tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN September 29, 2014 10:00am-12:01pm EDT
i am feels -- please to yield the floor to you and looking forward to yielding it back to you. >> at some time in the not so distant future. >> thank you. i am pleased to be at the press club. oftinguished group journalists and friends. i want to thank you for giving me this opportunity. i also want to say the president opportunity to discuss this coming weekend activities. i am very pleased to be here today. pleased thisill be sunday. in five short weeks the american people will make a decision about the direction they want this country to go. they will have to choose what kind of government they want. one characterized by endless gridlock, or one that achieves
progress. , orvernment on their side one that tells them you are on your own. feel,ss, many americans with justification, is not on their side anymore. across the country people are losing faith that congress will or can meet its responsibilities to support and grow a strong middle class. has not always been this dysfunctional. with a responsible majority and members coming together with the seriousness of purpose, congress can do a great deal of good. in the 1950's democrats and republicans worked together to and invest in an interstate highway system that spurred unprecedented economic growth. heart of president johnson's great society. congress passed the higher education act. of which congress and had -- grandparents could only dream.
compromise and cooperation but to the enactment of social security in 1935 and medicare and medicaid in 1965. us the civil rights act and voting rights act 15 years ago. congress came together to pass the americans with disabilities act and open the doors of opportunity for millions. in 1997, parties work together to lay the groundwork for a bill that balanced a federal budget. compromise to achieve a central goal has happened and can work once more. the american people cannot have a congress that places productive policy and -- always make -- policymaking ahead of politics. one that tells the middle class we're on your side. as voters prepare to elect the
next congress, they have a clear choice. maintain a republican house majority that has made obstruction and partisanship its policy. or elected democratic geordie that will end the gridlock in focusing on the issues that matter and working in a bipartisan way to make progress. we have done that and will do it again and we need to make congress. according to a gallup poll, four in 10 believe it does not matter which party leaves congress, but in fact, it matters a great deal . voters should be deeply concerned about continuing the republican house majority for two reasons at least. first, republicans have ignored the will of the people by refusing to ignore the issues americans care about. secondly, they have overseen the productive and most closed congress in modern history.
and doing both, they have directly contradict it the pledges that they made. , ericir book, young guns cantor, kevin mccarthy and paul ryan wrote, we pledge to stand on principle. to lead as adults, and most of all, to serve as responsible stewards of the public trust by listening to the american people. while speaker boehner assumed the gavel, he declared, and ote," above all else we will welcome ideas, encourage and it's and engage in it openly, honestly and respectfully. as the chamber closest to the when it is allowed to
work its will. we have better off had been if the house was allowed to ?ork its will you go > 71% of americans want to increase the minimum wage and 61% of small businesses support an increase to $10.10 per hour. that is according to a july poll. house republicans will not allow it to come to the floor. more than seven in 10 americans support comprehensive immigration reform as surveyed in may. writtenn june showed a -- majority of republican voters want a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants if they meet certain conditions. but instead of listening to the american will, americans refuse
to allow the house -- republicans refuse to allow the house to hold the vote. when women ask for legislation to ensure equal pay for equal said you're onn your own. on one important issue after another, house republicans who control the agenda refuse to allow the people's will to be considered on the house floor. on september 18 speaker boehner delivered a speech in which he said, today i can report the people's house is more open and transparent. you can even bring your ipad2 the floor. -- to the floor. that may be the case but you cannot bring a bill to raise the minimum wage to the floor. you cannot ring of bill to raise an institute on if i'm insurance continuation. you cannot bring up will -- a
bill to the floor to the extent terrorism risk insurance act. cannot even bring his tax reform bill to the floor. of course, you can bring your ipad seek and read about the bill. read about the bills. as a result, the majority awaylican party walking again and again. congress is less productive and ever.ivided than under the republican house majority in the 113th congress, 100 escape by loss, the fewest in modern history have been enacted. only 26 where major pieces of legislation. in a similar situation when george bush was president of the united states in 2007 and 2008.
460 bills were enacted. to make america better, serve the american people. we are on target this year to be in session for 107 days only. has truly earned the title of the do-nothing congress. a domerican people deserve something congress. fact, they deserve a do the right thing congress. democrats areouse ready to do by working across the aisle to achieve results. know it is possible because we have done it. there have been a number of moments when speaker boehner, frustrated with the obstructionist in his congress turned to democrats to pass key legislation. keeppplied the votes to
the government open and reopen after last october shutdown. theushed the private -- budget control act over the defaulting to avoid in the debt. after hurricane sandy devastated families, farms and small businesses and one hundred 79 republicans, 77% of the conference, walked away from the victims of sandy and said, you are on your own. one hundred 92 democrats voted for the disaster relief package, which is the only reason it passed. same holds true for the violence against women -- women act, patent reform, highway bill in the farm bill. when president bush was in office, democrats work across the aisle to pass a new g.i. bill, a bill to increase energy independence and legislation to prevent another great
depression. today we see a republican majority that automatically opposes anything president obama presents, even though our country needs action. shrugged, the novel often this as inspiration, says about congress. quote,atlas shrugged there are two sides to every issue. right, and one is wrong. evil.e middle is always but the middle is always evil. evil.mise is not it is necessary and noble pursuit of those who govern responsibly in a democracy. to one another.
we come to an agreement. the american people are not looking for leaders who refuse to compromise or for more partisan division. what they seek our leaders who will make the tough choices that come with governing. they want us to do it in a bipartisan way. this demands compromised. it is not hard to imagine what the result would be if that were the case. according to a study by moody's analytics, as the republican majority work to pass the the gdpt's jobs plan, would have grown by as much as 2% and 1.9 million jobs would have been created. sadly, they did not. it was a missed opportunity and a real shame. even without help from congress the president achieved significant progress over the past four years in tackling the
challenges that face us. as he pointed out in a speech saturday, by nearly every indicator our country is doing better today than it was when president obama took office. 10 million new jobs created in just over four years. it hundred billion in medicare costs saved. the number of children and property dropped i want .4 million last year, representing the most significant declines since 1966. think about how much more progress could be made if congress were to partner with the president and not an obstacle. instead of a congress where republican majority walks away and says you're on your own, a congress led by democrats would reassure americans it is on their side. our platform for democratic majority in 2015 is centered on taking action to jumpstart the
middle class. expand the middle class rather than seeing a shrink. working hard and take responsibility you can take responsibility such as home ownership, higher education and richer -- secure retirement. the way to achieve that is for congress to enact precisely what republicans promised in 2010 but isled to deliver, and that their pledge, a plan to create jobs, and economic uncertainty and make america more competitive. rather the republicans have created more uncertainty, rather than ending it. so -- no certainty for doctors treating medicaid patients they will be treated -- paid act -- adequately.
democrats have proposed giving doctors and seniors that certainty. while democrats have supported a long-term land to invest in our infrastructure. no certainty for small businesses looking to create jobs through exporting. democrats want to provide that long-termwith a reauthorization of the export import bank. no certainty for businesses looking to innovate or hire workers and coming up against a immigration system. democrats want to fix the system through comprehensive report back keeps talented graduates here, not send them home, and enables employers to hire permanent and temporary workers a need. there is a consensus among the american people about that issue. the list goes on but not bought -- brought to the floor.
house democrats will work to provide certainty in these ways in making the economy more competitive through the make it in america plan. in addition, we will work to jumpstart by raising the minimum wage, expanding access to him education, helping student loan borrowers refinance and ensuring women ecb equal pay for equal work and making sure affordable childcare is available to those who need it. doing these things is not giving americans a handout. that is how we jumpstart a middle class and rebuild a stronger national economy and what our rp all want the congress to focus on. not partisan games. not an obsession with repealing the affordable care act. not politically driven lawsuits against the president or shutdown default threats. .ot massive default threats
americans want a bipartisan effort to achieve results for not a congresss, that stands in the way. that is what democrats are campaigning for. congress in which america's voices are heard. while republicans continue to ignore the need to invest in job creation, we will move forward with making in america bills to expand manufacturing, increase in unemployment -- in employment and opening doors of opportunity. we believe it should be passed and signed into law. the chamber of commerce agrees with that. farm workers agree with that. unfortunately it has come to a
fork. have beenblicans stopping those to keep minorities from using their right to act and we will work to restore the voting rights act and protect and facilitate every american be able to cast a vote and have it counted. while republicans try to resend article benefits, we will protect affordable health care for all americans come including every woman's access to the full range of health care choices. while republicans add billions to the deficit with unpaid tax cuts, we will work in a bipartisan way to achieve this goal sustainability and restore certainty with no threats of shutdown and no threats of default. sure social security, medicare and medicaid
and other critical programs will be there for our children and grandchildren when they need it. spent $3 million of taxpayer dollars defending the unconstitutional defense of marriage act, we will work to prohibit employment discrimination. while republicans have worked undermining clean air and water -- future iterations generations, we will support the development and appointment of clean energy and manufacturing technologies. and we will, as we have stood by in the past, we will stand by our veterans and maintain a strong national defense that can meet the challenges we face from terror groups like al qaeda and ofs from iran's pursuit nuclear weapons and destabilizing actions of vladimir putin's russia.
housea deserves a majority that believes in the government that works. not one that believes government can do no good and should simply disappear. we know congress can affect positive change, because it has been done before. over the past four years the house of representatives has essentially created a government that is missing in action. it took 198 democrats and 87 republicans coming together to vote to and the shutdown of the government last october an astounding 144 republicans voted to keep the government of the people of the united states of america shutdown. i know what they thought about it. democrats,e independents, and republicans who are tired of gridlock to come together in a boat five
weeks from tomorrow to end the four-year shutdown of their congress. the shutdown of congress has republicanken by a majority in the house and republican minority in the senate that uses its rules to obstruct them filibuster. years have been proof that elections matter. america stockholders are voters there needs to be new leadership on the board of directors that we call the congress. americans challenges demand a serious majority that will not tell the middle class you're on your own but that reassures them. one that reminds them of the do when itss can takes responsibility and translate the will of the people
into meaningful progress. in young guns now majority leader kevin mccarthy said voters should hold his county apartment -- accountable. he said this, should we regain the american peoples trust, we will insist our feet are held to the fire. if given the opportunity to on our we will deliver commitment. if we don't, i am confident the american people will send us packing. demonstrably, the republicans have not delivered on their commitment. a gallup tracking poll last month, 59% of the american people polled said they group the congress. of thesapproved performance because it is not working for those it represents.
time to send them packing. on november 4, the american people will have an opportunity ,o he mr. mccarthy's advice take the congress back. in order for that to happen, and the majority of the americans who have been silenced in this loudly inmust speak the election. they must speak with a multitude and like the democratic majority in the house of representatives that will permit the house to work its will, to work -- to listen to the american people, to act on their behalf. they must choose a leadership that truly serves the will of the american people and is committed to building opportunity, security and certainty. certainty for our economy, certainty for the middle class, certainty that the people's house will always be on the
people side. thank you very much. >> thank you very much. if you could stay here i will theto moderate based on ground rules that i laid out. use of presidential prerogative and ask one question to set the scene. inry election watcher washington expects democrats to lose house seats this november. why do you think that is? the context of this election is a difficult one historically. the 60 year of the presidential term. people look at this and say the democrats on the downside of history. however, i have been around the country and have been to a 80 districts in which we are having elections. in my view, we have an extremely able group of candidate's.
i think our message is one that the american people support. the irony is in poll after poll after poll, the people respond largely in agreement with the democratic agenda i have laid out. in that case, i think they analyze it as i have argued they should, they will vote to put democrats in charge of the house of representatives. >> yes, sir. identify yourself and media organizations and keep your questions brief. thank you. bruce will take the microphone around. since we have such a large turnout. >> josh turner. you alluded to isis here yet what do you think would be the parameters for possibly calling the congress back? pretty clear about saying we may have to have american boots on
the ground. -- do you think that is a realistic possibility and what is the conflict inside with democrats who say we need authorization, no we don't? is thisnk the fact matter will be considered in the lame duck, whether it will be passed in the lame duck, i don't know. i think it is incumbent upon the -- the congress of the united states to reconsider the authorization of the use of 2002.passed in 20 01 and i do not believe it is either necessary or do i believe it will happen we will come back for the lame duck but my expectation we will start debate on the circumstances that exist today.
i think they are not allowed in the caucus. we have very thoughtful debate. the party was divided. the republican party was divided . i thought that was one of the more thoughtful debates we have had during the course of the past few years in which the house did work its will and it listen to the american people. to that extent it was unlike the balance of the session. i think the party, although , there was no acrimonious debate within the caucus. a thoughtful discussion. i think there is a large majority that believes we need to consider the thoughtfully and appropriately in a timely fashion. you have made the point about jobs that there would be over one million jobs and 1%
additional on the unemployment rate and yet, the message stays in the policy has stayed of which -- rich tax breaks as a way to create jobs. that theat the case message has stuck for rich tax breaks? why are there 50 million fewer in off year than the presidential election? >> you have asked two questions. why is that we passed tax breaks for the wealthiest in america? breaks to not necessarily grow jobs. frankly, we did not do that in 2007 when we were in charge of the congress of the united states. republicans have done that frankly all the time i have been in the congress of the united states. i came in 1981. the results was grammatically --
dramatically when the republicans promised large tax breaks were the best off in america that would result in extraordinary growth in jobs, the stock market went down and in the deepest recession that i have experienced in my lifetime and anyone in this room has experienced in their lifetime. our policy has been and continues to be to have a fair tax policy. need reforms that offer a reasonable and thoughtful bill making the tough choices that have to be made. chairman of the ways and means committee could not get his own bill to the floor. not necessarily just to be passed but to be discussed and committed -- considered. we need tax reform to grow the economy. secondly, in a recent poll, and
a significant percentage of the american public was not sure there was an election on november 4. is electionsuing make a difference. and we need people to come out to the polls. i proposition one of the reasons i'm -- republicans are trying to make it more and more difficult to vote is their premise, if everyone votes, democrats win. american to every set aside a time to come to the polls. in maryland, they can come to the polls for seven days before november 4. the 23rd through the 30th. i would urge them to do so. they want their voice heard in the congress of the united states. they want to make sure the
republican leadership does not refuse to bring to the floor the house of representatives that which clearly mirrors the will of the american people, they need to go to the polls and vote. , the 50thte next year anniversary of the john lewis march across the bridge. he marched simply to register to vote. he was beaten and bloodied as were others in the line of marchers. shortly after he passed the voting rights act. that says you have the opportunity. must seize the opportunity if you're going to make a difference. >> the administration has talked a lot about the need for the war on isis but very little
discussion on cost. what is your take on the likely impact of the long-term battle am and what was that due to the democratic agenda for change of the middle-class? >> i think we have to look at that honestly and think we need to have unlike iraq where the administration projected less than $100 billion in costs and spent over one trillion in cost. pointed outseki there will be a lot more. i think we need very careful hearings and relist it assessment of the cost of doing what the president and the american people think need to be done, and that is prohibiting isis from terrorizing not only its own region proposing a national security threat to ourselves. we need an honest assessment of that.
we have not done that at this point in time. i would hope we would urge and hope we would do it. >> what about the agenda? >> i think growing the economy and the feeding terrorism are not mutually exclusive. i think america can do both and must do both. we need to grow the economy. if they're going to feel confident america will be the country they wanted to be. do both.k we can i think we ought to do both. we are also the strongest. if we have the will and come can accomplish those dual objectives. the back. take one in
then we will move over this way. voicedy feigned with the of america. with americans concerned about terrorism, what role do you in theolicy will play upcoming elections in do you think it could be a game changer asko >> i certainly think foreign policy is more discussed today than it was six months ago . i think the threat of isil and takeover of the crimea illegally by vladimir putin and russia, the threat of ukraine and that the threat of a nuclear armed chaos in the middle foreigne all elevated policy. however, i believe the american people are still focused on the
economy, on their future of them and their families, and i think they have more confidence today than they had six years ago. when president obama took office . but i still think it is a major concern. there is no doubt the foreign policy and threat of isis posed , russia and ukraine and have raisedmed iran the focus. today as you know, the president -- today or tomorrow with the india, andinister of i think they will have significant discussions about india, the largest democracy in and thed can play global picture. it isk the fact that
occurring at this point in time, india has its own concern. it points out the relevance of your question, foreign policies will be a significant concern. my own view is that continuing the lackconcerns, and of effectiveness or willingness of the present majority in the house of ferguson at its from bringing to the floor to consider the agenda -- the will of the american people. billy house, national journal. know you are not conceding anything in terms of the midterms, but the growth areas appear to be swing states he, new york, illinois, california. winningd republicans
those states change the way the conference operates with concern about 2016 and losing sleep? seem toeiner -- boehner be pretty optimistic in his discussion over the weekend. i am not sure those seats would change the very hard line that is in control of the republican party. after all, not only the seeds that control the republican grow,but the call to heritage action, koch brothers and others whose vast contributions of money have a real impact on the republican party, not only the 45 or 50 or 60 hardliners in the republican conference -- after all, had he as iwilling to walk away pointed out on numerous occasions, when he was willing
we passed numerous legislation. he has been unwilling to do that. notwithstanding the fact that the majority of congress -- and congress to not fall within the hardline segment of the group. >> rent for tax notes. this will be a wayne's -- ways and means committee question. one of the challenges your caucus has faced has been focus on tax reform by the chairman to the exclusion of a lot of other policy areas, even within the context of tax. with the new chairman coming in and potential for build outside of tax reform moving, how do you could havecaucus more influence on tax policy in the house? who the newsure chairman is going to be. i quoted alice shrugged. one is right, one is wrong in the middle is evil.
it committees operate that way in the congress acts that way, we will continue to be confronted with give doc. worked in a bipartisan past 7 -- i partisan fashion, which i think you know. various discussions and aspects of the tax code. it was not a bipartisan bill he presented, but from our perspective, and you heard the president say this entered the leader and i say it was that he presented a bill that was an honest bill. what do i mean yeah go he made the trade-offs. however, the speakers response to a real pill making real trade-offs was blocked -- block, block, block. blah.h, blah, to thed they bring floor? a bill that would create almost a trillion dollars in additional
debt. some of them we were for, some of them against. we pointed out you will explode the deficit one more time. so the answer to your question is we need tax reform. i think there is a bipartisan reform we need tax reform. the only way you get it, which is what we did in 1986 is in a bipartisan way where republicans in the congress and democrats and the congress and a republican president, ronald reagan, work together with significant help from others in the reagan administration and achieved tax reform. that is what we have to do, and what i think we will try to do and can't do when immigrants are elect it.
on a side of someone who believes working together is in fact what you need to do. >> some of the lame-duck sessions use to prove free-trade anyements bilaterals -- progress on this front? >> i do not think so. public leadership does not mention it at all. i doubt it will,. up.ome >> media from korea. standpoint, what is the prospect of elections? secure themocrats
majority? >> we have the majority. the question is can we keep the majority? the answer is yes. is a long analysis on the second page of " washington districts. about 13 i believe democrats will hold the majority. there is an interesting race going on in kansas as you know or may know. but i think when you look at the canaces, i think democrats win sufficient number of seats so that we will have over 50 members of the united states senate and will keep the senate in my view. that will say over to site. >> andrea wolf. noticed have -- that both
parties are discussing the women's vote. how do you feel this will affect the election, and how do you view republicans approach to try to capture the women's vote, which has historically gone to democrat? the women'ssure vote has historically gone to republicans. to democrats. the republicans have been capitalizing on that and trying to attract more. i think they're trying to accomplish more. the problem is they have such a record of them -- opposing real issues that matter to women, children, and families. i think all of those issues motivate women and men. women in particular who are very focused on their families, children, and very focused on how women are treated. --ther they get you will pay
get equal pay. millions of women trying to support themselves living on minimum wage. the minimum wage is lower today by about 45% than it was in 1968. the last time we raised the minimum wage is when we took back the house. we need to raise the minimum wage. we need to fight for affordable childcare. so i think that women, when they come out to vote, will look at the records. it is not about talking, you have to act and vote to do that. so i think there is no about bash doubt -- no doubt women's vote in significant majorities for democrats and i would urge them, as i have urged everyone, to come out and express their voice so the issues will in fact be wrought to the floor of the
house of representatives for consideration. right now they are shut out and shut down. >> thank you. >> i am married burger. y burger. i wanted to follow-up on the question of trade and whether you have heard about trade promotion and the lame duck and then import/import bank, what is the strategy for getting long-term reauthorization next year? >> as you know, mr. cantor and i worked for three or four months on do issues that we did in the last congress. we brought the bill to the floor. every democrat voted for it. 93 republicans voted against it. republicans of this congress have refused to bring it to the floor.
talked about certainty in my speech where republicans had one thing they wanted to bring to the congress was certainty. ensling very much opposed to the idea of an import/export bank. it brings money to the treasury. the irony is the part that wants to balance the budget am a a mechanism that manages money for the treasury. are --ictations expectations and i have urged the business community, large, medium, and small, who are affected by their bank that are facilitated in the creation of jobs and selling products by the operation of the import/export democrats and republicans on this issue. my own view is if the bill were brought to the floor another
instance for not bringing to the will of thedes the people's transparency, which is what the speaker and the young guns of the they were going to do. if the bill was brought to the floor, 41% of republicans vote to rip up -- vote to the speaker to say we are for the reauthorization of the export/import bank. it was never brought to the floor. what we now have is an extension to june 30. that gives uncertainty. gives uncertain -- uncertainty to lenders, borrowers, purchasers from across the ocean as to whether or not the assistance will be there in the future. i will work hard to see it reauthorized as soon as possible to give certainty to all of the entities in the near-term. tpa washink
incorporated in your question and i think it is an extension of my response. i do not think right now there consensus in either party to bring that forward. as you know, i have been historically a very strong supporter and continue to be. yes, ma'am. >> hi. i am from the national disability rights network. my question, i know the answer already because they know how you feel, but in reference to the voting of people with disabilities. people of color got that right. they have their ears. people who are in institutions cannot vote. where do you see those people and what are your plans to help with voting rights at home?
>> one thing i mentioned to you is the voting rights act to a -- to facilitate people voting. this democracy is better the more inclusive it is. in more people that speak, other words vote, the better america will be. to the extent we facilitate all people voting, america will be as ar and certainly sponsor of the americans with disability, cosponsor of the amendments act, i believe very strongly that we need to adopt reasonable accommodations in the language of the disabilities act , which facilitates people with disabilities. either access to pull, braille ballots other ways to communicate choices. maintaining the secrecy of the ballot for those with disabilities we need to do.
i will continue to work on that and we need to pass a voting rights act response to shelby adopted ader, which premise that is not true. that somehow things have changed to the extent we no longer need protections that were included in the voting rights act that were passed overwhelmingly in 20's 06 -- 2006 and signed by george bush. >> the announcement you will be speaking and taking part in newsmaker generated the number of questions from outside of the press club from members that are not living in washington, and i would like to just say the crowning achievement of the last democratic congress was obamacare. how do you think it has turned out so far, and what impact will it have on the midterm elections? the affordable care act.
the president points out correctly that it will be republicans will call it obamacare until the time it is widely perceived as working well. the they would call it affordable care act. i think the affordable care act is working. like any large piece of legislation, it is difficult to implement. continues to pose a challenge. however, millions and millions of people now have access to affordable quality health care. millions of people are not shut out because of pre-existing conditions. being a woman is not treated as a pre-existing condition. storage we have seen that indicates premiums are coming down. that competition is up and we now have a marketplace. the irony is it was perceived as somehow a socialist system. these are all private sector providers. all we have created is a market
in which consumers can go and compare. comparative shopping. that is what the free market is all about. i think at worst the affordable care act will be neutral and in my opinion, mostly positive. certainly in years it will be a more positive aspect of american more and more americans will have access to affordable quality health care, which they need, want, in which they seencreasingly the affordable care act as accomplishing. your 33rd year in congress. i wonder if from that perspective he would like to -- i would like to ask another question. this year has featured one government screwup after another. from the be a scandal to the irs go to the irs the intelligence scandals that made the growth of surprise.like a
given all that, how much should -- faith the federal government have? as i have said, we need to restore the faith shaken the unwillingness of the congress of the united dates and republican leadership of the house to consider the issues that the american people feel are important and by pulling them overwhelmingly support. i think if the congress were double wouldtrust be substantially heightened. we have some real challenges. when things do not work came out, the democrat very strongly with reference to the v.a. issues. the altering of statistics in terms of veterans waiting times. all of us were very angry about
that. newpresident has put in a leader who is making very substantial reforms to make it work as well. which means making sure they have access to the health care , whichin a timely basis provides them very good help service, which they agree it provides them. it is getting to it. on irs side i think the hearings held bob up pretty clearly indicate this was not the direction of the administration. at some pointed in time but not timely enough and democrats made it very clear that what happened or what appeared to have happened is unacceptable. no american, whatever their views, whatever their party,
whatever status they find themselves in, politically or otherwise should have their tax of thoselated to any facets, other than what they legitimately owe as taxes. >> i know you feel strongly and confident the democrats will retain control of the senate, but nevertheless, i would like to ask, how would things change for the house democrats if the republicans were to gain control of the senate, and how would things change for president obama if the republicans were to gain control of the senate? well, i think we would see exactly what the american public support poor. more gridlock, confrontation and partisanship. they all indicate they do not want any of that.
so that my urging to the american people would be you let people who are going to work with, cooperate with the president of the united states. that does not mean agree on every issue. we are a separate and coequal branch of the government of the united states. thoughtfulreflect consideration of the president's proposals and proposal to the president. we are, article one branch of government that poses policy. he executive carries out policy. that is the context in which we ought to operate. having said that, i think the american people made it clear they think the obstructionism is largely the responsibility of the american party. thomas mann and norm ornstein, along with the brookings institution, american enterprise institute wrote a book. essentially the theme of the book was there is gridlock on
the confrontation, refusal to compromise, and while they say they have come together to criticize in the past, at this point in time there -- they're only conclusion is the responsibility of the republicans vote in the house and senate come a would have led to the confrontation. refusing to compromise. alice shrugged and ran the said compromising or the middle is evil. if you believe that, if you simply believe it is my way or the highway wore my way or no way, then you look at the gridlock and competition the american people hate. my proposition to the american people in this speech, if you do not like what is going on, a witha party that will work the president in order to create a better economy and more secure country. >> congressman hoyer, i thought
and afghanistan that are cost would be paid by our grandchildren are in. we haven't paid in any meaningful way. >> on the fda. was bipartisan support. that have to be considered with the election in november? >> i doubt we will consider that the deflation. >> do you see the opportunity to eliminate that? that will score the overseas contingency. fix toves us a permanent the reimbursement for medicare payments. certainty, it's the right thing to do. we are supportive of it. i talk to the republican leadership about doing it. i have to go. >> thank you.
minority whip. if you missed any of this, it will be available online shortly. go to c-span.org, and search our video library. for remarks and bill gates and the buller fight -- the ebola fight. i gets underway at 8:00 eastern. you over 100 house, senate, and governors debates from across the country. in oregon. debate debate fridayhe for their second debate in sunriver organ. it is about one hour, and will begin with a look at the political ads running in that state. >> we have tackled some tough challenges. we emerge stronger for it. john kithaber took office, and fought to get
our state back on track. improve taxes, all well closing the budget gap in balancing the books. but we are not done yet. we can create an economy that works for all of us. improve our schools to give everyone a gun in a chance to get ahead. nian chance to get ahead. father taughts him to fight. he returned home to oregon to start a family. succeed in business, and become a bipartisan leader in the organ state house. organs road to better future begins with leaders who have a new vision. dennis richardson for governor. >> my brother-in-law was shot and killed in the town center mall. it was the worst moment of my life. having to tell alex's dad was dead. i'm a gun owner.
the majority of gun owners want back on jackson place. we need to keep the guns out of the hands of folks that shouldn't have them in the first place. this election, i'm supporting john kithaber for governor. >> every town for gun safety action fund's rich bottle to the continent is advertising. ♪ >> for over 70 years, the organ association of broadcasters has been the voice of the broadcast industry in oregon. we advocate for or gone --
s, and organize programs that promote sound broadcast practices to better serve you. and we provide scholarships for broadcast dunes from across the region to attract and retain emerging journalists and talent in our state. today's debate, broadcasting live across the state of oregon between the governor and are presented of data -- dennis richardson is an example in our involvement in the process of educating the citizens of oregon on the important issues facing them each and every day. more than 250 radio and television stations across the state welcome you to today's debate. watch, listen, and you decide. most important like him a vote. here's your moderator, matt mcdonald. >> good morning. merkel to this, the toy 14 --
2014 debate. organalf of the association of broadcasters, i will be serving as your moderator today. i am proud to say we have two candidates with us today. democratic governor john kitzhaber will debate the republican challenger. he was elected an agenda for -- in 1994. his river look and challenger is dennis richardson. he has served in the organ house since 2002. of jacksones parts and justin county. he is a vietnam war veteran. both of these candidates have agreed to a set form for this debate. each candidate will have two minutes for opening remarks. and three minutes apiece for closing. .uestions of been submitted they have been vetted by an oab committee. candidates have one minute for a response.
the candidate who answers first gets a 32nd rebuttal. as moderator, i can ask for 3o second clarifications. at this time, represented of richardson, you have two minutes for your opening remarks. >> hello. i am the republican and independent candidate for oregon governor. i think i should start by telling you a little bit about who i am. i am the sun of a carpenter, a union man who taught me how to work hard and not quit until the job is done. i learned from the example of resident john kennedy when i was young. about the importance and the honor of military service. so when i was old enough, i joined the army. i flew helicopters in vietnam. primarily nighthawk in single ship missions. after returning home, i was lost. and then i met kathy, who helped me find new purpose for my life. happy is here with me today. after 41 years of marriage, we
continue to glow -- or closer. we have one sun and eight daughters, so we know to keep at it and work through hard times. i served on the city council, and was elected in 2002 to become a legislator. was unanimously elected by the democrats and republicans to serve as the speaker pro tem. and then i became the cochair of ways and means. i was able to balance the budget in very difficult times without raising taxes. i'm here today to ask for you to give me the opportunity to serve as organs next governor. this isn't about a republican versus a democrat. it is about the past versus the future. for threeor served terms, three terms of high employment, low school
achievement, and continuing growing distrust in the state government because of the radical abuse of our federal funds and state funds in both the cover organ and columbia river crossing project debacles. oregon deserves a governor who will reboot oregon and restore our economy, our education system and be able to help restore trust and confidence to the oregon people. i will be the governor. >> thank you very much. >> let me thank you oab for sponsoring this debate. my career has revolved around the fact that we all want to be able to meet our basic needs and those of our families and strive to meet our full potential. we want hard work to be rewarded with a better life and we want to leave our kids better off than we were. one is based on the belief that free people are on their own and needed event for themselves. if you make, it and you're
lucky, great. if you don't, you don't make it. the other belief is based on the assumption that we are actually all in this together. if there are things we can actually do as a community and a society and at the state to lift us all up and i'm the -- i believe in a second view. as an er doctor and legislator and governor and father -- iran in 2010 and am running again now. remember the dire straits we were in four years ago. polarized states, hide on -- un employment, divided legislature. i saw an opportunity here but we had to throw away the political playbook, reach across partisan divide and take seriously the problems. that's exactly what we did and we've been doing that together for the last four years. in 2001, we raised that erased that budget deficit. we came into a special depth
session to raise revenue for schools and provide small-business relief and we did that with bipartisan votes. i negotiated a stand down. here we are ahead of us with an open playing field. we tackle tough problems over the last four years. we didn't tear the state apart because we did together -- we did not care the state apart because we did it together. >> thank you. we move onto questions now. i always like to follow the things that are happening in the moment. let me set the stage for this first question. over the past week, the secretary of state has said they will be finding -- a story has -- fining the richardson campaign. a story has come out in one of the media outlets that the kitzhaber campaign is facing some allegations.
the question, and we will begin with you governor, how will be -- will you assure oregonians that your administration will operate in an ethical manner? >> i've got a pretty long political career. i've never had any ethics charged filed against me except during the campaign. in regards to patricia mccaig, we have reported our activities according to the rule and that will all be available on the secretary of state's website on september 30. in this day and age, with the level of media scrutiny that is brought to anyone in public office, we are all pretty transparent. i have a pretty long career of transparency. i'm more than happy to discuss that at any time in any place. >> representative richardson. how will you assure oregonians that you are demonstration will operate in an ethical manner?
>> the secretary of state's office has challenged this because we are living in portland with a friend and he said we didn't say that on the print. they don't charge rent. we're going to comply with that because we want to comply with the law. but what we have seen with the patricia mccaig scandal is outrageous. here is a woman who is working for the governor who was on his staff was giving him counsel and advice about the colonial river crossing bridge project and at the same time she is getting $554,000 from the primary contractor on the project. i think that is criminal. i think it certainly unethical. imagine being an advisor to the governor while you are collecting half $1 million from the contractor who you are supposed to be hiring to build a bridge and we've never done a single shovel full of dirt on
that bridge. >> governor kitzhaber? >> think the reason people attacked patricia is she is effective. when she shows up, things happen. she is also a powerful woman. some people are uncomfortable with powerful women in this day and age. she has been a value add on the crc. a valued friend and consultant over the years. i respect her greatly. we will continue to seek her advice. >> thank you. we move on to our second question. representative richardson, we start with you. >> lawsuits, technical failures. the health care coverage for organ citizens. how will you and the cover oregon debacle and ensure the state does not have similar problems on future i.t. projects? >> thank you for asking this question. cover oregon the case study in fraud, waste and abuse. we wasted $300 million on a website project. the governor is going to say that we have signed up all these people under cover oregon for health care. the truth is, most of them would
have been signed up under medicaid anyway. he will say we provide all this coverage, but in reality, we have got almost 100,000 individuals who now have to be reenrolled by the federal government. that is a waste of our time, effort, and money. we can't let that happen again. the way to avoid it is by being connected. the governor was in butan, learning about -- while we were in session try to figure out how to implement cover oregon. the way you solve these things is to have a governor who will pay attention, be on the job, who will work and shows up. i will be that governor. minute for you, governor kitzhaber. >> i will try to answer the question. our chief information officer has instituted a number of steps to address exactly that one. it's called an i.t. enterprise
governance structure. it assigns responsibly for each i.t. project. the second one is called the stage gate process. each project has to go through a gete gate, it cannot funding until it has clears that step trade. to cover organ specifically, it will deliver a functional website in november. we have only 5% of oregonians who don't have health insurance coverage today because we kept our eye on the ball. that was enrollment. the remaining functions will be moved to a state agency after november to ensure more accountability. >> governor, thank you. representative richardson. >> it's great to keep your eye on the ball. we have to keep our eye on money.
we have wasted $300 million on this project. it's $190 million on the crc project. $72 million on the most recent department of human services baylor. the way you solve this is you have leadership that will pay attention and see that we do not have projects that are just starting and then continue without oversight. >> recreational marijuana recently became legal in washington and colorado. if pot is legalized here in oregon, do you favor allowing individual communities having the right to ban marijuana related businesses? >> i think we need a statewide policy. i don't support the ballot measure. not because i have anything against marijuana. i'm concerned we don't know enough and don't have public safety and law enforcement and
educational framework for to work. we have got colorado and california. it seems to make more sense to wait a couple of years and learn from that experience and put in that kind of framework. it's difficult to do that once the bill is passed. the time to have a thoughtful discussion is before the bill passes. it is my hope that we are afforded the opportunity in the state to get ahead of the curve. it's coming. it's inevitable. we can be better prepared to better serve the people of and interest of those who were concerned about it why taking the time to come up with this is possible framework. >> if pot is legalized here in oregon, do you favor allowing individual communities having the right to ban recreational marijuana business? >> i firmly believe the best government is that which is closest to the people. i see no moving interest by the state to determine whether or not a local community should
have pot or not have thought. -- have pot. i think local control is a rational way to approach it. i agree with the governor that we should delay, if we could , implementing the law in oregon. we can learn from their mistakes and successes. regardless, once the voters speak, i will take a note to support the will of the people and i will assure that happens. a governor takes a oath to honor the constitution and the will of the people. while our governor has chosen not to do that when it comes to capital punishment, when it comes to marijuana enforcement and the implementation of that law, i will see that is done. >> we found some common ground. a rarity in politics. gentlemen, for your
candor. what would you do differently immediately to improve high school graduation rates in our state? please be specific. >> oregon's education system is second to last in the nation and graduation rates. the highest rate of non-attendance. absenteeism. we cannot afford to lose another generation. we can have promises made, but promises are broken. we won't bring in another person to waste another year of the lives of our students. what i will do is first, we need ensure that education is funded first and not last. too often, it's a political football in the budgeting process. the kids are forced to suffer in school district not have the ability to make their plan. we should fund education first. secondly, we should use common sense and not common core. we don't need to have the federal government and bureaucrats telling us what is best for our schools.
we need to have local control wherever possible. we should listen to our teachers, to our parents and to school districts because they know what is best for our students. we need to make sure that we have common sense in our schools and that our teachers are allowed to teach. >> governor kitzhaber. what would you do differently to immediately improve high school graduation rates in our state? >> we have already started over the last four years. this is not going to happen overnight, largely because we have viewed kids as nonexistent till they get to kindergarten. we lose a whole lot before they ever get there. we have a laser focus on outcomes for kids. you are four times more likely to graduate if you are reading at your grade level. we reconnect kids in high school and middle school to colleges and careers and career technical education. we to give them the ability to be pulled through school rather than being pushed through.
those things will make a huge difference. simply funding schools first begs the question of what system you're funding. it is a political trick. it leaves out the ability to ask whether you are actually funding the social services. and wraparound services that kids need to be successful at home and in the classroom. >> thank you. representative richardson, you have 30 seconds to respond. >> what we need to do is focus on the outcomes we have allotted. you can't have more of the same. our students a day mentor and an opportunity, especially with a breakdown in families. we need to look at alternatives. not all of our kids are going to go to college. every student deserves an equal educational opportunity. we can do that if we focus on the needs of all of our students and not just the ones heading to college. >> thank you. we move onto our next question. governor, this is directed to you. in 2015, organs minimum wage will be $9.25 an hour. in your view, should it be higher or the same and why?
>> oregon was the first state to institute a minimum wage in 1913. this has been a core value of oregon for over a century. i do believe the minimum wage should be higher. i don't think it should be $15, but i concede at $11 or so. simply raising the minimum wage by itself doesn't help the problem. there is a benefit clip. -- cliff. your income goes up, and support systems like day care falloff. you move from $9 an hour to $13 an hour, you have less money in your pocket. moving up the minimum wage is very important. the people who request social services to support them. we should support the minimum wage. so that work actually pays. when you get a minimum wage increase, you actually end up with more money in your pocket. make work pay. that will be our objective.
giving people the ability to take care of themselves and their families. >> representative richardson? >> it's important to know that oregon is the second highest in the country and its index with inflation, something the other states don't have. minimum wage is supposed to be an entry wage. we should not be looking at how we are going to be able to raise the minimum wage. but we need are more jobs. family wage paying jobs in our state. that requires us to focus on those barriers that prevent us from having good jobs in oregon. i want for us to expand our gross domestic product. because when there is greater demand for our products and services, that creates more desire for those products and that creates jobs. jobsed to provide more
that will allow people to raise their families and pay their mortgages. >> just growing the economy doesn't help people at the bottom. we have the second fastest growing economy in the nation. most of those jobs are flat out on the bottom. people trapped in the minimum-wage job. with no way up, and no way out. no one can live on a minimum wage. try to take care of a family for $18,000 year. it is impossible to do. if we care about each other and the future, we will pay people in this state a wage that allows them to take care of themselves. and their families. >> i do want to ask a quick clarification on that question. the question was, in 2015, oregon's minimum wage will be $9.05 an hour and you talked about that an entry-level wage. should it be higher or stayed the same? >> the minimum-wage should probably stay with the same program we have now. it is indexed. what we need to do is not focus
on minimum-wage, but focus on wages so people can get beyond the minimum-wage. after three terms, we don't have that. our unemployment has been higher than the national average for 18 years. that is an except above. >> in 2013, the legislature may -- made changes that are currently under judicial review. the potential unfunded liability remains significant. do you think additional reforms are needed and what specific reforms would you make? >> it's one of those issues that keeps coming back. we are waiting to see what the supreme court does with the most recent reform. those reforms, contrary to popular belief, did not solve the first problem. they merely lowered the increase. we to determine what is contractual and what is the decision of the legislature. not everything the legislature
does is part of the employment contract. it will take the supreme court to make that determination for us. theeed to maintain contracted so that our civil servants can live their lives and count on having a funded retirement plan. to do that, we need to solve once and for all what is contractual and what is not make the reforms and honor the contract we have to our retirees and our dedicated public servants. >> governor kitzhaber? >> the answer to the question is no. we need to remember these benefits were earned by these people. they were accepted in lieu of pay increases. because of the market crash and the loss of the fund, the cost of the unfunded liability was taking dollars out of the classroom it. i lead our state into a special session and addressed the issue
fair and responsible way. i think maybe strong case to win the supreme court. i think we have made a big dent in the unfunded liability. we need to raise the minimum wage and ensure we reduce income inequality. we have hard-working public employees. they have done their share and they have taken reductions in the system and now it's time to move on to other issues. >> we talk about the purse crisis. it continues to be a place where -- a plague to our state. what isn't discussed is the problems that came about during john kitzhaber's term in the legislature. creating the problem and now we are left to try to solve it. we shouldn't have had it to begin with. now we are stuck with it. we don't need four more years of excuses and blame. >> what are the fundamental problems with oregon's tax structure?
what would you change? >> the fundamental problem is that it is very narrow and relies on corporate income taxes. i have favored a consumption tax in the past. if you can't add that third leg, what can we do within this tax structure? fix the benefit cliff. pockets. at the top income we know most of our job growth comes from small businesses that are growing lifted rapidly. when they are big enough, they have liquidity in the the state. we need a targeted capital gains tax reduction to keep those resources in the state of oregon. >> representative richardson? >> one of the fundamental
problems with our tax structure is that there is never enough money. with government, you have an addict and the drug of choice is money. when you have a cycle of boom and bust, we always spend everything we've got, and then when we have the inevitable reduction, the recession, there is never enough money and you end up having to lay off teachers and cut school days. when it comes to our tax structure, we have what we have and there is not going to be a change in that until people decide to do that. we can look at other states and see what works and what doesn't work. we can learn from the experiences of those states that have a growing and vibrant economy because they have incentives that attract business and attract growth. right now we have is barriers and a tax structure which has a negative impact on growth. we have high unemployment, low development of innovators and entrepreneurs and inventors in our state. >> governor kitzhaber? >> i'm not sure what his answer
was. i will add because of changes in medicaid, one million people, our care model is growing at much less inflation. we will have cut expenditures by $4 billion. will have eliminated the structural budget deficit we've had. that's a part of tax reform. how you raise it and how you spend it. we are addressing both of those. >> thank you. we will return to the topic of health care. i won't be saying the words "cover oregon." >> maybe in the answers, though. >> how can we reverse the trend and increase the number of
general practitioners in our state? >> we're going to have to change the model, not merely giving more practitioners. we need to turn to our team approach where you have doctors working at the top of their license and nurse practitioners and physicians assistants and those that are willing to make contact. they follow up with chronically ill patients to make sure they are doing their meds and doing blood tests and don't keep showing up in emergency rooms. unless we change the way we do business in medicine, we are not going to change the outcomes we have. we need to have incentives for patients to be consumers. when you are a patient, you go in and it's like going to have a menu at a restaurant and there is no prices. we have to come up with a system also. i have a plan to do this, where
there is an incentive for the patient to ask the question as to why i need to have this mri, why is it $450 here and $12 here and what about prescription drugs? we need to have incentives for the patient to be on the ball with their own care. >> how can we reverse the trend referring to a lack of primary care physicians and increase the number of general practitioners in our state? >> i would agree with the analysis, and we have one million people enrolled. we are using a team approach. we have a position that the top doing what he or she can only do because of their training. nurse practitioners. we are focusing on prevention and that spreads providers
a lot further. this model is not only reducing costs. we can move this to have a game changer for businesses in the state if their health care costs are going through. it frees up massive amounts of money for reinvestment. this is a huge success story. >> just to continue this joint discussion. we need to ensure that the community care model does what it is intended to do. not just how you spend money differently, but actually work with individuals, help them to see the importance of changing their lifestyles. if we can have people lessen their smoking and lessen obesity and lessen their dependence on drugs, we can help them that only have a better life, but also have lower expenses that will help also. >> refreshing to have some
agreement during campaign season. senator ron wyden has sponsored a bill to double the timber harvest on onc land. some groups would say it would allow too much logging. others will say not enough. >> everyone is going to be upset with this bill. i have had a conference car with the center. we are getting a new bill drafted this week. there is a pathway here to allow responsible increase harvest onc lands that still provides a significant convservation. the issues are really -- the certainty that whatever the border right said, you can count on and we can bring some revenue into the counties. this isn't about gutting the endangered species act or rolling back environmental laws.
it's stepping back and asking ourselves, can't we do a better job finding a pathway to get more value off of those specific 2 million acres of land in southwest oregon and manage that in a way that dramatically improves the conservation value. >> representative richardson? this about the bill to double lands.rvest on onc >> i think the bill is flawed because once again it doesn't give the certainty that the timber industry needs. we have lost hundreds of mills, and what do we have to show for it? we need to be able to count on there being certain timber that can be utilized by her mills.
oregon is a true resource-based estate. in our communities, they can't utilize the timber. we need a governor who will be back in washington and will lead a delegation of other western governors and bring our case to the congress and the president and the national media to show that we cannot allow citizens, americans in oregon to be languishing in poverty and depression. we are all americans. we need a governor who will bring this to the people and not settle for just more talk by a senators or representatives. >> we're doing a lot of those things. in eastern oregon, the blue mountain partnership is adding jobs. there are things we can do to find that middle ground that improves the economy, improves the health of the forest, and
keeps people back to work in the woods. we have done that in eastern oregon. we found a creative way to get a timber supply. we are going to make it work. >> should undocumented immigrants have driving privileges in oregon? representative richardson? >> this is a very sensitive question because it affects lives. the decisions that are made really have an impact on families and their ability to attend things, to have transportation. i take it very seriously. i think it's a mistake for us to grant those driving privileges because we can learn from the experiences of other jurisdictions. tennessee had this program and they repealed it because they had busloads of illegal residents coming to tennessee so they could get that government card. in new mexico, the governor has
said if she had the power to repeal the new mexico law, she would repeal it for the same reason. they have a certain number of immigrants in their boundaries that they have issued cards that are much more than the number they have in the state. we need to learn from the experience of others. driving is not a right. it's a privilege. >> thank you. governor kitzhaber? >> absolutely, yes. it reduces the number of uninsured and unlicensed people on the roads. this is part of a much larger commitment to equity in the state. these people are working in oregon, paying taxes in oregon, the backbone of a huge part of the agricultural industry. they're hard workers. they deserve the right to be
able to legally drive to and from work, to and from church, take their kids to school. if this is a nation that believes in equity and opportunity, that we are all created equal and we all have certain rights, surely, the pursuit of happiness must have the ability to drive to work. to me, this is an issue of fundamental equity, and i believe very deeply that we should allow these individuals to be able to drive. >> representative richardson? >> i appreciate the governor's passion. but the declaration of independence was not dealing with illegal immigrants in our state were here breaking the law. it's not an easy issue. ultimately, you have to have certain principles. we enforce the law or we make special exceptions for special people. we have to live with what we have here. we have to make a decision. do we allow people to have
special rights, or do we have a law where we enforce the law for everyone? >> thank you. should oregon employers provide paid sick leave to all workers including part-time employees? why or why not? >> i also believe in a paid sick leave policy. it needs to be a statewide policy. obviously, it has to work for small businesses and it doesn't result other benefits being dropped. if you are a low income worker in this state, you have no margin. if you have to leave to go to the doctor or get sick and you're on minimum wage, $18,000 a year, you get sick, that can devastate them. they can lose their job. will they come to the state welfare system? it's a system that doesn't make any sense.
paid sick leave is a rational human response to how we support people in our labor force, particularly people at the low end, trying to move up. and >> representative richardson? and >> i believe they should. i don't believe it's the government's place to pass a law and punish people with the threat of either confiscation or imprisonment for not keeping a law as determined by the government. i think it's what employers should do. i did that as an employer myself. i think it's an important thing for us to do and it needs to be training and publicity about it, but it crossed the line when we say the government is going to pass a law to threaten people if they don't comply with the way the government thinks something ought to be done.
>> what is the state's role when counties or school districts are unable or unwilling to fund things that are mandated by the state legislature? >> that's a huge problem. one of the reasons i ran for the house -- i talked to the other city councilmembers because we kept getting mandates from the state about what to do with the building department and they would tell us how to be better but it would not give us the money to do it. i think it's a huge mistake for us to allow the government at any level to give mandates and not show how it's going to be funded. i believe the government should be a resource to local and county government and not a dictator. we have room to improve that. >> governor kitzhaber? >> i think there is two parts to
the answer. first is, unable. i do agree that we have to be careful about mandating things on other segments of government that they can't pay for. we need to look at that and continue to look at that. a larger question is when people are unwilling. what we have in parts of southern oregon is a true public safety crisis where a lot of the factories in the state, people are unwilling to raise those rates to fund basic law enforcement. there is no law-enforcement in county anymore. we passed legislation to try to address that. that hasn't happened yet. our observation is send the state police in. at some point, you have to ask, should the rest of the state be supporting the public safety services for county unwilling to pay for it for themselves?
this is not going to affect this county. >> representative richardson? >> the reason that counties are not able to pay the expensive law enforcement goes back to our policy on timber. you have a county with some 60% of its land controlled in timber and they can't cut. they can't develop their economy. they don't have the clusters we have in the northern part of the state. we need to ensure that they have the resources, the income, the revenue, the economy that will allow them to make the payments that are necessary. >> you said it is not an easy topic to tackle and not an easy decision to make. do you feel it's appropriate for the state to send state police? >> we are already doing it.
the short answer is yes. but the state police is underbudgeted and they are stretched. it's not a long-term solution. if you are going to have counties, there are basic services the county has to be able to fund and state police is a short-term answer. >> the next question begins with you. what would a good transportation package contain for the next -- assuming it contains a revenue component? >> in the short term, the most likely revenue would be in some kind of gas tax increase. unfortunately, that's not a long-term solution because the gas tax is bringing in less and less money as people drive less. we need to look at a long-term answer.
we have a way to change the way we finance transportation. we need to figure out a way to figure out how to attract private institutional capital to finance public infrastructure projects. we have something called a west coast infrastructure exchange which is a partnership to do just that. i think the model has done $10 billion of public infrastructure projects through private resources. that is probably the most fruitful avenue because we can't count on the federal government. >> representative richardson? >> infrastructure and transportation is a basic requirement of government. we need a bridge and we have a
100-year-old bridge going across the columbia river. we need to have that be a priority where the legislators and the governors work together to come up with a system that will be able to have a project that will create a bridge and not just ensure that cronies get paid their money and millions of dollars get wasted. we need to focus on statewide transportation improvement packages. every region has their own priorities. they need to have the funding and need to have the ability to have their projects funded as well. how do you do that? it's a combination of focusing on high priorities, not have them get whatever's left, and utilizing debt in a rational way. when you are fixing a bridge, it's a long-term project. you need to be able to fund that sometimes debt.
>> i do think by changing the contracting model, you can bring these institutional dollars in. it's a design build contractor to get the lowest bidder. it gets to a fundamentally different kind of contract. we have a trillion dollar infrastructure hole on the west coast and we are not going to fill it unless we somehow figure out how to create that public-private partnership and bring those dollars. it it's critical in the public sector and the economy. >> and requires tolling. >> thank you both for the additional comments. what ideas would you propose to assist economic recovery in the rural counties of oregon that are well behind in our recovery process? >> it's vitally important that a governor be the ambassador for oregon businesses.
we can just focus on washington county. every area of the state has attributes. he is in his in eastern bergen. -- eastern oregon. we can't just focus on washington county. it's not enough to have merely great products. you have to be able to sell them. a governor should be the ambassador for the aviation industry in eastern oregon. i have organized 10 trade missions to china. i took legislators and businesses had we went there to help consumers in china understand that oregon is in business and we have things they want to buy. as a result, we brought back contracts for over $1 million that have helped companies to expand and develop. what we need to do in rural oregon is not only deal with our natural resources, but also make sure that our products are expanded and sold internationally. >> governor kitzhaber?
>> if you have seen one oregon county, you have seen one oregon county. we have a whole host of regional economies, which is why we set up the regional solutions process. we have roots in every county. we have a four-year institution coming right here as a result of a regional solutions process. the blue mountain timber project on the east side is another example of that. we are producing tangible results right now. we need to remember that the commonality is try to build on the natural resource infrastructure. for example, marrying the department of forestry at osu with the department of
architecture at u of o to utilize these resources. >> if we want to bring new money into our economy, we need to be able to sell their products. out of my office, i will establish a position whose focus will be solely on international trade, developing the relationships we need. oregon is a gateway to the universe -- i mean, gateway to the world. we can sell our products if we have somebody working to do that and has established offices in our various countries where we have greatest opportunities for export. >> i will compliment both of you for staying so well on time. we are at our final question. what are the first three things you will accomplish as governor that will impact the voters on a
personal level? >> first, i will continue to expand the access to quality, affordable health care. we will continue to lean into our early learning delivery system, which will have a huge impact on children and families. third, i will implement the low-carbon fuel standards and diversify our transportation fuel opportunities. we will bring in fossil fuel and create jobs and better economic opportunities for people. >> representative richardson? >> first, i'm going to implement paid quality.
women deserve to be paid the same as men for the same experience. the governor's office pays 79 cents for women for every dollar it pays to men. that is wrong. i will make sure that my office sets an example of equal pay for equal work and equal experience. the folks on education. we cannot continue to have an education system -- our graduation rate is second to last in the country. we are losing a generation of our youth. i will focus not just on getting kids to go to college because you have a 100% of your effort focused on that and 25% of the kids go. we need to make sure we have mentors at technical and professional opportunities for kids. we are using unions and trade sectors to help provide training for those kids that are not going to go to college. we need mentors. every child deserves a mentor
and an education and an opportunity for a future. we are going to restore trust in our state so that the people can trust their state government. >> i do want to give the governor 30 seconds to respond. >> the charge that my office does not provide equal pay for equal work is categorically untrue. it seems to me a little cynical that you would discover equity for women after an 11-year history in the legislature where a few of your votes have suggested that. >> we are going to move on to our closing statements. representative richardson, you will have the first closing statement. >> oregon is a wonderful state.
consider, you and your family -- take yourself back 170 years ago and you wanted an opportunity and you hear about oregon, a place where there is tall timber and deepest soil and lots of land, a place where you can plan your route and provide a legacy for your kids and grandkids. we call these people pioneers. if you were that family and you put everything you had a wagon and you start walking, 2200 miles. you want an opportunity him a legacy of freedom for your family and for generations to come. that is what we inherited. we drink from wells. where are we now? we have high unemployment, we have low achievement in our schools, a distrust in our state and in our government, and what is the answer?
eligibility and qualifications. we have put 300,000 more people on to health care. we want everybody to have good health care, but always seems to be subsidized health care. your doctor can't treat you and give you a break on the price because he would be breaking the law. we don't need the government to try and tell us how we should live our lives. if we want a legacy for our children like we received from our parents and those that came before us, we need to change the way we do business. we need to restore our state and reform our education system so our kids aren't next to last.
we need to restore confidence in state government. i will be a people's governor. i will reinstitute office hours. i will go to every county, every state, every year and have the opportunity for people all over the state to bring their questions to the governor. i want us to have a governor who will help restore confidence and look to the future and not be focused on trying to make defenses for what's gone on in the past. you've had three terms. in baseball, it's three strikes and you're out. >> governor kitzhaber? >> let me start by saying this race is about two things. values and the ability to deliver. values matter, and my opponent and i differ fundamentally about the values that are important to this great state. we differ on the issue of a woman's fundamental right to control her own health choices. we differ on the importance of
embracing oregon's growing diversity. we disagree on the importance of maintaining oregon's environmental natural wonders. our state is a vastly better place than it was four years ago ago. that is due to the fact that we did not allow the great recession to tear us apart. it reflects a change in the tone at the top and reflects leadership that has delivered for oregonians. we have found common solutions to some very difficult issues. we erased our budget deficit and set out to create 25,000 new jobs each year and we have exceeded that goal. we security huge capital investment from some of our major trade sector industries with intel. we created four-year university here in central oregon. we brought two data centers. we have kept timber mills open and we are working together to