when do we have to pay, why do we have to pay for everything? soon, nobody is going to have to pay for anything. the government is going to pay for it all. it is wonderful to be able to do those things, but you have got to be able to pay for it. host: charles, thank you for the call and thank you for all of your calls. we have the phones open on 7:00 ington journal" at the morning. we will take a look back, see what he had to say if you missed any of his remarks. and then carly fiorina, she picnicuring the gop couple days ago so you can watch her remarks also. we will have that 8:30 p.m. eastern. we will take a look at some of the losses democrats sustained

in 2014 and what we can do about it. >> that was a very fast you minutes and we are ready to go. thank you for being here for strategy.ate democrat i am excited to see everyone here and excited to see full room. most and forf the -- important topics we can talk about. we are talking about it in a place where he needs to be discussed, a place like arizona. like arizonates

all around the country where democrats could be doing more and better and progressives could be doing more and better but we are not. we have seen over the last five years democrats have lost over 900 seats in the state legislatures across america. we have gone from having democratic trifecta's or you have a governor, state senate, state and now we only have five of them. five states in the union where democrats control all of state government which means only five states in the union where we can have any hope of driving anything progressive. washington state is one of them who is no longer a trifecta democratic state. we have seen in other states, voter id laws. you know it better than i do. this is a great opportunity for us today to talk about why that happens but it will be a short

part of the conversation and we will move quickly to how we fix it and what we do about it. i think that is the ether use of net roots. we diagnose what's wrong and it to fix it. i'm excited to have this discussion. i want to introduce our analysts bit the first is a programming change. to have assembly member loretto gonzales from california with us. unfortunately, the california legislature still in session. i got a call before the panel started that she was no longer able to make it. she is an amazing rising star, loretto gonzales. [applause] however, we have someone really fantastic who has agreed to step up and join the panel. it's monica perez. i will let the panel introduce themselves but she is from

arizona and ran for state legislature several years ago. she has great experience about winning campaigns on the state level. it's great to have a local, from arizona. the panel. sitting next to her is the unequaled former state senator nina turner. [applause] who ran a great race for secretary of state in ohio last year. unfortunately, she is not the current secretary of state in ohio but she has a lot of great insight to talk about how democrats can win especially in a crucial swing state like ohio sitting next to her is ellie ju arez. from washington state. he is someone who is passionate about turning states blue but

making sure everyone can participate in our democracy and making sure government works for all people. he does great work in washington state and i'm glad he can join our panel. last an absolutely not least is michael sergeant, the executive director of the democratic legislative national campaign committee who does important work to hold and gain democratic seats in state legislatures. if we are going to fix what has happened over the last five years, he will be a central part of that so thank you for joining us. [applause] i am planning not to do much talking. we have an amazing panel so let's dive into it. we'll start with monica, what happened? why did we go from having democrats and control in states 10 years ago to where we are now where republicans are running

right in the states? >> hi everybody. i would like to say i think what happened and i'm coming from the perspective of arizona, what happened here is we started focusing on congressional races, the sexy races, focusing on governor and above and have not focused on secretary of state races. i think we have not enough emphasis on school board candidates. i think the school boards are a base for building great state legislators who in turn in five or 10 years our new congresspeople and tenures could be governor. i think that's where we need to start. a lot of folks run for the state legislature not knowing what issue really motivates them. reform, yougration can make a bigger impact in congress but you have to start somewhere. you've got to figure out how your issues play into what you are running for. when iran, it was 2004, a long

time ago, the district has redistricted now and it is old district 25 and new district 14 and arizona. -- in arizona. it was a chance for democrats to win but we were not focused. the party folks were not focused on legislative races. it was a presidential rear and i thought it's a great year to run but lots of money around but none of the money comes to us. none of the money comes to the state legislative rages. -- races. i had emily's list support and to a retailer's of other. --tory taylor is over there. i want to do it groups like emily's list and other progressive groups did for me. i want to do that for state legislative races. since i'm from arizona, i will never forget my home state, thank you. [applause] >> i have to agree with sister

perez. the best way to build a house -- you don't build the roof first. this is coming from a woman who was never built a house. [laughter] -- you understanding don't have to be a scientist to understand that climate change is real and you don't have to be an architect to understand that the best way to build a house, you don't build the roof, you build the foundation. i agree when she talks about the fact that when of the reasons ,hy we have lost lots of ground they being the folks who don't believe any quality and justice for all, who happen to be in the majority in terms of the republican party -- when folks don't vote for their self interest and that starts with the school board member and the township trustee and the mayor and the city council folks -- you build the foundation and locally elected people are the foundation.

these are people who run for office in the state legislature, they are the foundation. the hands of time are being turned back in this country. all of the things that we care about are happening on the state level of government. having a fantastic president is all well and good but we need -- it takes teamwork to make the dream work and the quarterback is only as good as the person they throw the ball to and that has to be thrown to progressive mayors and state has members and state senators. i speak from experience. bfa and jimthank dean and governor howard jean to make sure that candidates like me have a fighting chance for making the investment and rising up the base. nation go to a great through the ballot box. one man, one woman, one vote.

that is vitally important and we cannot lose sight of that. just because the cameras flash on the presidential candidate, all the things that have happened to you and your children happen on the local and state levels of government before any president has that kind of impact. we have lost our way but we are going to find it. we [applause] are going to find it. [applause] i hate to follow that. [laughter] i'm fired up. i want to register. i am speaking from a washington state perspective. it was not a candidate problem for us. in years past, it was a consultant problem. progressives, as we sold a lot of our values off to contractors who don't believe in the equity principles and racial justice we talk about. when we give them our money to

run candidates we are working hard for and giving our blood sweat and tears for, they are not talking the same language. they are telling the candidates to speak to the middle and telling them to speak to the old american majority, not the rising american majority, not the population who need to hear it most and not those waiting to be brought in to the electoral process. with those contracts, we need to look inward and examine how we spent that money on candidates and not just where they spent their money. but as activists, who are we giving our money to? are they spending it equitably? if we are leaving a large sections of the population and people most affected on the issues, we are not doing her job. we have to take a hard look at that. >> thanks a lot. this is an interesting question. into the 2010

election, democrats held 60 of the 90 parts of chambers and now we are 30. with part of what happened the national republican wave that took down a lot of our legislatures. then we came back in 2012 and grabbed half of them back in one cycle. now ofin the process building that backup. i think it's a matter of having a short-term strategy in a long-term strategy. that will take making consistent investments into things like candidate recruitment, training, message development, a sustainable accountable field program so we building networks of supporters and people who care about these issues and care about our candidates in the abilityy and having the to work on these issues cycle to cycle in the hopes that we

actually have a sustained program. one small anecdote -- last in ourwe invested graduate victory program were replaced 311 organizers across the country in specific districts. we felt like we did not make a difference. we knocked on thousands of doors. the last weekend alone, we had 1.4 million contacts. and it allowedal us to know where the trouble spots were and where we were struggling with enthusiasm. cycleing we did last unlike the other committees was we wanted to look at this long-term and we made investments in the ohio senate last cycle even though they were not in a position to win the majority. put together a

good plan and we wanted the fund -- to fund a handful of organizers that could organize the community. that is really critical to be able to have the funding and have a strong plan and the funding to be able to fund it for 2016 but be able to follow through in 18 and 20. >> one thing i heard is the decline in how you motivate voters. how do you get people out to the polls? i had lunch with a woman who ran for secretary of state and she .aid she lost a narrow race it was a lower turnout. what is behind that? why are we having a struggle turning people out in these years where there is not a presidential candidate on the ballot?

there is a lot of different factors. i'm curious to get some of your opinions as well. i think some of it is related to that a lot of democratic candidate probably don't speak enough to the base. there is an issue with that. when we take a look at the republican advertising throughout a cycle, we will actually scratch our heads and wonder why they are talking about a fringe issue, something that does not come up to high as a salient issue in a poll. what they are often doing is trying to send out those messages to their own base and engage them so they vote. quite frankly, those messages are to the worst of people sometimes.

we look at it and think reasonable folks will not attention. that's what drives their base and therefore a larger monitor their days -- a large amount of their base comes out to vote than ours does. that's part of it and it also comes to a larger effort we as democrats and progressives need to do that, to emphasize that local elections in state elections are critical. they are important. i cannot tell you how often i will have a conversation with family or friends and they will gravitate and talk about politics. they want to talk about hillary and president obama. that is their real touchstone. they don't necessarily know who their elected officials are. we all have to work to try to change that. it takes all of us to be able to change the approach in our own community. i want to second that the focus on locals is something i wish we would have a movement

and spend more attention and money on. there is nothing more exciting than a water commission district. i don't know if you have those in your state. [laughter] it matters. if you know water and you are in the west, he will have a career. if you don't know water, and you're are running for state legislative seat and you have to come up to speed in three month before you go in front of voters, you will struggle. the progressive majority, we maintain a farm team. and washington state, we have 380 people we work with to get them ready to run. did this year as we said we want everyone who is willing to run for these special-purpose districts like water districts and reclamation districts and school districts to control to control millions hundreds of millions of dollars and often times don't have a quarrel him because people don't run for them in our state or they have convoluted process for elections. someone are states are not

elected on election day. they have a special election two months later pit of the 380 people we work with, we had -- we told every single one of them that you will run this year and be in our program. 160 of them stepped up and 160 progressives for gone through the process are running and will be on the ballot in august. i think that is a game changer. if we can get our folks in the small districts, they will make substantial policy changes and use their expertise moving forward. is ihappened in the past don't think we have done the legwork to make sure we are valuing those. amen.an. -- think about last year, it was the lowest voter turnout in our country in 70 years. think about what was happening 70 years ago. we were busy with a war. people are opting

out because they do not believe that folks who hold elected about them.give - i will keep it pg. that's pretty sad. me running for secretary of state in ohio, one woman, one man, one vote. the vote is the greatest equalizer and how hard it was for me to even get traction. i was not running for governor. everybody knows the most important races the secretary of state. that because if people cannot vote and don't have access to the republic, if their voice cannot be heard through the power of their boat, you cannot vote for a president or township trustee or school board member or a mayor. or a governor the ballot box is the most important. -- think happened last year i have to quote my sister janet jackson -- what have you done

for me lately? notzens in this country are feeling it. those folks elected to office really are doing -- are not doing anything about their cares. kind of future will people have? we really have to start to talk to folks where they live. we talk about issues. people are trying to solve problems. if i don't have a job, that's a problem. if i have to string together five jobs to make inns me, that is a problem. if my baby is not being educated, that is a problem. progressives, we are real intellectual. but i have not met anybody goes out to vote because you are an intellectual. they vote because you feel away about why you are running and what you will do to lift them. part of it is the messaging. we have to speak to people's hearts and we can do that. titles are good but this is better.

-- but purpose is better. folks are running for office and want a fancy title and are angling for the next position instead of making people's lives who they are serving better. i don't care what side of the aisle they are on, i come from the mother jones school of thought. mother jones said i'd pay for the dead and will fight for the living. i am for the people and i like to think those of us who have thethe plover is -- privilege to run for office are inspired to run that this is a ministry. it's called the elected ministry. if you don't care about people, you ought not run. our agreement. we are right on all the issues but how do we help to make sure what we are right about are the issues that permeate people's hearts and them they are motivated to come out to vote and then vote for their own

self-interest. that is part of the problem. who vote are not voting for their self-interest. no such thing as an off your election. every election year is important and we are programmed in this country to only come out every four years. there is a person or issue on the ballot every year. we need to give us much fire power and energy to those elections every single year because we are building a house. when we get to the roof in the presidential election, we are building the house and in the four years, we get to the roof. that's every election year. i'm just feeling this thing. [applause] >> i feel what aj just felt. i should just pass it back. >> no, no. >> can we just recruit this woman to run for anything?

>> don't start nothing. [laughter] running for president sounds kind of good bit >> right? i'm not really joking. one of the biggest things that got me to run is someone asked me to run. we have to take a real step back when you're recruiting women or people of color, you got to ask them at least 10 times. i was lucky that when i was working for the howard dean presidential campaign and then messageaign ended, his was -- he wanted his staff and activists and aides to run for office and i felt like he was talking to me. he wants you to run for office. governor dean, i felt he was big into me and saying i want you to run for office.i was organizing

for him and douglas where i'm from an arizona. i felt like he personally had asked me to run. dfa groups there said we want you to run. there is an open seat in the legislature and i was 25 years old. i always wanted to run. at 18, i said i wanted to run for office i just don't know when or where. that's the story of sdfa. we get people to run for office but we asked them. we asked them we pledged to give them support and help. those folks were my volunteers then became my volunteers as a candidate. that is the beauty of me working at dfa is coming home because they are the folks the got me to run. they are the folks who told me not to worry that you have not finished your degree and don't worry you are 25 years old and you are a single hispanic female with a strong catholic background. my mother is catholic, let me tell you.

[laughter] don't worry that planned parenthood in emily's list has endorsed you. you can talk about it. your mom will not retreat. churchicked out of my why got the endorsement from planned parenthood and it came out my local paper. i got kicked out of my church of my mom got kicked out of our church. but my mom stood up for me and i stood up for my values and i said fine, i will find a church that welcomes me. i am still catholic and i'm a proud pro-choice catholic and i will find a place. we need to find a place for all those candidates pretty when he to make sure we are asking people to run. we are making sure that teachers, nurses, community activists, veterans are being asked to run them when they are not ready, they are ready. we've got to tell him that you might not be ready now but there are 10 groups waiting to help you. dfa is here ready to train them and i am ready to help them. i want them to comply for endorsement.

there are people like nina turner to look up to. what more do you need question mark its asking people to run and making sure we hold them accountable. if i ever went back on my pre ses in 2004, it was we had to show id at the ballot box. i was the only democratic spoke out against that. i was running with two and comments, a 25-year-old woman who spoke out because the party told me i should not speak out. you should stay neutral. how the hell can i stay neutral when i am a from a border town? my parents are immigrants. there was no way i could stay neutral on that. i may have lost my race because of it but i kept my head held high my still of my integrity. we've got to make sure to hold those folks accountable. if they are promising as a platform and promising us progressive values and once they

get in, they close the door on us, that is what primaries were made for and we got to do that. in arizona, we got to get better at that. i have seen too many folks running for the legislature with their eye on congress and the get to congress and their home state might as well be washington, d.c. we got to get back to that, we got to get back to the days of activism where we have folks who truly care about the people were you cannot just run a campaign on direct mail and facebook ads. you've got to knock on doors. i don't care if the primary is in august and it's hot in arizona. you've got to talk to people and if you are not for the people, you have no business running. [applause] >> one thing i hear from this panel is the importance of asking people to do things like

running are asking for your vote. it calls to mind something i remember very well from spring of 2014. there is a facebook discussion with one of the leading political consultants in washington state for democrats. someone had posted an article about how single young women are one of the key democratic demographics. greatented saying this is and i hope anyone running for state legislature in washington reads this and plans how they will reach out to them. consultant asked why we would do that. they said that is not good campaigning. they would not advise their candidate to do that. is that a correct strategy? is it wrong? how do we fix that? who ran asgle female

a single female, i will tell you that i know i am not a targeted voter. because i vote in every election , every little bond election, i will not get those pieces of mail. i will not get that door knocking people will not remind me to vote because they are what, i rely -- guess am voting anyway. we forget to talk to the base. it's wrong for us not to talk to single women voters about family issues. we care about them and we care about economic issues and education and health care. they are the same issues, it does not matter if your nontraditional family or a family with no kids or grandparents are taking care of kids. everyone has the same struggle. we should not have direct messaging just for single women to say just vote for hillary because she is a woman. i have worked for hillary. we want to make sure the

messaging is not just directed at you because you are a single woman. let me talk to you about some things that might keep you busy at night. you might have time to read the issues than if you had kids. we all have the same struggle. we haveng for us -- been talking about it for like 10 years. people of color, single, unmarried women and it's the untapped group that i guarantee you, they are 100% with us. we are just not talking to them or we are talking to them as if they were some odd mythical group of voters and they are not. we are all the same. i care of the same issues you do, guaranteed. >> single women have to eat, they have to work. damn want their whole dollar. we want the whole dollar. [applause]

whether we are single or married, we want the whole dollar. [laughter] there is a wonderful book coming out called " brown is the new white or." what he is talking about is in ,erms of the rising electorate that is black and brown and progressive white folks. we are the majority, point blank. ordinary,extra on our extraordinary things will begin to happen. we can no longer lead any sister or brother behind. i have had consultants and people trying to advise because you run as a statewide candidate. you know about ohio. i had a consultant saying

senator, you happen to be black. [laughter] i'm serious. it took everything i had to keep it together. [laughter] are you feeling me? i happened to be -- he said now listen, don't try too much attention. [laughter] i could not make this up. don't draw too much attention to your ethnicity. i said to myself, my name is not rachel. i'm a chocolate sister. [laughter] i could not make this stuff up. you do have people -- he meant well. another question was how are you doing down south? in mississippi?

i'm running in ohio. they meant in the rural parts of ohio. we have to change. when you are in the room with folks who think that way in this was a good person, not a bad person. i am a woman of color, african-american heritage, i was born that way, it it was not deliberate. i don't happen to be, i am. i say that to say that people are the majority. we cannot leave anybody behind. in 2012, african-american women were the largest voting block in the united states of america. you bring the mamas together, the latinos, the asian sisters, the native american sisters, wherever we hailed from, women make the world go round. we cannot leave anybody behind. women have this type of impact on their families especially if

you are a single mama. you have this impact on society. i'm not talking about just birthing a child. when you've got the spirit of a mama, someone whose goals and protects and speaks truth to power. that is what we need more of in this country. any consultant that advises you to leave any group of folks behind, you have to get rid of them. you just do. i have to make sure i'm telling you. congresswoman shirley chisholm once said that tremendous amounts of talent or lost to the society because that talen wears a scourge. that was true then when she of the kurds in 1972 to stand up and say i will run for the president of these united states of america matter what folks have to say about my of new city or gender. us, we stand on the shoulders of a bold sister like

that when it was not popular. she said i am running for the poor. i am running for children. that is what we need. we cannot leave anybody. we don't leave anybody behind. robert. i love robert. >> i will take that. [applause] i must have done something bad in it as life. -- in a past life. you said a few things that struck me. when we think about who is running the world, it's women and people of color and people in this room but we are not running politics. we are not getting the contracts. we are not pushing back on people making the decisions to talk to people the way they are. telling candidates of color that your last name looks to let you know, let's make that smaller, let's go with your first name.

the yard sign says vicki. or on your list, the consultants construct views of you as hyper buying into the idea of politics that we are already negative gating -- we are already navigating. i can go days without a look of color in a similar position. that's messed up. i'm a white presenting latino in a very large state with a huge latino, black, and asian population and i have zero fears that work in my industry. -- appears that work in my industry. if that way because we are not asking harder questions. we are not training ourselves to tell people that it's ok to call our own folks out. thatey are our own post, he to stand with us to make sure the back of the house looks like the front of the house.

don't just put us on the pamphlet or in the commercial. let us put the dam commercial together. [applause] i think part of this has to do with the idea of winning versus liberation. when we look at how people are voting, the party is interested in winning. we fill in the little mark and we get another d in office. when people vote, they look at who will liberate their lives. people have problems. they are voting for security. people need to know that when they are passing a vote that it will protect their family. we are not doing a good job talking about that and part of that is because we don't have the right people running these campaigns. one of the last things i will say is this idea of voting for security- what does that mean when i say that? progressivesup of

and you guys are not normal people. [laughter] many of us looks different from security to many other people who need to be elected most around this country. in central washington, we have a isge latino population which systematically being suppressed through election laws in the ways we elect people. it took up federal voting rights case to change the way we elect people. for the first time in one city which had never elected any , they've got nine people of color running in that city now. this is about making sure we are changing the face and changing the game at the same time. as i mentioned before, there is a theme throughout this entire discussion. we have to expand our base.

we cannot continue to talk to a certain section of folks and be the entire debate without changing the debate ourselves in talking to people need to talk to to in these elections. we have been trying for too long. we need to actually just grow how many folks are voting particularly midterm elections. it's critical. over theue the fight toe 30% of the electorate get 51% of that same 30% has not been a winning solution. ultimately, i hear about how narrowly we want to talk to people, i think we have to talk to more people and gear our communications and programs to bring more people into the process. we need to ask them to support

us. we need to meet them where they are and talk about their issues and problems but from there, engage them. we want their help and we want them involved. it's not just the same old clubhouse we may have had before and we need everybody to pitch in we'll ask everybody to help. >> there has been discussion about 2020 strategy being the next census, the legislature elected in 2020 other ones that draw the next state of state legislative districts and the next set of congressional districts. do we aim for it to eat the end the end by to take the state legislatures back? what does that strategy look like? what do we need to be doing over the next three election cycles to make sure that by the time the next set comes around, we will have a bunch of democrats. >> i received this question.

one thing that we work on is elect democrats across the country. year, we started a new super pack in advance of the 20 which a former congressman is directing to put together a comprehensive redistricting strategy for legislatures focused on 2020. what does that mean? that means having a short-term plan to be able to have success in 2016. the elections coming up are critical. we cannot wait until 2022 do some good things for people and stop a lot of bad things that are happening in state capitals and and local offices across the country. we have to actually have a short-term plan.

from there, we need to make it consistent investment in the key and candidate recruitment and message development and training to build in the able to make gains in 18 and get there in 20. many times, people focus on what happened with the republicans drawing a map into the 10 and they put us in the hole. some people may me ramberg, the fact that they drew maps and many of the critical states after the 2001, they do them in ohio and michigan and wisconsin and pennsylvania. in those states, democrats had a majority and at least one or two chambers going into the 2010 election. we had a national wave election that pushes out. -- pushed us out.

the one thing the republicans are scared to death of his they know the electorate is changing. they know the conversation is changing and they know they can hold off change for a little bit of time when they redistrict but by the end of the decade, those districts in the state look different than it did at the beginning. that's why we need to focus on having a program to address that. have going fore us this time that we did not have last time is the fact that in 2020, it will be a presidential year so we have the opportunity with 16 and 20 two have higher turnout than we had in 213. 2013. >> we need to push the party to be a little bit more open-minded around the democratic party, around what it means to do work around the census.

every person needs to be counted if we want these lines to be drawn fairly and every person gets a vote that counts. in washington state, we had been abysmal census turned out especially in neighborhoods of color. folks of not want to be counted and it large investments of folks who typically were not interested to invest going door to door around getting people to fill it out. forould help build the case voting rights violations that were happening in different parts of the state like in the yakima valley. it also brought more people face-to-face with folks who are already interested in the political outcome of their communities. they were meeting people who could introduce them to a politics meant for them and better sidewalks and street lights, bringing the macro down to the micros of people could see that this affects their everyday life. it affects their commute and their children's school. politicos, we look at the

census is something that does not impact as much but it's important. we need to get out of that mindset of work to make sure our communities are counted. many of our states have a districting commission. in washington, those are pointed by our legislature. we had a huge missed opportunity last time where the democratic speaker of the house did not listen to communities of color and did not listen to advocates who said we want somebody on this commission will make sure redistricting represents our interests and values. we chose somebody who did not represent that. in fact, it hurt us in a number of ways. when he to make sure he knows that. for those of you who have a redistricting commission, make sure you are reaching out to the speaker of the house and senate majority leaders and tell them you want on those commissions. often those are decisions made in a back room somewhere and not public. when to make sure they are public and they should be publicly vetted and we should

put them into place. buta bit of a broken record the special-purpose district like water district and school will lose the war if we continue to not build those positions. we need experts in qualified positions. amen to what you had to say. should never build their shield on the battlefield. its shield building time so we need to have a cycle by cycle plan. and had wave is coming we go from 2015 to 2016 and on and on. chairman david pepper, we came up with the 1618 plan. ohio people plan -- say how much we love you but when it comes to midterm

elections, some folks don't know we exist when it's time for the midterm elections. we are not going to let them happen again. as we bring it for the nation as 2012, twice in 2008 and we are going to make sure we get the love in 2018. the blue wave is kept coming so we have a 2018 plan. we are focused on the local election like mayor and school board and township trustee. that's to 15 as we ready ourselves for 2016. we will do the same thing for 2017 for local elections and in 2018 when all of the statewide offices are up again, we will have the strong foundation to take back the constitutional offices. we have to build our shield. the 1618 plan is another initiative called the main street initiative. for the first time in the ohio democratic party history,

chairman pepper and myself have where wen initiative raise money for the main street initiative in those dollars go to candidates running on the local levels of government. we show the local candidates the love that they deserve. number one is democrats and progressives, we still control a lot of local offices but number two, that is how we build a strong bench of people who can run for the state legislature and can run for statewide office and can run in the congress. we have to build it that way. we have to take it cycle by cycle. if we have to eat an elephant, the best way to eat it is one bite at a time. [laughter] [applause] i love it. what i wouldwith like to see happen in my home state of arizona. i was gone for six years from arizona. when i left, the same people

were in power that were in power when iran and 2004 and that did not help me. i left in 2007 and went to nevada and washington, d.c. someone told me your home state will appreciate you more when you come back. not so true. i have come back and lived in nevada and seen great leaders being built a den that a. i feel like nevada was what phoenix in arizona was 10 years ago. we opened our doors and encouraged new leadership. 2014-2015. in same people were running stuff in arizona. it is a boys club and i am tired of it. i am so tired of it. i want people like rosie lopez to always be involved. everyone can learn from someone like this. legislature, i am represented by three guys. i don't like that. i love that they are all

hispanic but i hate that one of them is anti-choice and he is a democrat. this is what we have to do. it's not easy and it's not pretty but we've got to be calling those folks out. our party platform is inclusion, equal rights for everyone. that includes our gay and lesbian friends, our veterans, women's reproductive rights. i don't consider you a democrat. if your representing me and your anti-choice [applause] we've got to hold folks accountable. we've got to make sure that labor is talking to environmental and the dfa is talking to labor and we are working together. these great tables in circles we build in the state, we got to make sure everyone is represented. i even had a conversation with someone about joining a table in arizona. local and i worked

national/state races and i am local. i want to elect good progressives in my home state. if i cannot do that there, i will do it all over the country. we've got to make sure in our state that all of you are advocating for new leadership. rosie blazed a path for people like me. everyone has a rosie lopez. please stand up. rosie lopez, ladies and gentlemen. [applause] if you're from arizona, you know from talking about. and her granddaughter is my best friend. in every state, we've got those activists who want to see their state and they want to retire. rosie wants to garden. she wants people to take on the fight. the younger generation has to fight to be at that table. i will fight to be on the table in arizona. we've got to keep doing it and keep those people who are

elected now in office. if they are not fighting for us, we got to get them out. [applause] >> because the panel is being streamed live, we will take audience questions in a moment. we have been asked to have people who want to ask questions asked them at the microphone in the middle aisle. one d -- after we do when more round of questions, we'll get to questions from the audience. this relates to something that was discussed -- it was discussed earlier today. and wetioned sb-101 have talked about redistricting. we can talk about what we can do to fix this problem. keep in mindto that republicans are trying to push back to make it harder for

us to do our jobs. what are some of the things we need to do? this is a chicken and egg problem. when he to have the state legislatures stopping attacking voting rights but we also have to win elections. how do we untangle that knot? >> i'm a believer that it starts with the candidate. i come from that world where i was a candidate and i think it starts with candidates. it also starts with all of us. arizona got a lot of attention have been70 but we doing with that for 15 years. it was not as horrific and we have not done a good job in states like arizona talking about photo suppression. -- voter suppression. it well in our own state but we are not putting our national leaders to talk about

it. we've got great people in congress. we got to make sure they are sharing our state stories in the national media and making sure folks know that this is really happening. there are crappy things happening in our state but we've got to make sure that is coming out. then we got to make sure we find those folks who are part of that movement and ask them to run. there is a great attorney who has been defending voter rights for their entire career, they would make a great state legislature i think. we've got to get those folks who are at the top of the game and that issue to run for office. i think that is the chicken before the egg to major we get good people in office a major they are protecting it all the way down. we got to build coalitions around voting rights. we are building great coalitions in arizona around immigration reform and the dreamer movement is active and amazing. that also includes voter rights. that so justdes

because you are a dream activist does not mean you cannot be advocating for your brothers and sisters can't vote. we are voting for them. my vote counts five times for those who cannot vote. we have to make sure we are building those coalitions and everyone is back he difference and talking about that and i think it starts at the candidate level. [applause] >> there is no magic to this. we have to campaign to tell the story every single year. even if we are nauseous from saying it over and over, we have to make sure people understand that all paths lead to the ballot box. it's the great equalizer. that is real. in doing that, my good friend says if you doi

not respect me, don't expect me. for a lot of communities of color or were communities, they elected to folks office really care about them or their issues. people opted out. in order to get people back into the process, you have to energize and remind them that it is important. if they care what education funding, you have to vote. you need your snow plowed, you have the vote. if you want garbage removed, you have to vote. if you want women to have a right to control their own bodies, we have to vote. whatever the issues are that matter to people, we have to make sure we remind them to vote. , congress needs to take care of that. that's the foundation of this country. [applause] for me, it is an emotional thing. how do we get people to be

emotionally invested in their future? since most folks will run for office, that has to be done for the people who do run and serve. i don't know which one of you said this but once we get caught up with folks running and they have the d behind her name but once they get there, we have to make sure they are working for us. it's not enough to say you are a democrat but what do you do once you get there to make the lives of people better. ng people energize an authentic. i used to work for the mayor in the city of cleveland. something terrible had happened at the city and you would have thought we just said it started raining. the mayor said if your hair is on fire, act like your hair is on fire. our hair should be on fire every single election cycle. we need to make sure we act as though our hair is on fire.

all of these issues are important but we cannot tackle those issues unless people feel a part of this representative democracy of hours and i have to get out there and exercise their right to vote. repetition, over and over and over again. >> i will be really quick -- when we act like our hair is on fire, we need to tell those democrats that voting rights is your hair on fire. we need to make that a priority of our party. there is no reason why any state that has majorities in either how should not be advancing legislation that increases access to the ballot. in washington state, this is an issue where we have weak democrats not pushing hard enough. we have relegated a voting rights issue to a person of color issue and that is what democracy is not working for everyone now. [applause] when we tell people of color that their liberation and their

experience with democracy is theirs to learn, we have already lost the game. we need allies that will fight for us, not behind us not sometimes on a sunday but every freaking day of that session. we need to sponsor legislation that opens the ballot up. echo --hings i want to [inaudible] [no audio] we don't want to come across that we are just talking about problems. we have to be authentic and talk that these things in a way connect with people. it's easy to say but so often, when we are in these campaigns and find ourselves in the position where we want to make sure we are not making a mistake or we want to make sure that the

k free asis as ris possible. we want to run the best program possible. we see this with republicans that on paper, we see the research book and they have a horrific record. they are unpleasant to be around. and yet everybody knows where they stand and they are authentic and actually owner they are. even people who don't agree with them will vote for them because they think i know who this person that is an approach for somebody like that. and you at these folks could have a tv movie about some of these folks.

they come across as you i think that is what people are hungry for. want somebody they know they can actually count on. aboutn you are talking voter perception of politicians, politicians off it -- voters often distrust politicians. innk you for being patient the line. i will start with you. bethany: this has been a fantastic panel. i'm actually from minnesota, which until recently had the trifecta. botha field organizer statewide and local elections, different things. one thing i have seen not only in minnesota but other states,

including traditionally red states, is the very vast difference between the rural and what people are talking about their versus what is happening in metropolitan areas. there is a real urban divide. unfortunately the structures i have have you worked in have often failed to get that will will -- get that to rural voice. do you agree with with being done in your organization to bridge that gap? >> i do agree with that statement, but we have more calm -- more in common than not. when we look at property we

often see it through an urban lens. rural poverty is as gut wrenching as urban poverty. .t is starting in that place whether you are suburban or rural you want a good life. you want to live in a safe work.ity that you can people don't get up for decent. they get up for good and great. that is really what it is. one of the things we are doing is recognizing that ohio is an 88 county rural, urban, and suburban, starting with the issues we have in common. it is a different discussion in cleveland ohio then those who live in other counties. it starts where we have that commonality of economic

fairness, economic justice, where your children have a future. and because of the makeup of ohio that forces us to really do that. we can't really separate the two. we are trying very hard to bring that together a little more and feed that into the narrative more about what we have in common than not. rural leadership, who will be in to take that message back. we are the same struggle for the good. >> i wanted to add someone in the rural area could come up to phoenix if i found a nice urban district. the district iran and had five counties. it was massive, it was the

second-largest district in the state. i don't identify what is happening with phoenix. i'm concerned with health care access. always concerned about water issues. for us my personal mission is not just ethnic timber -- ethnic diversity but also geographical. we need to hear from all of you. you need to push us to staff have this great candidate in the rural part. not even a target. not anything. they are going to change our state. i feel like in the legislature there needs to be a rural caucus read if you don't have one in your state legislatures, so they are talking about rural issues but they are also talking about the rural folks.

we need to support those rural candidates. really inexpensive to help radio ads. pushes at the organization level. >> next question. , i'm another person from washington here. my dad brought home a newspaper from his shipyard job and i heard the first party slogan. both the democratic for you and not just the few. people like my dad, a marine machinist with a ninth grade education, have been the people that have left the democratic , regardless of what the

republicans are doing to them economically and doing to their the rights tonize form a union. you folks have done a wonderful job in terms of pumping up this organization. to get your thoughts on how to win back those who have left the church area -- the church. >> a critical part of it is something we create in our campaigns when we fill our programs. to build a campaign strategy that fits the district. a we need to make sure our candidates are talking about issues that matter in the communities they are actually running in. not the number one story or number one article written in the state capital newspaper.

issues to talk about the that are resonating in those communities. it goes back to what we talked about before with authenticity. a position where we are meeting people where they are as well and not just telling them, why don't you get it? make the them connection that our policy working together will list every -- will lift everybody up. success is not a zero-sum game. i think we have to stress that instead of letting the right be able to talk about this economy where you just want to be one of the five people that can actually win the lottery. obviously -- if you're not happy with your life it's obviously because you didn't work hard enough.

-- i think weople need to reverse that and bring in everybody. >> sometimes people don't leave the church, sometimes the church leaves us. there are many parts in this country where we live in blue states that don't act very blue. there are people turned off by the idea of lip service with not a lot of action. i'm talking about revenue, i'm talking about the things people are affecting their plenty to break out of working-class jobs or poverty wages. i don't think anybody can challenge that our party hasn't been as full as we were in generations of the past and k-fed legislation. #gave that legislation. -- and gave that legislation.

>> this is going to be our last question. >> i'm in my sixth term. i know my success to howard dean and jim dean. i'm on the election law committee. appreciate the struggle we are having with voter suppression. and i want to go back to a question you asked earlier, what do you think causes of voter apathy? book has one of the most subtle ,ays of voter suppression

negative advertising. it doesn't convince you to vote the other guy. it makes you so disgusted not only with the opponents, but they did pick to your candidate is being so bad that you say a pox on both of your houses, so you stay home and don't vote. isn't it really a responsibility of all of us to tell our neighbors you can't just stay home and not vote because of what you hear on the airwaves or what you read in the newspapers and all this negative advertising. you have to get out there and vote for your candidate. would you agree? >> thank you for running. thank you for being there. >> i want to thank our excellent panelists for this great discussion.

thank you so much. thank you all so much for being here. we appreciate it.

presidential candidate send that president of candidate bernie sanders -- presidential candidate bernie sanders. we will show that night here on c-span at 8:00 eastern, followed carly fiorina, speaking saturday at the annual stretch kennedy patriots picnic in new hampshire. c-span two, a house oversight committee on security at the us-mexico border. at -- spoke about violence at the border. , it is going to be a long-term battle. can see what has happened in

colombia and the types of improvements that have been made there. those are the types of improvements we are going to have to help mexico make. i think continuing those types of programs we started, we are currently running in mexico to improve the judicial system. all those types of things are going to make this a safer location. >> before the gentleman yields back i will point out there is no place force -- no police force. you can work on training them, but it is run by the drug cartels. shame on the state where we are cutting -- the people pay for the state department. that is not the way you're going to build morale. you're going to cut those poor people's pay. you can talk about training a local police force but there isn't even a local police force to train.

>> madison is probably the most famous case this court ever decided. slavery wasn't legally recognized here on land. >> putting this into effect would take presidential orders. and the presence of federal troops and the marshals and the courage of children.

>> we wanted to pick cases that course the direction and of society and also changed society. >> she told him they had to have a search warrant. they refuse to do, so she grabbed it out of his hands to look at it. the police officer handcuffed her. >> i can't imagine a better way to bring the constitution to life than by telling the human stories behind great supreme court cases. >> after being convicted to fail he tookt for relocation his case all the way to the

supreme court. famousany of our most decisions are ones that the court took that were quite unpopular. >> if you had to pick one freedom that was the most essential to the functioning of a democracy it has to be freedom of speech. let's go through a few cases that illustrate what it means to of 300 10society million different people who helped stick together because they believe in a rule of law. >> landmark cases, an exploration of 12 historic supreme court decisions and the human stories behind them. a new series produced in cooperation with the national constitution center. debuting october 5. >> next a look at u.s. budget

deadlines and courage -- and the current status of negotiations and congressional options for addressing the sequester cup's -- sequester cuts. -- budget matters. william hoagland is from the bipartisan policy center. that date of september 30 is out there. a potential government shutdown is something we are reading about. federal government funding is expiring as we sit here. explain where we are in the annual spending process. guest: we have 12 of preparation bills that fund the government on october 1. of those 12 appropriation bills that keep the government up and running, only six have passed the house of representatives and then have passed the united states senate. at this particular point, we are a long way off in the next five days at congress is in session to pass all those bills.

it is clear that we will end up having to do something that we tol a continuing resolution avoid a shutdown. that requires passing an omnibus bill that will keep funding at the current year's level going forward or we will have a shutdown. host: with a couple weeks left in the fiscal year, what are the main sticking points? how come only half of the bills have been acted on? guest: the usual problems that we have in terms of deciding what level of funding the federal government should be operating at. forth aident had put budget back in the spring that increased funding for appropriations above what we call the caps that were established back in the 2011 agreement. congress wants to stay at those caps. the differences are around $40 billion in differences. the first issue is that we have a difference of opinion between the administration and the congress and what level of

increased funding should happen in 2016. the second issue here is while congress,ship in speaker boehner and mitch mcconnell, clearly do not want to have a government shutdown operational,rnment the difficulty has come up with the issues such as planned parenthood, which i know you will be talking about later. that is funding for planned parenthood. the confederate flag issue came up earlier this year. we have other issues and programs like the iran nuclear deal. all those provide opportunities for members of congress to offer amendments to this continuing resolution and that is what creates the problem here is actually even passing a simple, clean, continuing resolution to keep government-funded. host: we put the phone numbers on the bottom of the screen for our guest william hoagland. the budget deadlines, the

sequester, all these fiscal matters we are talking about. the debt ceiling as well. guest: that is another issue that comes up at the end of october and early november. according to the administration, the bipartisan policy center the least we can get it to the middle of november or december and that is another issue we have to deal with. host: here are the phone numbers. .emocrats (202) 748-8000 republicans, (202) 748-8001. also send a tweet and i want to ask you how a cr works. does it increase or decrease? how does it work? guest: continuing resolutions mean what the term implies. it would occur at the current

level. you simply continue straight lining those fun things into 2016. a continuing resolution can be for two weeks or three weeks and it can also be for a full year. it just depends on the decisions that they make here in terms of that length of time. tore could be adjustments the continuing resolution, but historically, a continuing resolution follows exactly what the term means -- funding programs where they currently are. host: who would like and dislike continuing resolutions? [laughter] guest: very good question. first of all, if you were to fund a program at its continuing resolution, as an example, let us take the planned parenthood that means the funding for planned parenthood, which is somewhat around $70 million in appropriations -- and there is a

difference here and i did not want to get into the details here -- but appropriations funded for fiscal year 2015, planned parenthood is at $70 million. the continuing resolution would continue that funding at an annualized rate of $70 million. those that are opposed to any continuation of planned parenthood would be opposed to a continuing resolution that included that kind of funding. that would be one example of why you would be opposed to it. those who would be support a continuing resolution, besides the obvious factor of not winning a government shutdown. the other option for those people who want to compare the level of continuing funding compared to those caps that i mentioned, though sequester caps, it turns out that you might have the same level of funding and most likely a better level of funding if you did a continuing resolution as opposed to funding at the cap levels that congress had adopted. host: prior to joining the

bipartisan policy center, you spent more than three decades on the hill on the senate staff. remind us of where you serve. i began my career with the congressional budget office when it was established in 1974 under the first director. beginning in 1981, i began my career with the senate budget a committee until the end where i spent the last four years in the majority leader's office. i was the staff director and his of preparation director. calls,efore we get to let us stay with planned parenthood a little bit more and its relationship with what we are talking about -- the budget negotiations. program, newsmaker congressman jordan gave his perspective on the topic as it relates to the budget. take a look. [video clip] now know and we

what we have seen on video, we have on video with this organization was engaged in the most repulsive activity that you can think about and what may be criminal activity. they should not get another penny of your tax dollars, my tax dollars, and the families i get the privilege of representing in the fourth district of ohio. if we just make that argument that clear, we are going to take the money that was going to this organization, which was engaged in what we now know what they were doing -- criminal activity -- we are to take that money and put it over here, same level of funding. if the president and harry reid then, we cannot pass that, we insist on this organization considering to get your tax dollars, and they think that is more important than funding our troops, our veterans, and funding women's health issues, they will have to defend that position with the amazing people. that is a common sense logical

position and meaning to make that case and a compelling and repetitive way over and over again so american people can clearly understand what is at stake here. host: william hoagland, planned parenthood -- the house will put themselves on the record as to whether it should be funded or not. should this be enough to shut the government down? guest: i hesitate to speculate on that. clearly, it is a very difficult issue for those who are taken the position that there should not be funding for planned parenthood. and depending upon particularly in the united states senate, where it will require 60 votes to pass a continuing resolution to get over the filibuster, and with presidential candidates running, and for them on the republican side in the senate, this makes it very problematic. this could be a very critical piece in the decision. theuld only point out that

appropriations bills -- and not to get too far in the woods again -- this is what we call a discretionary point of the budget. planned parenthood in the appropriation bills is about $70 million as i recall. but there is another close to 300 plus million dollars that goes to effectively planned parenthood through the medicaid program. you could eliminate the $70 million if you would like and you had the votes for it. but the end product is that it will not eliminate all funding to planned parenthood since most of it comes through the nonappropriated accounts called medicaid. lots more to goe t through with that planned parenthood vote. william hoagland is here with us. bob, democratic colleague. good morning. caller: good morning and thank

you for allowing me to speak on c-span. watching andy listening to your program every morning. call his that i hope congress does pass the budget. think every director on every agency should have to sign a , juststatement so that like the ceos and cfos of corporations nowadays, so that every cent is used properly. and that is about it. and i lovegovernment our country. thank you. host: mr. hoagland. guest: thank you, bob. first of all, i think every administrator of every agency -- i respect the time and efforts that they put in these programs. i do not think they would have any difficulty signing it

because that is the law. you are not to spend money that has been appropriate to the agency for activities that are not designated by congress and fraud is not something that we appropriate money for. i do not think it would be an issue here. i want to make it clear that it ouldot something that w significantly modify the level funding for these programs. host: gina's calling and from corpus christi. caller: good morning, gentlemen. 36statement is based on my years of practice as a registered nurse. it is in regards to planned parenthood. when planned parenthood was formed, we nurses fail in tears -- volunteered at various free clinics to educate women. and interestingly enough, many men regarding birth control and -- rights of an individual

whether they be sexually active or not sexually active -- there is a lot of pressure on both sides, both male and female, to be sexually active in our society. that thet say education that we do in planned parenthood has very little to do with abortion. i am a catholic. i take care of patients who are postabortion, but i will not be part of doing an abortion. we reduce thef funding for planned parenthood, then we are going to be spending probably more than $800 million in medicaid doing more abortions

because we are not doing prevention. the rule in medicine is prevention first. so i hope that your listeners teenagersing their and starting very early on sex because. pressure stars really early. -- here pressure subtly early. host: anything you want to say? guest: i want to thank you for your years as a nurse, a critical profession for our country and i clearly endorse your statement as it relates to prevention. prevention, whether the in this particular area or any area of health care, is critical, so thank you for your service. host: a bit more about the anatomy of a potential government shutdown. one tweet this morning says, government shutdown? we note that does not happen.

it's running on cruise control. 80% of government stays open. is that true? guest: appropriations make up about 30% of the federal budget for defense and nondefense programs. isr twitter person absolutely correct about that. close to 70% is associated with paying benefits, whether it is social security or medicare benefits, or as we talked about, medicaid benefits. that goes on regardless of appropriations. what happens though is that if you do have a government shutdown, those agencies that administer those benefits, safety clinics -- save the clinics or the hospitals or social security offices, the people and personnel are affected by it. benefits continue, but it does create disruption. i would suggest that we do not

want and noticed the leadership of congress want there to see it shutdown. nobody wins in that particular situation. host: we are couple of weeks away. -- preparations does the treasury secretary have to start making? guest: they have to focus on the deficit. not to confuse the issue here, but the treasury must like -- much like all the other agencies will have to worry about which personnel should remain on the job as essential personnel. in terms of the treasury, they will be under the same situation of every other agency out there in terms of who should come to work and who should not come to work to maintain essential services. the treasury has a different issue that they are going to be focusing on. secretary lou has arty sent a haser to congress -- lew already sent a letter to congress last week on a bigger

issue called the statutory debt limit. when you add up all the borrowing we have there, we are at a limit. there is a limit in the law and we are a bout out of room to have any more borrowing authority. sometime andhat as we mentioned earlier, it may happen in the middle of november. to treasury would have manage a situation where we do not have enough our wing authority to pay our bills. host: these two issues come together in time. this is jack lew and we will get back to calls in a minute. this is june of this year, congressman mick mullaney and the secretary had exchange of priority payments. here is a look. [video clip] >> you want to the finance

committee and you told them at the time that the system are automated to pay because we are -- the policy has been that he will pay our bills and it would not be easy to pay some things and not others and they were designed that way, etc. in may of 2014, you give this chairman of a letter saying something slightly dif ferent, " the new york fed system would make treasury payments while the treasury was not making any other kind of payments." lu, when didu, mr. you come to learn that the new york fed was technologically capable of making the payments that you sent for to the chairman in may of 2014. >> comes men, i did not remember the exact date, but the statement that i made in 2014 and to this committee are

entirely consistent. what i said in 2014 is that we make tens of millions of payments and we do not have the capacity to pick and choose amongst all them. i did not address specifically the question of if there is a technical capacity to pay simple interest. i did indicate to this committee that we did have the technical capacity. it would be a terrible thing to do. pay principal on enters, you will be defaulting on something else like medicare payments or something else. the only solution is to raise the debt limit and not put any president in the position where they have to make the decision -- do they pay one thing or not another. guest: what the secretary is referring to is that you can continue to pay on what the asus of income is coming through at a time, but you have to set a priority of who receives payments. fore pay the bonds investors overseas first or do hold back and accumulate

the cash and be able to pay social security benefits? it is a very difficult process. when you are making over 10 million payments daily, it puts a tremendous amount of burden on the secretary to determine what should be paid and what shouldn't be paid. host: our guest is bill hoagland , here to talk about government spending and the appropriations process and the continuing resolution. this debt ceiling matter is coming quickly upon us. he spent more than three decades on capitol hill and he takes the next call from alan in saint pete, florida. hi there. caller: how are you? i want to speak a bit on the planned parenthood issue. i am an independent. i am not for either the republicans or democrats. my impression of what is going on with this so-called issue is

that the republican party basically wants to abolish like the jefferson-madison principle, which endorsed the separation of religion and state, and the republicans seem to want to abolish lincoln's policy on the issue of brooklyn citizenship, which lincoln favored. , whichhright citizenship lincoln favored. and they want to abolish abortion and women's equality that the scholar on hitler wrote in his book on hitler that hitler criminalized abortion in 1935-1936. the republicans seem to want to endorse the policy on women and women's rights and women's qaeda and theal

taliban and isis have. ifavor women's equality and favor the separation of religion and state, which means equality before the law for all religions and for no religions. i favor lincoln's policy in supporting birthright citizenship. it appears to me that the problem with the republicans is that they have come to endorse out right not to policies -- the democratsand will not come out and say that's what they endorse. that's my problem with republicans and democrats. they want this country to go nazi or fascist. host: your comments? guest: i did work with the falcons on capitol hill and still consider myself to be republican. i take somewhat umbrage at the fact that republicans are classified as being nazis.

that would be my only quick comment. what we are talking about is funding of something -- i'm a green eyeshade. i'm a budgeteer. the issue is do you shut down the entire federal government over $70 million? to thisind solutions without shutting the entire federal government down over one of these issues? that is the critical issue here. madison, as you mentioned, believed in working out between the two branches of government. that is where we need to get back to finding the solutions at both ends of pennsylvania avenue. host: michael, republican, you're on the air. caller: good morning, i am enjoying this conversation quite a bit. my question for mr. hoagland is very supple. i came to the realization that when congress budgets and approves money for a project, our federal government instantly

assumes that money is spent. so if the project is not come to , the omb by law is supposed to send the excess ary, to the treasur but they never have done it. i was involved in killing off in a billion-dollar project when i was in the air force. four years later, it became very apparent that money was spent. that money added to the federal budget. that money added to, if you want to call it, national debt. is ink what we have got accounting process that needed to be cleaned up many decades ago. and neither party will address it because it is too technical. this is your expertise mm would love to hear your opinion on this. host: thanks, michael. guest: you are really getting

into the nitty-gritty of appropriations and allocations and processes that happen within the government. observation.uick i'm not aware of the particular program you're talking about where that a billion-dollar project was to be terminated. i can assure you that if the money had been appropriated and it was not spent, then it would be classified as an obligated money. it is my experience that it will go back to congress and work with the appropriations staff and committee and reprogram that money from that particular project to another. i think what you are referring to hear must've been the situation, where they got approval from the office of management and budget and the got approval from congress. we are not going to spend this money on this project, but we are going to reallocate that money to a different set of priorities within the department of defense.

i do not think the money simply disappears. if it has been appropriated and it has not been obligated, it will be tracked through the processes appropriately. asks by twitter, our government arrives at the accounting figure they call deficit? guest: it takes the amount of revenues that we take in and the total amounts of spending that we make. is tofference is simply think about it as cash-based accounting like a checkbook -- what you spend and what you have. the difference is simply the deficit. the complications that some people get to -- and just for classification here -- the accumulation of annual deficit over from the beginning of the republic to today is what we refer to as that. that is a different number them an annual deficit figure. our figure is about $400 billion

this year. our annual accumulated deficits from the beginning of the republic to today is closer to $17 trillion. host: here's a headline on the debt ceiling. they vie for the standoff over the borrowing limit is spooking economists and investors. why would they be nervous over a debt ceiling problem? government --eral it's treasury debt is one of the most respected in the world. they would be very nervous if for some reason the federal government defaulted on not paying interest on its obligations. and that would have replications -- ramifications that would run all the way through our financial system, create havoc, and make our treasury instrument, which has been the basic instrument for financial

security throughout the world -- it would undermine the credibility of the federal government as an organization that is willing to pay its debts. host: leah is calling and now for bill hoagland. caller: good morning. i'm calling about planned parenthood. my concern is shutting the government over the situation. theyin concern is that keep talking about this video, which they are saying has been edited. not oneeen clear that has been seen fully unedited video of this incident. i am a retired clear police officer -- retired police officer and i do not understand how you can go to a court of law with an edited piece of evidence. i think that is a key part of this whole situation. i have no real response here. i've not seen the video either so i cannot really comment on it.

host: in new york now where lee is on the line. good morning to you. question is that a gentleman earlier mentioned the fact that people in the government should sign a statement about fraud. i do not really believe in terms of fraud, but what i am thinking is that all branches of the government are appropriated a certain amount of money. it seems to me that if they did not spend it all, they do not return it because they will get less the following year. have --ht say that they renovate their own office or hire new people to continue to get that money. these scandals like shrimp on a treadmill or the fraud situations that you have stated, these that are so elaborate and do not pertain to business -- i have an average income and i'm a federal taxpayer. when i see these things, it

really upsets me. thank you. that is a very good observation and one which i have observed in my years in washington. that is exactly what you just indicated. of theseministrators particular programs have not appropriately planned their expenditures over the course of time and end up before the fiscal year runs out increasing their expenditures to spend the entire amount, i think that's unfortunate and it should not be that way. we do have a process by which agencies are supposed to allocate their expenditures on a quarterly basis so this does not happen. i think that is a form. i would like to call it saw fraud. i do not think it is meant to be. there are issues associated with this, but i do think your point is well taken. host: peter from pennsylvania,

republican. good morning to you. caller: good morning, gentlemen. at thanks to everyone c-span. c-span is a national treasure, i think. mr. hoagland, i want to thank you for your many years of public service. guest: thank you, peter. caller: i would really like you to enlighten us a little bit on just how much -- i would call it congressging -- is trying to exert on spending. this is a very irritating ter and reminds me so the earmarks and congress trying to adam amidst to the budget and trying to control exactly how an individual agency or government entity will spend or may not spent any of the money that is appropriated to it.

i just long for a day when congress will allocate funds and i guess it is too much to hope thethat they will allocate money to the cabinet level departments and let the theetary decide or to individual federal agencies. let the agency administration take responsibility for how the money gets spent. is there any limit on how much control congress can attempt to exert on how these dollars gets spent? thank you very much. guest: absolutely. this is a system in which no subject to be spent appropriations made in law. congress is the first responsibility for having oversight. i think to your point is to what are talking about

planned parenthood and the confederate flag and things of this nature -- to what extent does congress get involved in micromanaging the agencies of the appropriations process? i would say what we have here is a breakdown of the other part of the legislative branch, which is called the authorization process. you're not supposed to appropriate money until it has been authorized. that is the responsibility of of committees to make sure that they are giving guidance to these agencies on how they spend their money. the real issue is strengthening, i think, the oversight process, the authorization process. you also mentioned earmarks. there is limitations that are placed now in congress on the amount of earmarks. quite frankly, the administration, when they submit a budget, they earmark what they want to spend the money for. i believe in the checks and

balances that we have here and i think it is a system that works fine, but it does need to strengthen the oversight responsibility, which i think has been weakened i all the years of battling over the appropriations process. host: here is a paper put out by the bipartisan policy center. the top line says "into the danger zone: sequestration and troop levels." is saying? the guest: whether we have limited our provisions to the cap. for defense and nondefense. through sections that have been placed on defense are starting to have real limitations on ability to maintain are forced structure going forward. -- issue that the by policy bipartisan policy center staff are having is whether or not the caps on been established are no

longer appropriate for the threats that currently exist today. and whether they should be adjusted. host: remind us again of how sequestration first came about. i willa long story and try to cut to the chase, but the beginning of quite frankly the sequestration goes back to a in 1985 that set limits on spending. if you did not need to set targets on hitting a deficit and you did not hit that, then there would be across the board reductions in spending and all the appropriated accounts and some of the nonappropriated accounts. that concept was carried through 2011 wheny up until the budget reform act of 2011 set caps going forward.

if appropriations exceed those and heou come back reduce across the board down to the cap levels. -- you reduce across the board down to the cap levels. it is a history on how these came about. it was to control the level of spending. i would once again point out that this controlling one third of the budget and not the other two thirds of the budget. defense, andn other headline recently -- despite possible government shutdown, many military families and congress will reverse the quotation -- sequestration this fall. how do you see this playing out? guest: this is a major issue. the president wants to have an increase. when you look at the numbers, congress and the president have about the same level of requested funding for defense. congress does it through a different way, which they use something called the overseas contingency account which is

funding beyond the caps. the congress and the president are in agreement on what the top line here. the difficulty is that when increasing spending for defense, the president would like to see a somewhat increase for the nondefense. and that is where congress is bowling is neck. host: rhonda, good morning. withr: it has been long privatized medicaid and medicare. i live in michigan where planned parenthood is pretty much eliminated. andcannot get birth control insurance to pay for an abortion once a year. medicaid and medicare are the same thing. they will not pay for birth control, but they will pay for abortion once a year. where does it end?

these insurance companies are not willing to provide prevention versus it. i am a pro-lifer. i think there are circumstances -- host: she is breaking up quite a bit. guest: i would only make one quick observation. rhonda, you were breaking up. under the affordable care act, private carriers are responsible for providing prevention services. of yournot quite clear statement that they are not providing prevention services. they are required in the affordable care act to provide those prevention services and counseling services. host: let us try paul in columbia, succulent appeared -- south carolina. anler: years ago, when i was accountant, june the 30th was the end of the fiscal year. 30y extended it to september so they can get their job done

and now, they take the month of august off and still don't get the job done. ,e should unload congress anybody that takes a month off in august. [laughter] host: but the first time that we have heard that. thank you, paul. guest: i was there when we change the fiscal year. it was part of the congressional budget control act to move time to set up the new budget process. yes, it was a move from july 1 to the end of september. i have been a proponent and my old bosses over the years have recently put out a report in support of it. the time has come to focus on what a lot of states have and that is it by annual budget. these it -- you appropriate for one or two years and you oversight for the oversight responsibility. i would also say that if you do not pass a budget and you do not get your work done, you should

eliminate all recesses going forward. , but rather controversial i do think you are right. you are paid to do a job -- get it done. if you do not, state until you get the job done. host: what are the pros and cons of a two-year cycle? guest: it is hard to judge what might happen in a two-year perio d. for supporters, you would come back with supplementals in the second year. of this is pros that many agencies -- 90% of their funding -- is at the same level of the previous year. it is the same 10% that causes the problems. it is finding a way to move forward so that you do not have the government shutdowns. you have opportunities for oversight responsible these. host: one last call from beverly. democrat, hey beverly. caller: i have two questions. what part of this that they are

docussing does it have to with the two wars and the drug ?lans that george bush in thand the second question is -- host: hang on, beverly. guest: the current debate that we are having has nothing to do with "the two wars." the appropriations is not funding -- let me rephrase. it is not funding those wars to the extent that they have been completed. too important, not to get far into the weeds here, but there is something called the overseas contingency account that takes care and is outside of the debate that we are talking about right. host: beverly, go ahead. caller: the second question is on this budget. how much are they protecting the rich? host: what do you mean by that?

caller: with the money. the rich do not seem to ever get touched. they have never gotten touched. years, they need to start at the top of the budget. and work their way down through. guest: the issue is to be debated, but for clarification purposes, this appropriation ,ill does not affect taxes except for administration of the irs may be. thatit does not affect level. the government shutdown does not impact upon the distribution of the tax burden. host: final thoughts on as we wrap up on this year's budget. guest: i'm not one to speculate on whether or not it will be a shutdown or not.

i do believe the leadership of the congress does not want to have a shutdown at all. any kind of government shutdown will always be down to nobody's benefit. congress will probably be here well into the holiday season in resolving these differences. host: all right. the hoagland is a senior vice president of >> we take you live now to a discussion about iran posted by the atlantic council on the internal debate happening within in the aftermath of the nuclear deal, the eu approving a deal in july, the u.s. senate failing to disapprove of the deal last week, with another vote coming up tomorrow in the senate. the accord is expected to be