not this summer, but last summer we came together to talk about immigration reform. he said that this cannot be done on a partisan basis, but if you can provide this much support, 10 votes in the senate, we will work to provide the rest. when the issue came up, we could not get one vote from the republican side. there were 11 that voted for that year. let me say, you talk about president bush and tax cuts, one of the things i admired and continue to admire was that he was willing to take that issue on. . .

>> give me your thoughts on the communications landscape where we all operate now. every day, it brings some new development. i grew up and i used to be a newspaper reporter like you, david. then that weekend of the kennedy assassination, television came

to a place where most people got their news. now we are in the age of the internet and frankly, we don't know for sure where most people are getting their news. but the internet is the first vehicle we have ever had to deliver news that has no editor. the worst newspaper is an editor that knows where stuff came from. things that appear on the internet, you do not know if they are true or false. it has totally changed what i do for a living because the main role is to knock down and check out these rumors that pop up on the internet. that is basically what we do. how has this affected politics? i bring it up because it seems to me that the internet is changing the political dialogue and has made it much, much

meaner. >> i think you put your finger on one issue which is, there is no filter. i think there is something very positive about the internet in the sense that it is a way for people to get involved at a very grassroots level. sometimes information is legitimate and valuable and would not have surfaced any other way. you state your job is to check out and knocked down these things. the mainstream media often dignifies things that should not be dignified. we have to report on the political climate. >> we don't report unless we think it is true, which is the difference between what we do and what happens on the internet where things appear with no context. you might disagree with our editorial policies, but generally speaking, they don't

put something out unless they know it is true. the think that is the difference. >> what happens is, stories get published, they create part of the political environment, and then newspapers and networks covered it as a political event. even accepting that it may or may not be true, but it is affecting the political climate, and we have seen instances of that. one instance -- the blogger. andrew. he went online with a truncated

piece of tape that gave a completely erroneous impression. our administration reacted, frankly, too quickly to it. it created a media tempest, and you are right. in the past, that would have been looked at and checked out. the other phenomenon, you have one media outlet that has given a lot of room for that. you have folks on the left as well. fox has basically become an outlet for one party and a point of view. a lot of these things that you would check out as an editor become stories there. and from there, they mushroomed.

>> this whole thing has changed politics even since you were there. >> one thing that was certainly true, inside the white house, we felt that fox was relatively fair and balanced, and that of almost the rest of the entire media was biased against us. with the advent of not so much the internet, but the cable networks are read yours. i don't believe this country is greatly more divided than it ever has been. we are closely divided, but i don't think we are at that deeply divided. if you go to europe, you can see what really divided is. we actually operate in a pretty

narrow band of disagreement. one of the factors that has taken hold is with the advent of cable television, is in their interest to exaggerate our differences in order to get more viewers. all the conservative ones end up on fox and all of the liberal ones and the plot and its nbc, i don't know where exactly. the demise of more of the mainstream that you grew up and, i think, has been one of the contributing poisons. that does not mean that there is a solution to that. >> that is the point i was making before. we have returned to a place that we were, maybe the beginning of the twentieth century when you had newspapers and that basically had a political point of view and the news coverage

reflected that. people read the paper that reflected their point of view. i think that what happens is, people look at websites and they watch the cable channel of their choice. it heightens the sense of divide a lot. we can have disagreements on issues, but we shouldn't have disagreements over birth certificates, we shouldn't have disagreements over these sort of wacky personal allegations that have no place. what happens there, the story gets written about as a phenomenon. you don't affirm that there is anything to it, but you have to

cover it because it is part of the political discourse. >> can i go back to one thing that is very important that david mentioned at the outset? he mentioned it districting, something else that has happened -- redistricitng. -- redistricting. the vast majority of members of congress this year have absolutely nothing to fear in a general election. david, you know better than i do. what percentage of seats are considered safe? >> is very high, but you're talking to upwards of 70%. >> even in a volatile year, 70 or 80% are safe.

there were one or two incumbents out of all the seats that actually lost their races. this comes about because the districts are gerrymandered to ensure safe seats for politicians of one party or the other. and all that member of congress has to worry about is an assault from the fringe of the party. you have to worry about being insulted in the primary by tea party member or something like that. if you're a democrat, by labor union activist. most people are not on the french. they are center or left or right of center. they lose their representation in a system where the incentives are so badly misaligned. >> most politicians in order to raise enormous sums of money,

let's face it, it takes an enormous sum of money for almost any collection now, there are so many interest groups back home, once they get here, coming from these districts, they have lost the ability to compromise. >> this is slightly off topic, but related. there is a development this year because of supreme court decisions, it's sort of opened the door for special interests spending that limited amounts of money, and to do it through vehicles that are undisclosed that are called social welfare committees. you have something for committee called true that a policy that won't tell you who fund them. if you look at their charter, they say they are sworn to

pursue the social welfare of the state of north carolina and spending $1 million to defeat russ feingold in wisconsin. no one will say where the money is coming from. this is an insidious thing. it is one more thing that we will have to wrestle with. >> i want to thank both of you for a very civil discussion, and i must say, i think things like this are hopeful because we have kind of an outlined some of the point of where we are today. i am not sure we have come up with any solutions yet, but when the united states government, the executive and legislative branch comes down to it, when they have to do something, they find a way to do it. i always think of that day after

9/11 when the senate came together and voted an emergency appropriation unanimously, that when the republican leader and a democrat leader walked up to the microphone to announced with his arm on a pond-will -- tom daschle's shoulder, it was a wonderful time to see the country come together. it didn't last very long, but we did what we had to do in a difficult time. somehow, we always find a way to do that and let's hope we always will. thank you all very much. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> you can stay there, you can

move, what ever you are most comfortable with. we now have a special opportunity to hear from someone who is in the thick of the battle day after day. susan collins has represented the state of maine since 1996 and his ranking member of the homeland's security in the governmental affairs committee. she has spent years in state government before seeking federal office and has been a consistent voice in maine and in washington for doing what is right. the program that you have notes that "o" magazine listed her as one of the few women that could run for president. there have many -- there have been many cents, but we're glad that they were able to recognize her. senator? [applause]

>> it is a great honor to participate in this forum this evening. when i was first invited to be part of this forum, i was aware of the families many contributions to seeking new approaches to the challenges in the fields of politics, religion, and society. i, of course, went on line. i typed in the name ignacious to see what i might find. the first reference was not to this fine family, or even to the founder of the jesuits.

the first reference was to the third christian bishop saint ignatius of antioch. i read that he was unremitting in his vigilance and tireless in his efforts to inspire hope. i thought, that sounds pretty good. thinking that perhaps it could provide guidance for my remarks tonight, i read on only to learn that his reward for preaching hope and peace was to be torn apart by lions in the roman colosseum. while i would not begin to compare life as a compromise

seeking a center to being torn limb from lamb by lions, it is nevertheless true that being a moderate in the senate is a difficult place to be at this time in our history. i am uncertain who first described politics as the art of compromise, but that maxxam to which i have always subscribed seems woefully out of passion today. sitting down with those on the opposite side of an issue, negotiating in good faith and attempting to reach solutions, our actions often vilified by the hard-liners on both sides of

the aisle. achieving solutions is not the goal for many today. rather, it is to draw sharp distinctions and score partisan political points even if it means that problems confronting our country go unresolved. perhaps that is why the american people are so angry with incumbents of all political persuasions, but particularly those who are in charge. there have been times when those of us who have worked to avert the implosion of the legislative process were more welcome. around that example, 14 senators

that quickly became known as the gang of 14 came together in 2005 to negotiate an agreement for considering judicial nominees to avoid what was colorfully now as the nuclear option which referred to a change in the senate rules that would have brought about a meltdown of the senate. as some of you may recall, the democrats have used the filibuster to prevent the confirmation of some of president george w. bush's appellant court nominees. with the cry that nominees deserved an up or down vote, senate leaders threatened to change the senate rules in a way that would have prevented

filibuster's from being used to block judicial confirmations. the democrats in the senate countered that the rights of the minority had always been protected in the senate, and warned that if the rules were changed, the democrats would block action on everything. the leaders on both sides hardened their positions and heightened their rhetoric, 14 of us, seven from each party came together to discuss the issue rationally and to forge a solution. we established a new standard for filibuster in the judicial nominees, stating that we would only support filibuster's in extraordinary circumstances.

applying that standard, our solution resulted in the democratic senators supporting cloture for five of the seven nominees, resulting in their confirmation. in turn, we agreed to oppose the change in the senate rules to prohibit judicial filibusters, the so-called nuclear option, the sporting the plans of the republican leaders. at a deeper level, our agreement restored trust and helped to preserve the unique culture of the set at that time. it showed that the parties could come together, negotiate, and reach an agreement in an

atmosphere of mutual respect and good faith. but how times have changed. when i led the effort to try to forge a more fiscally responsible stimulus bill, i was roundly vilified by partisans on both sides. on the left, i was attacked by columnists for cutting $100 billion in spending from the bill, and mocked as swine flu sue by blockers buying for contention that spending for a pandemic flew did not belong in a stimulus bill, but should be handled in the regular appropriations process. that is money for pandemic food prepared this and was approved

precisely that way. on the right, they were supposedly denoting a republican in name only. one of my own republican colleagues targeted me for a campaign that generated tens of thousands of out of state e- .ail's the point was not whether my judgment was right in trying to fashion a more targeted and less expensive stimulus bill to deal

with the most serious economic crisis facing our country since the great depression. my point is, the debate was not civil in the least, and quickly became an extremely personal and painfully nasty. what changed? i am sure that the great historian who is speaking after me tonight will tell you that the degree of civility in congress has ebbed and flowed over the years. and the chaplain has pointed out to us that at least we don't have a member caning another as happened in 1856 when a

representative of caldera -- carolina flawed a member of massachusetts on the floor. i must agree that i have not seen the degree of bitter divisiveness and excessive partisanship now found in the senate. the weapon of choice today is not a metal topped cane, but poisonous words. i would suggest to you that divided government and a more evenly split senate is much more conducive to buy partisanship that are the supermajorities that one party controls above the executive legislature that

are part of our current political landscape. when one party has all of the power, the temptation is to roll over the minority which in turns lead to resentment because the minority has so few options. during the past two years, the minority party has been increasingly shut out of the discussion, even in the senate which used to pride itself on being the bastion of free and open debate. procedural tactics are routinely used to prevent republican amendments. that causes republicans to overuse the filibuster's because our only option is to stop a bill to which we cannot

offer amendments. we saw this unfortunate phenomenon in the recent consideration of the defense authorization bill. let me give you a little bit of background. i have personally supported ending the don't ask don't tell policy and was the sole republican on the armed services committee who voted for repeal. my view was this. if individuals -- [applause] if individuals are willing to put on the uniform of our country, be deployed in war zones like iraq and afghanistan, to risk their lives

for the benefit of their fellow citizens, i think we should be expressing our gratitude to them, not trying to exclude them from serving or expelling them from the military. but i recognize that many of my colleagues disagreed with me. and they should have had the right to express their views and offer their amendments on this controversial issue as well as on many others in the bill. and thus, after the leaders could not agree, i found myself in the awkward position to proceed to a bill that i supported and that contains a change in policy that i had

advocated in order to preserve the rights of a colleague. -- of my colleagues that had a different view. this was the one hundred sixteenth time in this congress that the majority leader or another member of the majority had filed cloture rather than proceeding with the bill under an agreement allowing amendments to be debated. and what concerns me even more is the practice of filling up the amendment tree to prevent republican amendments. that was the fortieth time that that had been done. by contrast, when it was controlled by one party, and one chamber is and hands of the other, the president has no choice but to reach out and

negotiate. i would argue that it would have been a lot easier for president obama to resist the hard left of his party, if he did say that he had to pursue legislation acceptable to a republican house or senate. or better yet, from my perspective, both. the emergence of the 24-7 news cycle and the cable networks that cater to individuals that are on one side of the political spectrum or the other also pardons' the political lines as has been discussed by the panel. it makes compromise much more difficult. here is why. members of congress with more

extreme political views now have an outlet for their rants. and arguably, make for far more interesting interviews than those of us in the colorless center. there is another negative development that has contributed -- in decline iinstability civility. senator john casey of ryland -- of maryland -- of rhode island was one of the greatest to ever serve. the senate was too small of a place to campaign against your

colleagues, he counseled. go into the states with open seats. but did not campaign against your democratic colleagues. it will poison your relationships with them. back then, most senators followed that rule. but that has changed. now many senators enthusiastically campaign against their colleagues across the aisle. i was shocked when a couple of years ago, two of my democratic colleagues came to me and in my judgment, unfairly criticized my work during my highly competitive race for reelection. my dismay was heightened by the fact that there was no one

running that year was more bipartisan legislative initiatives and accomplishments that i had. the willingness to cross the aisle at work on problems had been well established during the past decade. in fact, the primary theme of my campaign was my ability to work across party lines to get things done. have shown elections just how far the destruction of that collegial attitude has digressed, with some members containing -- campaigning to endorse their primary opponent. these personal attacks and

campaigns from one's colleagues have detrimental impact that goes far beyond election day. it is very difficult to consider someone a colleague and a potential legislative partner who has traveled to your home state to criticize your work. the seemingly constant campaign cycle aided and abetted by cable and radio shows whose ratings may depend on reaching a small but highly partisan member of the electorate coarsens the debate. of course, i did not mean to suggest that civility requires us to except the unacceptable. good manners, graciousness, and

avoiding undue offense must not prevent the telling of an unpleasant truths. if they do, we're left with nothing more than polite but meaningless discourse the void of passion and principal. when senator smith went to the senate floor 60 years ago to deliver her famous declaration of conscience, she did not do so to demonize the wisconsin senator mccarthy, but to denounce his actions. she certainly gave him great offense, but she spoke the truth about his tactics of ruining reputations, and

smearing his opponent. telling the truth about senator mccarthy's conduct in strong, tough language was far more important than worrying about offending him. similarly, president reagan undoubtedly offended gorbachev when he describes the soviet union as an evil empire and called upon him to tear down this wall. at home, president reagan was roundly criticized by those who accused him of being uncivil, insensitive, and aggressive. as with senator smith's legendary speech against mccarthyism, president reagan's willingness to speak truth and challenge the soviets was much

more important than sustaining a polite but ultimately meaningless and inconsequential discourse. in contrast, consider the house member from my party who interrupted president obama's speech to a joint session of congress last year by yelling, " ." -- "you lie." those were decidedly uncivil acts, designed not to reveal truth, but to give offense.

in taking about president reagan, it is important to remember that one of his fundamental commitments that allowed him to work so well with speaker tip o'neill and forge a genuine friendship. his belief in political stability led to the formulation of the eleventh commandment, thou shalt not speak ill of another republican. something that is older followed. but president reagan also understood that there were times when civility for civility's sake is not the premier value. where does this leave us? those of you sitting on the edge of your seats awaiting my remedy for this problem can relax.

i have no miracle cure. finding a cure requires us to first identify the disease. students of american culture might ask whether incivility is a washington phenomenon or reflections of the changing behavior of our society at large. i am reminded of the response that a former senator gave to an unhappy constituent when the constituent angrily denounced him and his colleagues, saying they you are all a bunch of liars, thieves, and womanizers. the senator, replied, what it is, after all, a representative form of government. [laughter]

i will not try to play sociologists and way and except to say that there are indications that as a people, we are becoming a less civil. i cited the popularity of the attack journalism on cable television. the growing incidence of bullying in schools. the use of the internet to anonymously smear those that one does not like. in the appeal of television programs in which people are either fired or voted off of the island. better social historians that i might take a look at these as simply contemporary manifestations of an ongoing facet of our culture. but at a minimum, they

demonstrate that we are not becoming immeasurably nicer to one another. i am more confident in offering the observation that even if washington leads the nation in incivility, it is not likely to change until those outside washington demand it. i believe in the maxxam that what it -- what gets rewarded gets done. for those of us in congress, re- election is the ultimate reward. not collecting in the first place or voting out of office those that put partisanship over progress, stridency over statesmanship, and conflict over compromise, would produce a very different legislative climate,

one in which the objective is to solve the problem, not to win the debate. a return to civility in a spirit of compromise must be driven by the voters, and it is not inevitable. to keep around those of us to bridge the partisan divide will require the energetic support of the opinion leaders like you to say that they want less confrontational and more effective government. it may not be easy to feel passionately about civility and compromise. but it is easy to feel passionate about a vibrant, just, and prosperous america. to achieve that and, on route to

that goal, we need to get passionate about electing legislators who not only work hard, but work together. not long ago, i happened upon the an amazing document by one of our founders. rulesgeorge washington's of civility, a transcription of various guides to etiquette written when george washington was but 16 years old. there are 110 points. i am not going to read all of them. first of all, be respectful. if you itch, be careful where you scratch.

don't scare your friends. in the presence of others, avoid harming or drumming your fingers. i cannot tell you how wonderful it would be if coming in drumming or the greatest threats to stability in the senate today. it is not until #110 that young george got to the heart of the matter. labor to keep alive in your breast that little spark of celestial fire called conscience. that little spark light our way much more brightly than bomb throwing, scorched earth, incendiary political rhetoric

ever will. when i was invited to participate in this form, i was told that there was something about this magnificent cathedral that seems to facilitate thoughtful, civil discussions. that prompted me to suggest to him that conducting senate debates on issues of note in this peaceful setting might be the most effective way to elevate the level of discourse and restore stability. but be mindful of the adage that god helps those who help themselves, waiting for divine intervention is probably not the wisest strategy. unfortunately, helping ourselves

out of this problem is going to take what it always takes. namely hard work on the part of those who are committed to the future of this country. and we need people like you who cared enough to come to this form to be among the leaders of that effort if we are to have any chance of success. thank you. [applause] >> thank you for the very

thought provoking comments. our next speaker has explored the presidencies and policies of world war two and the cold war, he profiled president kennedy and johnson. he recently offered "presidential courage." i read recently that in 1800, a lawyer wrote to a connecticut newspaper warning that if thomas jefferson became president, murder, robbery, rape, adultery, incest will be openly taught and practiced. the air will be rent with the cries of distress, the soil will be soaked with blood, the nation black with crime. we wonder if the overheated rhetoric is part of our traditional national history.

perhaps we will get a little context. thank you. [applause] >> sometimes things get a little bit overheated. i couldn't help but remember the story about the nervous immigrant to america that came to ellis island and the official said to her, the believe in the overthrow by force or violence? she said, and violence? -- she said, "violence." [laughter] i will be as brief as i possibly can. i think one way to think about how things used to be is to go back to 1964. that was the year that the first

major campaign by a woman for president. lyndon johnson was trying to get a civil rights bill through congress, and he was in pretty good shape in the house but with problems in the senate. as others will remember, in 1954, he could not depend on democrats to pass this bill. white southern democrats were not for it, so he needed republicans. it was a very different time, because johnson knew that the senate leader, a senator from my home state -- they had been leaders of the senate in the 1950's and they knew each other extremely well. they were very good friends, disagree about all sorts of issues, but like each other a lot. so to try to get the civil- rights bill passed, he called him up and said, i you have some doubts about this bill.

it might be dangerous for you politically in southern illinois, but look at it this way. if you vote for this and support it, other republicans will support it, and if that happens, the bill will pass the senate. it will change history. 100 years from now, american schoolchildren will know only two games. abraham lincoln and everett dirkson. [laughter] he liked what he heard and it did change history. i'm not sure that every school child in america these days know the name, but they probably should. he is an example of the way things used to beat it should be more often these days. i think we don't like partisanship, the best person to complain to is james madison.

his idea was that we had a great danger in starting the united states, that we might somehow evolve into a marquee or a dictatorship like those of europe. that would happen if there was not enough conflict within the american government. he would not have to worry these days about the about of conflict. the think he would be appalled by the degree to which things have gotten some nasty as our panelists described so well earlier. i think sometimes, congress has not been partisan enough. in 1964, the senate should have debated very carefully the pitfalls and the opportunities in giving the president irresolution that would allow things to -- all but two

senators voted for it. there has been an ad and flow -- ebb and flow of partisanship. but during the time of the civil war and reconstruction. if james madison were to come back tonight, and i wish you would for all sorts of reasons, what would he find different about this time from any other time in american history? you will no longer have the number of parties that have prevailed through the american history, it leads to more conflict.

we live in a society that people encourage -- not very kind about people that disagree. one thing that is important is that technological developments that madison could not have imagined, john kennedy complained that compared to the time of george washington, the senator had to have suffered a very great retribution, if he noted that during the time of washington, he supported a very unpopular treaty and when americans found out about it, they sent him letters that were unpleasant. washington was heartbroken over the fact that the response was so negative, but compared to nowadays, he had it extremely easy. if you cast a vote that might

cause you problems with your party or with other groups, you will hear about it about five seconds thereafter. they will hear about it instantly on the internet and they will make their views known. it makes it much tougher to be civil in public life. above all, the one thing that james madison would notice is money and politics. there was not a case where to run for governor, you might raise $100 million or $200 million. it never entered his mind. all the candidates running might cost $2 billion or more. people have said tonight that they're trying to raise money and it doesn't work well if he said the letter saying that we disagree, but he loves the country as much as we do.

we think he is a patriot. instead, you raise money by saying that mitch mcconnell is seated and wants to destroy this country. or harry reid wants to and america as we know it. money is so important in politics, it almost commands that kind of behavior that most of us have lamented tonight. we want to reduce the amount of hostility, i think there are a lot of ways you can do it. i will only mention a couple. do whatever we can to reduce the influence of money in politics which is going to be even harder with the citizens united ruling of the supreme court that leads to some things that he mentioned. but we have got to do something to turn back the clock and make the influence of money less important. above all, it comes to us

because in the end, we have leaders that understand that through history, great leaders have not been those that were character assassinations, the people that were able to talk to the other side with people with whom they disagree. the best example of this, to keep this brief would be harry truman. when he left office in 1953, we remember him as a great president. he left office in 1953 with an approval rating of about 23%. 23% in 1953 was about 8% nowadays, because people were shy about telling people they didn't like a president. it is not our problems americans have had the last 10 years or more. you look at the numbers. why was he unpopular? one of the reasons was that people said that truman was too

angry about his opponents. it is true that in 1952, he was asked by a reporter what he thought of richard nixon, in his reply was, i think richard nixon is full of the door. not very simple. -- full of manure. not very civil. the response was, you have no idea how long it got me to get him to use the word "manure." [laughter] this was a guy that worked with republicans to do the kind of things that began our response to aggression that allowed people -- that is why we honor harry truman and the fact that he was able to deal with the other side on a matter of

absolute national security. we all have the vote in four weeks. some of us are encouraged to vote more than once on election day. even those of you that are not from chicago that are voting, i would say that if you don't like incivility, if you like people that can govern, think about this very carefully. thank you all very much. [applause] >> have we arrived at civility? yes? i don't think so. thanks to our marvelous speakers, we have had an inspiring and sometimes sobering

tour of the issues, the difficulties, the opportunities, and the rewards that will await us if we can find our way there. i like to thank the marvelous panel of speakers. kaplan -- chaplin black, senator collins, and amy ignatius for being our host this evening. thank you all for this marvelous night. [applause] enough work for one night, please come join us at the cathedral as we continue to explore this and please work for civility wherever you go. good night.

>> our coverage of campaign 2010 continues later today at 7:30 eastern with more coverage of the debate between candidates for delaware's house seat, john carney and glen one story from the hills says a problem for democrats is turnout on election day. a poll shows hispanic voters support a party but they are not willing to vote. the first lady held what the associated press called a political prop -- political pep talk to those over the internet

saying don't stay home. michelle obama is heading to connecticut later in the month to campaign for state attorney general richard blumenthal who is running for senate. we have a website where you can see all of our political web but -- political coverage at c- span.org. with the 2010 midterm elections less than a month away, on "washington journal" have an update on the races. this is 40 minutes. host: bob cusack is here to talk about this poll that says challenges ahead in the 11 of the 12 races. this could determine who controls the house. why? guest: we decided to do some house polling because there is not a lot of reliable house

polling. when you look at the house polling , at it is internal. it will be the first of a series of four. democratic freshmen who came in with president obama. the good news for republicans is they are up in 11 of the 12 races. a good news for democrats is in seven of the 12 they are within the margin of error. if democrats can seize the momentum they could retain control of the house. host: what districts do these 12 members represent? guest: a combination ranging from virginia to ohio. these are battleground districts that democrats and republicans are vying for. a lot of republicans held days a few years ago. these are the freshmen that in.e ek

these are districts john mccain one. these are conservative-leaning districts. that has hurt them. some of the democrats, three of the 12 that we surveyed voted no on healthcare. those democrats are eat decent shape. -- they are in decent shape. halverson. guest: she voted for health care. she is down 18 points to a conservative candidate. this is in illinois, and she's having trouble. as far as all the 12 we look at, she is in the most trouble. down 18. if you look at the undecided voters, even if she wins those, she will not pull through. there's a lot of time before november 2.

maybe she can come back, but it looks unlikely. host: on the front page of the "new york times" there is a story about has president obama will be pushing his base to get back out there, especially the younger voters who voted for him and helped him get the presidency. he will do an mtv appearance. he is going to be trying to get this base out and they put aside your hard feelings and come out and vote. pretty much admitting that the independents are gone. but trying to get the base going. is that enough for a person like debbie? can she when which is the base and no independents? guest: the midterm is really just about the base. for presidential elections, a lot of people vote. in midterms, not as many of the republican base, for the first time since 2004, as fired up. and they're going to show up. the question is, will the democratic base show up?

they have been divided. robert gibbs calling it the professional left, and liberals of said that they did not get a public option 9 health care. and joe biden sent to the liberals to stop whining. and realizing what is coming if we do not win this november. joe biden said it -- says if we lose control of the house, it will be the end of the road for the white house agenda. so this could be a tea party congress. but in debbie's case, basically that is a conservative-leaning district. so there is not a huge a liberal base. so that strategy for her will be different from what the president's strategy will be. host: what is she doing over the next couple weeks? was sort of outside groups are as the personalities can she depend on or the republicans, in this case, depend on in order to win? guest: you will certainly not see president obama going into your district. she was about local issues. these democrats who are struggling, they're not going to

be talking about health care reform. they may be talking about wall street reform, but the health care reform bill is not going to be addressed. stimulus could be addressed to some degree. but they will try to make this more a local issue. and we have also seen at democrats on the attack. democrats have gone after republican candidates in that effort to say this out a referendum on president obama. this is a choice. unlike the other candidate. look at the incumbent and decide which is better. did not just vote against your congressional candidate because or upset president obama. host: what is happening in maryland's first district? guest: frank is there and he is one of the ones who voted no on the health care. he beat andy harris a couple years ago. frank has a very strong ground game. it is a strong district. he has to display his

independence. it is a far drive from washington, but he goes home every weekend. that is a very close race. that is one of the races that republicans really need to win if they're going to when the house. it is such a republican district. the democrat is vulnerable, but he can say i voted in no on health care, and easily done by a few points. it looks like it is helping him. host: is it a really conservative district or sort of a moderate republican district? guest: that what is more conservative. but critics say that andy harris was too conservative to the district, and he knocked off a longtime incumbent in the republican primary a couple years ago, who ended up supporting the democrats in the last election. the republican party was divided. they're not as divided in that district this time around. and harris is now up a little bit. that is a positive sign. when you talk about things, it

has shifted so much. so harris lost last time to the democrat, so there's only so much he can do. when the wave comes, it wipes out people. democrats are trying to minimize the damage, trying to save some people like that democrat who are close. as some point, there will have to make the decision, the democratic congressional campaign committee, and where they're going to invest in seven races. if certain democrats are down big in their internal polling -- you put resources were you can win races. they do not want to lose the 39 seats republicans need. host: you said when a wave comes, it wipes you out. there's not much you can do. looking at the 12 races on the front page of your newspaper this morning, is that the case with this type of district -- any election, it does not matter. this is the type of district that can get wiped out by a

wave. guest: that is right. when you look back to 2004, you had the presidential election of course with george bush and john kerry. there was also the redistricting process. if you were an incumbent in 2004, you had a lot of job security. since then, volatile times. to thousand six, democrats picked up 30 house seats. 2008, they picked up another 24. now republicans look like they will pick up dozens of seats, wiping those guys away. when i talk about health care votes, some of these guys did vote in know. it that might help. but some of these guys who voted in know are going to lose. -- who voted in know how -- second district. pearce is a name that long time c-span viewers may know.

the unspoken on the floor when he ran before. guest: now he is trying to win back his old house seat. this is interesting because pierce got into the race after teague voted for climate change. soon after that, he said i am in. now teague is down by four points. he ended up voting in no on health care. this is one of those races where these are former members. so it is tough to run as an outsider or maybe someone who ran the last time. the newcomers are doing better than the longtime incumbents and this is you have seen before. experience really does not matter this time around. basically, that is a close race. pierce is up. you can look to these races and divert ways. republicans are doing well, but they're not doing great. they're not winning in a lot of these reasons by double digits. but it is still very hard to

knock off incumbents in congress. it is very difficult. the fact that they have a leave now, more people are focused on the, and undecided voters usually go with the wave. that is a good sign for the gop. host: what you see as far as money being pumped in to the district? guest: that is one or both parties will invest heavily in teague and f you'll see people like karl rove and others playing a major role. democrats are crying foul with that group, complaining to the irs about how they're doing their business. everything from campaign ads to campaign tactics to anything, it is anything goes now. it all comes down to winning. we have seen a number of places get extremely ugly, and it will only get worse. host: we're talking to bob from the "hill close quaid newspaper

about their front-page story. unions the steering funds to liberal allies cannot these types of democrats we're talking about that are in trouble. they're not seeing money from typical democratic groups. does that hurt their chances? guest: it does. someone who is upset with that type of story is rahm emanuel, who used to have the house democratic campaign committee. he has said committee to back these conservative democrats because if you do not, we're going to lose the house. and we're going to have a republican speaker. so unions are still smarting from some of those no votes. and the committee has tried to work with some of the groups to say that the bill is passed so let's get over it. unions, even though it did not have a public option, that bill -- still, this is our the left is divided. they're upset about certain votes it did not get done. the congressional agenda will be very different next year, no

matter who is controlling the house. regardless, there will be a lot more republicans on capitol hill. host: rep -- richmond va on the phone. i will put you on hold. let's go to jerry, republican line in rogers, arkansas. are you with us? caller: hello. i have a comment. first of all, the democrats, with the top democrat being obama, they have not than anything to help this country whatsoever. they have brought it down. i am is a disabled vet, and i tell you what, i cannot stand to see what is happening here to our country. i really believe that not only do we need to get rid of the crooks up there, which are the democrats right now, but i do believe what the republicans get

in, i think maybe we should start impeachment against the top dogs. what do you think? guest: there is definitely a lot of danger there. we found that this is clearly a national election. most voters, two out of three, will have president obama on their mind. some who are not fans of the president, and some who are fans of the president. but certainly, the republican base was to send a message to the white house that they do not like how this administration has done its business. congressional republicans who were smarting after the 2008 elections, and president obama told him i won. congressional republicans want to say after this election, we won. host: democratic line. caller: good morning. i really do not understand your view on the the polling. i have a few things i would

like you to jot down. the 99'ers, the people of of work for more than 99 weeks. then we have the choice group of people. these two groups of people are white voters. and then we put in gays and lesbians. there's another aspect. a large chunk of america, they are white voters. and then we have african- americans. we have hispanics. and now the muslims. i just picked up seven chunks of the country were the republicans have angered them. republicans voted no on everything. i do not understand -- who are you polling saying that the republicans are leading? host: we will leave it there.

let me show you the front page of the "new york times." it says, latino turnout expected to lag in the midterm vote, and it is a setback for democrats. guest: our polling focuses on battleground districts, and there are a lot of liberal districts like nancy pelosi's districts where she will win. talking about the latino voters, immigration reform is something that president obama promised to do in the 2009. he pushed that back to 2010. the administration did not make a real big push for immigration, comprehensive immigration reform. they did make a last-ditch effort for a scaled-down bill, the dream act, and that did not succeed. latino voters are not pleased about that. and congressman you're pushing for immigration reform are not pleased to back a dime.

host: the america's national gas alliance was at part of the poll. the first one out today looking at freshman incumbents, democrats, and those in trouble. about 12. about two-thirds of voters-these key battleground districts will be thinking about president obama when they choose the next member of congress. guest: it means no matter where democrats are doing, looking at the congressmen and congresswomen from the district, that they're going to be talking about local issues. but national issues, whether it be the stimulus, climate change, health care reform, those are the issues that people are thinking about. the economy, jobs, deficit. whether it is anger over those bills or the fact that democrats over promised on the stimulus -- they said unemployment will be lower than 8%. now it is at 9.6%.

the president has said, listen, he knows it is tough out there, but the made a little bit of progress and do not want to go backward. host: there is a longtime democrat. would he not be biased? guest:mark penn is a respected pollster, and he has been respected and employed by a lot of different firms in washington, d.c. one of the things when deciding this, we wanted to do actual phone calls. you get a lot of polling that is unreliable. when we did our research, we found that mark penn is one of the bus posters. the findings he has come up with are not exactly democratic- friendly. we knew there would be criticism, but we're confident in his polling. host: a tweet that says phone poles are worthless. guest: this is a combination of

both land lines and cell phones. basically 400 calls in each of these 12 districts. the incumbents of poll results that holon thehill.com. people can look at the polls and the margin of error. their various questions. host: in the poll was up on their website. thehill.com. delaware, democratic line. caller: good morning. thanks for c-span. ghostly registered democrat that will be voting for christie no donnell -- christine o'donnell. this is the first time that i have seen a poor person or middle-class person could actually run for the senate without having millions of dollars in advance or being part of the elite. also, i am an unemployed teacher. i was unemployed for two years. i got unemployment for six months of that, and i have been

under employed cents. i am not custodian making $8.50 an hour. a and obama misread his mandate. he did not have a mandate to go completely left. he had a mandate to get us all jobs. guest: that this an interesting take as far as the wealth of members. we adjusted our top 50 of the wealthiest members, and there are a lot of what the members of congress. but generally speaking, the pattern as people make their money and then run for congress. but you do not see a lot of pork people in congress. christine is the underdog in delaware. there's no doubt about it. congressional republicans won in mike castle to win the primary. he did not. christine was helped by the endorsement of sarah palin. the democrat is the favorite. certainly the white house is relieved that christine won

because it increases the chances that they will retain their seats. host: there is another battleground district, the third house district race. >> it is kathy running against mike kelly. she is down 14 points. this is the republican-leaning district. she is one of the democrats who knew what she got elected, she had to work and getting reelected. but she is down double digits. she is one of the ones that is clearly in trouble. and republicans have to win a seat like this and they're going to win control of the house. if you did the polling numbers, the health care reform is not popular in her district. it is not popular in a lot of districts. democrats favor a repeal of the health care law. obviously, independents are very

much in favor of the repeal, and republicans are in favor of repeal. if you did some, even in new mexico, 49% of democrats support the repeal of health care. that is almost half of the democrats in the district. that is an astounding indication of which party has won the message war on health care reform. kathy voted yes. teague voted in no, and he is closer in his race. host: have the democratic campaign committees given up on this seat? guest: they will not said publicly that they have given up on anything. nancy pelosi, even though she is many democrats in her caucus, they do not agree with her. some are saying i may not vote for her for speaker next year she is fighting for all of them. but at some point, and those decisions are probably going to be made in mid-october.

who are we going to elect? you're going to try to sit? even though the democratic campaign committee has a cash advantage over the republicans, there's only so much money to go around. in way for elections, money does not matter as much as it does in a non-wave elections. host: david on the republican line. caller: i have been following this election since scott brown's victory. i understand barney frank is in trouble for a lot of people, that would be their wildest dreams. in fact, millions of americans. any comments? guest: he is running against a former democrat marine new conservative pundits are talking up this republican candidate. this is a very democratic district. president obama won i think 63%

in barney frank's district. they're saying the right wing media and pundits are after him. that is likely to stay in the democratic column. if barney frank loses, house republicans will probably win about 80 or 90 seats, and i do not think that will happen. host: he has focused on raising a lot of money, and that is hurting fellow colleagues who are used to getting monetary support from barney frank. guest: that is a great point. you did various german like the chairman of the arms services committee -- you look at various chairmen. a committee chairmen from west virginia. basically, all these resources, and if you look at who raises the most money in the house and the senate, it is leadership officials and committee chairmen. you have committee chairman spending all their money on their own races, are most of it, and it hurts some of the ball marble ones. host: we talked about the

chances of republicans taking back the house or democrats holding on. if people are going after these committee chairman, what is the likelihood they're going to get knocked off by republicans? guest: i think a couple of them could be. ike skelton could be. john spratt has been targeted before, but he may survive. he is from a safe democratic district. but those two are the big trophies that house republicans want. but come mid-october, republicans will look at their internal polling and decide, well, maybe we should not go after them. let's not spend all the resources to get the chairman. host: virginia, independent line. caller: i wanted to comment that the president campaigned on a program that he would unite the country and we would move forward for the average person.

he hid the fact that apparently he is totally against wealthy people and the capitalist system. he's got to the last two years of destroying our capitalistic system. that is why we're stagnate right now. if you look at what is going on with the people that are going to vote next month, i think you're totally underestimated what is going to happen. i think it is going to be an overwhelming landslide for the conservative approach. that is why our president has stopped becoming a president, and he went on almost 100% on the campaign trail. he sees it coming. guest: a lot of predictions right now are that republicans are going to win the house. no doubt about it. one of the things, looking back to 2006 and the elections, there's a lot of anger out there. you had katrina, trouble with the iraq war, and ethical issues hurting republicans.

that year, democrats won 30 seats. this year, obviously a lot of anger. you can make the argument that there's more frustration. the and implement rate is higher than it was. that year, democrats won 30 seats. republicans need to win a net of 39 seats. there are a handful of seats that republicans will struggle to attain. they may lose a double seats. therefore, they may have to win 43 or 44 to win a net of 39. the one thing i think is a real possibility is that on november 3, we may not know who is going to be leading the house next year, because a lot of races come down to 1000 votes, recounting the legal challenges. so on november 3, we may not know. on the other hand, we could know very early on november 2 that republicans have it and we will have a speaker boehner next year. our polling is showing that basically this thing is not over yet. host: any point out in this story this morning of your first

poll here that this is a glimmer of light for republicans, but not one of the 12 republican challengers have reached 50%. so that goes to what you're talking about. these could be close races on november 3. especially in the 12 districts. guest: that is right. basically what you have candidates that are not over 50%, then they will say we can define the republican party and attack their pledge to america, we can go after them and try to tie them to john boehner, tried to tie them to george w. bush. a lot of those strategies have not worked, and democrats are still struggling for message. if we look back to 2008, and the democratic message was hope and change. and now people are saying, what is the democratic message of this year? basically, they have tried a lot of different messages. the one obama keeps coming back to is we do not want to go backward, we want to go forward. but polling is showing that the

republican message is resonating much better this year host: one of those tight races is the fourth district of colorado. marcus is down 3%. guest: in colorado, once again, another battleground district. those who one of voted yes on health care. i think she voted no the first time. but this is one of those races republicans have to win. you have to take up these freshmen. of these 12 freshman, basically republicans are going in need -- are going to need to take out eight to 10 of these freshmen. at a minimum, six of them. so that is a tight race and one that could be decided by a debate or could be decided at the last second. host: sacramento, republican line. caller: i was just wondering, when our our white leaders coming back to congress?

there has always been white people there. and all these je -- host: all right, the tone of your comment is inappropriate. we're having a conversation about campaign 2010. you need to stay on topic. you cannot call in with that kind of agenda. we're cutting you off and moving on. romeo, michigan, democratic line. go ahead. caller: i want to make four quick points. i am veteran. i am elderly, world war ii, and there is mention out there that republicans would try to privatize the va. if they do that, you have a march on washington. number two, social security, the want to change. i wish c-span would get an authority on there. because you get into the details

on social security, and it protects itself and we're good for the outer years. people do not understand that. number 3, the report came out yesterday about jobs being sent overseas to china. they're sending money into our campaigns, and that money is being sent out. and because of the extreme court -- the supreme court ruling, that about being identified. guest: well, a lot to tackle. as far as the privatization part, that is a buzz word you hear democrats talking a lot about, whether it is social security or medicare. most social security. the republican congressman from wisconsin has a new budget blueprint. it is in somewhat controversial. republican leaders have not fully embraced it.

democrats say privatisation. republicans said that is not true. the fiscal commission will have to deal with that. they're coming up with a major report, the bipartisan commission set up by president obama. their report comes out december 1. it will look at defense spending, tax cuts, and arrange of entitlement spending. and this debate over pushing up the retirement age for social security, privatization, certainly is going to be coming back. host: michigan's seventh district, dead even. i assume economy is the number- one issue. guest: the economy has been hit very hard. this is one of those races where out of the 12, the democrat that is doing the best, even in the race. this could be a reason because this is not exactly a fresh face for republicans. a former member. it is tough to run on the outsider coming to washington to

shake things up. this is still pretty good news for tim whalberg. michigan, ohio, and pennsylvania, and virginia i throw in, republicans have to do very well. the economy is hurting in a lot of this district and in other districts. we look at the senate race in nevada. unemployment very high in nevada. republicans are going after the senate majority leader, harry reid. that is a tight race, and it could go down to the wire. we might know who wins that until later in november. host: what about nevada third? guest: it is a tight race. titus is only down three gives the republican. that is not bad. but she is down. she could be up a little bit. or joe heck could be up more. it is not double digits.

nevada is one, like harry reid, and harry reid's sun is running for governor in nevada. the effect of the top of the ticket, reid, what it will do to titus is unclear. the issues in the ballpark. host: republican line, minneapolis. caller: thank you for c-span. i love your show. i want to make a point because there's a certain edge to the guests of voice. like he is trying to be very convincing. i do not believe that there is a democratic party anymore. i think it is a democratic socialist party. and he had a caller referring to christine o'donnell. and he said the white house is happy that she won because it

gives them the edge. but the caller called in to say he was going to vote for christine. but i am very concerned for my country. there was a gentleman from the armed forces committee speaking, and our defenses are being torn down. i do not look at polls. i just have this gut feeling that something is really not right. and you guys are so optimistic. even the young lady here on this show, your hostess, she almost sounds like she's a democrat. i am so perplexed. have you guys look at that? can you address that at all? guest: our publication is definitely a independent, and we do not take sides.

as far as christine o'donnell, she could win. no one predicted that she would beat mike months ago. the polling showed she was going to win. and there was a last week attack against her that did not work. now she's basically the republican nominee, who was behind in the polls, and the wave is very big in delaware. but delaware is not like other states. it is not a deep blue state, but it is bluer than most to clearly went for president obama in 2008. we have heard congressional republicans will not be spending a ton of money there. she does not need to have a ton of money because she is such a darling for the republican right. money will not be a problem for her. host: two races in ohio where

part of this. guest: yes, the democrat is only down three points from the republican. but mary is not doing as well against kilroy. she voted yes on health care. republicans across the country, if you look at their web sites, house or senate, they're talking about health care and repealing health care. some analysts are saying they may be over promising. it will be very difficult to repeal the health care law until they have control of the white house. but kilroy is down by nine points. her colleague is down by three. kilroy is one that is one of the biggest ones in trouble. host: pensacola, florida, independent line. caller: i have been listening to your show, and my question is,

with the polling, if i went by that, i would not vote at all. i am independent and in northwest florida, which is super republican. but i still believe it is my right and obligation to vote. but when i hear a pollster coming on months before the elections, telling me that my vote is not even going to count, i feel that we're being dishonored with our voting. when you look at how the polls are done, he set out of 18,000, they called 400 people, and those people have already told him who is going to win the election. guest: if you look at polling, some of it is accurate. and over the years, we have seen that polling has been inaccurate. most famously, hillary clinton in the democratic primary in new hampshire after barack obama won

iowa, and basically was deemed too is going to win new hampshire, hillary clinton was going to be done, and barack obama had a clear path to the democratic nomination then the pundits, poles, the media, hillary clinton won. and that became one of the most protracted battles for democratic nomination in history. it is important to vote, no matter what the polls say. this gives you a glimpse of where the races are. it could change dramatically. also, there operatives on both sides of the aisle, some data to look at ways to -- look at which race to invest in and which one to not two host: virginia has two races on the battleground congressional districts. guest: this is the race, the establishment in washington heurt.

hurt is up by one point in our poll. in virginia 2,all are within si. >> one more on this list of 12 districts. arizona's first district. [applause] yes, -- guest: yes,gosar is beating kirkpatrick right now. that is an area brendan t. party is quite popular. there are some areas where it is more popular than others. perhaps because of voter security, but the tea party is very popular in that district. she is down, but certainly could

come back and win. host: bob husak, managing editor of "the hill" talking about new polls out. this is the cover of "the hill" newspaper this morning, talking about the 12th batter brown districts. the next issue will focus on what? guest: the second installment will be open seats. that poll and will come out next week, and we will be coming out with that with analysis on our website and newspaper. if a wave comes, republicans should do very well in open seats. and once again, these are not seats where a liberal member retired. the third one will be second term lawmakers. we will be focusing mostly on democrats, but we will be

focusing on a couple of reports that -- republican that are in battlegrounds, districts that they really need to retain. the last one will be longtime incumbents that republicans are targeting. that will be right on the eve of november to. that will show -- november two. that could clark's more campaign 2010 coverage in 50 minutes. a debate between candidates for the delaware seek featuring john carney and -- that is live at 7:30 on east and -- on c-span. >> many have committed crimes previously in this country. >> we need to secure our borders.

this needs to be led by our next u.s. senator. >> we are covering more than 100 debates throughout the country. you can find it on line at the c-span video library. it is washington your way. >> most generals come at their greatness is what they do on the battlefield. washington's greatness was coming from what he did between battles, holding the continental army together. >> part two with the author on his recently published biography on george washington. >> now they closing comments from the first ever white house summit on community college. joe biden -- joe biden who is an english professor was joined by education secretary arne duncan during this event.

>> welcome back. i hope your sessions were productive. i went to all six and some of the buzzwords were veterans support services, standardizing transfer credits, training ground, and my favorite was solutions. what we would like to do now is i would like you to hear from two of the driving forces in education, arne duncan and secretary of labor killed us elise. -- secretary of labor hilda solis. >> could we have a huge round of

applause for dr. biden? [applause] it is a pretty remarkable day. i will say three quick things. first of all, this is an historic day. we have never had this kind of attention at the white house nationally on community colleges. i want to thank martha kanter who has done an extraordinary job. folks feel and sense there has never been a greater sense of urgency and opportunity. community colleges are absolutely essentials altwo leading the world in college graduates by 2020. we cannot get there without your hard work. we cannot educate our people for a better economy without what you are doing every single day.

the urgency and sense of importance and opportunity i cannot over emphasize. secondly, we always have to be -- we have to get a lot better at what we do. everyone knows it is -- going back to school today, but at the end of the day a quarter of folks to enroll in community colleges graduate after three years. we have to drive that number up significantly. there are real challenges. we had a great conversation with the term nontraditional student. it is the new normal. the fundamental questions are our institution set up to deal with 28-year-old trying to work and better their lives?

some places we are not doing enough. but for other challenges we are facing, that they need to get dramatically better at a time of declining resources. we have heard examples of the extraordinary success stories. a big part of our job is to better share those best practices. what we have to do is to take -- whether a web site or a way to let folks know here is how we are struggling, here is how we know we are getting better. we can do a better job of sharing this best practices. job of sharing those practices. it's a time of real challenge and amazing opportunity. and as community colleges help families get back on their feet, you're going to help the country get back on its feet. i can't say homuch i appreciate your hard work. it's not my honor to introduce my partner in this work, secretary solis. she'doing a extraordinaire job

with france, making fast form and simpler. worst time ever, $2 billion coming to her agency with the spotlight solely in committee colleges and that's coming out very, very soon. please give a round of applause to secretary solis. [applause] >> thank you. when i started, good afternoon. and i also want to do a shout out to.your jill biden for convenient this white house committee college and give credit to our great president for having the foresight to do this. it's wonderful to be here and also to be among leaders like melody gates and penny pritzker in our training programs. i'm a big believer in community colleges and i know how important a role they played in higher education. i had the privilege many years ago at serving eight years on a local community college board. and let me tell you i learned quite a bit and it is coming into play.

and i am just excited to see the enthusiasm, the thoughts and words i heard from some individuals in our own panel discussion about industry, the fact we really have to reach out far beyond what we traditionally are used to doing. and it is about looking at the new noun. the new nontraditional student, so to speak and also the new elements and crisis that confronts so many of us. i can't only think about the people who are unemployed good to think about the dislocated worker who isn't just a 17-year-old, the one looking for the first summer job or first job, but the 45 and 55 throughout individual who's having a tough time. baby -- is completed a high school education years ago, have never been in interview because they've been employed a lifetime and now they have to somehow get with the program and get some skills and get some confidence. and having all those challenges ahead, we have to have good services available for them. so i know how important that is

and i am excited that dr. biden i believe mentioned earlier that through the recovery act, reinvestment programs that we have ameed the 2009 bill to allow for a ade adjustment assistance program toestablish a community college training initiative. and this is a health care and education reconciliatory signed by the president, which included $2 billion over a four-year period. and it's a new initiative and it's going to be targeting -- targeting those students i talked a little bit about -- dislocated workers, taa trade adjustment assistance, doesn have lost their job because of trade issues. i think the imptant eleme tears that were all going to strive to produc smart people that have an experience at a community college. so whether it's for a one-year or two-year program, those are things that we currently know that we have to devise.

and it's about capacity building, it isn't just about acquiring, you know, or classroom space. it's about developing programs and curricula and making sure we can build out these programs. they last longer than the funding does not utter a temp is going to be here. were going to providing the first rollout over this next redouble started about $500 million. will be announcing the grant at the end of the month and were going to also make sure that we provide services to puerto rico, district of columbia. and we hope these grant awards will number anhere from $2.5 million for each state. so states can work together in a consortia with other community colleges and hopefully partner with all the industry folks and things that we've talked about today so that we have a more robust program. so i'm very excited about that opportunity and know that we are going to have good partners here. so i just want to lasley say to you that one of the things that i've come to learn in the last 18 months on the job, people

want to know where jobs are. people want to know if they're ready with their skills. and if they're not in that appropriate place because their skills have to be improved upon, where can th go for help? so we just launched a program to the department of labor called my skills, my future.org good knife skills my future.org. you can go win, putting your current job occupation, find out what skills are needed to upgrade. and you can also identify the nearest place where you can get the training, but also where the jobsite is. that's great. that's a sart. on the second day we announced the program, we had over 200,000 hits. so i'm excited there are people out there who want to get more information and i think were on a perfect base to be able to make that happen. so again, thank you so much and isolate all of you for being here and enjoy very much her panel discussion. thank you. [applause]

>> secretary solis and i'd moderated the panel discussio between -- on community colleges in industry. and i just want to focus on two things that we discussed. we really talked about what's working in those partnerships. and it's really a number of things that are working very well. formal partnership that exists existed of reciprocity between the company and t community college are being really successful. partnerships were the cities and states are not only -- they're part of the coordination and development of the program, but are also lending support, particularly ttion support. programs were partnerships and a flexible delivery, whether it at time of day the curricula is delivered for the vehicle, whether it's at the word ways, the school or online or using different types of technology. our group also felt that what was working and public-private

partnerships is if there is a clear and accessible pathway. and on the words the career path for the individual is clear what the training that they're going to be receiving or are receiving. partnerships that also include apprenticeships and internships are very highly regarded and have been very successful. and obviously, it's extremely important that the delivery is recognized as better workforce that is often taking courses needs to have courses offered at a flexible time because oftentimes our student are not available at our regular nine to five if you will. but we also talked about what are the challenges and what are the issues that partnerships or the community colleges are facing in working together. and we heard about the issue of remediation, what a challenge it is that 60% in philadelphia cannot pass the letter c. test to get placed into community

college. 90% of the students in chicago needs some form of remediation. these are real challenges that are community colleges are with. the community college leaders also talked to us about the need for dollars for capacity building so that they're able to engage with corporations to deliver the kind of traiing and skills delivery that we were talking about earlier today. there's a complaint that each state has its own funding vehicle. and that makes it very hard for a company to take a successful partnership with one community college and replicated t others. there was much discussion also about credit and how do we streamlined credit or recognize credit. it seems that the ac sometimes recognizes credit for apprenticeship some of the community colleges don't. or it is unclear if one gets ough credit orredit for technical training such that then the worker can begin to

advance their education based upon a level of training that the authority received. finally, we talked about the perception of community lleges. and there's a real feeling that community colleges are undervalued. in that we need to do more to celebrate the great work that's being done by te community colleges. you know, corporations talk about the number one biggest concern is talent. and when they wake up and they really look at their workforce, they realize what a large percentage of the workforce is eith in the community college system or has come from the community college system. and so, this is a real opportunity as we see it. and it's not all aboutmoney. many of the committee college leaders said two sa blakemore mind share of the business leaders in the communities because they want to reinvent themselves to be more relevant to various businesses and their communities. they want to rethink how they deliver their product.

and so there's a real -- what was so encouraging is this a massively positive attitude about working together. so thank you are much. [applause] >> good afternoon. i accept three with the white house domestic policy council and had the pleasure of call monitoring the panel on the importance of community colleges to veterans and military families. and we had a really rich discussion with some students veterans, military spouses, some experts in the field, mmittee college is president of administrators and the distinct honor of our co-moderator be the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff and somebody was quite engaged in the conversation and not able to be here right now because he had an appointment with the president. so, it was a great conversation. i tried to distill it and i hope i didn't leave out any critical point. we affirmed the importance importance of the committee

college is played in the education of veterans and military families. and then a few of the to that. one challenge in particular was the need to ensure that there is a transition -- a system of support from the active duty into education and the process of leaving the military affairs higher education, most notably communitcolleges. in addition we talked a lot about the services and supports that are necessary on campus. we had derek for the president referenced talking about forming a vets group on campus at a community college in the importance of having that suort and also institutional support so a students transition out, go to f your colleges to complete their two-year degrees, these groups can susta themselves in the importance of that. we also heard about the san diego district in the intensive comprehensive sets of support that are necessary to help

veterans. it's about the disarray discussion about what are the best practices in this space. and while we were able to talk in a tone a play about some notable and uccessful programs, we identified an important need of collecting data and performs analysis and not to understand what could be replicated. i think the most important was the establishment of the process that a federal level to understand and analyze -- collect, understand and analyze data and be in a position to disseminate that two institutions to the military. and we talked about the department of education, department of defense and department of defense and veterans administration coming together to support that work. the admiral mullen made a point that everyone agreed with witches while we need to more systematically collect data about these programs and under -- understand the best practices, we also know there are several things e can do that are working and very important. and once again we highlighted the veteran to veteran support, the importance of priority

placement in some campuses so veterans are admitted into the school on a priority basis and given the support they needed. the military spouse crew advanced is quite popular in the room and obviously across the country. company to really examine our maximizing the g8 benefit to ensure that were providing the resources and support to the veterans. so one other thing and pay me just that came up a lot i our discussion with the stigma that [applause] >> i am with the department of education, and secretary duncan and i had the opportunity to join the discussion or brown college completion. i have already apologized for the many worthwhile comments that i will not be able to repeat.

they have a lot of perspectives and a lot of expertise, so i hope no one will take this personally. one theme that did come through very strongly was the fact that community college students are different from those in the past. most of them are what we used to consider nontraditional. 75% of them either are working or have children of their own or are attending part time. they are not living on campus. they need to pay close attention to this population. someone did suggest secretary duncan start calling them 21st century students. nontraditional may no longer have meaning. time is the enemy. it takes a very long time -- someone said it takes five years on average to earn an associate's degree. that is a very long time for something to go wrong.

people also talked about professional development for community college instructors, which is something that is often overlooked and is particularly important. another topic that we spent a lot of time on was the need for developmental education. people talk about the diverse backgrounds and skills that people bring to community colleges. some of them need touching up in a particular area. some of them are adults that need refreshers. some are people that need a great deal of adult education or english as a second language. o need a great deal of adult basic education for english as a second language. some of the things that have been identified as being promising in the area of developmental education. there's a number of programs that integrate developmental instructional technical and academic cours. those seem quite promising and

partly because thy do help students see the value of what they're learning and because they do destigmatize those classes and help people understand there's some important content and skills that they're learning. another thing that was mentioned was this technology as a way for help people master the skills are particularly. not technology on its own. i'm hoping the tone of the conversation recognizer was a great deal of challenges that community college's face. but as other speakers have mentioned also a sense of hope that a lot of these challenges are being met in diffent places around the country an the real question for us is how do we identify the solutions and all learn from them? [applause] >> good afternoon. i'm cecilia rouse and i'm a long-time fan of community colleges.

i had the opportunity to call monitored the session on financially. so just like the other breako sessions we had representatives from all levels and that proved to be very interesting for a breakout system. the first week and about it from the individual side and we can recognize the many challenges. one of the great virtues of the community college is the low tuition that typically come you know, tuition is much less costly than a four-year institution. however, we also know that the tuition cost is not the full cost of attendance. i see a lot of heads nodding. we also have to consider not only the few students are paying at the institution, but also the fact many are working but nonetheless they still have to while they're in school have other bills to pay, et cetera. so there's a full cost tuition and it's much broader. it will go ahead and go with the 21st century student. we said many of these issues were important for the 21st century student heard and many of these students are not aware

of the financial aid opportunities. many of them are first-generation college students. we talked about the need therefore to simplify the financial aid process, simplify the forms. and we also talked about -- i mean, we typed about how important it's been. one of the things the president did last year was notify financial aid officers that they could go back and we evaluate incomes for individuals to been dislocated and home portion of them for family spoke of independent units whose spouses may have left their jobs or for dependent students whose parents have lost their jobs. we also talked about the challenge of financial aid when you're talking about development education. so in terms of -- i'm going to talk about the individual student. so the challenge we had a little bit of discussion for the 21st century student. i think one of the things for consideration here at the federal government is whether we should be rethinking the work

disincentive for eligibility for the pell grant. therefore independent soon as there's big penalty to keep working and it reduces the ount of pell for which there eligible for. in addition for consolidating the forms and t just somehow simplify the whole process. in addition on the individual side, this is a bit like the institutional level, yet we were reminded of financial aid. and we will think matches of the monetary aid, but in tms of child support or assist. for child care services, transportation services and other family services. so while the support services are important for the financially also. ross reminded us we were considering how expensive it is for the students that the institutions have to consider their affordability as well. and institutions are right now and the perfect storm, which is

on the one hand a happy storm, where enrollments have been increasing. on the other hand we ave -- we have at the ste level decreases in public funding. so it decreases in revenues, which has meant especially for financial aid office, cuts in terms of financial aid officers. and if the other had nodding. and so as a result, we're financial aid officers who are overworked, overwhelmed. he heard a story of a financial aid officer who represents the state, working on a sunday afternoon, gets a call from a financial aid officer who just can't take it anymore, who ends up quitting. this is at a time and enrollments have increased, the need has increased any of the services have been cut back on the institution and the institutional site. but just what we all thought we were the debt of despair, we had a solution from the kinetic committee color system, which has been really basically a virtual financial aid office. and some of the virtual financial aid office at two

aspects which they believe is the most important. one is when they work with the student, so if the information is up on the web and it's very accessible and that's not to have languages a successful to the low-income students. students can therefore follow the entire financial aid process and know where they are processed, how much money they've got, how much they're eligible for. in additn, they package their students as full-time students. so the students can save him a full-time student this is what i'll be eligible for. if i go have time they can see how much less elegant. this is important because students from the come in and don't really know what level of service they want to be, what intensity they want to enroll four. so whais then the results of the virtual financial aid office, we he application -- financially but kate applications that the words have been to one of 50%, the pell grant recipients are up 176%. in the pell awards are up 400%. in all of this or that an

crease in the financial aid offices and without having other overwhelmed financial aid officers either. they also point out this is when enrollments have gone up 46% and the full-time student enrollments have come up 105%. so we had a really nice solution we had for what i think is a very systemic pattern which i'm sure all of you can share and it was a wonderful conversation i hope we will continue. thank you. [applause] >> i don't know if you can see me. our session was on pathways to the baccalaureate degree. by martha cantor, undersecretary for the department of education. and we were fortunate to have alberto had a in our session the whole time. and he kicked it off by telling us about his pathway. in his pathway included a couple of things that sort of guided the rest of the conversation from challenges to solutions. and what he said was that when he got to australia, he got into

the mentor program. and he immediately connect it into a learning community, which i thought was very struck hat because that institution with using other than that learning communities work. further, he took classes at transfer to the baccalaureate degree institution. he knew he wanted to go to asu. heeminded us many students don't know where they want to go, which led to another set of challenges that we discussed. and then he concluded by elling us that the maricopa community college district has an asu arizona state university pathways program now that caps tuition for four years so students know what the cost is going to be for tuition. and there were some other incentives for room and board and so on. so it kind of sample i think it is very struck different sort of died at the best of our conversation. a big set of challenges obviously to the baccalaureate

degree, too many choices for students. this is sort of taking the student from a perspective, a lot of inconsistency and that the advice depending on who they talk to, lack of clarity about the credit hour. many students are undecided and there are disincentives for students who are undecided about their pathway. and of course when they think they're going to be able to transfer the units that they took, the courses that they took, they found out that some institutions will accept them and other small. and we also know that the course numbering system are buried across the country. and finally we had another student in our group had talked about the fear of even filling out an application and how do i do that and how do i figre out where to go and get that done. and of course there's lots of solutions to these. but bottom line, the college information isn't easily understood and isn't easily cessible to students.

so we have a lot of work to do there that students reminded us about. this lack of clarity for students is a major -- a major challenge for us. inconsistent requirements, and consisted of icing, nonstudent iendly as i said. in the good news is we had a student from phi beta kappa that taught us about college fish, which is a website for you to any student in the country or prospective student that can look at institutions and gives you a pathway that you can sort of self-guided. so it's innovations like this that we want to shine a spotlight on. we also talked about lack of institutional consistency and, you know, a lot of concern about affordability and capacity. what courses, can an institution, how hard or easy is it to getthe faculty from the four year institutions in the two-year institutions together to work it out. and i think pat callan reminded us that this is a job that states can provide leadership on. there was some discussion around

we really support governors to do this kind of work or is it just part of what state policy needs to get done? but really how to get from a two-year tour for your institution is really a matter of state policy and te federal government can support those discussions in a variety of ways. i talked about the articulated pathways. there were many examples for many people in our session about state that have clearly articulated pathways to the baccalaureate degree from two-year schools. another challenge that came up was how do we create the pathways from career technical programs, vocational schools, training programs the baccalaureate pathways. that is again a challenge for us. finally, a big solution, use what works. we know many things that were good at it and mentioned that at the beginning. there's lots of innovations across the countries that are tried and true. i think that connecticut is a good one on financl aid and

pathways to the baccalaureate degree. we need to institutionalize what works and really shine a spotlight on those high-impa practices that are both practices that states can learn from and to two shoes can do of. so it was very exciting and i want to thank all of the members of our group for a very lively conversation and we have a lot more to do. thank you so much. [applause] >> well, good evening everyone. i melody barnes, director of the domestic policy council and i had to opportunity to co-monitor with melinda gates. our session was called community colleges in the 21st century. one of the interesting comments that was made that served as a backdrop for a discussion with the fact that community college's record is that they're an important part of higher education, but at he same time they recognize they play aery distinct role in higher education and again about the

challenges and solutions given that particular back drop. when we talked about challenges, there's a broad grouping that we've referred to as culture, something that we came back to a couple of times in our conversation. and one of the first things that we talked about -- or just to back up for a second, this is a conversation about rethinking culture and also thinking about some of the challenges to culture as community colleges confront some of the 21st century issues that are facing them. one of the issues we talked about was the role of alumni and the fact that many community colleges, not all, but many of them have not secretly kept in contact with their alumni. and for reasons some of them financial and ultimate financial base, but also because we recognize alumni over time will have additnal raining needs and the community colleges can provide additional services to

alumni, building and sustaining that my work is very, very important. we also talked about the importance of deployed to knowledge in the challenges that surround that the use of data that would allow us to again trek alumni, track students, track transfer of credit. cannot be one of the challenges that face community college. we talked about the role of faculty as well. an important role that full-time faculty obviously plays, but also the role that adjuncts plan the community college campus. and the importance of incentivizing and supporting faculty as they're trying to take on new innovations. you know, one of the things we talked about is the fact that faculty are up for about anything. if you say let's, you say go. very noble, very flexible. at the same time we had to be practical and real at think about providing support and incentivizing them. finally one of the things i think many people have touched

on is the issue of retention and not be one of the bigges challenges facing community college -- community colleges. the second challenge we talked about and others have touched on this afternoon espial is financial challenges, both to schools and for students. and in particular, given the population that community colleges are often serving in very proudly serving, you know, we talked about single mothers are no pairs, the need for childcare, a whole range of heissues that put downward pressures on students and downward financial pressures on student, not to mention the fact that communications country and trinity colleges are doing a whole lot and not necessarily to win a a lot with a whole lot of resources. then we talked about solutions one solution i think almost everyone here has touched on it is the important role that what she plays. and there are several different components of that. we talked about the transformative use of technology to build on competencies in the shift to think he is not just

front seat time, but as i said to competency. an important way technology can help solve that problem. accessibility, which some issue many people have talked about in the crowded online technology being away to increase the course offerings that were available to students. also, this problem that we talked about with regard to tracking students transfer of credits. technology have a second plan important role there. student centered learning, some ratings events where they are, were students really have r adapt in a particular piece of information in a particular course offering, letting them move along. but when they had a point where they need or instruction, more training, the role that technology can play there. also, imagine the collection of data as a challenge. technology obviously plays an important role in the solution, particularly as we look forward

to developing practices f education and also supporting faculty. as many faculty have any number of horses, five courses they have to teach. and that can be a first burgundy kids willingly and prevent people from play an expanded willis mentor, but technology can play an important roe in lifting a lot of that, so faculty can play in addition. and finally and this is something that both secretary solis and that penny mentioned earlier, the partnership role, partnerships between community colleges in the private sector and also public public partnershi that were discussed and the importance olearning within context and also that been an important and available for retaining students, but it's much more enjoyable and part to pull experience and they really feel like they're moving down the road that they started in

moving towards the goals that they set out for themselves at the beginning of the process. and i would just conclude by saying, and this is something that many people have touched on. usually when you speak you shudder whenever one has sd something you've written down. but in this context, i think it's reassuring that we do have a great sense of what we need to deal. and this point, it's about dissemination and it's about aling these very, very important solutions to the kinds of challenges that we face. so thank you. [applause] >> so, i'd like to thank you all for joining us today on this national conversation on community colleges. so i'd like to thank admiral mullen who have their set had to leave. i like to thank everyone on stage here, all the cabinet secretaries. to my friend, melinda gates, thank you for being here. to the press, a special thank you for getting out the word about how great many colleges really are.

you know i mention that homer, so you ought homer to go back to your communities, businesses, goals and start the conversatio again and talk about what she learned today. this is our moment in history to make a difference, so let's grab that opportunity. i have one more quick annocement. let's see, going forward, we have the federal grant that are scheduled to begin this year. we have the skills for america's future business partnership. we at the gates completion grant and the aspen prize awards. and then armed is going to have a virtual community college summit, which will be next yea right? so, i know you are all tired, but i have one more announcement any of you know my husband, joe biden. he's always supported me. i could not do -- have his career if it weren't for him.

he's always supported education. he has always supported educators. so i told him -- he knows what i've done. this is my life's work. and so, we're having a reception at the blair house. and he's heard about this for days and days. so i'd like you to come over and say hello. so i hope do we see you out >> sees bans local content vehicles are traveling the country. as we lincoln -- -- c-span's local content vehicles are traveling the country. >> it is with a lot of hard work. it is with a message that you guys believe in limited government, did the government out of my way and let me blaze my own trail. but spending my money and get some people back to work. that is the message that is resonating out there. you guys are probably feeling on

the ground what i am feeling all over the place, folks rising up and say we are going to take our country back, and that is great. [applause] >> i am is here to say, we are in this together. but if people don't vote on election day, we are going to wake up and things are going to be really bad. we want to wake up knowing that we are going to continue moving forward. the first thing i learned about politics is if you are in a whole, quit digging. we are out of that hole. >> the candidates for the 11th congressional district are the incumbent, from what are some suburban suburb, and she is being challenged by a adam kinsinger. >> the district for eight years

was -- for years was represented by republicans. she has voted with the president on two of the most controversial bills introduced, the stimulus package and the health care reform bill. she is being targeted on a couple of those issues, but she did run on health care reform. the stimulus bill, she is going to have problems with that. i don't think she wants to be seen with president obama. she is having a hard time trying to separate yourself from nancy pelosi. there are in some mailers linking the two of them together. she is trying to present herself as an independent, so i don't think she wants to be seen with president obama right now. the makeup of the district is largely rural. there are a few urban pockets, but it covers the south and southwest part of chicago and a

tiny portion that goes down to central illinois that includes a university town. it is mostly republican-leaning. there has been a little pocket of tea party activity here, they want smaller government, less spending, they want to protect the second amendment, all issues that are coming up in this race. halverson comes from a world hunting and farming community. she does take a more moderate stance is. she is trying to remind voters that she is a homegrown dow, and that is what she has going for her. -- a homegrown gal. she works really hard. she is a known commodity around here. he is battling with his voters

being familiar with her and feeling like she is one of us. >> my district has always been a swing district and it could go either way. we knew it was going to be a tough race all along. i represent a swing district when i was a state senator for 12 years. it could have gone either way, even then. the voters like the fact that i am an independent fighter. i am the eighth most moderate member in congress. people want somebody who is going to fight for them. we want to make sure we continue to fight for things that are important for the district. >> adam kinzinger ran for office for the first time at age 20. he went and joined the air national guard and served several tours of duty in iraq and afghanistan.

he is very well spoken and very comfortable talking to the media. he has been challenging her on a lot of points. he is credit fund raising. he is not afraid to just drop in and talk to the honor of the white sox and ask for his endorsement. -- the owner of the white sox. he also was not the most conservative person in this primary. he is getting some tea party support, but there were others who ran against in the primary. he said if the democrats have an agenda that is good, he is willing to work with them. he has pulled back from that a little, but he ran on the message that there are two parties in washington and we need to fix what is broken. >> we are talking over 11% in a lot of areas. people just want to get back to work. in illinois specifically, there

is a culture of corruption for the last decade and even beyond that. i think people are just tired of that, they are tired of the arrogance and governments -- arrogance in government. we are seeing out of control spending and our control unemployment because washington, d.c., needs to run the government like the run their homes. >> his biggest challenge is that she has not been in congress for 10 years. it would be much easier for him, but she is just a freshman. a row of raising a decent amount of money and putting out mailers. by all accounts, it looks like

they were both -- they will bolt probably raise and spend over $1 million. -- they will both probably raise and spend over $1 million. we have not seen as much money pouring in from those two entities, but the democratic congressional campaign committee and the one on the republican side are both very focused on these two candidates. i think republicans think they can win, and democrats are desperate to hold onto it. they got the seat after 15 years of republican representation and they want to be sure they hang on to the sea. >> c-span's local content vehicles are traveling the country, visiting committees and congressional districts, as we look at some of the most closely contested house races leading up to the midterm elections. for more information on what the local content vehicles are up to, visit our website.

>> our campaign 2010 coverage continues now with the debate between the candidates for the seat.are at large house c this started just a moment ago. >> there will be no applause during this night's debate. to introduce our candidates, we are joined by democrat john carney.

>> it breaks my heart when i see so many delawareans out of jobs. career politicians the don't understand how business create jobs. i am the great-grandson of an indentured servant. i have been blessed to live the american dream. i have begun a business with nothing, and we have been blessed to create jobs for other people, but i am concerned, and my wife angela is here with me,

my right and best friend of 30 years. we have five children and 14 grandchildren. we are concerned about their future and the students who are afraid they will not get jobs. i am a prudent job creator. i know how we can create jobs in this nation. we can do it the way kennedy did with tax cuts, the way reagan did the tax cuts when i was privileged to serve in that administration for seven years, and we added 17 million net new jobs. recently, canada has added jobs and reduce their unemployment rate by 20% by cutting taxes. we can do that in america as well. my hon. opponent is a career politician, and he sat silently while this they piled up $800 million of new debt and destroy jobs. i don't know how he will be able to stand up to nancy pelosi when to ruth annstand up treuhan

minner. i have stood up to my own party and i have one. if you want an independent voice in washington, if you want a proven job creator, i ask for your vote. >> i want to thank the university of delaware, the delaware first media, aarp, and the american cancer society for hosting this debate, and all of you for skipping the phillies game in coming out. it is great to be back here at the university of delaware. does not seem that long ago when i was here working on my master's degree in public administration and coaching freshman football. i was delighted to hear this morning that a former professor here at the university was awarded the nobel prize in chemistry for his ground- breaking research. that is a great honor for him and a real tribute for this

university. i am running for congress because now more than ever, we need strong leaders to address the very serious challenges that we face as a nation. i spent the last year traveling up and down our state, talking to delawareans about the challenges they face every day. people are struggling. thousands of our neighbors are out of work. more people than ever are out of work six months or longer in this country. last year, 6000 delaware families faced foreclosure on their homes. in these difficult times, or representatives in washington have let us down. we need new leaders who will put progress over politics and do the right thing for the country. people are frustrated with what they see going on in washington, the political fighting and bickering. my opponent wants to go to washington and just say no to every proposal to address these problems. he wants to take us back to the

failed policies of the past that got us into this mess. he wants to repeal health care reform and roll back the new regulations on wall street. those are not answers we need. we need a leader with real ideas about creating jobs, strengthening our economy, and getting our country back on track. thank you all for coming in. >> let's begin with our questions. we will begin with an issue that is red, blue, white, black, however you feel like characterizing it. it is all about the tea party factor. mr. urquhart, do you identify yourself as a tea party candidate, and what does that mean to you? >> identify myself as one of the tens of amalia -- tens of millions of americans who are concerned about big government destroying jobs. i am excited there are tens of millions of americans who are

reading the constitution and understand that limited constitutional government means unlimited opportunity, who understand the big picture, which is that the government has gotten too big and is crowding out private investment. we have over a trillion dollars sitting on the sidelines, afraid to invest. we are not producing new jobs and growing the economy because there is a crisis of confidence. we can do better than that, and we can do it by cutting taxes and creating incentives. you cannot say you love jobs but then act like you hate businesses, and massive new regulations and tax increases like his party is going to cause in january are the problem. tipperary suspicions -- temporary suspensions don't work. we have to be able to have a long-term, low tax, low

regulatory environment, and then we will create the next microsoft, the next apple computers. right now, we have too much government. we have to grow the size of the economy so the government is back in balance. >> i am certainly not associated with the tea party. i am a tea drinker. i am a loyal democrat and have been for a long time. i have work to fight for the values that we represent as equal opportunity for all, special privilege for none. helping those who cannot help themselves, fighting every day for working families and making sure that every child, every child in our state and our country has an opportunity to succeed. one of the things i do see with the tea party is a tremendous amount of enthusiasm for the issues of the day. there is a focus on issues that are important to me and to all

delawareans and people i have talked to every day about the growing national debt and annual budget deficit. these are things i believe we need to work together on, not to motivate one another by trying to deprive us. >> this is the discussion portion. i need to go back to my question, because i don't believe i got an answer. do you feel that you are a tea party candidate? >> i don't think i necessarily a tea party candidate, but i respect the objectives of those people who want to return to our founders values of faith, hope, honesty, people who want limited government. i meet lots of people who support those values that say please do not label me as tea party. i am saying they prefer not to be the party. i welcome the tea party support. they seem to be solid americans who are peacefully and vigorously attempting to

reestablish the american dream. i have been blessed with that dream. my father went to work when he was 14 years old because his father was burt in a boiler explosion. i worked with my grandfather at age 12 in one of the roughest neighborhoods in america. but i stood up to my party, so i am not necessarily a party guy. i ran against the establishment. >> mr. carty, you have also said she would be an endpoint voice in washington -- an independent voice in washington. saying i, isn't that will be a sideline player? people need to take a stand to get things done in washington. >> is a little bit of both. you need to find like-minded individuals who are serving in congress that you can work with. you have to find people on both sides of the aisle.

one of the biggest problems we have right now in washington is that the republicans are thinking only about their own political advantage, and the democrats are the same way too often. there are very serious problems we have to address, getting our economy moving again, making sure that health care reform bill actually works, particularly to reduce costs and make premiums more affordable for working families. we have to work together to do that. i believe that you can be independent and work within your party and workers across party lines. >> do you have a follow-up? >> government does not create jobs. employers create jobs. we have to encourage them. i disagree with some of the

things of my party. i am an independent voice. i wrote to the republican minority leadership would not oppose a number of things in the stimulus. >> at think it is a matter of approach. we have always sought to bring people together to solve problems. one of the things i hear from my that he is always trying to appeal to those divisions, to separate us and in some ways to address issues that are important to all of us. i contend that the way to solve those problems is to bring people together. the fact of the matter is, we need each other. people are out of work. we need is people to create jobs to hire them. >> before close out this topic, this is aquote from your victory speech. we are wary of and principal

politicians who can no longer represent us. who are you referring to? >> i am referring to the's regime. when someone says you have to vote for this bill before you can read it, that is unprincipled. when someone promises to put it on c-span and put it on the internet for 72 hours so people can read it, and then does not do it, that is breaking your word. that is the kind of principles that i stand for an object. i support working together with people. i have been a businessman for 33 years, and we bring people together. that is how you reconcile and create coalitions. >> that is the next topic on the table. i think we have established that you both agree on the issue that jobs and the unemployment situation must become a priority. how you plan to create jobs in the state of delaware? the unemployment rate is 8.4%. the national rate is 9.6%.

people need jobs. >> creating jobs will be my top priority. one thing we do agree on is that private businesses create those jobs, so we need to do whatever we can to make sure that small businesses can thrive and grow. i have talked to small business people up and down our state and what they tell me is that they need access to capital. legislation that was just passed recently made available $30 billion for community banks for small businesses. that is one thing that we can do. we also need to make things here in america again. we need to develop manufacturing facilities. we have great opportunities to do that with new energy technology. we have an offshore wind project that a lot of people here at the university of delaware have worked on, making sure it is a reality. we need to make sure we build the supply chain here in delaware, manufacturing the wind

turbines, manufacturing the towers for that project. that is hundreds of jobs and millions of dollars of investments. but guess what? we are falling behind as a country. we are falling behind the europeans and the chinese. i support investment tax credit to make that possible to create an incentive for private businesses to get that going again. we need jobs for middle-class delawareans. i was visiting with some of my friends from claremont earlier today. these were men who were retired but they had earned their living, lifted their families into the middle class working on the industrial facilities along the delaware river. we need to reinvigorate that kind of employment for middle- class americans here in delaware and across the country, and we can do it. >> we will create jobs in

delaware the same way governor pete dupont did with carrots, not with sticks. the pelosi party is passing thousands of pages of thou shalt not sticks, forcing people to do this and stopping them from doing that. what we need are incentives, opportunities. we need lower taxes. we are the most highly taxed nation business was on the face of the earth. we have surpassed japan now, and that stops employers from creating jobs. dupont has hundreds of patents that they want people to take and create jobs with. we cannot do that because investors are afraid to invest. we don't need more debt from government, not even more debt loans to businesses. we need equity capital. equity investment funds are what created microsoft and amgen.

>> realistically, it isn't any candidate who says they will be elected in november 2010, go to washington in 2011, and fix this problem, setting themselves up for failure? this is a problem that was decades in the making, so is this not a prescription for failure? >> first of all, there were situations that created the problem, the risky behavior on wall street, irresponsible mortgage lending. there were problems that occurred in the potential market that resulted in millions losing their jobs, business is collapsing, people being put out of work. 35,000 delawareans are out of work. we have an opportunity right here on the university of delaware campus down at the old chrysler side. the university has of the chrysler site. they have great plans to expand

and researched the health science alliance and create a technology park. i have been working with the science and technology council. those are the kind of jobs that will be here for the future. there is a concrete example of what we can do. i mentioned it the renewable energy jobs. >> i think people are really love and to find a solution that -- people are really hoping to find a solution that is sound, where are people going to find jobs to pay their mortgages for 2011? >> those patents are ready for people to work on today, if we had a lower tax environment, people would be investing in those, hiring people, and creating jobs today. government is not the solution.

government is the problem. government created the economic collapse that we have. it forced people into risky loans. go back to sarbanes oxley. that is what created this culture of compliance instead of focusing on risk assessment. everybody was driven out of the risk assessment is this. just follow the rules and keep your head down. that is what got us into the mess with derivatives. dodd-frank is going to do the same thing by destroying jobs in and agile services industry. >> we have an immediate problem to get people back to work, which requires different solutions and some of the long- term problems that we have. there is an economics professor here who wrote a piece that appeared in the paper about the different approach you need to both of those problems.

people need jobs now to address your long-term debt in the future. you have to do both. you have to do the immediate things to create jobs now as you keep your eye on getting your arms around the deficits in the long term. that is why my approach towards extension of the bush tax cuts is different than my party's approach. i am not sure we can afford them in the long term, but we cannot afford not to extend them in the short term. >> let's not get into tax cuts just yet. do you have any final thoughts on the issue of job creation? >> we were promised that the stimulus would stop unemployment at 8%. it has gone to 10%. i have had conversations with the professor here at the university who tells me that the problem is regulation. it is that culture of compliance. i can do anything as long as i

am compliant. we have stopped assessing risk. that was the problem. this will destroy delaware's unique court system. >> the next question comes your way, so we will stay on the issue of deregulation. you have made the point that government is the problem and business is the answer. you feel that deregulating the business climate, removing some of those obstructions, is the way for this nation to emerge from the economic crisis. >> i am for safety regulations always. however, we have too much competition happening in this country over who can hire the best lobbyists to get their competitor regulated so they went by comparison. it has happened in europe for decades. we need the competition to be for better goods and services,

creating better jobs. when you met thousands of pages -- when you add thousands of pages of regulations, employers cringe. they stop hiring and they do not expand. they know that this by $0.50 trillion that has been added since nancy pelosi took over in 2006 is hanging over their heads like a sword of damocles. it is going to come due in the form of higher interest rates and higher costs. businesses do not want to expand because they do not want to get caught holding the bag. we need to unleash private enterprise to create jobs. i have created jobs starting with nothing, starting with sweat equity and building up in creating other jobs. government does not create jobs.

that destroys jobs, it does not create jobs. we need to encourage employers. i am glad that john has followed my lead. he is not talking about a two- year extension of the bush tax cuts, but that is not enough. businesses have been down too long. they need 10 years or more to make sure they can plan. having started businesses, i understand that. i can understand that john does not know that. >> there is a big difference between my opponent and i on the discussion of reasonable regulation. he basically believes that the regulations, the new rules that were established for wall street's -- in 2008 we almost had a collapse of the world's financial system. that was the result of a lot of things, risky practices on wall

street's, irresponsible mortgage lending, but millions of people lost their jobs. trillions of dollars of net worth was lost in family retirement accounts, and small business owners were heard all over the country. i am for regulations that make steps so that that does not happen again. the bill includes resolution authority to prevent the kind of bailout that we all don't like that occurred as a result of all that. i am for reasonable regulations on wall street, and my opponent is against them. is that simple. >> at the core of the financial collapse was fannie mae and freddie mac, and this bill does not even addressed them. the government is so misguided that it gave an $9 million bonus

to the -- government, heal yourself. you caused to this problem by creating quotas for lending to people that could not borrow. there is enough land to go around. let's tell all the truth and nothing but the truth. >> i am concerned about the effect on main street. all those practices that we watched and that we read about since 2008 have wreaked havoc on main street. small-business owners, thousands of delawareans out of work. we sought to bar major manufacturing facilities, general motors and chrysler -- we saw two of our major manufacturing facilities for 50 years go down the drain.

similar experiences across the country because of that near financial collapse. we had taken those rules and taken to the referees off the field, to use a football analogy. if you take the reveries off the field, the players are not going to be nice and played by the rules. >> i know the specifics. we should not have repealed glass-steagall, but that was done in a bipartisan way. not to get too technical, what that does is mix investment banking and regular banking. we let all bankers take unreasonable risks, and we taxpayers had to bail them out. bailouts and got we got the bill. dodd-frank is going to take tens

of thousands of jobs away from delawareans. i call it dodd-frankenstein. that is one of the big role for the next mayor of congress from delaware. we have a strong and driving financial-services business in our state. we need to send somebody to washington who will make sure that we have appropriate oversight on the financial- services industry as well as wall street'. my opponent makes me leery about whether he is going to do that, because he does not believe in the legislation. he opposes the outcome of the

bailout, but he does not support the rules that have been put in place. >> i don't support regulations that nobody has read, and the people who passed it did not even author themselves. when you jam student loans into a government health care takeover, and nobody even knows it is there, wow. john and i started reading the first day either one of us in congress -- if we kept reading for eight hours a day for two years, we could not read all the resulting tens of thousands of promulgated regulations. >> we can come back to this, but where you stand on the implementation of it to regulate the financial industry? in the issue of protecting consumers, specifically how all

this is going to affect delaware's corporate climate. >> a couple of things, as i have said several times tonight, i support the legislation, but is not perfect. there are things that will have to be looked after. there will have to be the kind of oversight that did not happen during the 1990's and 2000's. one of the things our congressional delegation was able to do, one of the great that -- threats to delaware was threats to our status as a corporate center, with the legal community in wilmington and our delegation. they were able to fight off attempts to nationalize corporate law and put it under

the securities and exchange commission. that would have been terrible for delaware. we get about 25% of our state budget incorporation franchise fees. i noticed that the former secretary of state is in the audience tonight. he worked on that for a number of years for, the then governor to strengthen that business in our state. i am for and will be a strong advocate for enforcing the rules under dodd-frank and for protecting delaware's interest in our financial industry as well as the corporation business which is a big part of our state. >> just for the record, it was only congressman mike castle to successfully fought there. successfully fought there. many of