter. >> nikki confesses she was not documented. why do not turn her into law enforcement. >> because she had worked with us for 10 years. i was very fond of her and i did not want to make an example of her. it is not the obligation of the employer to turn in illegal employees. i would not make an example of nicky. i encouraged her to do the right thing. i encourage her to say, gosh, what is the right thing to do? go back to your country and find

a way to come back here legally. but i did not feel it was the right thing to turn her in. >> a follow-up first. >> ok. >> you said yesterday was very difficult for you to let her go because she had become an extended part of your family and it was difficult to let her go. if you're trying to lead the state, if you're the executive chief of california, as difficult as it would have been, should do not have informed law enforcement about a crime unit was being committed. -- committed? it is not someone who is trying to leave the state trying to -- leave the state have to make those decisions? >> i was comporting with the law. the law does not require that the employer turn those individuals in. i felt like it was the right thing to do to terminate nikki.

i have to tell it, it broke our hearts. but we had to let her go as soon as i found out that she was illegal. she came to our house on a saturday to tell us that she was here illegally. then she never came back to work. >> do you suggest that people in california are not obligated to turn them over? >> i think every employer needs to make a decision. the important thing is that you are not allowed to hire undocumented workers. as soon as i found out she was not documented, as soon as we found that out on that saturday morning, we complied with a lot. we had to let her go. >> can i also ask you -- we anticipate gloria allred the will produce a letter that has your name on it.

are you suggesting that nikki had intercepted the letter? >> it is possible. i have no other explanation. we never saw those the letter. -- we never saw the letter. she did handle our mail. if she had been sent the letter first, she may have been on the lookout for the letter to her employer. i hate to suggest that. many key that i knew is not the niki that i saw at -- the niki that i knew is not the niki that i saw at that press conference yesterday. we will move on now. >> did you check the documents of the woman who replaced niki during her leave?

>> today, we have an employee who replaced nicky who is definitely documented. we have a landscaping service and we have asked them to make sure that all the workers they employ are documented. we also have a pool service one day week. >> [unintelligible] >> i do not remember if we did or not. we play by the rules. we were very explicit with our -- with the agency we used to find niki and to find other household help that we have hired over the years. we were very specific. we need someone who is 100% documented to be here. we will withhold taxes, as we do for all the employees we have.

for the 30 years that we have been married, when we first have our voice and -- our boys and started hiring people in the house, that has been so. >> did you ever asked her directly whether she was a legal worker before he decided to run for government? >> we asked the agency. we got a copy of her social security card. we got a copy of four driver's license. an i-9 form.y of r the agency look at all of that documentation. when we hired her, and she was the best candidate that we saw, i thought she was legal because i have all the documentation in front of me. >> in the documents, there is no

signature from the employer testifying -- >> i do not know. i do not know that there is a requirement to sign those documents. we have one son by her saying, under penalty of perjury it, i am here legally to work. but we got a package from the employment agency when she was hired that have all the documentation in it. you're next. >> these mishmash letters are now a part of social security. have you content the social security administration to see if they ever sent you a mismatch letter? >> i have not. >> would you make that public if they had sent you a copy? >> absolutely. >> in the tradition of the three questions, how did her

employment work? you went through the agency, but once you hired her, she was your employee? >> yes. we gave her a check every single friday. we left it on the counter for her every single friday. jack is next and then you. >> [unintelligible] >> after she told us what had happened and i called her back to say that there was nothing we could do and we had to terminate your employment, i have not seen or talked to her since. >> she said there was a phone call. >> when she left the senate, i told her we would talk with our lawyer and see if anything could be done. -- when she left that saturday, i told her we would talk with our lawyer and see if anything could be done. i did and there was nothing. i told her that we would have to let you go. i called back to say, i am so

sorry, but we cannot continue to do this. >> she said that you had become upset that she would cause her trouble. >> we were there in our living room on saturday. absolutely not true. those are false allegations. we will go over here. >> is gloria allred into this with jerry brown? >> i believe so. this is classic smear politics. this is what californians and americans had about politics. here we are, 30 days out from an election, in a classic smear operation. i heard this morning that randy sandoval, the brown campaign had been found blogging the story two weeks ago. there is clear evidence that

this is brown-motivated. >> if a member of your extended family came to you with a problem, there is no path way to citizenship for a woman like that. >> right. >> would you change your position? >> i would not. it is important to have a temporary guest worker program so people can be here on a temporary permit. until we can prove to californians and americans that we can get around this illegal immigration problem, which is a very serious problem, i think we have to focus on getting the problem solved. you have heard me talk about it. we have to secure our border. we have to hold employers accountable. i voluntarily let nikki go. but many employers will have to make sure that they do.

and we have to eliminate sanctuary cities. i first solution is a temporary guest worker solution. once we prove to americans that we can secure the border, that we can stop the flow of illegal immigration into this country, then we can have another discussion. but i do not think people are willing to have that discussion. the near term solution is a temporary guest worker program. >> [unintelligible] >> before i started this campaign, i had dug into the e- verify system of homeland security and ask them about it. they admitted it is not as accurate as it should be. the reason i did not talk about this is because i did not want to make an example of niki.

we have talked about that already. she was a part of our family for many years. if i talked about that, i would have to bring her to the fore. i think the tragedy of this is that she is being manipulated. i think she probably did not understand exactly what she had gone into with gloria allred. this is what gloria allred does in every election, about 30 days out. she does this kind of thing. i feel bad for niki. >> [unintelligible] >> i must senior advisor. we knew about this. this is politically motivated. if i was worried about this and running for governor, you will recall that i announced i was first running for governor on february 9, 2009. this did not happen until june

2009. if i was when to let niki go for political expediency, i probably would have done it before i announced for governor. the truth is, we have no idea. >> here is the scenario. you wanted to hire a nanny that was a legal resident and you make sure of it. but over the course of nine years, as she bonded with your family -- this is almost a decade now -- there were inferences that she was not legal. she would not go back to mexico to visit family because she could not get back. you did not want to ask the question because you did not want to know. the scenario painted by your former housekeeper is that your husband actually suspected that, which is why she claims he made the comment "i knew this was going to be a problem."

you did not seek out information. >> that is so untrue. i cannot even tell you. that is absolutely false. we got her documentation. we never talked about her going to mexico. if we did, i certainly do not remember it. we talked about her children. we talked about her husband's job. we talk about lots of different things. but your insinuation is that i turned a blind eye to this and it is absolutely false. it is not true. -- cant the opportunity you say the agency that you went to? >> yes. it is country resources in menlo park. >> do you owe niki money? if so, will you pay her? >> we do not owe her money. as i said, she worked 15 hours a week. she was contacted to work 15 hours a week. she never worked more than that.

most weeks, she worked less than that. she worked 10 hours a week. we did not pay her 23 times 10. we paid her for 15 hours every week. when we went to christmas vacation, we paid her for that week even though we were only there a couple of days. >> she says that you do over money. >> that will be adjudicated. that is simply not true. >> if you were so close, why did you not help her get legal? why did not help her get an attorney? >> when i talked with my lawyer, she said, listen, there is nothing you can do here. there is no actual legal stance for her. it is probably not going to be helpful. i decided, you know what? nicky, you have to make a

decision about what you will do. you have to go home. there are any number of things you can do. but i did not feel that it was the right thing to go out and work with an immigration lawyer. [unintelligible] >> -- >> [unintelligible] >> that is right. i said to her that saturday, we will have to let you go. i will talk to my lawyer and see if there is something we can do. but i called her back and there was nothing we can do. >> why did you withhold this information? why did you wait until the brown campaign, as you allege, brought it out? you know that this probably would have come in the later stages of the election?

>> i did everything that was comporting with a lot. when she came to me, we let her go. if i was going to talk about this on the campaign trail, it would have put her out there as an example. guess what. that is what gloria allred has done. i think the consequences may be very severe. i do not know who is paying gloria allred. i do not know what was nicky's decision. did someone come to her house and say, we know you're here illegally and we will expose you unless you do this with gloria allred? i do not know how this occurred. but i was not going to make an example of her. >> you are seeking the maximum office of this state. >> i think it has nothing to do with my character.

what i did was absolutely the right thing to do. it is what all employers should do in california. frankly, also in the united states. it is illegal to hire illegal immigrants. if you are a household employer or business employer, if you hire someone that you discover is here illegally, your obligation is to let them go. i think it speaks volumes of my character. once i understood, i made a call. and i made the right call. >> if the she is here illegally, that she broke the law, do you support her of being deported? >> i will leave that up to the authorities. i support a guest worker program. we have spent a long time talking about this issue and yet there are 2.3 californians out there without a job. there is an illegal immigration problem that we have not

addressed. our k through 12 education system is at the bottom of the barrel. this is a distraction on what i think californians really care about. i would like to get a guest worker program in place. emigration is a federal issue, but there is a lot that we can do. so i would like a guest worker program. >> [unintelligible] her at sun is six or seven years old. i feel terrible about it. the law is the law. the immigration will have to decide what they think the right thing to do here. >> in a conversation with y9ou, claims i do not know you.

>> she was crying while she was reading that statement. she knows that is not true. >> both sides agree. one of the key issues is this letter. this puts you in a tough position. to clear things up, i have asked nicky and gloria the same question. [inaudible] >> i would. we were stunned when nicky told she was illegal. we had seen the documentation and we have been so careful, we wwinter and agency. we did not go to a newspaper ad. we went to an agency. the woman was -- had all the

requirements. we said, whoa, like, who knew? >> [inaudible] >> absolutely. we were stunned. i would be delighted to do that. has anyone not had a chance? >> what kind of example do you think this sets? what is the message when someone [inaudible] you chose not to make an example of her. [inaudible]ngsaying >> we hired someone to work here. we were misled. many employees -- employers are misled which is why we need a e-

verify system. when i found out this woman was not here legally, we let her go. that is a tough thing to do when you have a personal relationship. that is the example. >> it is difficult to track down every employer who is working illegally. [inaudible] a systems that work in where it is impossible to check? >> employees knowingly hire illegal workers. we do have to have an electronic system that does a better job matching social security numbers and names and drivers licenses and names. we had three things we're working with. a driver's license, a california issued driver's license which

are not supposed to be issued to illegal immigrants. we have a social security card, and we had an i-9. we did everything we could. we need a system that does an instantaneous match. had the agency been able to punch a button, match your name and social security number, maybe they would have come up. the system does not work that well. there is a 10% or 15% false positives and false negative and it is not universally used. it is an important thing, we have to get it in place and the federal government has got to play a role. the anchor is the social security database. >> [inaudible] >> we hvahave to make trade-offs on or want to spend resources. if we agree that illegal immigration is a problem, that we need to solve this problem for a host of reasons, and we

have to enforce the law, we have to allocate resources. my view is you have to allocate the resources to enforce the law. one of the great things about this country is we have a rule of law. we enforce our laws. you'll get other countries and many of them are in chaos. we have to allocate the resources. what i said to public safety, the first rulfirst rule of govet is safety. the base funding that has to take place is the law enforcement. [inaudible] you tried to get undocumented workers [inaudible] >> sure. it is part of jerry brown,

inc. my campaign is doing well with putin's. we have done spanish-language media. our website is translated into spanish. i have been to spanish -- latino communities and i've worked hard to win the vote of latinos. their campaign is in trouble. they're worried they took latinas for granted. i want every vote. they're worried about that. it does not surprise me that another public employee union is funding jerry brown's campaign. if you want someone to go to sacramento who is independent, who is not beholden to the special interests, i am your governor. jerry brown is so tied at the hip to this public employee union, he will never be able to

make change. i will not know anyone anything. it does not surprise me. we will see even more public union money into this campaign. $300 million has been poured into politics. this is not a particular surprise. >> [inaudible] saying strong things about you. >> i think latinos are smart and they will see this for what it is which is one giant political stunt. it is by a desperate brown campaign. this is so obvious what is going on. i have lots of e-mail and feedback from my latino supporters and every single one says this is predictable. this is not -- we know what is going on.

we see she is being manipulated and used. i think it could backfire on the brown campaign and help me with a latino community. we will go over there to keep things going. >> i think you described her as a close person to you. >> she worked with me for nine years, she was around our house for nine years. i would not say she is my closest friend, but we had a cordial working relationship. i would consider her a member of our extended family. >> she is a woman of little means. you are a woman of tremendous means. you said before you were unwilling to help her with an immigration attorney. i am wondering why you would not offer more help. obviously, you have the means to do it. >> decisions at the time about what you think the right thing to do is. she had lied to us for nine

years. she had misled us for nine years. it breaks my heart to say that but that is the truth. when we were thinking about what the right thing to do here was, my view was you have to solve this issue. you probably have to go home and apply in a more organized way to be here in the u.s. and that is thithe decision i made. >> it is not an uncommon occurrence. >> an uncommon occurrence does not make it right. it does not make it right to forge a social security number and forge a driver's license you should not have to fill out an i-9 where you swear you are legal to work in this country. it does not make it right to life. -- lie. .c.e. -- i feel terrible

for nicky. she is being manipulated. she is into something where she can see what is about to happen. >> [inaudible] >> she was a housekeeper. beds andecleaned and made the laundry. the normal thing that housekeeper does. took in the mail and receive packages. those kinds of things. occasionally did errands for us, go to the restore and pick up dry cleaning at the cleaners. occasionally wants a torres drove one of the boys to school if they did not get there the way there were supposed to get there. the normal housekeeper duties. she was not responsible for the children. she was a housekeeper. >> [inaudible] how did she obtain the license?

>> i think the dmv said it was legitimate but you should check that. i do not know for sure. [inaudible] is there anything else that xt fewcome up in the net fe weeks? >> not that i know of. i do not think there is. i have to tell you. not that i know of. i have to tell you, it surprises me in some ways that, i do not know. when we found out that she was here, we let her go and we comported with the law. i have only been in politics for two years and i'm getting used to these mere politics and i am

getting used to the politics of personal destruction. >> [inaudible] did she come to work for you during that time? >> she did. >> you understood the situation. someone asked did you get information [inaudible] >> i do not remember. i do not know whether we did. i do not think we did. we will just begun for three months. this was a temporary -- nicky said i have a friend who can help you out for three months while i take maternity leave. >> [inaudible] >> i will have to see. i think we paid her through that. >> [inaudible] from 2003, you did not seem to

remember. >> will get back to you. -- we will get back to you. >> [inaudible] what would she do with the mail? >> she would pick it up from the mailbox and bring it into our center island in the kitchen and laid out there. sorted into junk mail and bills and other things and we would get home and go through the mail. ew aboutaid you kno nicky before [inaudible] >> i did not find out that she was not legal to work here until june 2009, when she came to me on that saturday afternoon. i announced it was running for governor february 9 of 2009. >> during the process and the

debates we have seen, you said it never came up. do you think this was an issue that should have been brought to the forefront, put out in front of everyone? before we have gotten to today. why did this happen? >> the brown campaign and gloria allred are doing a massive smear campaign on me and my family. that is what we're talking about it. >> [inaudible] this is something that happened in my home and this is how i understand what happened to me. this is what i will do from this 0.4. we did not get that. we are gathered today for something after the fact. do you feel a sense of may be wanting to go back and do it over again, which you have come forth and come out with this? >> i would do exactly what i did

at the time. you make decisions you think are the right decisions. you cannot play monday morning quarterback. we found out she was illegal and we terminated her employer. it broke my heart to do it. we said you cannot be here, you can now work for us. and decided not to make an example. i feel like it was the right thing to do. i do not think i would do anything differently. >> [inaudible] >> absolutely. we only have one employee who works for us. that is the housekeeper that replaced nicky. hired her through the same agency and went through the same process. we got a new kind of mail box. you have to have a key to open. i get my own mail. we have had other household help

in california since we moved back here in 1998. all of them were documented and were here legally. >> [inaudible] >> maybe. it is important that ultimately, we get back to the issues that californians care most about, which i think is jobs and the economy and getting government spending under control, and fixing our k through 12 education system. the budget is over 100 days overdue. the legislature is no closer to a budget today than they were a couple of weeks ago. we were [inaudible] about to go to ious to pay vendors to the state of california. this is classic politicians, a classic smear politics, what

average people cannot stand about this system. we have now answered questions and we will probably take a couple more and i have to turn my attention back to keep this campaign to solving the problems that californians have. latino-americans have the same problems. employment and failing public schools. why do we take a few more questions. >> you said she was being manipulated by gloria allred and there was this letter that came to your house [inaudible] do you think [inaudible] a smear campaign. >> it depends on your definition of ethics. i do not know the full story here. clearly, i think nicky had a gun

to your head. this was very challenging for her. she has been manipulated by a very sophisticated attorney who has done this for living over the last 20 years and i absolutely believe this was linked to the brown campaign, 100%. ok? >> [inaudible] >> i do not think it was the agency's fault. they had a copy of this driver's license and had a copy of the social security card. they had a copy of an eye-9. -- i-9. i thought nicky was a great employee. i thought they had done what they tried to do i what was the right thing to do. >> nicky felt "exploited,

humiliated, emotionally and financially abuse." >> it is not true. we had a very good relationship. her children came over to our house. herve youngest -- her youngest son came to our house. they played soccer in our backyard. i told you about her oldest son. talk about any number of different issues. her little boys used to come with our dog. i have to tell you, i was hurt and stunned by what i think she was made to read in that statement. it is simply not true and she knows it is not true. if she is listening now, i feel terrible for what you must be going through.

she knows that is not the way it was. we will do one last question and we have to go. >> [inaudible] do you have any message or you thinking of a way to [inaudible] >> i do not think i abused her. we paid her $23 an hour which is it fair wage for what she did. she was good at her job. we gave her a tremendous working flexibility. it is what every working mother would love. work through the week. if your child has a cold or the flu, said do not come in. if she had a parent-teacher conference, she took off early.

we provided a flexible working and are meant for working mother at a good wage. -- and are meant for a working mother -- environment for a working mother at a good wage. >> [inaudible] or is there anyway to [inaudible] >> it is challenging. they are here illegally. by trying to go to the authorities, they jeopardize themselves. there are groups and organizations that fight for the rights of workers. that is the right thing to do. ultimately, we do have to get our arms around a very challenging immigration question in california. we have to secure the borders and hold employers accountable and eliminate sanctuary cities and get a temporary guest worker program so people like nicky can work legally. i have to run. this is longer than i thought it would and i have two or three interviews with a couple of

other folks. thank you for coming. i appreciate it. let's move on to solving the problems that matter for californians which is jobs and the economy and education. thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [ca >> into the democratic and vittorio campaigns look at elections. john boehner on the gop agenda after the election. after that, a briefing with house speaker nancy pelosi and other democratic leaders. later, we will re-air the news conference with meg whitman. >> a couple of live events to tell you about. the chairman of the senate armed

services committee speaks about afghanistan at the council on foreign relations. that is on c-span2 at 8:30 a.m. eastern. live coverage of the first meeting of the financial oversight stability council, which was established by the recently passed financial regulations lot. fed chairman ben bernanke, the heads of the securities and exchange commission, and the federal deposit insurance corp.. on april 2, 1865, jefferson davis fled richmond with the union army and his trial. this weekend, james swanson on his book. part of the series on nonfiction books and authors. >> next, senators john cornyn

and robert menendez, chairman of republican andn democratic committees. 37 senate seats are being contested this year. 19 held by democrats and 18 by republicans. the senators were introduced by the press club chair. this is one hour. >> good afternoon. welcome to the national press club. i am a freelance reporter and board chair of the national press club. we are the world's leading professional organization for journalists and are committed to our profession's future through our programming and by fostering a free press worldwide. for more information on the press club, please visit our web site, press.org. to donate, please visit press.org/library.

i would like to welcome our speakers and attendees. this includes guests of our speakers as well as working journalists. i would like to welcome our c- span public radio audiences. after the speech concludes, i will ask as many questions as time permits. i would like to introduce our guests from your right. jim farris, jane sesseen, lisa mascaro, al eisley, "the hill", andrew snyder, debra [unintelligible] and speaker's committee member who organized this event.

johnathan [unintelligible] and herb jackson. [applause] today, we we are little over a month away from elections. poll after poll shows voters are not happy. there is plenty of evidence incumbents are in trouble. the economy is still struggling and the senate seems unable to move forward with major legislation. it is not pretty. it is probably not a great time to be in charge of winning elections all over the country. or is it? our speakers today are two of the man in charge of leading their party's effort in the u.s. senate elections. the chair organizations that support their party can it, do research, strategy, fundraising,

advertising, and help get a votvoters to the polls. the democrat claims 59 seats in their caucus. 19 current democratic seats are up for elections. for senator john cornyn, who chairs the national republican senatorial campaign committee, the election is about gaining control. republicans claim 41 seats. in november, 17 car republican seats will be up for election. annett game -- a net gain of 17 seats will put republicans in the majority. many pollsters are saying the house is far more likely to turn over than the senate. so many seats are at stake it seems that anything can happen on november 2.

bob menendez is the son of immigrants who grew up in a tenement building in new jersey and represents his stake in the senate. he has a long history of public service and has been in congress since 1993 and senator since 2006. john cornyn's routes in texas run deep. he went to college and taught there for world. he heeded the call for public service, serving as a judge and member of the texas supreme court and attorney general before being elected in 1992. both are heading their committees that one of the most unpredictable times in recent history. we welcome them to the national press club and we look forward to hearing their perspectives on this election. we did a coin toss before we came appeared to determine who would be first.

senator cornyn won the toss. senator? [applause] >> thank you. i hope that the coin toss victory portends good things going forward. i appreciate the national press club in the board of governors. i am glad to be here with my colleagues, senator menendez. i know the national press club is known as a place where news happens. maybe we will make some news today. who knows? that depends on you. i am appreciative of the fact this is being broadcast on c- span. welcome all who were watching us on television. i think the best indicator of the way elections are going in shaping up in the next few weeks is the travel schedule for

the president of the united states. on tuesday, president obama held a campaign rally in wisconsin, the state he carried in 2008 by 13 points. last week, he had lined to fund- raisers in connecticut, a state he carried by 23 points. i have lost count of the number of fund-raising trips he has made out to the west coast for senator barbara boxer, a state he carried by 24 points. following the flight pattern of air force one over the next few weeks, i think will be fascinating indeed. following the flight pattern of air force one of the next few weeks i think will be fascinating. the president will visit states that he won just two years ago, but in which republican senate candidates seem to have a clear advantage. states like iowa, indiana, ohio, pennsylvania, florida, north carolina, and new hampshire. where the president does this -- he needs better luck than he

had in new jersey and virginia and massachusetts in the election of january 19 earlier this year. washington, nevada, and colorado or having close races. it is clear that air force one will have to navigate through the same turbulence that many independent observers have noted. pendent observers have noted. for example, nuclear politics has the generic congressional ballot of republicans up four points. you may say that is not a huge lead in the generic ballot, but look back at 2006 when the democrats had an 11.5 point lead

in the generic ballot. according to pew research, republicans have a 13. vantage among independent voters -- a 13 point advantage among independent voters. then there is the enthusiasm gap. the gallup poll shows that republicans have a 20 point advantage when it comes to democrats as far as the enthusiasm gap is concerned. then there is this, american university did a study of the 2010 primaries and noted that 4 million more people voted in the republican primaries this year than voted in the democratic primaries. the average percentage of voters in statede republican primaries was the highest in 40 years.

republicans set a record turnout in eight different states. the average percentage of voters participating in the democratic primary was the lowest ever, including a record low participation in 10 states. with less than five weeks to go before the midterm elections, when should we expect to see? that may suggest a few stories that you might be following. first of all, i think it is clear that the american people have gotten very tired of being lectured to as opposed to being listened to. last month, for example, in missouri, 71% of voters votedn favor of a referendum that would have repealed the individual mandate in the health-care bill that was passed early this year. 71%. the next day, the majority leader had this to say. he said it is very obvious that people at the lack of understanding of our health ca

reform bill. last weekend, senator kerry said we have an electric that does not pay much attention to what is going on. people are influenced by a simple slogan rather than the facts or the truth of what has happened. with all due respect to my colleagues, that is not the electorate that i see. i see builders engaged in a way that i have never seen them engaged in my adult life. they know the national debt exceeds $13 trillion. they are quite aware that congress spent $787 billion in money that we had to borrow in order to get the economy moving again. it failed in its stated goal of keeping unemployment at 8% or lower as the president predicted. they do know a lot about the new health-care law. believe me, we heard from them in our offices. they actually took the time to

read it. it was posted on the internet and it was phenomenal to the extent that voters and the american people got engaged in the health-care debate. yet, it was passed purely along partisan lines using an extraordinary process known as budget reconciliation in order to a boy the 60 vote requirement for ordinary legislation. then there are elements of the health-care bill that are just now coming to light, like the requirement of issuing a 1099 form every time you purchase $600 or more worth of services. i know many are great -- many of my colleagues could not be aware of this onerous requirement, but i have to tell you that smart business owners throughout the cotry are very much aware of it. they feel it is another example of washington's job killing requirement. many texas small businessmen tell me they do t have the

staff to do the paperwork. others are worried that even if they do, that somebody will make an inadvertent mistake and they will be forced into an irs audit or worse. the point is, themerican people are not clueless. they are actually quite engaged. i think they are more engaged now than they have beeat any time in my adult life. they are certainly not ignorant of what is happening in washington. they see what is happening and i think they are pushing back hard. like during seems to have given way to listening. this week by spread that joe biden told his fellow democrats in new hampshire that they needed to stop whining. esident obama said it is inexcusable and irresponsible for democrats to show less enthusiasm for the candidates than they did two years ago in

"rolling stone." i do not think is lecturing is working very well. i think what has happened these last few years is a very aggressive legislative agenda has been passed that the american people are upset with. they are worried about high unemployment, runaway spending, and unsustainable debt. we find out that there is a lot of work that should be done that will not be done. even though the largest tax increase in american history eggs -- the senate failed to pass a defense authorization bill to make sure our men and women in uniform have what they need for the first time in 48 years. we still do not have a budget. that is something most families and small businesses cannot do without. the government simply did not pass one. there is a much unfinished

business, there are bills being touted in the lame-duck session. one casualty has been a subject i have been engaged in for quite a bit -- immigration reform. that is something president obama said he would take up his first year in office. we are going on the second year ended has not been a priority for him. in the center menendez has introduced a bill -- i note senator menendez has introduced a bill. i think this serious subject matter raised more consideration. all of this has created a climate of uncertain for job creators and voters. that is why some of these races are particularly important.

according to illinois, west virginia, and delaware and they will take office immediately. they will be serving in the lame-duck session. i believe the voters in the states will render a very clear consensus. the campaign strategy of our friends on the other side of the aisle is crystal clear. they are not running on their legislation -- on their legislative accomplishments because it is largely unpopular. they are worried that voters will hold them accountable for the failure of those policies to make their own stated goals. they are running campaigns against the american people, some of them are participating in the political process for the first time. i am talking about the tea party movement. they have called some of those

participating in the movement -- they are demonizing members of the tea party movemt and president obama himself has engaged in class-warfare try to separate america on an issue like taxes where we ought to not raise taxes on any one during a fragile economic recovery. then there is the problem of not taking responsibility or attempting to blame others for their problems. i do not think it is going to work. the issues the american people care most about or joblessness -- 14.4% unemployment in nevada , 9.6% unemployment nationwide. spending is caring people. debt is a leading grandparents and parents wondering if the next generation will be burdened

with our failure to accept responsibility or at they are going to have a better life for their children. every generation hopes each generation will be better. i predict stormy weather will lead to a tsunami on november 2. the same people who made news will be makingistory on november 2. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, senator. senator mendez? >> thank you. good afternoon, everyone. i am pleased to be here with my friend and colleague senator cornyn. i am a little chagrined when i sat down at the table and saw the cookies. [laughter] the longhorn looks like a very powerful expression and the more

mile-manned pacific sailboat that represents new jersey looks to be disproportionate. then i got that we were going to sail straight to victory on november 2. so i thank you for that. [laughter] i think it is fair to say that both john and i have full plates right now. the map is bigger than in previous cycles. both the numberf states and the size of thetates. it has been an intense cycle so far with a lot of ups and downs. i do not think the roller- coaster is ready to level out anytime soon. i think it we recognize, on the democratic side, that we are facing challenges in this cycle. we have the reality -- we have historical headwinds.

we have other challenges, as well. after two cycles of very big democratic gains, we know the cards are stacked against us. we know that there is a tremendous economic anxiety out there in the country right now and the voters are understandably impatient. i agree with john on one thing. it seems that there is a reticence to take responsibility. the responsibility of having two wars waging abroad, having a t debt and paid for it, a new entitlement program and paid for, unbridled spending during those eight years that any economic policy of the bush era that led us to the press at this -- led us to the precipices of a new depression. that is what democrats inherited. that is the economic anxiety

that people are facingow. that is the choice they will have to make in this election whether they want to go back to the essence of those who created the economic anxiety and troubles that they are in, or do they want to continue to move to the future with those who are moving us away from the abyss and into prosperity and growth. that is really what this election is all about. even though the winds may be blowing against us historically and otherwise, i want to think therare certain advantages we will enjoy heading into this election. before i get to those, let me make a case for what we think this election is all about. this week republicans have done what they have done time and time again. i smiled when i hear the words adversary when he said, "there

was not a defense authorization bill passed." what guess what. the republicans filibustered. filibuster means that instead of 51 votes being a majority, we have to insist on 60 votes. the bottom line is, they had to use that filibuster 101 * last year alone. that is a record high. as they used the filibuster to impede progress, then they let met tell things do not get done. that is really very interesting. we tried to stop the outsourcing of american jobs this week. we want to see "made in america" a reality here in our country again. not only will products be made in america, but there will be more american jobs for american workers.

republicans, due to corporate interest, filibustered and ensured that our ability to make sure that those jobs were created here did not happen. we told republicans -- with salt republicans do everything they could to stop wall street reform. i do not think there is anyone in the country that did not believe thathere is a difference between a free market and a free-for-all market. what we had under the previous eight years was a 3-for-all market. the problem with those excesse'' is that we collectively paid for it as a country. yet they stood up and opposed wall street reform. sideood on the consumer's when they were standing with wall street and the big banks. en a came to health care, they stood with the insurance eight -- insurance industry and we stood with consumers. when we had the oil spill, we

were trying to make a company responsible for the spill ultimately pay -- when you mess up your cleanup and you're totally responsible for it -- guess what. they stood with big oil. it is pretty clear. they have stood with the special interests. with wall street, with big banks, with big insurance, with big oil -- and we have been fighting for the average person in this country. the cusp of our argument to voters is simply this, democrats or on your side. we are trying to create those jobs here in america. are trying to undo the challenges of eight years of the bush economic policy that cannot be turned around in 18 months. we are clearly on our way to moving in a better direction. we want to stop the tax breaks for big companies that send these jobs overseas.

they want to continue to support this tax breaks for this country -- for those companies that send those jobs overseas and they will use their filibuster power to ensure it. listen to what these candidates are saying about sial security and medicare. they want to reverse the new deal. they want to privatize it, which means they want wall street to ultimately run the game on your retirement security. we do not believe in that. i agree that the american public is paying attention. the good news is that in the poacher's get this. they understand that republicans represent special interests. republicans do their cells and no tanks with standing up with big oil. as an example, just look at e "new york times" poll. when asked which party is better at helping the middle class,

democrats 55%, republicans 33%. they know who is on their side. to be short, i know that democrats have not been able to snap their fingers and turn this economy around overnight. you cannot take eight years of an economic policy and turn it around overnight. the bottom line is that we are in the process of making that type of change towards a better future. we have growth in our domestic economy. we see growth of jobs versus the millions that were lost under the previous administration. we will continue to move forward. one thing we can be assured of is that there is advantage that the electorate is not yearning to go back to theailed bush economic policies of the past. there are some other advantages we enjoy. first, republicans were trapped

into always defending their own seats. in some places we are playing on offense. we have the race in missouri and kentucky, fornstance. secondly, their candidates. we do not believe that the tea party as an institution is a bad thing by any stretch of the imagination. we obviously embraced t activism of citizens. the distance is the candidates that were elected holding views that are out of the mainstream of their constituents in their states and holding views that clearly will not succeed. there are two groups of candidates i see among the republican crops. we see people who have had a long history of standing with special interest.

these are the republicans who spent decades in washington doing favors for the special interests and they can be held accountable for the mess we find oursves in today. i believe that individuals were defeated because they were seen as part othe problem in washington. i think that same energy and resentment can work against those individuals. the second group is those who have grown in size and notoriety, but who are more interested in adopting a strict national social doctrine than facing the economic challenges. i look at them and i say to myself, "their positions are clearly to extreme." whether is it the privatization of medical care for veterans are the disbelief that it is a senators a job to help create

jobs of -- for people of nevada. or the candidate in wisconsin o wants to open up jeweling in michigan. i do not think their constituents shared their views. they know that their positions do not sell well in a general election contest. one more note about their primary, their weapons or not healing. republicans in connecticut, nevada, alaska, and delaware have not united behind their nominees. i think that demonstrates how extreme these candidates' views or. in close elections, that is huge problem for them. finally, this is a cycle of unpredictability. who would have predicted that handpickednell's

candidate in kentucky would lose? who have said 33 days ago that woulhavee o'donnell been the republican nominee in delaware. i do not think anyone would have thought about paying attention to the race in alaska. these are uncertain times. i think the starting line will fall flat on november 2. ielieve these races are very fluid. i believe there is an enormous economic case for us to make. candidates and incumbents the to get out there and tried this message as weee the gap closinof the intensity side. as we see the middle class believing we are better off. for democrats and republicans to realize their dreams and aspirations -- i believe we will do very well.

the one prediction i will make is that on november 2, democrats will be in the majority in the united states senate. [applause] >> thank you, senator. for those of you at hom these are the cookies they were referring to. this is our texas longhorn and our sailboat. getting down to the questions, senators if you'll both join me up here. we will try to get in as many questions as we can. we may as well start with the hard hitting once. what do you think of the efforts to chase the 14th and then met and no longer get automatic citizenship to those in the united states, especially those of undocumented immigrts. >> i think it should be a moot point. the federal government has the

responsibility to secure our borders and enforce our laws. i think the most urgent thing we need to do in terms of our national security and to restore order out of chaos in our broken immigration system is to secure our borders. there would be no need to amend the constitution if we did that. >> several of my republican colleagues have suggested that changinghe constitution makes good sense. i do not believe in it. i remember why the 14th amendment was created. it was created because blacks in this country were not treated as full citizen in this country. it was determined that birthright would give citizenship in this country. i do agree with john that we need to change our system of immigration, which is why i introduced a bill yesterday that is comprehensive in nature and deals with security at our

borders. it deals with our economic interests that realizes that we need to do something with those that are here in the united states in an undocumented faction. i believe it is important to bring people out of the darkness and into the light. i want to know who is here to secure the american dream versus those who wish to do it harm. >> help melody think the polls all are and you think they can be counted on? -- al -- >> they have certain merits. if they are appropriately waited in the appropriate way, they can be of value. at the end of the day, the most important goal is the one taken on election day.

that is going to determine these elections, not the polls. i appreciate all of the work of those polls. we obviously use them for internal purses, but at the end of the day, they are a snapshot of the moment. i would just simply say that a lot of those polls were wrong in the primary context that we saw. >> i think an individual poll should be judged on its own individual merits. for example, a boulder surveys registered voters does not tell you who is likely to come vote. those who try to estimate or predict who the likely bidders or have their ownodels. that is one reason why i like to look at the average tourist -- look at the averagers.

i think the turnout is an area where i think there has been a lot of volatility. as much as bob and our democratic friends enjoyed the turbulence of the republican primaries, what they have under estimated is what is coming at them on november 2. i think many of the polls may have underestimated the intensity and the turnout i think we are going to see, which will favor republicans on november 2. >> center menendez, it seems as if many democrats are running away from the president in their campaign ads. how would you be able to get anything done with this kind of division iyour own ranks >> i do not know that they are running away for the president. john was talking about all of

the places the president was going to to to campaign for them. we are working to turn the economyaround. that ione of the most important things we can do. in the face of enormous obstructions of republicans who have come to a political equation, their political equation for successes has this president fail and have the majority in the congress failed. if they fail, we will win the seats. i think it is a terrible equation because it means the country will fail at the end of the day. i think our success has been because we have worked together for the preside. he is making the change that he promised people. it has happened in this enormous challenges. >> during the time leading up to scott brown's election,

democrats had a majority in the house and could do anything they wanted and did not. it was a purely partisan basis. they did not secure republican votes or even try to meet us in the middle. brad ellsworth ran an ad touting his formally held posts as sheriff and made no mention of the fact that he was a member of congress and i voted for the stimulus and a health care bills that were enormously unpopular in indiana. i think that says it all. >> senator cornyn, this is for the republican caucus to decide, but which you give dan coates

the 12 years of siority at the is elected? >> it is for the conference and not for me. i had not given it a thought. [laughter] >> should the bush tax cuts for the wealthy b extended and, if so, what programs would you cut to pay for them? >> i am it not for raising taxes on anybody during a fragile economic recovery. i note a number of senate democrats share that view. i think we would have had a vote on this, but the democratic caucus is so divided. i think it is outrageous that we have adjourned without addressing this looming tax increase. it will be the single largest tax increase in american history. playing class warfare is a very dangerous approach. it does not take into account a lot of small businesses and

people to report their business and, on an individual tax return. i think playing class warfare and trying -- and leaving employers and job creators with the kind of uncertainty we see with this looming tax increase is bad for jobs and is that for the country. >> i think we would have had some progress on tax cuts because we support making the middle class tax cuts permanent, whh republicans did not do. we want to see them become permanent in nature. the problem is when the republican leader of the senate says he will not let anything move forward unless we make them all permanent. that is $4 trillion. i do not know how you can claim the mantle of fiscal responsibility and then come forth with a $4 trillion tax cut

thats on paid for. that is not fiscally responsible. since that was the juggernaut between the two different views, i do not think it is possible to move forward with the only way that would have allowed us to move forward is to make this tax cuts permanent. >> do you think that the senate spent 18 months too long on the health care bill and should the senate had been focused on jobs? >> the senate was focused on jobs when it came in. people forget where we started from. i will never forget the meeting that members of the banking committee and some members of the leadership had with chairman bernanke of the federal reserve

in november 2008. he came in and outlined the previous administration and said there were a series of financial institutions that would collapse and if they collapsed, they would create a systemic risk to the rest of the country. i ask the chairman, you have to have enough tools to take care of this. he said, "if you do not respond in the next two weeks, we will have a global economic meltdown. " that was two months before president obama took offe. we also moved toward strike to create an economy that was flat and had negative gdp growth of 6..

it was losing before the president could do one thing, three-quarters of a million jobs in januarythree quarter of a million jobs in february. we went to work to try to turn that are around so that we had positive gdp growth. that means we had a nearly 3 million job turnaround. is that good enough for individuals out there who are looking for a job in our country and want to have the dignity that a job brings them but no. there is much more to do. are we moving in t right direction from what we inherited? >> if we had had a genuine bipartisan outrage by the white house, instead we saw all that they thought they could pass the bill without negotiating, without any sort of compromise.

what we got in the process was not the health care bil that bans the cost curve down, but one that makes it worse and creates a new financial burdens for employers. one reason they are uncertain about hiring people or expanding their business -- one that took money out of medicare. one that actually raise priums on people with insurance -- use all that most recently, the report from mcdonnell's with the policies they currently have do not meet the new government mandate and will cost a lot more. unfortunately the goal of health care reform was not accomplished in my view because it did nothing about affordabity and accessibility. instead it turned it over to washington, d.c., instead of y and me and allow us to make our own health care decisions. if charlie crist is elected,

and do you think he will caucus with? k >> endrick -- kendric meek is our candidate in florida. i think he will have the opportunity to rise significantly in the polls. gov. chris is not doing that well in the polls. i think pple are looking for a while -- real choice and will turn to kendrick. he will caucus with the democrats. >> bob, you and i agree that charlie crist will not be sworn in as anited states ended -- united states senate or in january. the key was the democratic

primary. democrats will come home. republicans and democrats will move towards more coat rubio -- marco rubio and leave governor crist without any support. i expect marco rubio to be sworn in as the next united states senator from florida. >> is the united states declining as a world leader and what should we do about it? >> i look at both the election and the future with hope. i looked at it with the admiration of a country that in its most difficult and challenging times, i never forget that this countryent to two world wars and succeeded. this country put a man on the moon. this country eliminated a series

of diseases that were at one time thought impossible to erase. we have always met this challenge. right now the challenges that we have our lost by economics. they are economics of eight years of failed bush policies -- the very policie by the way, that if you listen across the entire landscape of republican candidates, they largely embraced and say they want to get back to them. the last time i looked, if you want to look -- if you want to move forward, you put your car in d, a democrat, for dve and you put it in our, or republican, for reverse. we have more allies and less enemies as a resultith his engagement with the world. that is not an indication of the nation in decline. >> there is one area where

president obama has literally embraced the bush policies and that is the war on terror. where he is receiving bipartisan support for the efforts to eliminate safe haven in afghanistan for al qaeda. we have supported him there and will continue to support him because we think it is important for america to remain strong and to protect our people against attacks from terrorist orgazations. i think economically, bob is right. people want to get back to work. unfortunately the administration seems to not recognize the important role of the private sector of the free-enterprise system and the small businesses, the zero entrepreneurs, and people who invest the money and capital in order to allow employers to hire and allow our economy to grow. that is the way america will get

back to work. i worry that if we do not address the tax policies, for example, that make america had the second-highest corporate tax rate in the world, will try to fi ways to make american businesses and our economy more competitive. our friends across the aisle want to punish them further and create a climate of uncertainty that has caused them to sit on their cash and not invest and get america back to work. i am very optimistic because i believe in the power of a mid- course correction. i think that is what we will get on november 2. >> what additional steps should be taken to improve the housing market and protect homeowners? >> let me just say, one of the things that we are doing that goes to small businesses and certainly all of those in the home buying market as well, the

bill that we passed with enormous republican resistance to give tax cuts, to give greater access to capital, to infuse greater opportunity for loans for small businesses. we make sure we gave small businesses the ability to buy a critical piece of equipment and be able to deduct it fully within one tax year. we would give tax credits to someone who will hire seone and will be able to forgo the yroll tax and, at the same me, be able to get a $1,000 tax crit. we are trying to help small and midsize businesses even in the face of the obstruction i talked about before. first-time home buyers tax credit was incredibly important. it helped to stimulate at one point in time the housing

market. it disincentives that bring people into the market who might be at the edge of wondering whether or not to get in. that would be dered. >> i think the difference of approach is the democrats believe in command in control out of washington. they believe they can command the economy to come back to life by passing sunday policy where spending moreoney. people are losing their homes because they lost their jobs. the reason why it is so important to encourage private investment and to make it easier, not harder, on the job creators is so peopl can get back to work and pay their mortgages so they will not lose their homes. that is the single most important thing we can do. >> the dsccis not spending money in states like ohio and florida. do high-level appearances

substitute for hard large cash? >> i do not telegraph where i spend my money. i let john know in advance. i am not going to answer where or how we make determinations about our spending. i will say that the president's appearance is enormous boost to candidates. we welcome it. as it relates to whe i will spend my money in the next 30 days, we would just have to watch. >> i think the president's engagement in the midterm elections when he is not on the baot in such an aggressive way reminds people that this really is a referendum on his policies and on what washington has been doing the last two years. i think it will energize independents and republicans to turn and out and vote. i do not think it will help the

candidates that are having to separate themsels from some of the failed policies that people disapprove of like the health- care bill, the stimulus, and others. i do agree with bob that we are not going to tell you how we are going to be moving the pieces on the chessboard, but i will say that we will be looking for opportunities to move money out of states where our lead is substantial and move it into other places where we believe we can be competitive. we have seen a huge expansion of the plainfield in west virginia. it has been one of the most recent ones. out on the west coast, washington and california. it is a joy to be an interesting 43 days. -- it is going to be an interesting 43 days. republicans have more face

book and twittered fans. >> i personally enjoy writing on face but everyday. if you are not following me, i hope you will. it is a great opportunity for the listening audience, please follow me on facebook and twitter. we have learned the importance of communicating and listening anyway we can, perhaps without the lters we get with the mainstream media, no offense intended. it is important to hear from people in an unfiltered and direct way. sometimes she daughte-- you do not like what you hear. if we are going to keep our finger on the faults -- bolts of america, these are ways that are very useful. >> i have never done an accounting of how many friends everybody has, but i will say that every mode of information

and communication is incredibly important. we increasingly -- we crease the spectrum of the media we participate in. we have had 34 million -- we have had $34 million of unknown, undisclosed -- i call them shall we -- $34 million of two republicans. that is an incredible amount. we are still 30 days out from the election. every means of communication when you are giving faced with an onslaught of $34 million in undisclosed expenditures is very important, especially when you wonder who has given up those that -- given up that $34 million of undisclosed expenditures. i assume that when you have big banks and big insurance that

there is a reason why it so much independent expenditure is taki place on the republican side. >> last week the house gop rolled out their pledge to america. what were the dip -- what with the democratic jobs agenda but like in 2011 if they've retained control the senate. >> i think it will be a series of initiatives. theres some important tax policy to do. we need to make sure we strike the right balance on capital gains and dividends. it is important to deal with the inheritance tax as well so that people have a sense of how to handle their estates. it is important to look at tax policies in making sure that middleclass families get a permanent tax break. that will give them money to spend in the economy. i think all those things are incredibly important. if we look beyond this immediate

issues, how do we continue to do what we have been doing as democrats? everybody talks about the stimulus package. 45% of the entire stimulus package was tax cuts for the private sector, the bonus depreciation -- to get the private sector to be engaged in our economy. it was to get the private, small businesses to be able to grow. what was the recent bill that we passed all small business to create greater capital and access to small-business this? why? because they grow these jobs. this has faced constant opposition. it is amazing to me that even when republicans speak of small businesses, they vote against them. that is part of the strategy. it is failure at any cost, even if it means the nation loses.

that is why this election will be so itical. . . current administration. last year the deficit was 9.9% of our gross domestic product.

in 2007 when the democrats won both houses, it was 1.2%, along with the 13 trillion dollars national debt. i think that creates a lot of uncertainty and a desire to sit on the sidelines and wait to see what shakes out. >> we are almost out of time. before asking last question, we have a couple of important issues to take care of. first of all, to remind members and guests of future speakers. we have margaret hamburg, commissioner for the fda, on october 8, run moynihan, on october 12, chief of staff of the u.s. air force. second, i would like to present our guest with the national npc mug. [applause] for a last question, i would like to ask each of you to

predict one surprise on election day in the senate. [laughter] >> i think john racy is going to be the next center from west virginia. but i think democrats will have a lot more votes in the united states senate and people think in this cycle, and we will surprise people on november 2. >> thank you, senators. i want to thank all of you for coming today. i would also like to thank the national press club staff for organizing today's event. for more information about joining the press club and on how to acquire a copy of today's program, please go to our website at www.press.org. thank you, we are adjourned.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> in a few moments, house minority leader john boehner on the gop agenda. in little less than an hour, a briefing with house speaker nancy pelosi and other democratic leaders. after that, a news conference with the republican candidate for governor in california, meg whitman. on "washington journal" tomorrow, the progress of's guide to raising hell. joseph henchman with that tax foundation looks at how raising taxes has affected state budgets and we will be joined by sidney friedberg, who recently

wrote an article on how military families are affected when soldiers returned from deployments in iraq and afghanistan. watch "washington journal" every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. >> i believe that the record indicates that at no time during the interrogation and prior to his confession was he buys either of his rights to remain silent or his right to counsel or of his right to consult with counsel. >> brenda vs. arizona, this saturday on c-span radio. >> now, house minority leader john boehner on what the republican agenda would be if they win a majority of seats in the upcoming elections. he spoke at the american

enterprise institute for little less than an hour. >> chris, thank you for that very nice introduction. let me welcome all of you. i see that you all have survived the storm out there today. i am going to begin today by telling you a story. some years ago back in ohio, i was working my way through it xavier university. my partner passed away and we had one customer left. i had a few years of school left before i graduated, trying to hold this business together, what little there was of a, and i want to tell you, i fought for

it with everything i had. looking back on it now, what strikes me is that i never thought about walking away. this was something that i invested my name in, my money in, and my reputation. i had an obligation to that one paying customer as well as to my partner who was gracious enough to bring me in, a guy who had put his time and energy in this business for a long time. today i feel the same sense of obligation and determination when i look at what is happening to our government. i have been here nearly 20 years. i have seen the good, the bad, and the ugly, and lately, there has been a lot of ugly. americans have every right to be fed up, and trust me, they are. what i won't accept and what are refused to accept is that we can simply walk away and let our

government continue to drift. this government that our forbearers sacrificed everything in order to build. the mission of the united states congress is to serve the american people, and today, in part due to institutional barriers that have been in place for decades, that mission goes unfulfilled. these wounds have been self -- self-inflicted by both parties. if we don't fix them, it is possible that no one will be able to. in the constitution, the house of representatives is the first institution of the first branch of government, the body closest to the people. it is an awesome responsibility, and we should take pride in its but we should be humbled by it. the house more than any other part of our government is the most direct voice to the people, and therefore, should be afforded the most care in protecting its ability to protect the people's will.

today i would like to talk to you about why this institution is broken and how we make can -- make it function again. until it does, we don't stand a chance of addressing our deepest and most pressing problems. while i have a lot to say today, are really mean to begin this as a conversation with the american people, a conversation with my colleagues about how we fix the institution that we love. just like and how the 111th congress is not so much concluding as much as it has collapsed. instead of tallying up a final flurry of legislative output, constituents are asking what went wrong. the hard truth for families and

small businesses is that their problems continue to go unaddressed. we have an obligation to bring both parties together and stop these massive tax increases scheduled to take place on january 1, increases we have seen coming out for two years. we could not get a single up or down vote. it is a sad but not altogether surprising finale to this congress in a string of congress that has freed the bonds between the american people and their elected representatives. the house finds itself in the state of emergency. the institution does not function, does not deliberate, and seems incapable of acting on the will of the american people. from the floor of the house to the committee level, the integrity of the house had been

compromised. the battle of ideas, the very lifeblood of the house, is virtually nonexistent. leaders overreach because the rules allow them to. when the rules don't supermajorities purposes, they are just ignored. there is no accountability, there are no consequences, whether we here in washington believe it or not, the american people really do. compare it to a small-business owner in america who has to spend his day complying with all the mandates and regulations that the government sends down to them. . . both parties share the blame for this. but the dysfunction has now reached the tipping point at a int at which none of us can crediblely deny that that it's having a negative effect on the

people that we serve. and consider this -- this is the first time since the enactment of the budget resolution in 1974 that thhouse has not passed a budget resolution. this is the first congress in our history that has not allowed one bill to come to the floor under an open rule. the current freshn class has served almost their entire term without ever having the chance to debate a bill under an open process in the house. and the use of martial law, which gives the majority the power to bring up any bill at any time, and strips the minority of the few rights that we have, has nearly doubled. the three pilrs of any democracy are the rule of law, transparency, and a functioning civil society. over the decades, all three of

the pillars have been chipped away in the people's house. the working -- the work of making our instution function cannot be reduced to one reform or one simple tool kit of reforms. the first let's talk about the rule of law. we always hear members of congress talking about swearing an oath to represent their constituents. when in reality the oath that we take is to the constitution of the united states. we pledge to support and defend the constitution of the united states no more, no less. but we have strayed far afield from our job description. members go out and promise their constituents the moon and come to washington and try to fulfil those commitments and they, as a result, agree to conform to a system that ememphasizes seniority and party loyalty. the ropes are shown lead them to passing more bills, microfging,

more bureaucracies and raiding the federal treasury. this is why in the pledge to america the governing agenda that my colleagues and i issued last week, we state that every bill that comes to the floor of the house should contain a clear citation of the constitutional authority that allows congress to do what they're asking it to do. we cannot do this much, we ought to put the pen down and just stop. congress has been most maligned over the past generation for its fiscal recklessness and rightly so. mindful of the dangers of taxation without representation, the framers handed the power to tax and spend to the legislave branch exclusively. it's right there, artic one, section nine. but having the right to do something doesn't necessarily mean it's the right thing to do. current congressional rules are rigged to make it easy to increase spending and when possible to cut spending.

much of the law that governs this process, the budget act of 1974, is tied to rules instead of statutes and consequently we waive the budget acts requirements to serve our own purposes. can't write a budget? well, you just waive the rules and move on. no har no foul. the pay as you go rule has been repeatedly ignored to justify billions of dollars in new spending and tax and fee increases. so we ought to start at square one and give serious consideration to revisiting and perhaps rewriting the 1974 budget act. and while the culture of spending stems largely from lake of political will on both parties to say no, it's aso the consequences of, i believe, to be a structural problem. as kev mccarthy, my cleague from california on says, a structure dictates behavior and bytructure, the facilitate

spending increases and discourages spending cuts, the inertia in washington currently is to spend andpend and spend. most spending bills come to the floor prepackaged in a manner that mes it easy as possible to advance the government spending program and their agenda and as difficults possible to make spending cuts. again, it's not a new problem. and if we're serious about confronting the challenges that lie ahead for our nation, i think the current structure is inadequate. today i would like to suggest a new approach. let's do away with the idea of comprehensive spending bills. let's break them up. it would encourage scrutiny and make spending cuts easier. rather than pairing agencies and departments together, let them come to the floor individually to be judged on eir own merit. members shouldn't have to vote for big spending increases at the labor department in order to

fund the health and human services department. members shouldn't have to vote for big increases at the congress department just because they support nasa. each department agency should justify itself each year to the full house and senate and be judged on its own merit. for decades the word comprehensive has been used as a positive adjective here in washington but i would respectfully suggest that those days are behind us. the american people are not well served by comprehensive. in an era of trillion dollar deficits, we need a tighter focus, one that places emphasis on getting it right and less emphasis on getting it done quickly. and don't assume that i'm singling out the appropriaters because i'm not. over the decades in my view the authorizing committees in the house and senate have advocated their responsibility, often authorizing billions of dollars

knowing full well they'll never actually be appropriated. interest groups then lobby congress to fully fund the program systematically creating pressure on legistive brarge to drive up more spending. i think it just has to stop. authorizing committees should be held to the same standard as the appropriations committee. authorize what we can afford and hold agencies to account for results. we should also consir developing a cut as you go rule that would apply to any member who's proping the creation of a new government program or new government benefit. and very simply under cutgo, if your intention is to create a new government program, you must also terminate or reduce an existing program of equal or greater size. in the same bill. just this week the majority leadership brought 85 different suspension bills to the floor on one day.

now, consider ts -- 85 separate bills under suspension to the floor of the house. many of them creating new governme programs, some of which never have been held up to any scrutiny or any light of day. now f. we had the cutgo rule if place, nearly half of the 85 bills would have ever made it to the floor. cutgo was conceived by my friend and my colleague roy blount from missouri. as he put it and i'll put it, let's turn the activists for big government on each other instead of letting all of the activists gang up on the taxpayer. now, through this public discussion we might end up filing that neither program has a whole lot of merit in the first place. that may sound simplistic but sometimes that's the best place to start. of course, no a spending control can substitute for the critical role of oversight. and we should direct every committee to make its oversight

responsibilities a top priority. and to make more apologies for it. both parties should wo together to ensure each program is meeting the congressional intent and serving the national interest. and republicans shouldn't start from the assumption that all government is bad, nor should democrats start from the assumption that all government is good. oversight, i think, should be conducted under a uniform standard. what's the purpose of the program? what's its responsibility? is this the best use of taxpayers time and money? of course, if we're truly serious about being responsible again on spending, we need to do something about earmarks. as we all no too well, earmarks are in the possible he spending project they slipped into bills with little or no oversight. they run the gamut on bridges to nowhere, sewer projects, art

exhibits, they ride on authorization bills, they ride on appropriation bills, they ride on tax bills. there'an entire lobbying industry that's been created around earmarks alone and i watch this develop over the 20 years that i have been here. they have become a spending progress that has broken face with the american people. house republicans have voted to stop this process this year on our owwithout cooperation from colleagues across the aisle so we can begin reforming how washington spends taxpayer money. the future of the moratorium will be the collective decision made by our members. but on the question of earmarkings, my colleagues and my swepts know where i stand. i told my constituents in 1990 if you believet's important to have a representative in washington who will go there and raid the federal treasury on

your behalf, you should probably be voting for someone else. i have never had an earmark. i have a personal no earmark policy the 20 years i've been here and i alws willave. but i believe it's our obligation to end earmarking as we know it and to bring fundamental change to the manner in which washington spends taxpayer funds. and i'll continue to be an advocate for reforms to ensure that, that happens. .

as a people. i think that this is the genius of our system. instead of planting down further, it is my opinion that we should open up this process and let the battle of ideas helped to break down this issue that has been graded between the two parties. yes, we will still have disagreements but let's have them out in the open.

can't we make it a fair fight? to do the job. again. we have turned members into voters. we have turned members in two voters. -- in the -- into voters. that is about the extent of their involvement in the house. structure dictates behavior. more debates, will mean more intense scrutiny and ultimately, better legislation. just as we have children membership from tough votes, we have also enabled them to write a very bad bills. with all the challenges that are facing our nation, it is absurd that congress spends so much time post offices and celebrating the historical figures of the past. i know the drill. members get their good press at home. leaders get covered while they are stalling on the real priorities. often these resolutions are

fully drafted indicative of previously considered bills. we should consider taking all these commemoratives, moments and handle them during special orders. i think it is time for the congress to focus on what the american people sent us here to do. the ultimate measure of whether we have a functioning house is not by partisanship. our focus should be on working across party lines for its own sake. the true test is whether our ids, policies, and values are able to stand the test of a fair debate and a fair vote. sadly, that is something we have not seen in the house for some time. of course, it is hard to guarantee a fair debate when the majority has the ability to change the votes in the dark of night.

without transparency, lawmakers can not hold each other accountable and the american people can not hold us to account. that is why we say that -- they should all be published on line for at least three days before coming up for a vote. no excepons, no excuses. this lack of transparency speaks to a larger problem. the speaker's office has the capacity to unilaterally draft a bill and send it straight to the rules committee. woodro wilson once said that congress in session is on public exhibition. its president will send went from committee room to committee room today, he would take that statement back. the truth is, the much needed work of the committees has been coopted by the leadership.

into many instances, we have legislators. we just have voters. we need to empower legislators at the committee level. as members -- if members were more engaged in their committee work,hey would be more invested to the final product that comes to the floor. printed thousand one-2006, i had the privilege to chair the education and work force committee. a ranking member of that committee was george miller. no one is going to confuse me and george miller for ideological soul mates. in just a few minutes -- in just a few years, you were able to work together to transform our committee from a backwater panel to the center of some of the biggest issues of the day. by focusing on our work, letting their members be legislators, and setting high standards, we

were able to elevate the committee to its proper role. there is no reason why every single committee in the house cannot achieve the same thing. for those of you have watched this for a while, for 50 years, it was the most partisan commtee in the congress. while george and i did not agree early on that we could disagree without being disagreeable, much of this is up to the committee chairmen and ranking members themselves. if every committee chairmen started out with the mindset that there committee's bill could be the one that actually comes to the floor, d better legislation would result. the chairman should not be content to churn out flawed bills and rely on the leadership to bill them out. the chairman to operate with the assumption that the bills that they are producing should go to

the floor. they should assume that they will be considered under an open and fair process. if all committee chairmen have this -- chairman have this mentality, the result would be better legislati. at the education of workforce committee, we operated with a set of transparent rules that encourage deliberation and landed the number of problems that we had. first we gave at least three days' notice to the minority that we were going to move a bill. it was usually well beyond that, at least a week's worth of notice. that gave members plenty of time to gain the appropriate depth of knowledge. we also require that all bills the posted on line within 48 hours of being cast. believe it or not, there are committees that are not currently required to post these

efforts at all. if we post these records on line, more members would be -- would do their jobs, attend committee proceedings and weigh in on a bill before it gets to the floor. any amendment thahas to be posted online within 24 hours of being adopted. after the committee proce, and before it gets to the rules committee. i just do not think that is acceptable. we should require that all committees meet these standards. we should require that all committees, a special the rules committee, post complete transcripts online. with obvious exceptions for those panels dealing with classified information. to insure that there is propped brock -- proper oversight,

congress should review its internal committee structure. this has not been done in 15 years. just thi about that. we cannot ask our members to be more engaged if they sit on three different committees and a handful of subcommittees. we currently have a rules require -- regarding member limitation, but they're always waved. -- waived. we need to rethink this. i know i have covered a lot of ground here and run at a lot of ideas. some of them mayet off the ground in the next congress, some may not. but i do believe that it is important that we had a discussion and equally vital that that discussion starts right now. reform should always be an ongoing and inclusive effort. i did not have all the answers and i would not pretend that i had all the answers. i welcome ideas and helping hand

from any law maker or any citizens about how to make this institution function again. americans too long for a better governmentust continue to speak out. when they do, i believe it is our responsibility to listen to them. do not confuse my enthusiasm for any dilution of how well much of this is going to be received by my colleagues. i was doing an interview earlier today and the reporter sd that they had spoken to one of the board men arou the house and asked, what do you think it would be life if john boehner became the speaker? the doorman said, we will be working longer hours. the reporter said why is that? because there'll be more amendments. i can remember early on in my

caer, when i got long stairs fr the members, many of them of my own party. someone just what the other way and others would be some right smack in my face. i feel like i have a permanent brews at the top of my chest -- bruise. that is probably a reaction i will get to some of the things i talked about today. we cannot just keep kicking the can down the road. we are running out of road. it is time to do what we say we're going to do. from our constituents, our government, and the people are selling for the next best thing is no longer good enough. -- selling before the next best thing is no longer good enough. he faced an insurgent revolt by both democrats and republicans. even though this fall from power

was imminent, the speaker refused to resign, calling it a confession or a weakness or a mistake or an apology. that right there was his mistake. those powers, they were not his to use as a personal guard or shield. they were given him to guard and shield the interest of the american people. the speaker -- until 1925, he told the house on the day, i want to effectively assist in bringing about the universal recognition of the fact that this house closer as it is to the people than any other similar body and more directly responsive to their will is the most dominant legislative assembly in the world.

let that be our goal. a people's house that is quiet to in its effectiveness, but unmiakable in its pride and purpose. we should pursue this work as if the future of the institution depends on it. because it does. let me thank all of you for being here today. i look forward to your questions. [applause] >> thank you for a splendid talk. the leader has time for several questions. the comments, i will call on people. if you could please introduce

yourself, and give your affiliation before asking the question. >> thank you. thank you for a very thoughtful and constructive talks. a call to return to the regular order. i want to ask you a two-part related question. you called for what would be a much larger number of appropriations bills and by breaking up be a dozen into a whole lot more. you've also appropriately called forore open rules. if you put the two of those things together, it will take a lot of time. i would like for you to discuss how to make that balance. i would like for you to discuss something a little bit further. i believe it would be much better if the house moved to a regular schedule, which would be three weeks in washington, one

week off, five days a week from five -- from 9:00 a.m. -- from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.. would you be willing to think about to or endorse something like that? >> the issue of scheduling the house is one that obviously affects every single member. trust me, every single member will be way -- will wait in. you have to understand that part of our job is here, representing our constituents. part of our time is to be in our own districts, listening to our constituents and trying to find the right balance is a subject of debate and discussion all the time. i do think that one of the most important things that we did in 1995 was published the schedule and about 99% of the time stick to the schedule that was published. that gives members more certainty about when they are

required to be in washington. they will schedule their time borat -- at home more effectively. it was one of the biggest changes that happened in terms of affecting members. we never knew when the next trip was going to start. until the thursday before or friday. we never knew when the week was going to end. you cannot plan your life, -- you could that plan are life or time to see your constituents. it would bring dramatic change in terms of members and their lifestyles and the fact that most of my colleagues have families. they want to see their families. i do believe that things like this require a real conversation between the two leaderships that really happens so rarely. the other issue you brought up was the issue of time spent

doing appropriations bill. i understand it would take more time to break up some of these bills, or you could bring a bill to the floor and you could consider certain sections separately from the others. yes, it may take more time. frankly, open rules take more time. around naming post offices and celebrating someone who died 100 years ago. we might have the time -- we're spending their money. >> [inaudible] >> i am with the hudson institute. thank you for your remarks. today it was announced that bob mcdonnell might be dropping its health insurance coverage for thousands of workers -- mcdonald's might be dropping its

health insurance coverage for thousands of workers 38 how would you solve this? thsands more workers may be using -- losing their health insurance coverage. >> if you believed like i do? obama-care will bankrupt our country, we have made it clear that we want to repeal its and replaced it with common sense reforms that will bring down the cost of health insurance. having said that, at if we are in the majority, there will be a bill to repeal its. i cannot speak for what will happen in the senate and i do not want to speak about what president obama may or may not do with the bell. secondly, there were $550 billion worth of medicare cuts in the health care bill.

what would we use it to save medicare? instead of taking it from medicare that does not have it and starting a brand new program? i would repeal the five and a $50 billion worth of medicare cuts. let's see how many votes that debt -- that bill gets in the house and senate. they will need money from the congress to hire 22,000 new federal employees to run it this monstrosity. i can just assure you there will not be one dime from this congress to expand this. when i say we are going to do everything to make sure that this law does not go into effect, we will do everything. is that clear? >> [inaudible] >> i am from the american enterprise institute. i appreciate your personal opposition to earmarks and york

leadership -- and your leadership. you had said that the decision will be one for the congress, whether to continue that ban. the purpose of the pledge was to let people know in advance of the election what the republicans are going to do when they get into pow. >> no. the pledge was about a legislative agenda th can be enacted now. we will do everything we can to implement as much of that pledge as we can implement today. >> my question is, why wasn't earmark ban in the pledge? shouldn't people knelt before they going to be voting booth whether the republicans will continue the air mark band? >> the pledge was about and a legislative agenda that can be enacted today. today, republicans have unilaterally imposed an earmarked moratorium on

ourselves. we have already taken care of that. there is an earmark moratorium in place. it will be up to the next congress, but i'm here to tell you that we are not going to see earmarks of we have seen in the past -- passed under a republican majority find the speaker of the house. -- if i and the speaker of the house. >> american enterprise institute? -- most people see toxicity when looking at the congress. i think he gave a great speech about reforms, most of which will probably me us in the best direction. what can you do to bring the house back to where it was 50 years ago when people talked to each other, drawing together, and so on? >> there is no question that

there is a lot of discouragement that has been created on both sides of the aisle. both parties are to blame. you open up the legislative process. its members in the committee understand that it is their bill that is going to the floor, and the committee chairman understand that their bill that they have to defend, the leadership inot going to wait a rules and bail them out, you will have more gazed legislators from both sides of the aisle. but it comes to the floor, if there is a more open process, and members are allowed to participate, guess what? it lets the steam out of the place. when you look at what is happening, there are about five people the determine the out, of the legislative process. -- outcome of the legislative process.

that is dead. 430 of us stand on the sidelines and watch. i just think it is reprehensible. when people want to look up to us as the greatest legislative body in the history of the world, and ty see h it is working today, it will not surprise the american people. it may surprise those who have not watched a closer. -- watched it closer. >> good afternoon. we have about 200,000 employees in the united states. you talked about oversight, the collective role in congress. oblast decade or so, oversight has been very partisan. -- over the decade or so, oversight has been very partisan. clearly, in our sector, we use

science to measure the outcomes of these projects. if it is successful, you have metrics to show that it is. can you address the -- the oversight role of congress. >> our committee did oversight. i think we did effective oversight. it w not about driving some political agenda. it was about getting to the bottom of how our program is working. we were involved in an effort to bring the wheel trains -- will change and try to ensure that low-income kids had a better shot at a high-quality early childhood development. we had a series of hearings to get to the bottom of what was happeningn the head start programs. i thought it helped us develop a much better legislation. i am talking about oveight here. i am talking about having a set

of standards. i am talking about a uniform way to approach this. it is not about going after somebody. it is about getting to how we are spending the american people's money. where did not spend enough time providing scrutiny to the money that we give to these agencies and how they spend it. let's look at the stimulus bill. it has been a rationale for 20 months. every single day, there is some nightmare story coming out about how those funds are being spent. where is the congress? why aren't they holding these agencies accountable? it is always easier to spend someone else's money. congress has to begin to understand tha we have a solemn responsibility to our constituents to spend their money wisely on a program that works. >> we are over our time.

i am going to try to fit into or three more questions. -- in two or three more questions. >> i wanted to know, you have come up with some proposals about how you balance the budget. how do you actually reduce the by refusing to touch the defense budget? >> to balance the budgets, congress h to get its arms around the spending here in washington and we have to have a healthy economy bad debts americans working again so they can care for themselves and their family. you cannot have a healthy economy if you expect to reinvest in the economy and hire more people. i think that the way forward is very clear. to get our arms around spending

and do everything we can to ensure that we have a healthier economy that is putting americans back to work. >> i think the biggest frustration that peoe have is [inaudible] the budget deficits, the unemployment. [inaudible] >> y del we start with a new microphone? -- why don'we start with a microphone? >> just speak up. >> you were saying frustration. [laughter] >> the frustration of not

knowing information what's lead to those issues. i really appreciate that. back in combination with the republican party purifying themselves has restored a good deal of my face. most people are still getting information from television. i am being one and% at serious. -- 100% serious. we can give the information to the population, so that the ter is educated. they will pick a fiscal conservative. >> i do not have regular conversations with him. it certainly would be beyond my job description to suggest to them how to run his network. i will say this. think about 1994 and think

about010. in 1994, we had one radio talk show up in america that no one had ever heard of. we had 124-hour news channel. we had an internet that only a couple of the antiques were using. -- geeks. the law is no facebook, et youtube. when you think about where we are today and the information age, the american people are getting their news from entirely different sources than they did in 1994. almost half of the american people choose to get their news all of the internet. whenou looked at these studies about how people are informg themselves, they have got so many choices. they are choosing where they want to get their information.

i just think the explosion of information available to the american people is at the hearts of the political rebellion that is going on inmerica as we speak. they are getting more information about their converse than they have ever gotten. -- about their congress than they have ever gotten. >> my apologies to those who have been waiting patiently. we have to get speaker -- leader boehner back to his agenda. thank you very much. [applause] >> next, house speaker nancy pelosi.

after that, a discussion with meg whitman. then it debt settlement rules. then ben bernanke hosts a town hall meeting with teachers. on "washington journal," tomorrow morning, jamie court on his book "the progressives guide to raising hell." we will then look at how raising taxes has affected state budgets. then we will be joined by sidney freedberg recently wrote an article on how families are affected when soldiers returned from iraq and afghanistan. >> mr. cameron, you were an optimist once. now you are has a miserable and pessimistic view of what britain

can achieve and you hide bohai and the deficit to justify this. >> the newly elected labor party leader from the labor party conference. democratic leaders spoke with reporters thursday looking back at this year's congressional action and looking ahead to what to expect in the elections. this is a half-hour. >> good afternoon. nice to see you're here. as we come to the end of this part of the session, it is with great pride that we review the major accomplishments of this congress. one week and one day after the president stood on the steps of the capital to artless with bold action to take our country in a

new direction, one week and one day later, congress passed the recovery act. because of that, 3.6 million jobs were saved or created for our economy. we proceeded to the blueprint for a future, a statement of our national values contained in the president's message of hope. to create jobs and to protect investors. as you know, we passed a health care reform bill and at the same time, the education bill was making college more affordable for americans and working families. health care reform, we are proud

to stand with those who fought for health-care and social security. health care that is better quality and lower cost and more accessible to many americans. this is a job created. again recognizing innovation begins in the classroom and this is the way that we keep america number one, we passed the education bill again. we reduced this cost for student loans and the contributions to the minority-serving institutions. following that, we passed the wall street were for legislation with historical regulation that has not been done in decades. we included in that consumer protection and this was the most sweeping consumer protection in the history of the country.

we are very pleased with what we have done for veterans. again, historic changes in terms of putting our veterans first every day. also our investments in small businesses taking us to the end. we started on the steps of the capital. the president has signed a small business bill. we have $300 million for our small businesses. we did all of this in a fiscally sound way. the congress told us that if we had not acted with the recovery act, there are other federal initiatives. we would have 8 and a half million people unemployed and we would have 15 and 1/2%

unemployment and we would have even worse and deeper deficits. we are very proud of the work. we are working to make this happen and none of it would have been possible without the leadership of president barack obama. as we go forward, our members are working in the spirit of optimism. we are taking a message of fighting for the middle class and move america forward and not going back. we are making america and we are not shipping jobs overseas. we are creating jobs and not tax cuts at the height and which will increase the deficit and to preserve social security and medicare and not privatize it

and cut them. these are the part d is -- the priorities as we go towards the election. there are many issues that we have on the agenda. we are not shipping the jobs overseas. we are leading the effort to make it and america. >> thank you very much mr. speaker. our agenda has been designed so that every individual can make it in america. when president obama and the congress took the oath of office, america was facing the worst economic crisis since the great depression and we were losing almost 800,000 jobs per month.

over a quarter of the personal wealth of americans had been wiped out. we were in a record amount of debt. from the day we began our work, congress had the overriding goal of stopping the freefall, creating jobs, and building a solid foundation for the future. there is no doubt that americans are still hurting. there is a long way to go. we are moving in the right direction. the economy has added about 3 million jobs. american manufacturing is on the rebound. we added hundred 36,000 manufacturing jobs during the first seven months of this year. the longest sustained growth in 13 years. to build on that 6 cents, we have worked hard to pursue and make it in america. a plan to continue the rebound of american manufacturing.

the reason to create jobs overseas. building an environment that encourage investment and innovation in america. the most recent sale was signed on monday. -- bill was signed on musmonday. this provides an additional $12 million for tax cuts. -- $12 billion for tax cuts. i am ashamed that our republican colleagues voted against 15. small businesses can get loans to expand and create jobs. yesterday, we signed a bill that

holds china accountable for its currency manipulations. in the long run, our economy which struggle if our children are drowning in debt. as the president bush and the republicans ran up record debt, democrats are putting us back on a sound fiscal plan. president obama created a fiscal commission. we have a great deal of work and lost to be done. our record on behalf of working families addressed sharply the republican plan to deliver "to the exact same agenda." of the

failed bush years which devastated americans and ushered in the worst economy we have seen since herbert hoover. our agenda has been and will be to instill confidence in every american's mind that they, their children, and their neighbors can and will make it in america. i am pleased to yield to the extraordinarily successful democratic whip from south carolina. >> thank you very much. i don't think that there is anything more simple to families in america than for us to protect the men and women, to protect america. that is what this historic

congress has been doing. we need to focus our fight against the terrorists. we gave our troops a pay raise and equipped them with body armor and the vehicles they need. we improved health care for 5 million veterans. we have expanded the health care services for women veterans. we provided retroactive pay for troops whose service was suspended under the stop-loss provision. we ensure that veterans and survivors exposed to agent orange will receive long overdue benefits. we expanded the new gi bill passed by democrats in the last congress to provide the veterans of iraq and afghanistan and the children of fallen troops to and

those of september 11th, 2001. despite their rhetoric, republicans failed to make necessary investments in our troops. they jeopardize the economic security of military families and shortchanged the veterans' health care. we are also moving american families forward. we have passed historic health reform that makes coverage more affordable for small businesses and families. we implemented a patient bill of rights last week to stop insurance companies from denying coverage for children with pre- existing conditions. or dropping people when they get sick. it ends lifetime coverage limits.

health reform reduces the deficit by $143 billion in the first 10 years and 1.2 trillion over the next 10 years. unfortunately, republicans are promising to repeal health care reform and the benefits that come with it. we cannot go back. we must continue moving america forward. to help us get that done, the next speaker is out and about making sure that every one of those people who voted for all of this landmark legislation comes back here next year and keeps moving america forward.

>> they all reflect choices. choices that the american people and the way forward. the choice we made was to rein in the power of some of the big corporate special interests who had their sway during the previous 8 years. the previous 80 years have an economic agenda that served the interests of some special interests. let's start with the wall street reform bill. with a wall street reform bill, we will ensure that never again will taxpayers be it left having to pick up the tab or bad

decisions made on wall street. never again will workers across the country be held hostage by reckless gambling in parts of wall street. that piece of legislation also ended the park initiative, the rescue initiative launched by president bush and former treasury secretary paulson. our republican colleagues opposed it and they have made as one of the central planks of their platform were appealing -- their platform repealing. they're looking to give that power back to the big banks on wall street at the expense of

the american consumer. we talked about the higher education legislation and making sure that kids could afford their college education. what twisted we make there? the choice that we made was to say that we don't they some of the biggest banks need to be taking this because of taxpayer dollars. let's make sure that that money goes to students who are struggling to pay their way through college. they need it, the big banks don't need it. that choice was reflected when it came to making sure that teachers who are about to be laid off around the country that would have led to smaller class sizes this fall for our kids, we made sure that local school districts had the funds. how did we pay for it? we pay for it by shutting down these perverse loopholes in the

tax code that rewards multinational corporations that jobs overseas. -- that ship jobs overseas. our colleagues said no to that putting the interest and the profits of multinational corporations above the interest of american workers right here at home. interestingly, even though the issue of outsourcing is one of the most popular recommendations made by the american people when the republicans did they're listening to or. you will not find one mention of outsourcing, not one in the 47 page document that the republicans put forward. this did not fit with the economic agenda, the same one they pursued in the previous 8 years. some other choices remain with respect to health insurance. during the previous 8 years, health insurance premiums qu