tv Capital News Today CSPAN June 7, 2010 11:00pm-2:00am EDT
20 rolls around and we are looking at we're going to take back the set. we're fighting hard. the environment is in our direction. we look at a prime pick up opportunity in rhode island. a republican senator -- we were going to take him out. next thing you know, the environmentalists were backing him. the women's groups were backing him because he votes with them on certain issues. that's fantastic, but we won that set up by a single seat. had he won, if half the progress of and had tried to win, james and half would have been chair the committee in the senate. -- james ibhofe would have been at the chair in the senate. it was not just the republican party. the gauge in the primary in connecticut that year. joe lieberman, list of the
progressive movement back him because he has been good with us over the year. how did that work out? i don't think any to tell you guys. [laughter] in illinois, another congressman represents the chicago area district, we tried to primary him because he was terrible on the issues. but labor back into the hill and we don't have the ability to single-handedly go against a heavily labor-backed candidate. it turns out he was the only democrat in a blister to vote against the health care law. so time and time again, we have beenhooting ourselves in the feet. things startere getting better. thee seeing an interest in old line progressive groups, realizing we have to take the more holtic approach to
politics and we have to hold people accountable, it does not matter if they are republicans. there are a lot of bad democrats in congress and we have to hold them accountable. [applause] because of that, we are going to win on tuesday. we're going to take out blanche lincoln in arkansas. i'm excited because it is an unprecedented alliance between the net roots, labour, and we finally have realized we have quite a bit of power to rally small dollar donors, activists, people who have resources and expertise to run campaigns and get-out-the-vote operations and realize that we have to hold people i washington d.c. accountable. as a matter for right on the issue. doesn't matter if we are right on public opinion.
in washington d.c., they are immune to reason, they are immune to public opinion. look at the comprehensive immigration reform. it polls that 80%. 75% among republicans. and they are too afraid to touch it. the public option had at the support of 65% of the american people. they were afraid to touch it. we have to realize they are immune to certain things. they are not immune to losing elections. that is where we actually make them hurt. [applause] moving forward as a practical policy, weave to foc on the electoral component. everhing else we're doing is fantastic, but that's important it the amplifies everything else you do. once they start worrying about their jobs, they start worrying about what you have to say. they know of that make you happy, they ha to contend with you and all your friends in ese brodeur, ballistic progressive movement next time election time rolls around.
thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you. now i would like to bring up ilyse hogue. for ve years now, she has mobilized moveon.org's 5 million members to shape political priorities that have impacted every issue area that the progressive movement, the holisticrogressive movement cares about. prior to joining moveon.org, she had a number of corporate accounbility campaigns trade she is an incrible leader and an important political leader at this time in our fight. thank you. [applause] >> its great to be here with you guys today. and i want to start by telling this story -- i know it's a story have heard over and over but i'm going to tell it anyway.
tomorrow, in addition to being the day we're going to take blanche lincoln down, it is the 50th day that the oil continues to flow into the gulf. the 50th day. 11 people are dead, thousands of fishermen are economically devastated, and ecosystems beyo what we can and imagine, will take decades to rebound, if they ever do. everyone is calling it a disaster, right? president obama has called a disaster. every elected official is blowing each other outf the way to call it a disaster. even the ceo of bp, and he can take his foot out of his mouth is calling it a disaster. but there's another word i want to talk about -- is the word spill. i have been rankled by that word because that's with a 3-year-old does with his milk. a spill is what haens when a
cargo truck hits an icy patch and rolls over. this was not a spill. this was a calculated gamble that bp took with the help of our government for the last several decades. [applause] it was a calculated gamble the american people lost. it was no accident. this was a betrayaof our democracy made possible by decades of a relentless lobbying, a revolving door between case street and our government, and a willingness -- between k street and our government and at bp and other corporations like it to y fines for admitted legal violations. in the case of bp, both environmental and safety laws. do you know why they're willing to pay this finds? because they are a drop in the bucket compared to the profits it will make it they do not change their ways. in the last five years, bp paid
$373 million in fines. $373 million in fines. think about what that could do for education, clean energy, jobs, homelessness. they paid $373 million in fines without thought and that's nothing compared -- sorry, that is much more than they had to pay for lobbying. of which they paid $60 million last year. they made in the first quarter of 2010 $6 billion. with 400 -- what is $400 million over the course of the year when you are making $6 billion? they got a waiver on the the rig that exploded. through lobbying, they were granted a waiver.
people in our country, even non- violent drug offenders in some states get put away for life after three strikes. bp had a 760 strikes. it makes you want to run a bill called 761 strikes and you're out. could anyone in congress stand up for that? this did not happen by accident, nor is it an anomaly. bp, goldman sachs, bank of america, i have taken to: d. bp disaster wall street under water because it is an example of the corrosion of our democracy. i stood up here last year and spoke to you and said there is a false dichotomy in the age of obama between the insiders and outsiders. our responsibility was not to beat the door down, but take the door off the hinges and smash
the windows ou so there was no more inside and outside. i'm here to tell you that i was wrong last year. i was wrong. there is an inside and outside. it is our job now to actually call what is inside inside and that is democracy ruled by a corporate elite. those of us who cannot afford lobbyists, who are paying the price for what decades of corporate influence in our government have done, we are on the outside. we will continue to be on the outside until we demand every single politician that is elected in washington d.c. choose whether they are going to be on the inside or the outside. we ran an ad last week that said president obama, you did not create this problem that led to the bp disaster. but you can end it. i believe that we can. the reason we can is some of the stuff markos talked about.
there are three reasons -- the first is because we want it. because we did everything we were supposed to do. we mobilized the resources to take back both chambers. we pulled out every stop and created unprecedented campaign fromhe outside to let barack obama president in a historic election. we won. we played by the rules and we got the small donors and went door-to-door. yet we are still facing some very insurmountable problems. that means it's going to take more than one election. more than democratic party controlling all of the chamber's in order to fix our democracy. we also know that it is time because we fought close to obama for the health care bill that passed. that's a real victory. but what we learned from that is that it is fighting to and mail.
it is fighting to and nail. -- it is fighting tooth and nail. it is getting people out in the cities and towns every week to pass a bill. members kept coming back week after week. three months became 6 and 6 became 9 and kept fighting. they learned and we learned together that she can win when you come back and keep fighting. finally, the reason now is the time to do this is because we have no option. there is too much steak. if we do not call what is inside inside and what is outside outside, we will become characters in a story that we know to be false. we will become part of a narrative that says we need to change course because president obama overreach and was too liberal. because the tea party had more strength than we did. here is something -- you think t partyers art as a distraction? they are dangerous.
when they get racist and spat at our congressman and do things that are completely outside the bounds of what we believe our democracy to be about, we have to call a moderate. we absolutely have to call them on that. they are the distraction. the corporate interests that have ruled washington for decades would be so happy to watch progressives and tea party years ago at in this election so they can continue with business as usual. the third reason we are going to do this is because we have no option. there is to much stake. i have great news. i walk around and listen to all the commentators say the base is depressed,pathetic and complacent. i have the privilege of representing 5 million people in every district in this country. we are not apathetic. we are not depressed. we're willing to get out and fight for the people who fight
for us. [applause] what they mean when they say the base is depressed is that no longer can they count on us for a solid democratic vote. we're getting more sophisticated, not all democrats are created equal. that is not depression. that is sophistication. that's how movements grow. that is where we are now. i want to give a shout out to the woman over there who said i have to speak for the business interests -- this is not an anti-corporate critique. this is not an anti-business critique. there are great corporations and lots of social innovation happening that actually going to help us confront these issues. there are small businesses that help us pass the health care law. this is anti corporate- corruption.
an anti-corporate corruption argument. [applause] here is what we need to do. we're not going to win this thing in the next five months. we're going to win this thi over the next five years. we're going totart right now and the think we nd to remember, no. 1, we are not here to be satisfied. i did not see the health insurance companies won a one concession after coocession in the fight say that's great, we won't take any more, that's great. yet, we do that because we are so stuck in the mentality that came from eight years of george bush that we are afraid to ask forore and -- in case it is too much. that's not our job. we are not here to be satisfied. what a bill is introduced, saying after decades of lobbying, though well companies
had its liability cap at $75 million and we're going to raise it to $10 billion, we should say that's great, we will take it, but they should pay every penny they arrow why should there be a cap on liabilities? -- on the liabilities. we are not here to be satisfied. we're going to call out the impostor's and go to the mat for the people who are in elected positions or who are trying to be elected to are the real deal. right? we're going to call out the impostors. we're going to call out our own. if we do not call out our own, we are seeing the mantle of populism to the other side. if we're not out there saying blanche lincoln is no populist, and the two-party is to say the democrats stand with corp. said we are your savior.
-- the tea party gets to say democrats stanhope corporations. tuesday, when there is a run off and arlen specter was defeatedhad reporters coming to be saying this is anti- incumbent energy. the pendulum swings and this is what happens. weave to be able to say to them, absolutely not. if this is anti-income and energy, how do you explain the fact that alan grayson record- breaking fund-raising quarter? this is because as a sophisticated movement, we recognize who is with us, who is ing to washington d.c. to shake up the system,nd stand with us and who is not. we are going to take the impostor's out and go to the mat for the people who are the real deal. [applause]
finally, we need to get out and organize back to basics. i met somebody who said we need more progressive and the structure in the field and that is absolutely true. we do. but i will argue that infrastructure will do is no good until we get back tohe core organizing principles of what democracy is about. who heard ed rendell go off a uple months ago about the democratic party having lost its soul? we need to be willing to say what is really going on. we need to tell stories like the one i started this speech with an order for people to understand why they're with us. during the health care fight, we kept saying those people think this is about socialism or they don't want the public optio, e cdo score is too high.
markos was one of t only people out there saying they hate government. we need to get a party to make sure it we say government is there to make sure you get a fairhake. [applause] non-corrupt government actually becomes a tool for justice. we need to go back to basics and tell people what is what. politics will follow culture. somebody said we got to into the legislative leaders and i totally agree with that. we fought for the public option, sending the case had made that we needed health care reform. we-at our peril and we cannot afford to do that again. -- we did that at our pil. there's a campaign called the other 90%. which is sort of an oxymoron. how can 98% the other? 2% of washington d.c. is corporate lobbyists. they have been working their asses off to fix the system so
at 2% of americans reap all the benefits and the other 98% get left out. if we can go out and shake up the existing narrative tha this is left verses right, at t party verses progresses, if we can't go out and say 90 percent of us -- 90% of us are not having our first -- not having our voices heard because we have not held elected officials aountable and have left corporations run wild, we will organize with success. then, we wille about to keep up with the need to build infrastructure to help people join us in the fight to defeat the corporate insiders said that the folks who were with us can help level playing field we can get a fair shake. thank you very much. [applause] >> we do have about 50 minutes
for questions. we're happy to take a few questions. i will open up the floor to the audience. >> and good afternoon. thank you for keywords. i'm with the national committee for responsive philanthropy. where the nation's watchdog organization for gnt makers and advocate on behalf of non- profits like many in the room who do advocacy and organizing to use research and members to get you more funding. i was wondering, you spoke a lot on the importance and nuances of encouraging progressives to work with government anpush them even when they are our friends to do what is necessary. that has been the common theme
throughout this morning in the afternoon. i was wondering if you could speak about the role that foundations and grant makers can do and how does this to advocate an organized can encourage that. >> neither of our operations take foundation funding, which added to the great luxury. we believe deeply in the small donor model. at the same time, foundations will play a criticalole in soci change happening. the only thing i tell my friends in the foundation world is i always think everyone -- and foundations are not immune to this -- they're looking for the silver bullet. this group did this and it was awesome and let's fund everybody to do this. i advocate an ecosystem approach to social change.
the most diverse ecosystems are the one -- are the ones that thrive. funders can survey the entire landscape and save -- and say what is missing? usually there is a niche that is missing. connectivity -- there have been some great models. there was some amazing things that came out of it but the ecosystem approach instead of living all in one direion. >> first of all, i will take the money. checks, credit cds, cash. cash is good. my biggest problem with foundations the notion that they want to fund programs. they want to fund -- is a programmatic approach to funding. i believe strongly that talent, people are what should be
funded, and a matter where they go. support our best talent because what we do is listen to the private sector and the republicans don't. they keep theirs stashed away in think tanks and other things and networks fantastic because when they need these people, they contracted out. i would like to see more individuals funded as opposed to programs. [applause] >> other questions? >> i am a fan of both of your organizations. >> i am a fan of view, billy. >> i want to know what you' think success looks like in this election? and in the next two years after that and in the next five years, which you spoke about? it's a sime question, but what is the goal st? what does success look like? >> at the daily kos, illinois or
in the minority, armada was more democrats. once we were in the majority, armada was better democrats. success in november, at this point, we're fighting a defensivbattle. the climate is against us. we have an administration that seems more worried about inflation and jobs reports. it is challenging and thankfully bt backers are giving us lifeline and we will take -- thankfully the tea baggers are giving us a lifeline. they're convinced they will take the senate and house. if it can hold our losses than we have won a big victory because they have set the expectations. .
>> we need those people to be of the better kind. >> i think three things for success in the short term -- one is a baaanced tally. we cannot afford to lose the majority. we just cannot. speaker owner keeps me up at night. oehner d.c. up at night. -- keeps me up at night. have we will -- we have to be willing to lose a couple of seats. we have to win seats in contested districts. those are purple, republican districts where there are real progressives running who have a shot. we need a balanced tally.
the second is disrupting the existing conversation. i talked about that. we need to make this a referendum on corporate control, not on two-party politics and not on obama overreach. we need to change the national conversation. the third one is a victory if we do not [unintelligible] out of the gate, in 2009, how long have we been prepared to have an honest to god energy policy in this country? yet, it was like a surprise that they were taking up energy legislation and we had no progressive position on it. we cannot afford to make that mistake in 2011 when it comes to the economy and when it comes to corporate reform. we need a legislative platform that is prepared. i want to interject on the notion of -- >> i want to interject on the notion of progress since and where they can win -- on progressives and
where they can win. we're in districts that are 42% to 52% democratic. these are quintessential swing districts. they're winning in those districts because they are connecting with voters about what matters most tohem. let us not concede any ground on the types of districts that progress can win in. you already did. >> he made a statement about getting rid of -- you and made a statement about getting rid of certain democrats that are not up to par. basically, not going after the 41 republicans who vote in a locked. >> i know, it is not eitheor. >> it seems to me if you have a
democrat voting one way 90% sign of the time the republicans not voting with us at all, we need to put pressure on getting some of those republican bonds out of office. they have been there too long. >> i do not think anyone is suggesting is either or. >> if you use your energy to cut down on the 90-10 democrat, where will the energy come to take on the entrenched republicans? we need to go into republican stricts and sure the people in the district that they're ving against their own interests. >> you have a lot of energy. >> let him respond. >> these people have been taken advantage of it since the civil war. this is a country that when and
fought for mr. plantation owner. he was tcked into giving his life. we need to let him know that he is a fool. >> like he said, we need to stop looking at energy as a finite resource. when we are telling motivating stories and when we are building momentum, we will find that we have an expansive ability. the other thing is this narrative that we have to tell. it is one way to get out of that. it is either doing blanket defense on on -- on democrats as a matter what we do or nothing. if we are telling stories of corporate interests and their pollution, that is all the republicans mosy, right? all of them. that includes a handfulf democrats who have chosen to stand with them. it works in all of those districts.
it does not exclude republicans. >> no one was more to do more on that in washington, d.c. blanche lincoln is the only one who can hold the district. in two dozen sex we kicked by republicans out of the senate that same year. we can do of the above. when we do make gains against bad democrats it energizes us and makes us feel that if we're making progress. now we will take on republicans. after tuesd, i am moving into a general election mode. early 2012 it will be a target rich environment. >> down here. >> at thank you. i am a state representative from new hampire.
i wanted to say that the best way to get money out of politics is campaign finance reform. [applause] since we have term limits for our preside, why do not we have term limits for the senate and the congress? [applause] two terms for the senate which gives them 12 years and three terms for congress which gives them six years and then we can get rid of some of these bombs. >> i think the limits are undemocratic. whate are seeing in places that have term limits is that the people -- the elected officials are not there long enough to learn the ropes. you have these horrible bureaucratic consultant types that control and run the legislature. in is the opposite of good government. >> let's go back here.
i see you. you are next. we have time for one year and one there. >> i am with the associated students of colada. being a normal person to activism and politics, i am really intrigued about being prepared and having a unified platform. my question is there a form for something like that? i have been to a couple different conferences, meet up, or retreats, but nothing that is a single issue that sets the progressive platform for energy than setting a progressive platform for education. this includes people who work in the fields who are affected. is there something like that. if there is not, is anyone working towards something like
that? >> a dear god, i hope not. get a bunch of liberals in a room and decide on a platform it is scary. we need to talk about broad values that do not get into the nitty gritty. when to establish those values, the details will flow from the values. opportunity forveryone, equality, justice, and so on. you can talk about those things. a green economy. people who do need to have that out work with the legislatures make that a reality. the last details, the better. hit people in the heart and not in the head. >> i agree with markos. we do not believe agenda setting should come from the sea -- come from washington, d.c. we believe it should come to
washington, d.c. we will be doing another one about corporate reform very soon. if you are on our list or another allied organization, we hope you will participate. at the same time, we need to say these are our values. we are entrusting them to you as elected leaders. the need to figure and how to implement them well or you will be held accountable because we put you in office. there are examples of that working. one woman in the room helped lead an organized service candidates around the idea of the responsible planned w in iraq. not because a liberals tried to figure out how to end the war but because these people unanimously said we would only let people who are committed to ending a war. the candidates got together and said, here is how you do it. >> we will take one last question.
>> thank you very much. i am wh the opportunity agenda. thank you very much to mention values. we are a values drive organization. what i wanted to ask you to is -- i am sitting here with my friend of four years. i really wanted to ask a question that i think will drive the election and our progressive agenda going forward. i would like to know from the two of you, how do you plan to handle the issue of race? race is a subtext of a lot of conservative policies. they do not talk about it head on. they use coat -- code words as "unelectable." i will broaden it up a little bit to talk about the difficulties or if you have any ideas how to add progressives --
how progresses can talk about race in the age of obama. thank you [applause] . -- [applause] >> i do not think we have a magic solution. race and code words around racism have been used against them for a long time. we only know how to call in and out when we see it. we need to actually save that certain things in our democracy or rigid are acceptable. they have made it easier. we needed the tea parties to raise our ugly heads to make this easier. we have no solution other than to call itut when we see it. issues that actually take on race, like immigration, did you
see the instance where the press got school board asked the teachers to take over the kids based on the murals so that they were white? we respond. we are committed to continue to do that. we also recognize that part of being a progressive is putting values first. equality is one of the core values. if we are not out there with everything that we do, we are on the losingnd. >> on the affirmative side, part of the movement is realizing everyone benefits within our coalition from certain policies whether it is comprehensive immigration reform. whether it is jobreation, green technology, or so on everything has to be broader. and we need to lift a society which helps everyone.
when you look at republicans and have a nominee for senate in kentucky saying that the civil rights act is a bad idea, i do not even know what to say to that. i just need to point it out and watch for the public and try to muzzle the guy. it is an interesting topic. in my last book it was about effecting change through technology. most of my examples where relation to raise -- were related to race. it is a taboo in this society but is still one of the biggest drivers of change. when the topic comes up, things happen. and in kentucky, we may actually win the senate seat, a democratic "we" because of this.
>> you can see more coverage of the gulf of mexico walls built on live, -- oil spill on line. again, that is all at c- span.org. in just a few moments, a debate between republican candidate for senate in utah. in about an hour, ben bernanke at the woodrow wilson international center for scholars interviewed by sam donaldson.
after that, thad allen saying that the cleanup could take years. and later, britain obama comments on the claims process. -- president obama comments on the claims process. a couple of live events to tell about tomorrow morning. the senate judiciary committee here -- hold a hearing on the exxon valdez court decision. members will focus on a proposed bill that will allow punitive damages in oil spill cases. that is on c-span3 at 10 p 8 -- 10:00 eastern. hear on c-span, president obama and mes with senior citizens on efforts to prevent scams and frauds. seniors across the country will be able to participate by telephone.
>> c-span -- our public affairs content is available on television, radio, and online. you can also connect with us on twitter, facebook, and youtube. sign up for schedule alert e- mails at c-span.org. >> utah's senator robert bennett lost his bid for a fourth term when he failed to secure his party's nomination. the top vote getters will be on the june 22 primary ballot. the two candidates debated last week for about an hour. ♪ >> good evening, and welcome to salt lake city for the first of our election-year debate. already the election season has produced reversals of fortune
for several high-profile leaders. one of those played out in utah, where bob bennett was denied the nomination of his republican party for a fourth term. tonight our debate features to man who face the challenge with gun -- within been its own party. they will be on the primary ballot in june 22 to be the next senator from utah. a coin toss determined that likely would deliver it -- deliver the first one-minute speech. >> my name is mike lee. i believe in the second amendment right to bear arms. i opposed amnesty for illegal immigrants in any form. i am running for the senate because i believe that our federal government is too big and too expensive. it is that way because congress has refused to follow or even read the rule book for the last
75 years. it is the 75 -- the 223 year- old document that limits the power of the federal government. it says that it can only do a few things. it is supposed to focus on things like national defense and immigration and regulating interstate and foreign trade. it is not supposed to be all things to all people. it is not everyone's best friend, not supposed to be our health-care provider. bad things happen when we try to do otherwise. i am running to restore the rules, the focus on that 223- year-old document. >> one minute opening statement from tim bridgewater. >> those of you have not heard me speak before, this is my natural voice. i hope it is a voice that is heard in washington d.c.. i am running for the united states senate, because i am fed
up with this government spending ourselves in the bankruptcy in a way that is unsustainable. most americans get it. that is why they are turning out many incumbents across the country, because we have to send fiscal conservatives back to washington. they are borrowing from the future to pay for today spending. our government must send a message of personal responsibility and self-reliance and not -- and stop depending on government to solve our problems. there are issues that we face in his catcher. immigration is a problem. i think we need to be fair with people, but the system has to be changed. we need to dramatically cut spending. if we do that, we can to return to fiscal responsibility. i hope to be your next senator. >> questions will come from our live studio audience. it is administered by hinckley
center for politics. this is to avoid duplication. each candidate will get 90 seconds for an initial response, and if there is a substantive disagreement, time will be extended equally to each candidate. this is a topic that you post address in your opening statement >> as a hispanic republican who lives and have predominant hispanic neighborhood, i have a question about immigration. more about the language that you use throughout the campaign when discussing immigration. my question is, why do each of you find it necessary to embrace the anti-immigrant rhetoric? >> mr. lee. >> i don't think it's necessary to use any rhetoric. they refer to the problem as a
birthright liberal. there is federal legislation that i would support in the form of h.r. 1868. it make sure that a in -- that an american having been born on u.s. soil, only if that parent was the a lawful permanent resident of the united states or an immigrant who was engaged in active full-time military service to the united states government. this is an important step forward. it is important because we do not want to incentivize people coming into this country illegally, and we do not want to create citizens as a reward to their parents to have broken the law coming here. >> thank you for that question, michael. the biggest issue is to have a policy that can affect the
issue. the federal government is ignoring its responsibility. sometimes people's feelings on both sides are not anti- immigrant. i have a lot of friends who are hispanic all over the world. and as americans, we need to get back to the fundamental principles. we have a system of legal immigration that does not work today. if we fix that and secure our borders and spend the resources we need to to ensure that we can defend our borders, then we will be on the right track. today if you want to come into this country legally, it takes five years and $5,000 and maybe we let you in. across the border, the door is open all day long. it is a perverse incentive. we have to remove the incentive for illegal immigration and make it easier for people to follow the law. we punish employers who are following the law and reward those are -- who are willing to break the law.
here in utah, we have to step up because the federal government is ignoring its responsibility to control the border and make a coherent postulate digit policy. -- and make a coherent policy. i want to take this on as one of the top issues that we need to resolve and make sure we come up with a pair policy that recognizes the rule of law. >> i am not sure of all time is necessary. i think an aversion to the core issue that was raised in the question, which in the fervor to do something about undocumented immigration, it runs up against the ugly side of racial stereotyping which undermines the worst habits and the citizenship of hispanic americans building community spirit that is what the question was getting at and i don't think that you got added. i will give you a minute each to
get at that issue without throwing a blanket on millions of americans who are not to be indicted by the accusations. >> we are a nation of immigrants. each of us come from immigrants and we owe it from each other -- to each other to treat each other with respect, regardless of when our parents might have arrived in this country. the point is well taken. it is something we need to take into account. there is a real problem of people coming here and breaking our laws. we need to make clear that it is not about them or people in any particular part of the country. it is about that we operate under the rule of law. everything works better when we followed the law. we want immigrants to keep coming here. our economy depends on that. but we want to make that sustainable. in order to make this nation and it welcoming place, we need to invite them through the front
door, not the back door. that is why we focus on this issue. >> mr. bridgewater. >> a lot of things is wrong. we're spending into bankruptcy. when government no. those responsibilities, there are tensions on both sides of this issue ignited. and california, on cinco de mayo, they threw kids out who are wearing american flags. there are tensions on all sides of this issue. as a senator, i will not shy away from real reform. the first thing is securing the borders 3 a lot of immigrants come here legally who feel like they are stereotyped as illegals because of who they are as immigrants. that is unfair to them. and they are opposed to illegal immigration. they want their system as well.
we need to come together on common ground that is based on the rule of law and fundamental fairness and humane treatment of those who have come here illegally and part of the system that is broken. it relies on the federal government's role as well. as a senator, i will work on that. >> you will have the first 92nd response, mr. bridgewater. >> how the plan to reach out and work with democrats and make our government work again? >> as a senator from utah, my first responsibility was to take the court's conservative principles back to washington, d.c. limited government, small business, we're frugal in the state government, the judeo- christian religions, those values are missing in washington, d.c. i hope to bring people to our way of thinking here in utah.
but on issues like cutting that debt and deficit spending, on issues like immigration reform that we just talked about, i believe that democrats will come to our side of the equation. we can no longer take down that can -- kick the can down the road on entitlement reform. we're going to spend ourselves in the bankruptcy. as a businessman, for 22 years, i want to cut the budget and get us back on a sound financial footing. one of the things that i believe that would get us together is that we are all americans. we care about this country. that is why voters are sweeping a new generation of leaders into office. people on both sides of the aisle, they want more substantive, practical applications of principles to solve this problem. >> talk about reaching across
the aisle. >> the solutions will also be bipartisan. that does not mean that we will change the way we go about it. whenever someone is prepared to reach across the aisle to the other party, that person needs to make sure that they are on firm footing so they do not get pulled over to the other side. the issue is not so much about party as it is, what are we going to lead for future generations? will we leave them with debt that is approaching trillions of dollars? that is not fair. that is not fair to lead $50,000 to each of our unborn grandchildren for the moment they take their first breath, that is their welcoming gift into this country. i do not think that is right. i think democrats and republicans can agree on that and that we have to cut spending. the government has to stop
acting like a business. the government is not a business. this does is create jobs. businesses create wealth because people create wealth, because that is what they do naturally when they are allowed to. government does not create wealth. it never has and never will. it is physically incapable of doing so. so when government claims to be creating jobs, it is not doing that. it is transferring well. think republicans and democrats alike can agree on this principle. and i think they will have to. following the 2010 election cycle, americans will demand something different. >> do you feel the need for a bottle? >> i have a question that was set into our website by republican, an interesting question and we offer it to you for tonight's consideration. consider the climate in which
you are running for the united states senate. political observers from around the nature consider it remarkable that you to our meeting on the stage tonight. this is arguably the most republican state in the nation, turned out by his own party. how do you characterize this political climmte and how does your candidacy address it? mr. lee your first. >> it focuses on less government rather than more. we've operated under the idea that the government can create jobs and make us wealthy, when in fact it cannot. this is what happens when the government perpetuates the problem too long and ignores a problem for too long, when it refuses to it knowledge the fact it has been exceeding the authority granted to the federal government by the constitution for decades upon decades and it
has to stop somewhere. it is appropriate that the process of stopping this trend should began in utah and began by replacing someone who was a good man, are really good man who was a republican, in many respects. but we're ready for new leadership, leaders who are willing to say i want something meaningful different, meaning i want something less. we need to do what we do best, earn wealth and provide a nest egg for our families. whenever you empower individuals, you empower the economy as a whole. individuals create wealth. that is what this election is about three what i am doing is proposing a balanced budget amendment. you cannot spend more than you take in a given year. i still think we need to reform our tax code and replace it with a system in which everyone pays
according to one rate. one rate. >> tim bridgewater, your chance to make sense of this political climate and how you plan to address it. >> i was in the republican party for a long time. i went back to work in late 1980's when reagan was president, working in the treasury department, and there is always been a tension between elected officials and members of our party. i believe that during the latter part of this decade, the problem became so acute that opposition exploded it to our national leaders. we failed to lead on core conservative principles predict grassroots united and said we wanted to get back to limited government, one of the region but i believe i was successful and mike as well in winning in
our conventions. we need to get out of the mentality that government can solve all our problems. not only here in utah but across the country, american citizens have risen up, tea party groups, to take back our country because they think washington is out of control. it is more and more corrupt. they tried to buy off a congressman not to run against arlen specter. it is just taking the country in the wrong direction. we are sweeping across this nation. there 20 new centers elected in this cycle, and americans are ready for real change and that is what this election and elections across this country mean for the future of the country, to better represent the country. >> we're going to the audience for the next question. >> if elected to the u.s. senate, will you support the
right of each state for the right to negotiate with the federal government for control of health policies, including state control of medicaid and medicare would transfer funding for these programs? >> absolutely. that is one of the platforms that i am running on. if you go to my web site, you will see delineated there each of the issues that you just discussed. the states have to take more power. .
today, in education, we are 21 and 25 in science and mathematics. if we free ourselves from government control, we will get a lot more autonomy. the states will be able to succeed or fail on their own, and it is just a better model. it is a strong economic model. you would not run a business in salt lake city out of new york. likewise, we are a stronger nation. >> mike lee, your opportunity to respond on a complicated topic of health-care reform. >> anything that would give more control to the states, and restore the sovereignty of the
state's, is a good thing. it was never supposed to be that way, and that is why we need to return power to the states. that is evident when you read the constitution. the constitution does not give the power to create that. congress has shown itself to be a course toward of programs. thomas jefferson said -- to be a poor steward of programs. one state can emulate another, so i agree with mr. bridgewater on this. this is somewhat different from what my opponents and a few years ago when he was running for congress, when he indicated he would support the medicare modernization act. this is a difference between
this candidate as he is running for u.s. senate today and candidate bridgewater as he was running just a few years ago for the u.s. house of representatives. at the end of the day, some roles belong to the states, because they are not in the constitution as having a federal nature. >> mr. bridgewater, would you like to take a 30-second opportunity for rebuttal? >> sure. we no longer trust the states. we need to move towards a model where the federal government is out of the equation. there is waste, fraud, and abuse in the billions of dollars in medicare. when you pay medicare taxes, a sliver of it goes to organized crime. it is moving in the direction that will ultimately return power back to the states.
>> all right, let's go back to our audience for another question. >> recently, there has been a focus on the federal government taking control of utah land. what is your thought of the federal government's's role? >> and, mike lee, you have the first turn. >> this is actually related to the fact that two-thirds of our land in this state is owned and managed by the federal government's, and as a result -- by the federal government. there is a part of the constitution that i believe has been ignored for a couple hundred years. read correctly, it would give the power to tax at least most of that land.
with respect to federal public land within the boundaries of the state come if and only if that state legislature has consented to that exclusive legislative arrangement. well, our legislature has never given that consent, and as i read that part of the constitution, the federal government may own that land, the two thirds of the land mass, and the state can tax it and regulate it and take it by eminent domain. the state needs to start asserting and 40, and i think the congress needs to recognize that the states have that authority -- the state needs to start asserting that authority. we would no longer be 51st in the nation in terms of per student school funding. this is an example of how the u.s. constitution is not just a nice, abstract idea. it contains real solutions that we need to follow.
>> your 90-second opportunity to respond. >> i was fortunate to have the opportunity to represent the state as a volunteer at the deputy of education, and there are real problems in our funding for education. we do not have a strong enough tax base for the costs for education system. one of the things that we do have is enormous wealth in this state of natural resources, coal, uranium. we have oil and gas and opportunity to extract it and create wealth and also korean money for the education system and create jobs in the state -- wealth and also create money for the education system. timber and other resources that we have. we have to fight against that tendency to lock ourselves out of the natural wealth of that we have and the jobs that could be created. there was a bill passed recently
on eminent domain. that bill is going to fight back. as a senator, i will fight tooth and nail whenever i can to try to access responsibly those lands. we access hot water for geothermal plants korea we are looking at mining for gold. -- geothermal plants. we are looking at mining for coal. this is also an opportunity for education funding. funding is one of those sources, and we have the ability if the federal government will back away from trying to control it. >> in the front row for another question. mr. bridgewater, your first 90- second opportunity. >> i am working for a nonprofit that deals with families that have children with mental-health challenges.
many of our parents are seeking necessary mental-health treatment for their children but are being asked to give up custody of their child in order to receive the appropriate mental-health care. what is your stand on custody relinquishment, and what are your plans to keep a family together during treatment? >> the family is disintegrating slowly in our culture, so i would fight to make sure those families stay together. i also work with troubled teenaged boys, for example. there are these problems with parents and children, trying to reconcile some of those family problems. you know, the government should not be intervening in families. parents have responsibilities. fathers and mothers have a shared responsibility, and they need to be trusted at the end of the day. it disadvantages families, and it is the wrong direction, and
we need to fight against it. we have a unique voice in the debate nationally, representing traditional family values and ensuring that parents and children can be protected in terms of public policy, so there are real problems out there. the government should not add to those problems. and accelerate the disintegration of the nuclear family. >> mike, you have 90 seconds to respond. this is a complex issue. broadly stated, this is an issue that banks for a deeper discussion, but i do want to afford you the 90 seconds -- this is an issue that begs for a deeper discussion. >> it is simply wrong to split up a family, and i would fight that. i certainly would fight that at the federal level. the federal government has no business in that area anyway, but the state's should not
either. every time the government acts, every time the government is trying to provide us with some new good or service, we need to remember the fact that whenever government acts, it does so at the expense of individual liberty, and this is one of those places that affect individual liberty. certainly, helping people is a good thing, but sometimes in the name of helping people, the government will step in and say "i am helping you, but you have to live as i say you need to." there is nothing you can do about it, even if that means splitting up your family. this is one of the reasons i think we should take a good, hard look at what government does, in general, and what the federal government does to make sure that liberty is being protected. one of the things that is an extra epically -- is linked to
this is the family. >> a few important reminders on the 2010 election season. first, this is our online elections site. -- election site. kued.org. our partners also have an array of resources available at their website, hinckley.utah.edu. this is made possible by our partners at comcast. we will be adding new information and messages each week as we progress to the november general elections, so back to our debate with the republican primary for the senate.
we have a question. i wanted to make sure this question got past. mike lee, you have the first 90-second opportunity. >> when an issue appears constitutional but conflicts with my personal values, i would you my authority as unrestrained by the constitution, and, therefore, i would feel free to act. i think a closer question, and maybe part of what this might be getting at, if my personal predilections would lead me in one direction, -- contrary to the text. in that case, i would find myself bound by the constitution, because sometimes, you might have something that is a good idea, but that good idea might be something that the
federal government has no business doing, and i think it is incumbent upon each and every senator and representative to say that i might be even able to act in a way that survive review in the courts, but it requires more than that. it requires that i restrain my own power as a u.s. senator, and that is what i would do. >> tim bridgewater, your 90- second opportunity. how would you resolve that? >> idu the constitution as a very limiting document. -- i view the constitution as a very limited document. most other things should be left to the state. i am a big believer in states 'ight, -- states' rights, but at the end of the day, my
conscience has to be clear. is it constitutional, according to the initial intent of the constitution? number two, is it good for america? and number three, is it morally right to do? if it does not meet those criteria, i will not vote for it. in most cases, i want the states to get more power and have the federal government doing less and less and getting less authority, because i think the federal government has overstepped its constitutional powers in so many ways. the supreme court has interpreted the constitution and the bill of rights in ways that i did not think would be imaginable. >> let's go back to our studio audience. i guess our next substantive question -- your topic is education. tim bridgewater will have the first 90-second opportunity. >> my younger brother has very
severe a lot fossum -- severe autism and relies on public schooling. what are your views on funding for the school programs for disabled children? >> it is important that we have as much as possible. i was involved in the final passage of a scholarship bill to help some parents who had special-needs children so that they could take their kids to supplement the cost of some private education, but public schools are addressing a lot of these issues but are struggling, because we are struggling across the board. we have a real responsibility as utahans. money is tight in our state, but more importantly, we have to push the envelope. we are not educating our kids with best practices.
i will give you an example. i helped start a curriculum that teaches kids, and it tries to bring it into a single curriculum. this helps kids learn more effectively. we need to absorb new technologies. i also helped start a charter school, the john hancock charter school, and that charter school system challenges the public system to get better. there are resources, as well, to take some students into those systems, but there is never enough, and we need to depend on parents and other ways to challenge the education system to make sure our children get the best education they can. when we depend on the federal government to guide us, we get off track with the very best systems. >> mike lee, responding to special-needs children in the
school system and the resources needed. >> like all questions facing public education, this is a question that needs to be addressed at the most local level possible, and by state government officials. it should not get beyond that. i believe the federal government needs to stay out of the classroom, and the more that happens, the better off all of us will be. when the federal government stays within its own sphere, it allows states to do what they do best, which is running things they are in charge of, and education is certainly one of them. if the federal government does that, that will lead more resources available for states to do that. a few years ago, when my opponent ran for congress, he indicated that he would support the no child left behind law, which was a massive intrusion by the federal government into state sovereign domain of public education, and while he has
since repudiated that position, and i congratulate him for that, this is something that i think reveals the differences in their backgrounds and the way we approach questions. it is also my understanding that the software company that he owns actually receives funds from the no child left behind program, so this is a difference between my opponent and myself as relates to the role of the federal government. i believe we both agree that the federal government ought to be staying out of this. no child left behind would never have gotten out of the starting gates with me. this bill is unconstitutional. >> tim bridgewater, do you need some rebuttal time on that? >> sure, i have been out building businesses and creating jobs, raise equity, being in the private equity business, and i believe that is one of the
problems we have right now, is that our economy is on the ropes, and i'm a businessman with a long track record in that arena. it was initially title one, and title one restricted education in many ways, and we had was a move towards more autonomy in the -- autonomy. i would make sure that the state has more power in the education system and that we wean ourselves away from federal mandates. going back to washington and taking on the republican presidency of george bush on this issue and fighting to end the mandates that had been pushed down into the states. we were able to get some accommodations, not a lot, but it was an opportunity to represent the state of utah in challenging that system. >> mr. lee, i will give you an additional minute. >> sure. the point is, i think what the people of utah want is someone
who will not vacillate, who will not waver, to say this is either constitutional or not. this is either an appropriate role for the federal government to play, or it is not. this is something i have spent a lifetime caring about and fighting over in court. what is the role of the federal government? and what is the role of each state government? education is not the appropriate role of the federal government, and it never has been. we need to send a u.s. senator back to washington who will never, never wavered in making this kind of determination. >> -- never, never waver in making this kind of determination. >> would you support nuclear waste in the united states and storage in utah? mike lee? >> when we are talking about nuclear waste, we are talking about perhaps the most toxic substances known to man.
i worked to help keep nuclear waste out of the utah desert, and we won that after fighting for years in court. there is other material called class a material, and it is nothing even close to the spent contamination in nuclear fuel. our state has made the determination to about it. that ultimately is to be decided by the state's, and i defend the states' right to do that. i think in the long run, it serves no one to make utah the world's dumping ground for any kind of material like this, including class a material, and i would support a ban.
we do not want to be sending good business to foreign companies, when that business could otherwise go to u.s. companies. >> tim bridgewater, your 90- second opportunity to speak to this. >> nv was being forced to take nuclear waste. i believe the federal government should not face it -- force them -- nevada and with pablo ansante nuclear waste. nevada was being forced -- nevada was being foreced. -- forced. he sued the state to take for nuclear waste, so he has been
inconsistent, i think, on this issue. it is a big issue because states have to live with this permanently. the federal government or a court of law should not be cramming it down their throats. they fought against it. we are now in mitigation on this issue. energysolutions is a good company. they are regulated. becoming the dumping ground buof nuclear waste is the wrong thing for our state. i think we have to step very carefully in these arenas. in terms of taking up for a nuclear waste, i would be against that.
-- taking foreign nuclear waste, i would be against that. >> my father had cancer. i would never want any family to have to endure the kind of sadness my family has had to go through since losing my dad, and the issue we face in utah is nothing like that, and i would never allow that to come into our state, nor would our state government allow that, anything that would subject our citizens to that kind of harm. what we are dealing with with that lawsuit with energysolutions simply involves the import-export of 40, and that belongs to congress and not to the state's we to the import- export authority -- simply involves the import-export o40 authority, and that belongs to
congress and not to the states. >> back to our studio audience, another question again, changing topics. >> the treaty on small arms that is supported by the current administration. it is still in the negotiation stage. in light of the fact the treaty supersedes the constitution, would you as a senator support or oppose the ratification of such a treaty and why? >> mr. bridgewater, your 90-cent an opportunity. -- your 90-second opportunity. >> i believe that the u.n. is not serving this nation well. they often have anti-american interests, and i think we should wean ourselves off of any involvement we have with the u.n. i think a lot of the agenda is anti-family, anti-american in many respects. i am a gun owner.
i have been hunting for most of my life. the right to bear arms should not be infringed it is not something i believe in just philosophically -- should not be infringed. it is not something i believe in just philosophically. the rodney king riots, when that korean store owner was on top of the is shop, i believe that is a right -- was on top of his shop. barack obama has recently put forward a new supreme court justice nominee, that while she was at harvard, there was a requirement to study constitutional laws, and they were imposed on to study international law, and many think we have to ignore the historical, original intent of the constitution and look to something in the international arena, and i fundamentally
disagree with that. >> mike lee. >> i would be strongly opposed to any attempt to ratify the small arms treaty. i believe it represents an affront to the united states of america and also represents an attack on the state and an important second amendment right to bear arms. -- and the importance second amendment right to bear arms. important second amendment right to bear arms. -- an attack on the state and an important -- the importance second amendment right to bear arms -- important second amendment right to bear arms. that debate dangerous to our constitutional system. -- that could be very dangerous to our constitutional system.
this framework has fostered the development of the greatest civilization the world has ever known, so i would be opposed to ratify that treaty. >> thank you. my name is pat. i have heard both of you advocating pulling the united states out of the united nations. please give us your reasons, and also, would pull in the united states out of the united nations make it more difficult for us to have positive influential relations with the rest of the world -- with pulling -- would pulling the united states out of the united nations make it more difficult? >> we have to remember that the united nations was created in a very different era, one that was
very different than the one in which we live, an era, some argued, where we needed something where countries could interact and express their views openly and in person, but with modern telecommunications technology be and what it is, is a lot easier to do that without that framework -- being what it is, it is a lot easier to do that without that framework. it has proven to be hostile in many instances to the constitutional value that we hold near and dear in this country. when i was in law school, i worked with a professor at the law school, who founded an organization that would help advise and those of the implications u.n. decisions were having. in many cases, they were being asked to sign agreements that
they did not realize but were eroding the family law that had evolved in the countries of the decades, so i think in some ways, the nicest thing that one can say about our current involvement in the united nations is that it is a waste of money. we have a national debt that is approaching $14.70 trillion, and i do not think we should be throwing that after an international body, and in any event, it is not necessary. >> mr. bridgewater, your 90- second opportunity. >> sure. at the time the united nations was set up, the world was very different than it is today. we have a whole new approach to bilateral relations. we have summits that come together among various nations. we have a lot of forms, where diplomats can get together and resolve differences. -- we have a lot of forms.
-- forums. these are the bigger and more important relationships. when we move to a body that has many, many nations involved in making decisions, whether it is with iran or other hot spots in the world, it dilutes our ability to affect our own agenda and our own interests, so i believe if we look first and foremost at american interests, we have to move to a new approach in dealing with these other countries. it may be at the g-7 or g-8 summit for things that specifically involve those nations. whereas smaller nations, nation's more hostile to was, there may be a forum -- nations more hostile to us. oftentimes, those efforts are thwarted by opponents who have veto power or who have the ability to run an agenda that is contrary to american interests,
in particular contrary to the utah interests, an anti-family agenda in many cases. sometimes, we join with muslim nations, where we have a similar agenda. i believe we need to lead a discussion and a high-level debate about what is the proper mechanism -- we need to have a discussion. >> we are running rapidly out of time. we have time for one more question, and it is a good one. we go back to the front row, and, mr. bridgewater, you have the first opportunity. >> bringing it back to utah, as a first-year senator, expected to do nothing more than follow the pauline -- party-line, how do you expect to work for utah with those constraints? >> i believe there is an enormous opportunity right now, because not only is you talk electing a new senator, but others will put a new senator --
not only is you talk -- utah electing a new senator, but others will put a new senator in also. bringing together more common sense approaches, cutting spending dramatically as the number-one priority of the new class. we have to get ourselves back on track. we just past $14 trillion in debt. there is no end in sight. there will be 20 dogs korean index -- $20 trillion in debt by the year 2020. cutting spending, getting government out of our lives more and more, and returning power back to the states, that is a message that is resonating. senator ben nelson brought home pork barrel spending, the vote on obama care, and the voters
rejected it. "give it back. that is not who we are." cut dramatically spending in washington, reform the earmarks and the out of control spending that is going on, and i believe that not only the junior senator from the state of utah but all of the junior senator is coming in in this cycle will have a mandate to do that. >> mike lee. >> as a junior senator or even a first-term junior senator is not to tiptoe the party line. bad things happen when people just take that approach to government. that is not governing. that is not leadership, and that is not what i am going to do. what we need in washington is someone who is going to stand up. let's stop assuming that the federal government can be all things to all people. we have to remember that the
government cannot create wealth. it never has, and it never will. it lacks the capacity to do so. all it can do is transfer wealth from one group of people to another group of people, but it should not be doing that. congress does not have that power to rob peter to pay paul. it does not make it right, and it does not make it constitutional. we have to elect men and women who are willing to stand up to this system of corrupt earmarks bennett, of corrupt -- corrupt earmarked spending -- earmarke spending. i am unique in this race that i have never built a business or make a living based on securing funds from the federal government. much of my business has not been in securing government funds. >> we have gone through our allotted time and have just
enough time for a final thought. prior to airtime, it was determined that the first 45- second opportunity when good to tim bridgewater. 45 seconds, sir. it -- would go to tim bridgewater. >> i 157% of the vote of delegates who spend hours and hours researching the candidates -- i won 57% of the delegates who spent hours and hours researching the candidates. we went out knocking on doors, making telephone calls. i hope to have the opportunity representing this great state. i grew up in simple circumstances. my dad was a mechanic, and i lived in a trailer that was 12 feet wide. i hope to represent the great state of utah.
>> and our final word tonight from mike lee. >> i am a lifelong constitutional conservative, and it has never been more important to elect someone like that to the united states senate, and i think the people of utah are ready for that korea is what i provide. limiting the power of government -- are ready for that. that is what i provide. i have never made a living securing federal funds. i never supported federal- government intrusion into state interests. i have never supported expanding medicare to and irresponsible degree with an $18 trillion -- expanding medicare to an irresponsible degree. >> june 22 in utah.
check the county recorder's website for additional information, or visit our website. after labor day, we will return with more debates. thanks for joining us. good night. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> tuesday, it is primary day. a political reporter from politico is joining us to talk about two races in south carolina and california. james, let's start with south carolina and that district race. >> bob has sort of gone against the republican grain for a long time, and it is finally catching up with him. he voted for the bailouts, like everyone else in south carolina, and he has been beaten up on that.
his opponent is leading in the polls and has hit him hard on that. voting for the energy bill, the so-called cap and trade bill, voting against protecting "under god," all of the things that add up to make him on popular sort of among the tea party crowd -- make him unpopular. this is another classic example of him having both strong republican and conservative establishment support. the american conservative union, the national right to life, even the chamber of commerce, they are all supporting bob in this primary, and he has a very republican voting record. but the tea party people are focused on him and want to bring
him down, and they have put a lot of money into his opponent's campaign. >> and who is his opponent? >> he is sort of well known, been around for a long time in republican politics. >> and moving on to california, where a democratic congresswoman is also in a competitive race. >> she is facing the same woman who challenged her in 2006. she has support from democracy for america. in 2006, she attacked the other over iraq, and harman beat her. winograd has staged another grass roots insurgent campaign. in california, there is no
runoff, and even though it is liberal, boeing is the largest employer there, and the big issue in that 36 district race becomes israel, and there was that flotilla incident last week. winograd called them murderess. -- mourners -- murderers. it has become a very spirited fight in the final week. >> there was the issue of harman's ad. i want to show you both, starting with a challenger, and then show you jane's ad. >> jane betrayed us, sold us out to wall street, made it easier for banks to foreclose on your homes, and then bailed out those
banks with your money. winograd will be our voice. she is a real democrat, who will serve the needs of our district, and create new, green jobs here at home. >> i approve this message. it is time to put your street ahead of wall street. >> winograd lives in a bubble. exposing our nation to attack. congressman gary waxman said -- in an interview with the iranian government newspaper, she attacked president obama's iran policy, calling it "nuclear narcissism." jane harman disagrees. >> how are these played out in the race? >> the district is marina del rey.
it is very hard to penetrate. direct mail is really the way to win there. but it has been getting a lot of buzz. harman has largely ignored winograd until the final week. they have really gone after her for a lot of different things. both of the candidates are jewish. winograd has in the past supported combining israel and palestine. the attacks generating a lot of money in the final week or two from israel groups. she has been a strong, a staunch ally in the past. at the same time, winograd is gathering support from those who normally run counter to those groups. there is the fight for the soul of the democratic party on
foreign policy. >> and what about outside influences, when it comes to money in these campaigns? >> we are seeing a lot of independent expenditure, not as much as in that other campaign we were talking about, but both harman and winograd are incredibly wealthy in their own right. they have been complaining about her described herself as a school teacher when she is, like, a millionaire -- her describing herself as a schoolteacher. there are groups like democracy for america and other sort of independent jewish groups that have gotten involved on both sides. >> all right, james hohmann, thank you. we want to remind our viewers that we will have coverage here on c-span. >> cleanup crews continue to a wildlife affected by the gulf of
>> my name is -- and i work at a processing plant here in louisiana, and we have been greatly affected by the oil spill, with our our is being reduced. ordinarily right now, we would be working 100 hours per week -- with our hours being reduced. it is really hard right now to do with what we are making do with when you are used to having the income coming in. however, b.p. has been doing well, and we greatly appreciate that. it is not just the fishermen. if they do not catch, we do not work. we do appreciate the help that we are getting. >> what were you doing here
today? >> i was asking for information, and she was really nice and answered my questions. you do not know what is going on, and you hear so much. >> did you actually filed a claim? >> no. -- did you actually file a claim? >> no. i already did. >> how much did you receive? >> $2,000 to cover my household living expenses, but i am not getting any salary, which, normally, i would be. it is not covering everything, but it is a big help. >> i have been here for 30 years. this is what i pay my home with, this living, and there is really not enough money. >> have you been filing claims? >> yes. >> and how much did they give you? >> $2,000.
>> how much do you need to cover your expensive? >> about $3,000 a month. -- to cover your expenses? >> about $3,000 a month. they aren't giving us turns. now, they have so many workers that there are rotating them -- they are giving us turns. let she said, we make enough money from 8 through dec. to survive from january to may again -- like she said, we make enough money from may through december to survive from january to may again. >> what are you here for? >> i am here to see if i can get the other $500. some of them who got the $2,000 went back and got the $500.
>> walk us through the process. >> that is a slow process. the people i dealt with were very nice, but it was degrading. it is like you're asking for a handout that you do not deserve, when it is not our fault it happened. we would be working full time but we always do, but we cannot. the fisherman cannot -- fishermen cannot catch. >> is it the way you are treated? >> there are a lot of questions we should not have to answer. we are proving our point that we do work in the shrimping industry. it is embarrassing. >> what kinds of questions do you get asked to >> personal questions. -- do you get asked?
>> personal questions. "are you sure this is how you make your living?" yes, that is how we make our living. it is like you are asking for a handout from somebody, and you do not deserve it. you do not want to ask for a handout. we can make more money working. by the time you make your house payments and the house insurance and all of that, in the insurance went up, -- and the insurance went up, but now this. how long is it going to take us to recover? we do not know. will we be working next year? we do not know. we have no idea. he even does not known. he takes a day by day. -- he even does not know.
he had no work for them. >> if it is several years before it comes back, what will you do? >> i do not know. she has been here 30. tell me, what do we do? >> in a few moments, federal reserve chairman ben bernanke at the woodrow wilson international center for scholars, where he is interviewed by former abc newsman sam donaldson. then, the gulf of mexico oil spill. admiral thad allen says the cleanup could take years. and president obama talks about the claims process for those affected by the spill. and then, looking at the role of progressives in this year's election.
>> on "washington journal" tomorrow morning, bob benenson, nicholas lardy, and an associated press reporter, julie davis. "washington journal" is live at 7:00 a.m. eastern. >> a couple of live events to tell about tomorrow. there is a hearing on the exxon valdez decision. members will focus on the proposed bill that will allow punitive damages in oil spill cases. that is on c-span3 at 10:00 eastern. here on c-span, president obama holds a town hall meeting with citizens in wheaton, md., to discuss the health-care bill and
the efforts to combat scams and frauds. live coverage at 11:40 a.m. eastern. >> no one has given them more opportunities. >> they are the faces you see every day. see some of their early television appearances at the c- span television library, with over 160 hours. it is one quarter century, and you can search in many ways. all available free, on-line. >> federal reserve chairman ben bernanke says that despite declines in financial markets, he does not think the u.s. economy will slip back into recession. he was interviewed by a former newsman sam donaldson -- by former newsman sam donaldson.
this is about one hour. >> before i introduce our program, i would like to say a word of welcome to several people who are here. i want you to know, i think he was introduced a little earlier, but we would not have a wilson center if it were not for the work of joe. joe, could you stand so that we can agree you? he was chairman of the board. -- so that we can greet you? and his wife is with us. we are delighted to have them. i want to introduce a fellow from my home town in indiana who is here. -- from my hometown in indiana who is here. david, you and your wife stand up. many of you may know david. he was president of the
carnegie foundation. he has had a marvelous career, one of the great humanitarians in this country. there are several former colleagues of mine here that i want to introduce. a congressman from florida and his wife. would they stand? and i am going to test your knowledge of politics a little bit here. we have a former vice- presidential candidate. i think 1976. vice president for ronald reagan when ronald reagan ran for presidency. dick, would you stand up? [applause] he, of course, was senator from pennsylvania, also secretary of hhs a few years back. we are fairly heavily loaded with pennsylvania ends. tom ridge is here.
-- with pennsylvanians. tom ridge is here. [applause] i want to introduce two people who are important to us, because they help us with the appropriations at the wilson center, and they may be the most important people here, as far as i am concerned. would you stand? [applause] they do marvelous work on the appropriations committee. i am delighted that jim is here. he is now chairman of the national endowment of humanities. [applause] i am going to be introducing sam donaldson in a moment, but i want to say that his wife is here. we are delighted to have you, as well. [applause]
we have the president of siemens usa. we are delighted to have him with us. [applause] we have several ambassadors with us. one from the republic of korea. over here. the ambassador from the swedish embassy. the ambassador from japan is here. [applause] and the ambassador from mexico is here. we are delighted to have him. [applause] i think this resilient ambassador from brazil. i did not see him. [applause] and we have the showers affair -- sure -- of their -- we have
the charge d'affaires. i have stayed 11 or 12 years, and one of the principal reasons i have is because of the work of joe, and i will tell you how loyal joe is. he was so loyal to the wilson center that his granddaughter is graduating from high school. joe, we appreciate your leadership. [applause] now, tonight, we welcome the chairman of the federal reserve, ben bernanke, to the center.
he and i am a sports fans in this whole note that the first pick in the amateur draft will be on the mound for the washington nationals. things are looking up. that is not really my purpose tonight. we know him best as the 14th chairman of the federal reserve nominated by george w. bush and renominated by barack obama last august. his scholarly expertise is in the great depression and its causes, and that prepared him for the historic task in facing the second greatest financial
crisis in our nation's history. he has been at the center of the extraordinary efforts of this country, indeed the world, to rescue us from the frightening near-collapse of the financial system in the fall of 2008 by making available literally trillions of dollars of official funds and helping us to understand better what happened and how to respond. for his work, we can only offer our appreciation, our support, and our fervent hope that he and his colleagues will succeed in enabling healthy and sustainable economic growth. the other day i saw a picture of him standing on the great wall of china. he was of course much more than an ordinary tourist. for some reason, my thoughts turn to one of his
predecessors, william boardman, chairman from 1951 to 1970. and as i recollect it, his travel schedule consisted of trips between washington and new york. this must seem like ancient history to a globetrotter like dr. bernanke. his responsibilities taken from the capitals of europe to the great wall of china, from wyoming to many places, it illustrating the interconnectedness of the 21st century global economy. prior to his government history, he was a professor of economics and public affairs at princeton university, serving as chair of the economic department from 1996-2002. he began his academic career at
stanford business school before writing at princeton in 1985. received a b.a. in economics in 1975 from harvard university, summa cum laude, and a ph.d. from massachusetts institute of technology. he and his wife have two children to report in georgia, he grew up in south carolina. the format tonight is not for a speech by dr. bernanke, he and sam donaldson will provide the program. sam will interview the chairman. i would ask the two of them to come forward now and after the interview we will ask questions from the audience. salmon chairman bernanke. -- sam and chairman bernanke.
[inaudible] >> hello. i am delighted that you have agreed to do this. what you think of the great wall of china? >> you can see it in the plane when you come down into beijing. >> richard nixon said all right. let's get down the substantive matters. we came to recover from the great recession we have gone through, fragile though it may be. how convinced argue that that recovery will continue at a reasonable pace? or do you see troubling signs that we may slip back into a double-dip recession? >> we've gone to a number of stages.
we had a tremendous contraction after the financial crisis intensified in 2008 and early 2009. things stabilized in the middle of last year. and then the process began to remind itself for a recovery. i think the recovery probably begin sometime last summer, and we have been expanding -- the fourth quarter of expansion that we have had. the first expansion was caused primarily by firms building up or at least not losing inventory quite as quickly after having built up inventories, and by fiscal programs. those are artificial sources. the real question that we were facing was, come the beginning of 2010, with the recovery get its own legs?
with the private sector demand takeover for inventories and government spending and provide a stable recovery path? and the news so far is pretty good. we have seen in the last -- the first quarter and this quarter, we've seen the consumer coming back, about 3% in real growth in consumer in 2010, firms spending more, and there are signs that the private sector is picking up the baton and moving the economy forward. their various copycats -- there are various caveat, as always. it is sometimes like looking through the entrails and sometimes you know. one is that for a deeper recession that we had, this is a moderate pace recovery, 3% growth recovery. one concern about that is that
it takes about 3% growth just to provide work for the people in the labor force. we're not going to bring that unemployment rate down pretty quickly. it will be high for some time. and that is a risk, because when people are not sure about the labor market, they will be less willing to spend and to take risks and so on. that is one concern. another concern is in the financial sector where we have made a lot of progress. but the banking system for example is still not completely healthy. we're not getting at the full credit availability that we would like to say. >> why not? >> well, because the banks had a lot of losses during the downturn. the lost capital -- they raised capital which was very useful, but they are still
deleveraging, reducing the size of their balance sheet, and they are cautious about new lending. it can be a difficulty for small firms. >> you use government money to resource -- to shore up their resources but they are not spending as you say, and why don't they use the government money to lend? >> the month -- the government money was critical in preventing the collapses in the fall of 2008. it did do that and that was the first and most important thing, because we came very close to a global financial collapse that would have tremendous consequences. i do not want to overstate the case. banks to stabilize quite a bit and their earnings -- they are making loans but not at the level we would like the secret part of the reason -- we would like to see.
part of the reason is that cautious in the deleveraging that they have done, is for political reasons essentially. banks have decided that they do not want government money. they want to give it back. what we see is that almost all the big money -- the big banks have paid back the government money. they paid it back in full with interest, so that taxpayers made some money on those particular investments. the bad news is that they gave the capital back to the government and they do not have that available for lending. so they have gone to the private sector and raise capital there and they will be lending, i think, but so far they are still recovering in stabilizing from the crisis. >> you do not fear a double-dip recession. >> this is like looking to the entrails. nobody knows, but there seems to
be good momentum in consumer spending and investment. and so my best guess is that we will have continued recovery but it will not feel terrific. the reason it will not is that it will not be fast enough to put back 8 million people who lost their jobs. it is going to take a while. even though technically we will be in recovery and the economy will be growing, the unemployment rate will still be high for a while, and that means a lot of people are going to be under financial stress. >> what is happening in europe, to greece, to spain and perhaps portugal and the euro and the effects there? >> we are watching that whole situation very carefully. it was very complicated -- is a very complicated phenomenon. as you know, the europeans have a broad based -- call the
european project. it essentially restore peace and unity to europe after many years of conflict. and an important part of that project was the creation of the euro, currency, which not all european countries but any european country share. it had a lot of benefits in the beginning -- at lower interest rates because people fear that the valuation of the currency that they all shared. so countries like greece were able to borrow at relatively low interest rates. interest rates not much higher than strong credit nations like germany. the result is that they over borrowed and they were not clear about what their debt situation was. recently it has become clear that they have in fact very large outstanding debt, which are difficult for them to service.
this is a problem because even though they have a single currency, they do not have a single fiscal authority. there's no easy way to move tax money from country to country in the year rose on the way that we can move money from state to state in the united states. it proves to be a difficult proposition. nevertheless, the europeans are committed to avoiding default in greece and in other countries on the so-called periphery, because they fear that the default of briefs and the small economy itself might lead to defaults in other countries if investors got spooked by the first default, and that would put pressure on their banking system with lack of securities from those countries and banks and other businesses in those countries.
so it is been a relatively slow process. the europeans have put together a program, a special purpose vehicle with 500 million euros in it, which is being partially match by the international monetary fund. >> is that enough? >> well, it is quite a bit and it could cover -- 500 billion here and 500 billion there, you start to see the light. >> not with what we have been spending over the last couple of years. >> it is a lot of money. it certainly covers the obligations of greece and portugal and spain for a number of years. it is a lot of money, plus the imf is there. there still needs to be work done to make sure that the countries can apply for it and make sure that they can take the tough steps in their own country to reduce their deficit and debt and stabilize their finances.
my last comment is that there's a lot of uncertainty about this in the market. you see 9% decline in the u.s. stock markets as investors get more risk averse. and that is because it is not clear and investors are not completely convinced that the problem is being taken care of. we're watching it very carefully. we're trying to help it every way that we can. one thing i am quite persuaded of is that the european leadership is strongly committed to doing whatever is necessary to preserve the euro, preserve the eurozone, preserve the european project, and prevent the problems that might arise from greece and other countries defaulting. >> the europeans also seem to be attacking the deficit. you have begun to warn as your predecessor did that deficit's worse much smaller, that this presents a danger to us. but at the same time, the fed and the congress continue to believe that stimulus is needed.
how can we reduce the deficit while we're still stimulating the economy and in what way should we change? >> the federal stimulus does not have any implications to deficit. that is a separate issue. the question is fiscal stimulus. it is a matter of time frame. on one hand, it is really not possible for us to balance our federal budget this year or next year. the recession is too deep, the loss of tax revenue is too great, the spending to try to support the economy in the financial institutions are there. >> do we need to raise revenue? >> well, let me finish the first part of the question, which was we cannot reduce the deficit. we can eliminate it -- we cannot eliminate it this year or next year, but over the next six
years, and certainly beyond that, as people become eligible for social security and medicare, we do need to get control of the debt and the deficit. so we need a medium-term plan, an exit strategy if you will, that will allow us to bring our fiscal house into order over a longer period of time. >> do you have one? do you see one? >> not yet we do not. but we do have among other things a presidentially appointed deficit reduction commission which is made up of the very distinguished group of many congressmen and others as well. and their assignment is to provide a plan in which we present to congress at the corporate a time. >> but they have no teeth. >> you're absolutely right let me just say that you started that your question, we have been mentioning this quite a bit at the federal reserve, we think it is very important.
we can see what problems can arise if the deficit -- if investors lose confidence in the fiscal condition of the country. it is important to address this problem we continued to -- to address this problem. we continue to advocate strong action on this. but it is important to understand the difference between having a balanced budget next week and having won over the medium term. it is really over the medium term that we need to get that program into place. >> do we need to raise revenue as well as cutting spending in the entitlements? >> those are the tough decisions. that is why is so hard. otherwise we would balance the budget really quickly. congress is just going to have to -- there are only a few possibilities. what i often say in testimony is that there is one what i always support, a lot arithmetic.
deficit is spending-taxes. you have to cut spending or raise taxes or do both. any one of those things is painful. you have to go out and figure out how to do that and that is a political question. and they would not pay attention to me anyway. they have to come together in a politically tough choice and find a way to reduce spending and if necessary raise revenue to bring that deficit back to a sustainable level. just low enough that the dead is something we can sustain over a period of time. >> there is financial regulatory reform going through congress right now the bills will have to be merged. they have the ball rolled --
volcker rule, not as strong as glass-steagall, but i am informed or may be misinformed that you are not particularly a fan of that rule. am i wrong? >> that is a yes or no question. >> can you answer it yes or no? >> there are many times in which a bank has to do something for proprietary trading for good reason for it to hedge a position. it's got loans that they may need to buy various derivatives to hedge those loans. it did is building upon, in order to attract customers, it may take a share of that fund. and so on and so on. there are lots of ways in which a bank may need to have close to a position in order to serve its customers.
i think chairman volcker would agree with you do not want to prevent banks from buying the assets, because that actually makes it more risky not less. the way that i have looked at this and in the senate bill i think it would work, is that it would create this separation between proprietary and on proprietary trading, but it would ask federal regulators to figure out what that line is and when is the purchase of a derivative or other security legitimate service and when is it gambling with the bank's capital with an ultimate taxpayer backstop? as long as there is a reasonable process for distinguishing between those categories of assets, i think it can be made to work. as one of the regulators, we will certainly work with our
colleagues to try to make it operational. >> to set a specific question -- derivatives. as the bills seem to be written, most run exchanges but credit default swaps are the most lucrative and they might not to. is that a bad thing? should we regulate them all soaker to mark >> they will not credit default swaps are essentially insurance that you can buy and sell on the credit of a country or company and they come in different flavors. some are specific to an individual companies like ford motor, and then there are some which are much broader and cover an industry or a mix of derivatives. these are very important and valuable and can help various kinds of risks. >> the way the bill is going, it would not be on an exchange.
>> the cds is an instrument that grew very quickly and did not have a lot of infrastructure that group -- that grew up quickly with it. it was the head of the crisis because the new york fed in particular and geithner now the treasury secretary had a very big role on this. it was a ball before the crisis in trying to get better control of the trading of cds's. the return to get the trading better documented and more transparent, and the fed is continuing to work on that process. the issue on exchanges -- the changes are good. they allow for discovery and the setting of margins and providing capital so that you do not have to worry about your counterparty
when you make a trade in derivatives. but exchanges are not very practical for idiomatic specialize derivatives, because the exchanges were you trade large quantities. you still need to have the ability to trade specific individualized securities of the exchange. but that still does not mean that they are not regulated. in the new bill, there would be added to new regulatory roles, substantial capital the banks would hold behind it, transparency, it would have to be public which you are treading, and considerable bore responsibility for regulators to oversee it. one of the biggest concerns in the aig case, they were selling credit insurance, and when things went bad they could not pay. that is why aig was in such deep
trouble. in that particular case, there was no one looking at aig. they looked at the threat but there was no agency looking at what they're doing. under the new proposals, there would be for any systemically critical company like aig or any complex interconnected financial firm, there would be abroad supervisor -- in many cases the fed -- that would have that responsibility. the women someone would be looking at aig to make sure it that they had enough capital so that they would not go bust if things went against them. >> the final question on this bill. richard bernstein, an investor analyst of some note, said that it is not real reform. and richard fisher of the reserve in dallas says that it will not rain in big banks in his view and that the regulators will continue to miss things.
what is your overall impact -- impression of the impact of this bill? >> there are lots of pieces to it. but overall this is a sensible approach and many people -- many pieces fit together. the one thing that made everybody so mad in the general public and all of us here in washington was the bailout. adding to intervene with a failing firms, aig and bear stearns. i do not regret being involved in that because i know for a fact that if those companies had collapsed -- we saw what happened when lehman brothers collapsed. it was in the context of the panic in which the global financial system was at great risk. that was a situation that we did not want to begin in -- to be canned or ever be in again. the acid test of reform will be, will it manage and control too
big to fail? it is hard to know for sure but there are a lot of ways to address that issue. i mentioned to -- i like to mention three. one is that there will be a tougher set of regulations that will be used to make sure that the largest firms have adequate capital, adequate liquidity, so that they do not fail so easily. second and very importantly, there is going to be a resolution regime, which means that if a large financial firm comes close to failure, lehman brothers type of situation, instead of allowing it to fail and with no legal ability to prevent it, we will have a set of rules and procedures whereby the fdic, much the same way it closes down failing banks, will
be able to come in and close down that company that is a way -- in a way that is safe for the system for data is critical. and a third idea among many others is that every company would have to have a living well which says -- a living will which says that if they are on the border of bankruptcy, a detailed description of how the company would be disassembled and broken down and put into receivership in no way that would be quick, clear, clean, and will not restore the financial system. too big to fail is the acid test. if we can make sure that there is no concern over too big to fail, then we will limit the aspects of this. >> so you see this as being more helpful than not. >> i do. there are lots of different parts to it. i would not denied that there are some things that i would change, but overall i think it does address the too big to fail
problem and it does -- and i think i should say that part of this is the legislation, but there is also what regulators are doing. regulators are working right now to raise capital and liquidity. and the regulators together with the congress and toughen up the standards quite a bit and that is what is happening. >> if i caught -- if i thought you could and would tell us when you could raise rates, so in the future. [laughter] tell us precisely what you're looking at. when will it be time to remove that part of the stimulus and raise interest rates? >> the reason that we do not tell people is because we do not know exactly when. i know the what we're looking
at, our statement has said -- has laid out what the conditions are. the conditions we are looking at ouare excess resources slack, lw capacity utilization, and the second is subdued inflation trends, low inflation, we've got that right now. and the third is stable inflation expectations for the state of the economy, the real economy and unemployment, and also where inflation is and where is going through those of the main things we are looking at. they are not the only things, we're looking at financial markets and other things as well but they are the broad main areas, and that is what our mandate of inflation and price stability tells us we should look at. i want to be very clear that monetary policy takes a long
time to work. there are long lags as one person said. we have a very easy monetary policy when interest rates are close to 0%. we cannot wait until unemployment is where we would like it to be to get closer to normalizing interest rates. we will have to make a forecast in a judgment on the appropriate time, began moving, and start moving toward a more normal policy, but doing that in a way that anticipates where the economy is going to be a year and a half down the road, because it takes time for monetary policy to work. it will be the case that when we start the policy that the economy will not yet be back at full unemployment. one last thing to say -- we made a lot a progress in some sense, because many of the lending programs we put into place, like
the commercial paper program, and the money market mutual fund program and others, have all been dismantled and put away. and that was without losing a penny and making a profit for the taxpayer. we are already exiting from our extraordinary stance that we took during the crisis. each step is just another step in the road toward a more normal policy. >> six months ago people were betting it would be in the fall. and now people are betting that it will be next year. using the criteria you're out finding -- >> a colleague of mine said he liked to read the newspaper to see what he was thinking. >> several questions -- several
people want to abolish the fed. what would happen in addition to you being out of a job -- what would be the upper decks of abolishing the federal reserve system? >> we would be the only country in the world without a central banking system. what would you put in its place? >> the rate of growth would be around 3%, they said. >> there would be serious alternatives. milt friedman gave that an idea and there was the gold statement, and i don't know if i can test your patience, but for various regions, this is a short question. my own research -- my own research on the great depression was that the malfunctioning of the gold standard, which tie together the monetary policies of every country on the gold standard, was one of the major causes of
the depression when it became international. there are a lot of dangers with the gold standard, not to mention practicalities that need to be put in place. there's good reason why we left the gold standard in the 1930's. i guess my question would be, it is not a perfect system, but compared to what? and there does not seem to be at this point, the evidence of 180 countries in the world, i don't know of any that does not have a central bank unless they have an open currency. someone has to run the monetary policy. somebody has to deal with the issues of stability in modern economies. i believe that will be the case in the united states and i think it will should be a highly qualified central bank that does
it. >> and now are really important question. i cannot see because of the lights, but who has the microphone? yes, right over there. please try to ask a fairly short question and don't get along speech. >> i'm from illinois. we just opened a new branch in washington area last week. we are a good bank. i would say wall street is criticize so much for their on ethical practices, but i am one of the disciplinary board members to read -- board member. the subprime loans in these problems are really caused by
excessive real estate brokers, mortgage brokers, and some greedy -- >> what is your question? >> to correct these basic deep- seated roots, i think we need civic consumer education. some countries have very concerned consumers. america has totally in different consumers. >> we are limited to time. can you give an answer to that? >> the subprime problem was certain part of the crisis, but there were a lot reasons for it, including inconsistent regulation for the federal reserve bear some responsibility there. we have put together a regulation on mortgage lending,
but it came too late. another aspect of it certainly was the understanding of the borrowers and financial literacy is an incredibly important objective. we work for that at the forward -- at the federal reserve, but now that we see the dangers of people not knowing what they're signing, i am hopeful there will be a much more committed effort in our school systems and colleges and for adults as well to help people understand how to navigate the financial marketplace. it is very important. >> of question run over here. >>, director of the latin american program here to which wilson center. you've made a number statements about the rising incoming quality -- inequality in the united states and the decline in real wages. i was wondering if you could offer some thoughts about what
that augurs for the future of free trade between the united states and other developing countries in the world. >> i did speak about inequality, the rising inequality that is a problem in the united states. there are a lot of reasons for it, which include technological change, which favors more skilled workers over less skilled workers, and to lesser extent there are factors like the weakening of the union movement, and some trade factors which again favor more skilled workers or less skilled workers. there are lots of reasons for it. there are dangers, because one of the political implications of an increase in inequality might be protectionism. people might say that we have to close our borders because we want to prevent cheap goods from coming in, etc., etc. economists have broadly agreed that a strong growth -- source of growth is free trade.
we did not want to have that cut off because people are concerned about inequality. there are not easy solutions there, but fundamentally the problem is skills and the real solution is getting skills. i'm going to go on wednesday afternoon to talk to a conference which is about the workplace worker skill acquisition. junior colleges, state programs, and so on. get people skills, and then they can get the kind of work that will get them a decent wage. it is more critical today than normal because one of the very disturbing aspects of our labor market situation is that about half the unemployed have been unemployed for six months or more, which means they are losing skills and contracts in the job market. if they simply sit at home, or were very irregular, when the economy gets back to normal state, they will not be able find good work.
even now it is more important than ever that we make available in every way that we can, not just through the same been used a different ones, the way for people to get skills so that they can get decent jobs. >> the final question right over here. >> is it likely that this country will ever have much leverage in negotiating with china? >> i just came back from china. i've attended the strategic and economic dialogue, which bears on the state department issues and economic, the treasury, fed- type issues. and perhaps the only person on the american side who had been to all of them because there were founded -- this basic meeting was created by secretary paulson in the previous
administration, and it continues with modifications into the current administration. this is a meeting of essentially the entire cabinet of the united states, plus the fed chairman and others come up with their counterparts in china. felt was the genius of that, of this meeting is that it recognizes the wide range of issues in which the united states has common issues and concerns with china. we do not just talk about exchange rates and some of the things that have been such a troubling part of our relationship. we talk about ways in which we can cooperate on energy and investment and trade, on pieces -- visas, many issues on the economic and strategic side. they need us and we need them, and the chinese and the americans are the largest
developing and largest developed economies in the world and we have a great deal to gain from working with each other. and one of the benefits of these meetings besides the achievements which are sometimes bigger and smaller, it that we establish a working relationship. having a working relationship with people that you can call to them and talk to them and get an answer, that is a very important objective. my answer is that we are talking to china and we need to keep talking to china because it is not just the single issues but it is a tremendous range of issues where we need to work together. >> but are they likely listening to us on areas of my trip policy -- on monetary policy? they control their money. >> they have their own views of interest, and we certainly did not agree with them all the time. but they are interested in what the united states is doing and
thinking. and they understand that there is a codependency relationship there, and they certainly want to engage with a spirit obviously we will not be happy with every outcome and certainly we are not. there are lots of issues that we're convert -- that we're currently debating with the. but there is a real desire on both sides to engage, and that for me says of very important thing to have those lines of communications open. >> and some day they will revalue their currencies. chairman bernanke, when you came to the post, you said you wanted to be more transparent. we certainly believe you have been tonight and we appreciate you coming. thank you. >> thank you very much. c-span.or[captioning performed y national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]
>> my lai recognize that we have several award -- may i recognize that we have several awardees with us, we're delighted to have you. please give them a round of applause. and we're very appreciative of chairman bernanke and his comments tonight. but i thought sam donaldson did a great job, too. didn't you? sam, we appreciate that. i hope you have a wonderful evening. he has been our pleasure to have you here. godspeed to all of you in a safe trip home. >> in a few moments, admiral thad allen brief reporters on
the gulf of mexico oil spill. no less than an hour, president obama comments on the claims process for those affected by this bill. after that, campaign for america future looks at the roles of progressives in this year's elections. and later, a former teacher on the middle east peace process. on washington journal tomorrow morning, we will look at tuesday's primary races in 10 states with bob benenson. nicholas lardy with the peterson institute for international economics examines china's economy and its effect on the u.s.. and more about the supreme court nomination of the land taken from associated press reporter julie hirschfeld davis. "washington journal" is live every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. a couple of live events to tell you about tomorrow morning. the senate judiciary committee
holds a hearing on the exxon valdez court decision and will spill liability caps. members will focus on a proposed bill that would allow punitive damages in oil spill cases. that is3 on is at 10:00 eastern. hear on c-span, president obama hold a town hall meeting with senior citizens in maryland to discuss the health care bill and efforts to prevent scams and frauds seniors across the country will be able to participate by telephone three live coverage at a 11:40 on c- span and c-span ready. we'v>> we've got three new c- span books for you. "abraham lincoln," "the supreme court," and "who's buried in grant's tomb?" each with a unique contemporary perspective and perhaps something new to you about lincoln, the nation's highest court, and the gravesites and lives of america's presidents. to order, go to c- span.org/books. each one also a great gift idea for father's day.
cleaning up the gulf of mexico oil spill would take years. he also talked about the claims process for those whose livelihood of been affected by the spill. this was just before his meeting with president obama. >> we are joined by that allen, but national incident commander for the gulf of mexico. he is here for a meeting on this crisis as well which begins a little less than an hour. let me turn it over to him to walk through the stages of our response. and we will both take your questions. >> appreciated. good morning. a quick operational update.
in the last 24 hours, the production of the discover enterprise over the wellhead produced 11,000 barrels of oil. the continue to increase -- we have gone from 6000 to 11,000 -- trying to increase that production rate, ultimately closing the venting valves and move to a greater per -- greater capacity. bp anticipates moving another craft in that can actually handle additional production, and the combination of these vessels combined will have a production capability of about 20,000 barrels a day. and we're looking to increase production so that we can slowly close those vents and see how the containment cap is working and whether or not any oil is forced down by the pressure through rubber seals as we talked about before. in the long run, british petroleum is also looking at bringing larger production vessels and, create a more permanent connection that can be disconnected in case we have a hurricane or bad weather, and we
will continue to optimize the production out of the well to contain it. as ice -- as i have said, but long-term solution is going to be drilling the relief wells, which is targeted at early august. there are two relief wells in progress right now. development or three is down between 7,000 feet and 8,000 feet below the sea for three doubled and drove word to is around 3003 the second one is a risk mitigater as we move toward the final solution, which is the relief wells. and following the intersection of the well bore with those relief wells, they will put heavy mud down there to suppress the pressure coming up, put a cement plug in, and do what i call a bottom kill, as opposed to the unsuccessful top kill. what i like to talk to you about is the area of operations out there. we're going to try something on you there. take this as a work of progress, but put the slides up.
and there are copies available on the web and we will get it to you, but basically we're going to try this target u.s. three- dimensional look at what the world of work is like out there. we deal with basically four areas of operation. one is the subsea area, where we deal with containment on the air. the sec is on the surface, where the oil comes up in large quantities and can be dealt with effectively through mechanical skimming and in such a burning. we all know about the recovery on score -- on the shore, but the emphasis has shifted to the area between the shoreline and out about 50 miles. all rely several ways, this spill has disaggregated itself. we're no longer dealing with a monolithic spill. we have an aggregation of hundreds or thousands of patches of oil that are going a lot of different direction. we have to adapt to meet that threat. when this operation started, we were controlling all skimming and burning operations out of the incident command post which
has responsibility for the area where the well as that. in the last week, we have shifted control of skimming assets to the commander and the incident command post in alabama, responsible for mississippi, alabama, and florida. we of ashley detached a task force to work for him to push out 50 miles offshore and find these smaller patches and deal with them before they get to shore. this is an adaptation to the changing characteristics of this bill, no longer a single spill but a massive collection of smaller spills moving forward. in regards to that, in the near future we will be held its gaming -- skimming capability offshore and work those small patches. we have made significant progress in bringing more into the fight in terms of vessels of opportunity. these are local fishing vessels and workboats that we certify to help us, and then also certify the individuals and train them. between louisiana, mississippi, alabama, and florida, we have
about 1500 vessels of opportunity where we certify the crews and put them out there. we now have an opportunity to match them with skimmers. so the next critical component or resource we're going to be looking for is to increase the amount of skimmers now that we have vessels that can deploy them third we have over 100 large vessels skimming offshore in and around the surface area above the well. we want to take the smaller skimmers and smaller vessels that can work in the harbors and the bays up to 50 miles offshore. we're moving them into place right now, and we will be looking nationally at these opportunities as we go forward. we continue to move coast guard units in as well. we have coast guard cutters that have skimming capability stationed off of mississippi, alabama, and florida. we have a coast guard cutter out there conducting command and control, helicopters for surveillance. and we have small coast guard patrol boats beckham daschle it
is scouting, work with the vessels of opportunity, and identify the small patches out there. but i can tell you that boom is not a silver bullet against oil. we had some boom in place back behind dauphin island, alabama, and the sea state actually defeated the boom and we have oil come ashore and we had to deal with that. we will continue to press for a bird we have to deal with reality that no much out -- no matter how much boom we have out there, this aggregation is going to cause oil to come ashore from time to time. we need to get quicker and more agile where smaller units can get to back bay shallow areas, and work offshore to find smaller patches of oil and deal with them quickly. i would be glad to take any questions. >> what percentage of oil do you think is being captured at this point by the containment device? >> let me give you to answer to that, and will have to get more fidelity on this as we get the actual flow rate established third we have two models out of the wellhead down by our flow
rate technical group. one was a range of 12,000 barrels to 19,000 barrels per the other was a range of 12,000 barrels to 25,000 barrels a day. we're approaching production that will get up around 15,000 barrels a day. once we know the production flow and we are able seal off the vents, we will have a hard, fast number that will tell us where within that range it may lie, and allow us to narrow the range from the outside and three greater fidelity. then we can back that in for the number of days and get a better all -- a better overall estimate. it is like an oil budget. how much is coming out, how much have we skimmed, how much have we burned, and then we can account for the hydrocarbons went. and that is a work in progress. we will have a finer estimate once we establish the flow rate. gentleme>> you talk about the cp lasting well into the fall yesterday. can you elaborate on what you meant there?
>> we have to be realistic and honest and transparent. with no relief well is finished and capped sometime in august, will have flowed to the surface in some manner -- we want as much as we can get. there will still be oil on the surface the day the well is capped feared that will have to be dealt with. there will be long-term informal issues associated with the oil coming ashore we have to conduct natural resource damage assessments so that we can understand the long-term issues and what bp should be held accountable for. we will begin dealing with oil and the effects of oil well after the time -- well after it is capped. it depends on how much oil was up there in the direction and currents. but the expectation that we're going to be working at least four to six weeks after that well is capped on the oil that is just presently overhead burden that does not account for what oil might come ashore and dealing with the impact on the marshes.
>> mutiny, sorry. you're going and the regular order. >> how would you characterize the containment process so far. have there been any signs of setbacks or progress? can you say how many total miles of coastline have been soiled by oil so far? >> on containment, i think is going fairly well. this is a condition-based process where they increase production. once they establish that, they're concerned about the formation of hydrates. they are putting methanol down. they are also warming the oil as it comes up. we think that is going fairly well. we want to establish a rate so we know exactly what that containment cap can tolerate in terms of flow and what is going to be lost. it is very important to watch that closely. as far as the coastline, we have about 120 miles total, linear, that has been impacted. that is deceiving, because i was talking with the parish presidents and governor jindal. you could have 1 mile impacted
linearly, and i could go very deep into the acreage of marshlands behind it. we need to understand where it comes ashore in a marshland, there is a depth component to this and the effect could be far greater. >> you say you're in contact with the white house and that you're getting everything you need. they're people down on the gulf that say there are not enough skimmers. are they just misinformed? and you mentioned optimizing production. there's an incentive for bp to pull that oil out. should they have to forfeit that oil and that profit to disincentivize them from keeping that going? >> there reason they want to keep production going is not what they may recoup out of in terms of production. it alleviates pressure on the well bore. we did the top kill and were able to force mud down the well bore to the point where we actually suppressed all the war. but the minute they stopped pumping the mud, the oil came back up.