originally, it was to operate the manifold on the see that what -- seabed that allowed us to do this static -- excuse me, a dynamic attempt at the top killed. altman we did that by pumping mud and cement into that show client heard before that, we were having to kill the choke line with the q4000. it was never intended to be the primary lifting device. the reason we are using it is, on deck, it has the electrical connections and a computer that run the yellow pdod, which is the control pod that runs the hydraulic lines and vowels and operate the blowout preventer from the surface. we married the yellow pod with the q4000 at the start of the response. because of that, we are excepting some limitations on what they can do compared to what the "discover enterprise," can do. is the response of? >> yes. [unintelligible] do you see that as anything that might affect the response? >> i do not. >> thank you. >> i was wondering if you could talk about what are the odds of you having to open up mentally pull upthe rams to other things are still sticking? once the rams are open, will they be amenable to being open? >> we are optimistic we can remove the blowout preventer without having to open the rams. thusragility of the pipes far. it is broken and does not look like it has a lot of structural integrity left. it has been subjected to a lot of forces, including a dynamic kill. and the best of possible worlds, when we lifted of blowout preventer off, it will come free with the pipe. we plan on a contingency that there would be some adherents between the pipe and casing would allow the pipe to hear ade to it. there were some additional poll, 80,000 pounds. we are prepared to mandalay open the rams and -- manually open the rams and cut the pipe off. >> the next question comes from "the new york times". >> [unintelligible] >> the current bop is attached to the well head with the same connector with whatever you have for a similar drilling well. we do not expect that to be a problem right now. had we continued to try to get the pipe out of there, there was concern that hydrates would block it. if there is an issue, it is probably the issue of the condition of the well head itself. when the deep water horizon exploded and sank, it bent the riser pipe, and that was severed from the well head. it bent over to some extent. when the riser pipe separated from the rig, it popped back up. there was some attempt to get it is close to vertical as we can. the current estimate is two degrees off center line. as we go to pull out the blowout preventer, hydrates are a concern. about 2 degrees off would impact the pull on the bop as you try to free i t. t. we are aware of it. we do not think it will be prohibiting, but it is something we are aware of. two more questions. >> hi, there. two questions. the drill pipe that is hanging beneath the blowout preventer, how integral will that be to forensic evidence, fif any? andh avave manifolds material equipment. what is happening with the other equipment? >> i'm not sure we know the conditions of the pipe. the assumption is that it will be material to the investigation. we will try to retrain that -- retain that if we can. also, we do need to get across blowout preventer removed. we want to make sure that any actions we take our consistency with the guidance of provided by the department of justice on evidentiary guidelines. plus, the fact that we need to get a new blowout preventer on the well so we can finish killing it. there is a manifold that was built specifically for the production of oil and gas and to accommodate the attempt at the tip and static kills. a lot of these devices were built specifically for containment and recovery and production of oil related to this response. there is a lot of discussion going on between the major oil companies and bp regarding future recovery systems to make sure you have the ability to respond to a future incident. everything that has been constructed in conjunction with this response will get a very close look at whether or not there should be considered as prototypes should that type of capability be required again. >> your final question. >> can you talk a little bit about the oil leaking into the environment, directly from pulling up the bop or by any damage caused to the casing, the cement, or anything. you indicated previously that you do not expect that to happen, but you have authorized the peak to be prepared for collection if necessary. -- you have authorized bp to be prepared for collection if necessary. >> we want to make sure we are prepared for all contingencies. one of the reason we are putting undue blowout preventer on is to make sure that we can pressurize the well to the point where we pressurizes the intersection it results in a lifting of the seals at the bop on the top -- if that happens, there should not be any hydrocarbon release into the environment. at that point, the blowout preventer will be open. we will rely on the cement plug. the goal is to secure the annulis as quickly as we can. there will be containment vessels on standby just in case they are needed. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> on c-span at tonight, a change of command ceremony in iraq is next. then israeli and palestinian leaders are arrive at the white house for middle east peace talks. white house economic adviser christina romer discusses economic stimulus. later, live coverage of the california senate election debates between barbara boxer and carly fiorina. >> in baghdad today, the defense department held a ceremony to mark the formal end of operation iraqi freedom. speaking at the ceremony, a vice president joe biden, defense secretary robert gates, and the outgoing commander of u.s. troops in iraq. this is 40 minutes. >> thankk you. >> ladies and gentlemen, the last several years, every time i have been in this old palace, am here, i can't but help think of the irony that we are here today occupying a palace for a noble reason that was once occupied by saddam hussein. secretary gates, admiral mullen, general mattis, general odierno, general austin, ambassador jeffrey, our distinguished and honored iraqi leaders and military, it's an honor to be with you today. it's an honor to be joined by such a distinguished group of americans and iraqi commanders and civilian leaders bound together, i might add -- as a nation, we are now bound together as well by years of shared struggle and significant sacrifice. in the predawn hours of march 20, 2003, columns of coalition troops set off across the desert and marshlands from kuwait en route to baghdad. last week -- after seven-and-a- half years that tested our mettle like no conflict in recent american history -- the last of our combat units followed that same dusty highway out of iraq, on their way home. as president obama declared in the oval office last night, the united states has now ended our combat mission in iraq and iraqi troops are taking lead responsibility for their country's security. we've kept a promise, a promise made to the american people and to the people of iraq, by drawing down our forces to roughly 50,000. and we're on track to remove all of our troops by the end of next year, according to the agreement signed by president bush made with the iraqi government. operation iraqi freedom is over. but american engagement with iraq will continue with the mission that begins today -- operation new dawn. as the name suggests, this ceremony not only marks the change of a command, but the start of a different chapter in the relationship with iraq. our remaining troops -- i might add, as combat ready, if need be, as any in our military -- will advise and assist iraqi forces, support partnered counterterrorism operations and protect our military and civilian personnel, as well as our infrastructure. and we are ramping up our civilian and diplomatic effort to strengthen iraq's sovereignty, stability and self-reliance at the very time we are drawing down combat forces. our goal -- our goal is not just a physically secure iraq, but an economically prosperous and stable one as well. with our iraqi partners, our hope is to be able to enhance the ties of trade and commerce, increase our cultural and educational exchanges, open consulates in basra and erbil -- all to ensure that our engagement spans the breadth and length of this country. our diplomats -- our diplomats will support iraq's efforts to build strong ties with their neighbors and the wider world, while working through the remaining obligations at the united nations. and here in baghdad, those efforts will be led by an outstanding ambassador, jim jeffrey, who may be new to this particular job, but is certainly not new to the region nor this country. his knowledge and commitment run deep. they go back to his earlier service in the bush administration as a deputy national security advisor, as well as at one point the dcm right here in baghdad. and he is backed by an extraordinary team of foreign service professionals and civilian experts, who are moving to the forefront of our effort now. they have always been engaged, but now they're moving to the forefront, people like erin eddy, a former peace corps volunteer in ecuador, who now serves "outside the wire" as a public diplomacy officer on a regional -- provincial reconstruction team in kirkuk. or madeline chikko, who became an american citizen after her family fled iraq three decades ago and has now chosen to return in 2008 to work with the ministry of justice here in iraq on property rights and rule of law. or dave butzer, a 27 year- veteran of the oregon police force, who has since then trained law enforcement officers in kosovo, jordan and yemen, and who now advises the iraqi interior ministry. along with our military and diplomats, and the civilians in iraq -- we have borne -- they have borne the burden of lengthy deployments, like you in the military, missing anniversaries and holidays, births of children and the loss of loved ones. this change of mission, to state the obvious, would never have been possible without the resolve and tremendous sacrifice and competence of our military -- the finest -- if our iraqi friends will forgive us, the finest fighting force in the world and i would argue the finest fighting force that ever has existed. and i don't believe that is hyperbole. and that's a large part, because it has been led by such a significant group of men and women over the last three decade. and i want to thank my friend, secretary gates, for his unique willingness to serve two presidents of different parties with differing views -- a testimony to bob's patriotism, his commitment to service and above all his determination to see this effort through. he deserves your applause. [applause] if you excuse the personal reference, as we used to say in the senate, this is one good man -- one good man. we've also been blessed by the wisdom and steady hand of admiral mike mullen and the leadership of general david petraeus, who i might add is still serving this country in a way that is beyond what we should ask of anyone. i shouldn't joke about this, but i visited him down in florida and -- before he headed off, bob. and he said, "just as i was getting -- finally getting to live like the air force, you're asking me to move." it was a lovely place. and by the way, we owe his wife and his family as well. and also by general jim mattis, who is taking his command. and on his last day of his command, i'd like to especially thank general ray odierno. this man is not only a warrior, but a diplomat in the best american tradition. i want to thank him for his exceptional -- and i'm not exaggerating, his exceptional service for more than four years leading forces here and working closely with iraqi political leaders, many of them sitting here today. and i think they would all acknowledge they have absolute complete faith and trust in this man. general, four years and five months is an extraordinary sacrifice for both you and your family, and i can only imagine -- as a matter of fact, i know how joyous your homecoming is going to be and you richly deserve it. and by the way, you owe linda big -- really, really big. and i would be remiss if i did not in mentioning the sacrifices that the general has made, like many of you, i would be remiss if i did not recognize his son, capt. tony odierno, who made a great sacrifice here in iraq on behalf of his country and was awarded the purple heart and the bronze star with a v for valor. and now he works for the new york yankees, and i imagine you're going to go home and see a couple of games -- i imagine. i'm confident as well that general austin, who has already served valiantly in iraq and beyond, is going to continue this proud legacy. we're extremely fortunate to have you take command, general, and i look forward to working with you. and i know you know many of the iraqi political leaders here and their commanding generals, and it's going to be a seamless transition. our fighting men and women were given a mission in iraq that was as complicated as any in our history, an assignment that proved, as clausewitz taught us, that "war is the realm of uncertainty." troops steeped in military doctrine were asked to deal with challenges ranging from electricity to unemployment, currency exchange to trash collection. a high-speed invasion that toppled a tyrant became a grinding struggle against violent extremists. empty roads became deathtraps. suicide became a devastating weapon, requiring split-second decisions by young american military women and men that could save the life of a comrade or shed the blood of an innocent. and enemies like al qaeda in iraq waged unspeakable violence against iraqi civilians in an attempt to foster hatred in communities that worship the exact same god. thus far, they have failed. the iraqi people, to their great credit, have rejected the ugly face of violence and cast their lot, as well as their ballots, for a better future. and so today, while the threat -- a tragic reality -- of further bloodshed remains, violence has reached the lowest point since 2003, when we arrived here -- shortly after we arrived here. and a great deal of credit goes to iraq's security forces -- more than 650,000 strong, including highly trained special operations forces who are increasingly ready to defend their fellow citizens. in recent months, the iraqi military secured an election, killed or captured most of al qaeda in iraq and most of their leaders and made significant inroads against other terrorist groups. because of their competence, we have over the past year -- and it's been over the past year as the general will tell you and you all know -- been able to transfer thousands of square miles of territory and hundreds of bases to iraqi control. perhaps the most important development of all is that in the aftermath of a second national election, iraqi leaders are sitting down to settle their differences through negotiation and not through violence. another way of putting it -- as my staff always kids me for saying -- politics has broken out in iraq. the fact that no single party or coalition got anywhere near a clear majority would make forming a government, a parliamentary system, difficult under any circumstances. a decade -- after a decade of dictatorship and war, it's an even more daunting task here in iraq. unlike after the last election, however, a caretaker government is providing security and basic services and preventing a dangerous power vacuum from erupting. but that is not a durable solution to the many challenges and significant opportunities iraq faces. the iraqi people voted in large numbers across communities, and if you don't mind -- forgive me for saying so -- they expect a government that reflects the result of the votes they cast. and that's going to require iraqi politicians to place the national interest above their own, a difficult thing in any country, including ours. it is not our place to tell the iraqis who should lead. but i strongly urge them to match the courage that their citizens have shown by bringing this process to a close and forming a government. and i trust they will do so soon. since war is a human endeavor, its contours can never be fully drawn with numbers. but the sheer scope of our commitment to the iraqi people bears some reflection. more than a million american service members have deployed here since the conflict began. and i am awed -- i mean, i am in awe of their accomplishments and their significant sacrifices, including all of you sitting before me today. this is particularly true for more than 30,000 troops wounded in action, and over 4,408 fallen angels who have made the ultimate sacrifice along with members of the international coalition. it's no secret that this war has divided americans, but they have never shrunk -- or either political party has shrunk from a united support for an extraordinary united states military, for extraordinary service of our troops. as president obama said last night, now is the time to put these differences behind us and come together to meet the many challenges that remain and that we face at home. today is also an important acknowledgment -- it's important to acknowledge the magnitude -- the magnitude of the iraqi losses in this conflict. tens of thousands of security forces and innocent civilians have been killed. many times that number have been wounded and displaced. i pray that all those scarred by this war in iraq come to know the balm of lasting peace. and i believe -- i truly believe that their darkest days are now behind them. they have such a great opportunity as they step up to it. after all that iraqis endured, we understand their deeply felt desire to control their own lives, determine their own fate, and maintain their own security. that's why we kept president bush's commitment to withdraw our forces from iraqi cities last summer, why president obama has now kept his promise, made one month after we took office to end our combat mission and draw down to a force of 50,000, and why we will make good on our agreement with the iraqis to remove all our forces by the end of next year. we gather today in a capital that once boasted the planet's greatest assemblage of universities, hospitals, and museums -- a cultural beacon whose centerpiece was a grand intellectual bazaar known literally as the house of wisdom. in modern times, iraq has faced hardships most nations cannot fathom. but it is blessed with vast national bounty, natural resources. and the wisdom of the ages lives on in the people here in iraq -- educated, adaptive, and above all resilient people. this inevitable store of human talent and natural wealth are the tools that can now forge a secure and prosperous future for the people of iraq. and god-willing, you're on the path to fulfill that promise again. we're proud to be your partner. thank you all. may god bless you all, and may god protect our troops. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> ladies and gentlemen, we will now begin the change of command ceremony. the united states forces iraq was activated on january 1, 2010, by consolidating six headquarters under a single flag to serve as all of the forces serving in operation iraqi freedom. those forces were -- a task force 134 detainee operations, a joint area support group central, and the iraqi assistance group. the insignia is the same for that approved for multinational force iraq. the star represents a vision of unity among the people of iraq. the cross, the partnership between the u.s. and iraqi security forces. the palm fronds represent the peace. major suborning commands include u.s. division north and south, u.s. division central and 103rd expeditionary sustainment command. from the earlier times, warriors have viewed a banner -- used a banner as a rallying point for its soldiers. but units colors it is a time honored tradition and signifies the transfer of command from the outgoing commander to the incoming commander. the history and traditions and accomplishments of the unit are embodied in its colors. the zero commanders may come and go, the unit's colors remain -- the zero commanders may come and go, the unit's colors remain steadfast. at this time, we would like to invite the vice-president and the secretary to witness the passing of the colors. >> with this change of command, comes a change of responsibility. the colors will be passed to the acting command sgt. the command sergeant major is the custodian of the colors and represents all the men and women within the unit. he passes the colors to the outgoing commander. the outgoing commander passes the colors to the presiding officer, relinquishing command of the unit. the presiding officer passes the colors to the incoming commander, charging him with the responsibilities of command. the new commander then passes the colors to the new command sergeant major entrusting him with the care and protection of the unit and its legacy. by authority of the president and the congress of the united states of america, the undersigned assumes command of the united states forces in iraq effective september 1, 2010. >> ladies and gentlemen, it is my pleasure to introduce the secretary of defense, robert gates. >> it is clear the vice president is taller than i am. [laughter] o speakers.next twe distinguished guests, i am honored to be part of this occasion, where we transfer command responsibility from one outstanding leader to another. and reflect on what the men and women of u.s. forces in iraq have achieved under the general's leadership. ray odierno was uniquely qualified to lead our operations in iraq. he leaves as one of the few u.s. army generals in history to command a division, of course, an entire theater in the same conflict. after commanding the fourth infantry division in the area around saddam hussein's hometwown, the general would later take charge of the multinational corps during the darkest days of the war. as the operational architect of the search with the david petraeus, he helped implement the strategy that led to the dramatic decrease in violence of the past three years. as any student of military history knows, any strategy is only as effective as its execution. and without ray and his troops, ability to turn it plans into results on the ground, we would be facing a grim situation outside these walls today and, more broadly, a strategic disaster for the united states. the general was on his way to a well deserved post as the vice chief of staff of the army. but darfur called on him once more to return to iraq in the fall of 2008 after only seven months at home. it fell to the general and the men and women of this command to build on the gains of the search, keeping the good on the neck of al qaeda in iraq while expanding the capacity of the army and police. he did this while overseeing a significant drawdown and repositioning of u.s. forces. arguably one of the biggest and most complex logistical operations in the history of warfare. the dedication of the general, the sacrifices of the troops under his command, and the efforts of art into agency and partners made it possible to be where we are today. with a dramatically reduced troop presence and a new mission as the president and vice- president have described. there is one more group of people to whom credit and honor must be given. and that is linda and the rest of the family. they have seen their husband and father deployed for more than three of the last four years, and for some 55 months since the iraq war began. they have borne the burden and paid the price for this war in so many ways, and they have done so with race and resilience. the best embodiment of all the army families do for our country. i know there will be happy to have him back in the u.s. for his next assignment, leading u.s. joint forces command. there, as you know, he faces a difficult and delicate task and a dangerous one as well, at least in a political sense. he is the right leader for that job, and our country will be meeting, i am confident, his talents and his experience in uniform even be on the. that. as america was fortunate to have him there two years ago, we are fortunate to have lloyd austin ready to take the baton from him today. whether leading troops at every level of command or as director of the joint staff, lloyd austin has always led by example, asking nothing of his troops he would not do himself. he has the unique distinction of being awarded the silver star for valor as a general officer, leading from the front during the third infantry division's march to baghdad more than seven years ago. i would like to thank his wife, charlene, his son, shane, and the rest of the family for their sacrifices and support then and now. i note he will use his extraordinary talent and experience it to build on the success that has been achieved in iraq, successor bought with the blood and sweat of all observed here. which brings me to a final word to the men and women of u.s. forces in iraq. even as the weight of our military efforts and public attention has shifted to afghanistan, you should know you work here going for it is critical to the future of this part of the world and to the national security of the united states. you have the gratitude and respect of all americans for your service and your sacrifice and for the service and sacrifice of your families. thank you. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, it is my pleasure to introduce the outgoing commander of united states forces in iraq, general ray odierno. [applause] >> thank you. distinguished guests, mr. vice president, secretary gates, admiral mullin, command sergeant major coleman, to my iraqi friends, the deputy prime minister, when the prime minister, the minister of defense, the minister of interior and all the wonderful general officers of the iraqi army and air force, thank you so much for coming today. you are the future of iraq and we think the future of iraq is very great. i would also take a minute to thank all of those who spend so much time and effort in putting this ceremony together to make it special for both me and a general austin. i truly appreciate that. i appreciate the band of color guard, but all the people behind the scenes that we do not ever properly recognized for what you do to make this a very special event. so thank you very much. usually, when you're in a change of command, you take time to thank those who supported you, your name a lot of people, but i have been here 40 out of the last 47 months. and i have been here through 24 different u.s. multinational divisions, 211 brigades, over 140 flag officers, so if i tried to thank them, we would be here for a long time. to save you, i decided not to do that today. i would start out by saying it is important to take a step back, to put into perspective where we are today. i believe that it is absolutely remarkable how much the united states and our coalition partners at the time, but most importantly the iraqi people, what they have accomplished. this period in history will probably remembered for sacrifice, resiliency, and it changed. however, i remember it is a time in which the iraqi people stood up against tyranny, terrorism, and extremism and decided to determine their own destiny as a people and as a democratic state. in my time in iraq, i participated in many inspiring milestones. the toppling of'dom saddam's regime, his catcher, the planning and execution of the surge, the recognition of iraqi sovereignty through the implementation of the bilateral agreements, the iraqi security forces taking a lead of security within the cities on the first of july, 2009, the transition and consolidation of multinational force iraq into a single unified command. , the national parliamentary elections on march 7, and which 11.5 million iraqis, both young and old, from north to south, east to west, freely exercise the most basic right of democracy. i have witnessed the continued improvement of iraqi security forces and their capabilities, which resulted in a drawdown of our forces, which feature the withdrawal of just over 100,000 personnel, over 40,000 vehicles, and nearly 2 million pieces of equipment, all without incident. that defines a certain level of security. and now today marks the end of operation iraqi freedom and the beginning of operation you done, new dawn. in every case that i just mentioned, there were many that doubted the ability that we would ever accomplish what we set out to do. however, no matter the circumstances, i never for a moment lost faith in the adaptability, courage, and mental toughness of our service members and civilians to get the job done. if there is one lesson i have taken from our involvement here is the sheer magnitude of what we are capable of when we trust in ourselves, remain focused in our commitment, and work side by side with our partners and our civil military team. even today, there are those who doubt that the iraqi security forces are ready to take full responsibility for security. i stand before you today and say they are ready to do that task. to each and every trouper of u.s. forces iraq, previous of multinational forces in iraq, you made these accomplishments possible for your tireless efforts, sacrifice, and partnership with the iraqi security forces, our coalition partners, and the interim agency. we stood together through difficult times. we fought together. we laughed together and sometimes cried together. we stood side by side and shed blood together. but it was for the shared ideals of freedom, liberty, and justice. a degree of normalcy that was previously hijacked by a dictator and by al qaeda and other extremists, has been reclaimed and returned to its rightful owners, the iraqi people. because of your tremendous efforts, justice has replaced chaos, accord has replaced strife, and hope has replaced despair. today, as a new dawn and our relationship with the government of iraq begins. we can no longer rely on our past accomplishments but must remain focused on the opportunity at hand. iraq has always played a vital role in this uncertain part of the globe, a strong democratic iraq that is in during an equal partner of the united states show -- can become an engine for peace and stability in the middle east. at the end of our military mission, united states forces in iraq must maintain strategic patients and continue to do all we can to develop their capacity and build meaningful capacities. today marks the transition to operation new dawn and the end of combat operations for american forces, but in no way signals our commitment tthe end commitment to the people of iraq and marks the beginning of -- building a strategic partnership that will bring american technology, education, and commercial expertise to bear, so the people can unleash the countries great potential. we will maintain our military presence to the end of 2011, to continue training iraqi security forces and provide the physical and psychological support necessary for the government to move forward towards insuring stability and prosperity. we stand at a pivotal point in iraq today, as iraqis establish the foundations of representative government in accordance with the constitution and continue to build economic, diplomatic, and security depth. a peaceful transition of power is the strongest possible response to al qaeda and other terrorist organizations. by it -- by voting for peace and stability, the people have sent a clear message to their leadership, and i urge all political blocs to respond by forming a government that is representative of their will. it is time for iraq to move forward. through decades of abuse and uncertainty, the iraqi people have continued to demonstrate tremendous resiliency. i know they are determined to make iraq something very different from what it once was. something their children and grandchildren can be proud of and is something their s offathers, inheritorsr o hammurabi, could recognize as matching the greatness of their past. when i return to the states, many well as, was it worth it? what was it all for? to which i will respond with the words of general george see marshall -- we must present democracy as a force wholly within itself, the seeds of a limited progress by the human race. and by our actions we should make it clear that such a democracy is a means to a better way of life, together with building a better understanding among nations. we have sacrificed our nation's most precious resource, our sons and daughters, to give the people the opportunity for a better future. all of you who have served here, civilians and military, should be proud of your contribution. we will never forget the 4 163 americans and the tens of thousands of iraqis who have died for the country or the thousands wounded whose lives who have been changed forever but will always continue to inspire us. we will complete our mission with bader and success as a tribute to their self -- with honr and success as a tribute to them. i remain confident that general lloyd austin will carry on the legacy of positive change. he is a proven combat leader of the highest order. he has worked closely with security forces and senior u.s., coalition, and iraqi the leadership. his reputation of professionalism and dedication precedes him. u.s. forces in iraq is in great hands at this important juncture. there is simply no one more qualified. i wish to nothing but the best of luck. to my iraqi partners, i have been proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with you and am honored to have served with the iraqi people. we have shouldered the burden of washington are together that build a bond that cannot be broken. -- were shouldered the burden of war together that builds upon that cannot be broken. you all have burned my utmost respect. to ambassador jeffrey and all the dedicated foreign service officers of the u.s. embassy and many other u.s. government agencies committed to our mission in iraq, thank you for your professionalism, the sacrifice, and partnership. to the soldiers, sailors, marines, coast guard men and civilians, you are the finest fighting force in the world today. your commitment to success never wavered. when we ask you to sacrifice, yourself was cured when conditions became difficult, you gave more. when a change was required, you embraced it. you represent the best of what america has to offer and to inspire me every single day. it has been an honor to serve review and humbling to lead you. to my family, my wife, linda, michael, katie, my son-in- law, my daughter-in-law, your selflessness, sacrifice and support have kept me going. i will never be able to repay you for your sacrifices and thank you for your unconditional love and support. to all our families, you are a true american heroes who selfless sacrifice for your country. we are all deeply indebted to you. and finally, to my iraqi friends, i am honored to have known you and proud to call you my friends. i will miss you and i will miss iraq. iraq will always be part of me, but for now, my journey is home. may god bless all of you, may god bless america and may god bless the new iraq. >> search the term "mideast peace"on the c-span video library and you will get more than 8000 transcripts, including an early interview of mike wallace early on, all the way up to this week's white house middle east peace talks, all free online. it is washington and the world your way. the c-span networks. we provide coverage of politics, public affairs, a nonfiction books, and american history. it is available to you on television, radio, online, and our social media. find our content any time through c-span's video library. we take c-span on the road with our digital box of local content vehicle, burning resources to your community. it is washington your way, the c-span network. created by cable, provided as a public service. >> good afternoon, everybody. upon taking office, i declared that america is the friend of each nation and every person who seeks a future of peace and dignity and that the united states was ready to lead in pursuit of that future. at the beginning of my administration, i stated it was our policy to actively and aggressively seek a lasting peace between israel and the palestinians. as well as a comprehensive peace between israel and all its arab neighbors. for support, and my outstanding secretary of state -- by appointed senator george mitchell to guide our efforts. i have said many times our goal is a two-state solution that ends the conflict and insures the rights and security of both israelis and palestinians. despite the challenges, we have never wavered in pursuit of this goal. i have met with israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu and palestinian authority president abbas on numerous occasions. between them, secretary clinton and senator mitchell have made countless trips to the region. over the past year, both the israeli government and the palestinian authority have taken important steps to build confidence. with senator mitchell's support, the israelis and palestinians have engaged in several rounds of proximity talks, even in the face of difficult circumstances. we have made it clear that the only path to lasting peace between israelis and palestinians is direct talks between israelis and palestinians. tomorrow, after nearly two years, the parties will we- launch those direct talks. today, i had a series of productive meetings with key partners in this effort. i urged prime minister benjamin netanyahu and prime minister abbas -- president abbas to recognize this is an opportunity. i think president mubarak and his majesty, the king of jordan, for their support. i look forward to hosting these leaders at a private working dinner at the white house tonight. i want to take this opportunity to express our gratitude to many friends and allies, especially our quartet partners and former british prime minister tony blair will be joining us as representing the quartet after dinner this evening. the purpose of these talks is clear. these will be direct negotiations between israelis and palestinians. these negotiations are intended to resolve all final status issues. the goal is a settlement negotiated between the parties that ends the occupation which began in 1967 and results in the emergence of an independent, democratic, and viable palestinian state, living side by side in peace and security with the jewish state of israel and its other neighbors. that is the vision we are pursuing. now, i know these talks have been greeted in some quarters with skepticism. we are under no illusions. passions run deep. each side has legitimate and in during interests. years of mistrust will not disappear overnight. building confidence will require painstaking diplomacy and trust by the parties. after all, there is a reason that the two-state solution has eluded previous generations. this is a complex situation and it is difficult. we know that the status quo is unsustainable, for israelis, for palestinians, for the region, and for the world. it is in the national interests of all involved, including the united states, that this conflict be brought to a peaceful conclusion. so, even as we are clear-eyed about the challenges ahead, so, too, do we see the foundation for progress. the israeli government and the palestinian authority are cooperating on a daily basis to increase security and reduce the violence, to build institutions and improve conditions on the ground. among the israeli and palestinian public, there is wide support for 82-state solution. the broad outlines of which are well known to both peoples. even in the midst of discord, ordinary israelis and palestinians, leaders, civil society groups, doctors, scientists, businessmen, students find ways to work together every day. their heroic efforts at the grassroots shows the cooperation and progress is possible and should inspire us all. in addition, prime minister benjamin netanyahu and president abbas are to grow leaders who believe want peace. these negotiations should be completed within one year. this moment of opportunity may not soon come again. they cannot afford to let it slip away. now is the time for leaders of courage and vision to deliver the piece that their people deserve. -- the peace there people deserve. the united states will put our full weight behind this effort. we will be an active and sustained participant. we will support those who make difficult choices in pursuit of peace. but let me be very clear. alternately, the united states cannot impose a solution and we cannot wanted more than the parties themselves there are enormous risks involved here for all the parties concerned, but we cannot do it for them. we can create the environment and the atmosphere for negotiations, but ultimately, it will require the leadership on both the palestinian and israeli sides as well as those in the region who say they want a palestinian state. a lot of times i hear from those who insist this is a top priority, and yet, do very little to actually support efforts that could bring about a palestinian state. so, only israeli and palestinians can make the difficult choices and build a consensus for progress toward only israelis and palestinians can prove to each other their readiness to end this conflict and make the compromises on which lasting peace is preserved. what the rest of us can do is to support those talks and efforts, the hard work is only beginning. this much we know -- if we do not make the attempt, and the failure is guaranteed. if both sides do not commit to these talks in earnest, than the longstanding conflict will only continue to fester and consume another generation, and this was simply cannot allow. we know that there will be moments to test our resolve. we know that extremists and enemies of peace will do everything in their power to destroy this effort. as a sock in the heinous attacks near -- as we saw in the heinous attacks near hebron, which we condemned. despite what the senate say, history teaches us that there is a different path. critique the cynics -- despite what the cynics say, history teaches us that there is a different path, troubled by those who brought peace to their countries from northern ireland, where senator mitchell was so deeply involved, to the balkans, to africa, asia, to those who forged peace between israel and egypt and israel and jordan. this path is open to israelis and palestinians it all sides persevered in good faith with a sense of purpose and possibility. we can build a just, lasting, and comprehensive peace in the middle east. they give very much. -- bank you very much. -- thank you very much. >> formal middle east peace talks begin tomorrow with a dissipation from israelis, palestinians, jordanians, and egyptian leaders. hillary clinton will host a ceremony to open the talks. we will have live coverage from the state department beginning at 10:00 a.m. eastern time on c- span. coming up next on c-span, white house economic adviser christina romer discusses economic stimulus. then live coverage of the california senate's election debate between barbara boxer and carly fiorina. and later, the hearing of today's financial crisis inquiry commission. >> white house economic adviser christina rummer defended stimulus spending and urged congress to approve additional economic stimulus. her remarks came at the national press club in washington. mr. roemer has resigned as chairman of the council's of economic adviser but this friday as her last day on the job. this is an hour. because i am stepping down from the council of economic that pfizer's at the end of this week, today's talk is a sentimental one for me. i brought my own audience with me. many of the members of the council of economic and visors are here with me and my husband is here with a date. as allen has described, i brought three special friends to the head table, to colleagues -- two colleagues, a great friend and a great economist. the first recession that i really remember is that in 1981-1982. i began graduate school just as the economy peaked. over the next year and a half, output plummeted and unemployment rose dramatically. that recession was personal. my father lost his job at a chemical plant in the spring of 1983, shortly after the trough of the recession. i vividly remember the phone call where he told be that he had been sacked. he was careful to say i should not worry about my wedding, scheduled for that summer. there was money put aside for that. just before the wedding, my mother learned that her teaching job was also uncertain for the next year. david and i nevertheless got married as planned, and the wedding was all the more special because my mother and who turns sisters did much of it themselves. -- her two sisters did much of that themselves. i remember the relief when i returned from my home it -- from my honeymoon to hear that my mother school district at down the money to continue her position. my father found a less well paying but very stable job. by christmas our family's economic health was almost fully recovered. 1981-1982 was a terrible recession, but it was a recession that economists understood. like many other postwar recessions, it was started by the difficult decision by monetary policy makers to raise interest rates to bring inflation down. the suffering of ordinary families like my own was very real and costly, but once inflation had been reduced and the federal reserve lowered interest rates, construction spending, purchases of durable goods, and business investment came surging back. unemployment which peaked at 10.8% at the end of 1982, fell to 8% by early 1984. the current recession has been fundamentally different from other postwar recessions. this is not my father's recession. rather than being caused by deliberate monetary policy actions, it began with interest rates at low levels. it is a recession born of regulatory failures and unsound practices that contributed to a housing bubble and a vigil in a full-fledged financial crisis. -- and eventually a full-fledged financial crisis. we had been in largely uncharted territory. an all-out financial meltdown in the world's largest economy and the center of the world's financial system is something that the world has experienced only once in the past century, in the 1930's. thus the president took office in the midst of a recession of historic proportions, but for which history provided little guidance. this afternoon i want to talk about the tremendous economic challenges the country faced in january 2009 and the challenges we continue to face. i want to discuss what i think we have learned over of past 20 months about the causes of our economic difficulties, what we have accomplished through extraordinary policy actions, and the tremendous work remains before the economy is fully recovered. according to the national bureau of economic research, the recession began in december 2007. it is now clear that the popping of the housing bubble had serious consequences. the dramatic decline in house prices and the related drop in stock prices destroyed $13 trillion of wealth in 2008. not surprisingly, befallen house prices and the decline in wealth reduced consumer spending and investment, particularly in residential construction. even before the collapse of lehman brothers in september 2008, the u.s. economy had lost over 1.5 million jobs and gdp had fallen by more than the average in the previous two recessions. but we know that the worst was yet to come. as the decline in house prices accelerated, fears about the solvency of firms holding mortgage-backed securities set off but genuine financial panic. the collapse of lehman sent credit spreads skyrocketing and credit availability plummeting. at the federal reserve not responded as rapidly and creatively as it did, the crisis would against catastrophic. as it was, it was as severe as anything we have experienced since the great depression. though it was clear that the strain on a financial markets were intense, what was not clear the time was how quickly and strongly the financial crisis would affect the economy. precisely because such severe financial shocks have been rare, there were no reliable estimates of the likely impact. to this day economists do not fully understand why firms cut production as much as they did, or why they cut labor so much more than they normally would, given the decline in output. our firms so dependent on short- term finance that a temporary freezing of credit flows forces them to scale back immediately? or did the fear engendered by a wholly unknown type of recession lead firms to hunker down in a way they had not previously? these are questions that economists should and surely will be investigating over the coming years. but in any event almost all analysts were surprised by the violent reactions. the other thing that few anticipated was the degree to which the recession would be worldwide. i can remember early discussions with the economic team about whether economic stability in the rest of the world might help shore up our economy. previous financial crises in sweden, japan, and east asia had largely localized effects. it was only after the data for fourth quarter gdp for countries such as japan, korea, and the united kingdom started being reported in late january and february of 2009, that it was clear almost every other economy was also declining, in many cases at a more rapid pace than we were. despite the fact we were in uncharted territory, the new economics team back in december 2008 was painfully aware that the economy was facing a terrible downturn and that we're fast approaching the edge of a cliff. at a meeting we had with the president-elect in chicago in mid-december, i began by saying, "the economy is very weak and deteriorating fast." the weekend before the meeting, the team had sent a memo to rahm emanuel echoing that sentiment and laying the groundwork for a larger stimulus package. whereas most analysts and congressional policymakers had been contemplating a stimulus of $500 billion or less, we urged that it grow substantially because of the severity of the downturn. justice of recession was unprecedented in postwar american history, so was the policy response. the american recovery and reinvestment act was passed less than a month after the operation. the legislation was large, well diversified, temporary, and fast acting. now many would like to see the more iconic bill, a moon shot that concentrated spending on a single activity such as building a nationwide smart electrical grid, or a comprehensive high- speed rail network. but, as happened with many decisions, pragmatism won out. we agreed that many of the things that would improve the economy fastest were unglamorous measures such as state fiscal relief and tax cuts for working families. because the final bill was a mixture of hundreds of measures, many of which do not come with recovery act signs or easily identifiable links to the act, it has been hard for people to see what the act has done. but it is precisely because it works through existing programs and spreads funds widely that it could get out quickly and -- get it out quickly and reap large benefits. despite its pragmatism, the recovery act reflects many of the president's top priorities for 4-looking investment. it invests more than $90 billion in clean energy, and so provides a down payment on the transition toward renewable energy and greater efficiency. he aid to state and local governments struggling with terrible budget vote -- terrible budget difficulties is focused on health and education, and the education funds include incentives that are encouraging greater accountability and widespread quality improvements. and the middle class families who got the short end of this state for the past decade are getting tax cuts, unemployment relief, and support that have helped keep food on the table and the mortgage paid as the economy slowly recovers. now our policies financial stability is in -- our policies from our policies for financial stabilization were similarly pragmatic. one of the person the president- elect did was work behind the scenes to ensure that congress did not block the second release of the second charge of t.a.r.p. funds. by december 2008, tar was keeping financial institutions from collapsing. these unprecedented pragmatic policy actions have made an enormous difference. on of financial side, the stress test reassured investors and set off a wave of private capital raising that was exactly what the system needed. credit spreads, an indicator of perceived risk, have returned almost to pre-crisis levels. and while credit remains tight for consumers and small businesses, lending standards have stopped tightening and are gradually starting to loosen. large firms are able to borrow a favorable rates and get the credit that they need for investment and day-to-day operations. the financial industry has paid back the u.s. taxpayer at a rate few thought possible. for the real economy, the turnaround has been dramatic. real gdp went from falling at an annual rate of nearly 6% cut the end of 2008 and the beginning of 2009 to growing steadily over the past four quarters. likewise employment went from falling at a rate of 700,000 jobs per month to growing at the end -- at the beginning of 2010. these swings from horrifying negatives to positives are a testament to the speed and effectiveness of the policy response. but compared to the problems we face, the turnaround has been insufficient. the unemployment rate has come down 0.6%, it is still 9.5%, an unacceptable level by any metric. real gdp is growing, but not fast enough to create the hundreds of thousands of jobs each month that we need to return employment to its pre- crisis level. it is clear that the recovery act has played a large role in the turnaround in gdp and employment. in a report that jared bernstein and i issued during the transition, we estimate that but bridget we estimated that by the end of 2010, a stimulus package like the recovery act would raise real gdp by about 3.5% and employment by about 3.5 million jobs, relative to what otherwise would of occurred. as the council of economic advisers has documented in a series of reports to congress, there is widespread agreement that the act is broadly on track to meet those milestones. the nonpartisan congressional budget office, cea's own estimates, and estimates for range of respected private sector analysis suggests that the act has already raised employment by approximately 3 million jobs relative to what it what it already been. what the act has not done is prevent unemployment from going above 8%, something else that jared and i projected it would do. the reason that that prediction was so far off is implicit in much of what i have just been saying this afternoon. an estimate of what the economy will look like if the policies adopted contains two components, forecast of what would happen in the absence of the policy and an estimate of the effect of the policy. as i've described, our estimates of the impact of the recovery act have proven to be quite accurate. but we like virtually every other forecaster failed to anticipate just how violent the recession would be in the absence of policy and the degree to which the usual relationship between gdp and unemployment would break down. the report was very clear that there was a great deal of uncertainty about the no policy baseline, and noted that some private forecasters anticipated unemployment as high as 11% in the absence of action. yet that chart we presented did not show the uncertainty, and so allowed critics to take it out of context, and falsely claim that the spike in unemployment early in 2009 is somehow evidence that the recovery act did not work. if i were doing it again, i would not focus on the policy in the no-policy projections. instead, what i would in this size would be the important part of the analysis, the estimated impact of the recovery act, a part that has been broadly accepted and corroborated. but i certainly do not regret having done the study. during the transition, that little paper helped to build the case both internally and externally for a stimulus of unprecedented proportions. only in retrospect does saying that our best guess was that the unemployment rate would raise to 9.5% without aggressive action look rosy. at the time, it was scary as hell. it helped convince our team and congress to go for as big a program as possible. and laying down a firm marker that the legislation had to save for create 3.5 million jobs helped prevent the package from shrinking greatly during congressional negotiations. i will never regret trying to put analysis and quantitative estimates behind our policy recommendations. macroeconomics policymaking is incredibly hard. if policymakers, scholars, and private analysts cannot discuss ice use project design issues, impact estimates, and baseline forecasts, i cannot imagine how we will ever manage to get policy closely -- remotely close to right. we need more numbers, more policy papers, more competing analyses, not fewer. the thing that i do regret is that there is still so much unfinished business. how would give anything if the unemployment rate really were down to 8% or lower. the american people are suffering terribly. policymakers deed to find the will to take the steps needed to finish the job and return the american economy to full health, and no one should be blocking essential actions for partisan reasons. that the economy remains as troubled as it is despite aggressive action reflects the fact that this is not been a normal recession. just as the downturn was uncharted territory, so is its recovery. because the recession began with interest rates at low levels, we cannot just have interest rates fall and housing and other interest-sensitive sectors come roaring back as they typically do in recoveries. because of overbuilding in housing and commercial real estate during the bubble, construction is likely to remain subdued for some time. indeed, the economy faces numerous headwinds not normally present in recoveries. in addition to the oversupply of housing, households have been through a searing crisis that is likely to make them more prudent for years to come, and much the same way that the great depression gave rise to a generation of high savers and cautious investors. likewise, the decline in wealth is likely to lead to increased saving to replenish retirement accounts and pay off debt. saving and prudence are healthy for the economy in the long run, but that -- but in the near term they mean that consumer spending will likely be less robust than double. before the crisis. state and local governments have been hit particularly hard by this recession. their tax revenues are notoriously cyclically sensitive and the decline in house price has further impacted property tax revenue. state and local budget-cutting reduced gdp growth of the past year and it is likely to continue to be a drag on gdp going forward. and while the private sector has added jobs every month so far this year, state and local governments have reduced employment by 169,000 since last december. the administration understood that the recovery would be difficult precisely because of the usual drivers -- because many of the usual drivers of growth were missing. that is why i included $266 billion of additional temporary recovery measures in our 2011 budget. congress's second some important steps, including extending unemployment insurance, allocating funds to prevent teacher layoffs, and passing the tax credit to encourage firms to hire unemployed workers. it is enacted substantially less than what the administration proposed. as a result of the economy has not had all the additional support that it needed. early in the spring, there was hope that new drivers of growth, particularly investment and exports, but substantially compensate for some of the headwinds. business investment in equipment and software rose at an annual rate of more than 20% in the first two quarters of 2010 and exports rapidly. and for july, both those sources of demand have taken a hit in recent months. the greek debt crisis and anemic growth in much of europe contributed to a decline in both stock prices and confidence, and to a rise in the value of the dollar. the latest data on durable goods shipments suggest that equipment investment is growing only modestly in the third quarter, and last friday's gdp revision for the second quarter indicates that our exports are growing substantially less rapidly than our imports. the result of these powerful headwinds and recent the balance is that the united states still faces a substantial shortfall of aggregate demand. gdp by most estimates is still about 6% below trend. this shortfall in demand, rather than structural changes in the composition of output or a mismatch between worker skills and jobs, is the fundamental cause of our continued high unemployment. firms are not producing and hiring at normal levels simply because there is not demand for a normal level of output. in the long run, the transition to a higher-saving, higher- investment, higher-a sport economy can restore demand and hence output and employment -- and employment to normal. but at the moment, that process is operating painfully slowly. the pressing question is what can be done to increase demand and bring the unemployment down more quickly? failure to do so would cause millions of workers to suffer unnecessarily. it also runs the risk of making high and and women permanent as workers skills deteriorate with lack of use and their labor force attachment weakens as hope of another job fades. policymakers should certainly try innovative, low-cost policies. the president's national export initiative is an excellent example. given the fixed costs associated with exporting to a new market, small investments in information provision and commercial diplomacy can bring about a substantial increase in our exports. likewise responsible new trade agreements can help open markets and increase trade in both the short run and over time. policy makers should also take sensible actions to increase confidence. all seven the business committee talk about regulatory uncertainty as one reason they are cautious about hiring and investing, i suspect that uncertainty about future sales is a much larger determinant up firms actions. we can, however, do more to highlight and codify our pragmatic approach to regulation. as cass sunstein detailed in his recent congressional testimony, the estimated net benefits -- the benefits minus the costs -- of the obama administration's regulatory actions during its first year far surpass those of the first year of the previous two ministrations. with the help of the economy, we should and continue -- we should continue and trumpet this prudent regulatory approach. while all love to find the inexpensive magic bullet to our economic troubles, the truth is, it almost surely does not exist. the only surefire ways for policymakers to substantially increase aggregate demand in the short run are for the government to spend more and tax less. eightthe small business tax cutd lending bill is also likely have excellent job creation effects and should be passed. as the presence said in his rose garden remarks on monday, but they are a range of other sensible measures that deserve consideration. tax cuts for struggling middle class clamped -- middle class -- middle-class families and businesses willing to invest in the united states and much needed investment in infrastructure. the key is that we need to take auction -- action and we need to do it quickly. given the long run fiscal challenges, any additional support should be done in a responsible way. it makes sense to give some temporary support as emergency measures. motion be paid for over time with future spending cuts or appropriate future revenues. but the concern about the deficit cannot be an excuse for leaving unemployed workers to suffer. we have tools that would bring unemployment down without worsening our long run fiscal outlook if we can only find the will and the wisdom to use them. on election night almost two years ago, my husband and i does the -- did a most uncharacteristic thing. we had friends over to watch the returns and had celebrated the obama victory with a sedate glass of champagne around 8:00 california time. by 8:30 p.m., our friends had gone home and we were left wondering what to do with our joy. i finally declared that i needed to be part of a crowd. so we hopped in the car and followed the sounds of honking horns into downtown oakland. we stopped at the first street corner where people were gathering. here we were, two middle-aged economists, dancing in the street with the oakland teenagers. like so many that evening, we were celebrating the promise of a new president who shared our values and our dreams for a better america. " we did not realize that november evening was just how large an economic nightmare lay before the new president and the american people. it would require actions few would complement it -- contemplated that evening just to keep the unemployment rate from rising beyond low double digits. it has been an honor beyond any i could have imagined to be part of the team president obama selected to help diagnose the situation and craft the policy response. i am proud of the recovery actions were taken. i believe they have made the difference between a second great depression and a slow but genuine recovery. and the passage of health care reform and financial regulatory reform are accomplishments that will be with us long after the recession is over. they will ensure that our children inherit a future in which families can afford the health care that they need and where workers and firms never again have to face the specter of a cataclysmic economic meltdown. but i desperately hope that policymakers on both sides of the aisle will find a way to finish the job of economic recovery. the of already navigated through miles of difficult, uncharted waters. surely we can go the rest of the way. the american people deserve nothing less. thank you. [applause] >> thank you for speaking to us and thank you for having time they answer our questions. i know we have several ones already. in your address you talked about an immediate need to spend more and tax less. to continue to work toward economic revival. and being mindful of that later on, you are exacerbating the deficit. at some place there needs to be responsible place to cut spending. at what point bank -- what would be the signal that the u.s. economy is where you can transition from one strategy toward another? how we know when we're out of the woods? >> an excellent question. one of the ways -- the obvious thing is to say, we know that we need to do more now. looking at the unemployment rate of 9.5%, it is clear that additional action is needed. s had described, doing it and a fiscally responsible way is incredibly important. how do you know when you can make the transition? the president often describes this. we need to be working on the problem of the deficit and the unemployment rate down together. that is what he set up the bipartisan fiscal commission to be talking about the long run and medium run fiscal situation at the same time that we are speaking about what to do in the short run. what i also suggested is, even as you think about short run policies, you can be mindful of the long run deficit. think about lower future spending for additional future revenues as your crafting the measures today. best policy for now. >> with the odds of the u.s. slipped -- slipping into a double digit recession -- double dip recession? >> we do not know the number to the decimal point. i think that it is very small. the economy is going through a rough spot, which as i described in the spring, it looked as though we were really starting to grow more strongly. the troubles in europe definitely cause some turbulence, especially ahead on confidence and stock prices and things like that. my prediction is we come through this period of turbulence and go back to steady growth again. the important thing is, even if the scenario of all we hit this period of turbulence, it was not good enough. often coming out of recession, you have gdp growth of 4%, 6%, 8%. to have a forecast of growing at normal or little butter, that is dramatically better than having a fall of almost 7%, but not good enough to bring the unemployment rate down quickly. >> you made reference to the european debt crisis. a concern to the u.s. be about the resurgent sovereign debt crisis in europe? >> i certainly think we have been very encouraged by the actions that the europeans have taken to deal with the situation in greece. certainly their stress tests are something that i think were very helpful in getting a read on the state of the financial system, and reasserting -- reassuring markets. all the countries of the world should be thinking about a balanced program, what we need to do to get people back to work now, and what do we need to do to be thinking about making sure how long were -- wrongly -- long run fiscal houses in order. it's important to emphasize that those things do not have to be in conflict over period of time. a sensible economic policy can match more expansion now with credible measures to get the deficit down as you go on board. one of the things i think again that we often lose sight of is how important growth is, not just for people, not just for dealing with what was obviously an and interpreted a terrible unemployment problem, but that deficit. tax revenues are down. it even matters in the long run, because as i alluded to, one of the things you worry about when the unemployment rate is at 9.5% for a long period of time, when the long-term unemployment rate is as high as it is, what you worry about is the worker start to lose skills, they start to drop out of the labor force, and that some of the unemployment becomes permanent. that is terribly for the people involved but also for the long run deficit. those are people that are not going to be paying taxes as we go forward. if all you care about was the deficit, dealing with the short run economic problems is also incredibly sensible and good economic policy. >> because there will be that trend of withdrawn stimulus from the economy going into a budget, cost cutting environment, is the u.s. committing itself to long- term path of slower economic growth that might have happened? >> i did the most important thing is we do not do that. as an economic historian, one of the things i started talking about a year ago was thinking back to the great depression and what happened in 1937. if you remember your depression history, from 1929-1933, the economy's decline dramatically and then started to grow again with the new deal actions on the monetary side. one of the things that happened -- it grew strongly, also an average of 10% in those years from 1933-and after. in 1937, there was a collective sigh of relief. the economy was growing again, not fully recovered, the unemployment rate was still quite high. there was a tendency for the federal reserve to say, if we can draw back on our actions. there was the fiscal side, tax increase, started to get the fiscal house in order, and in 1938, unemployment shot up again, we had a big setback, in part the reason why the 1930's were as bad as they were is that recovery was cut short by natural policy actions. we can see where they come from. we're living through them now? we had been through extraordinary action, as is nobody would have wanted to take. and there is a tendency to say, as soon as possible, let's stop that. it is important to say, let's get this recovery much more firmly established the 4 q pullback. what you mentioned -- before you pull back. i do not think it is had a permanent effect on us. but if you make policy mistakes. going forward, if we leave the unemployment rate very high for a very long period of time, that is where you run the biggest risk of causing a permanent scarring to the economy and also to the people. >> but it your historical example. even after the 1938 recession, unemployment was still in the double digits. that leads to the next question that we have here about the structural rate of unemployment in the 1990's, the natural rate was believed to be about 4%. as you see the changes in the economy and economically, in terms of skills and the job market, and structural changes in employment trends, is the natural rate of unemployment inching upward, and what would be expected in the future course a margin that is obviously an incredibly important question. in my talk, i think that we're not seeing that yet. the rise in unemployment that we're living with, 9.5% that we have, it is almost a cyclical phenomenon. it is a reflection of the fact that gdp is dramatically below trend. we do not yet have demand back to where it needs to get. that is the overwhelming force of the unemployment that we have. certainly there has been a lot of discussion about some sector of changes in the economy, the fact that demands and construction may well be a small part of the economy going forward. of the things are going to need to grow to fill the space. those kind of several changes are happening all the time. likewise, there is a law of decline in manufacturing for several decades. that is something that -- we had that going on when the natural rate of unemployment was four%. those kind of sector or changes, the evidence is there to be weak because it is a common phenomenon. even the high rate of long-term unemployment, at some level, a consequence of the fact that this is been a terrible recession that has gone on for a long time. if you lose your job early in a recession, we have not been creating a lot of jobs a year naturally tend to eventually become long-term unemployed. even that i would expect as the economy recovers, as the overall unemployment rate comes down, i would expect that rates to come down as well. you did you discuss some setbacks to the economy that may be smaller in the long term. finance and construction, is it a good thing? they did a heck of a job with those collateralized debt obligations and the subprime loans. >> my list politics statement ever, i was at a speech in the your or is it something about, it will be a good thing of all the people that went to finance when it to something useful like medicine or science. that one over well with that audience. the perspective they bring to this is that market economies are wonderful dynamic things. one of the great strengths is that as new opportunities come up, as certain doors closed, other doors open. that is an important part of the process. it's something are going to be smaller for a while white construction, because my colleagues we talk about this a lot, an oversupply of housing. what would be important is to fill the gap. it's very high on the president's list of concerns and something that we're thinking about. >> how many people do you know who are unemployed or underemployed? what you learn from their experiences? >> i often talk about going back to california periodically. you think you're having the innocent walk out to the mailbox. and there is your neighbor you have known for years, my daughter is unemployed, my son is about to lose his house, why are you doing more? you can go anywhere and i know that there are many people struggling incredibly. earlier this spring, one of the nicest things i have done was a road trip to ohio where we visited of ford motor factory and met with the union representative, we looked at my old home town in canton, ohio. what was frightening and talking to the workers, they were looking at this port plant or half of it was a gleaming new factory. and then the cat. to the other half that was empty. kenyan not get as another auto assembly to go on that? my brother-in-law is unemployed. did there used to be 13,000 working at this plan. every one of those interactions is the reason why i wake up every day, but the president with every day and says, for heaven's sake, can we be doing more to get this down? >> following on your manufacturing example, how can we were to revive the american manufacturing and other incentives? >> i think it is an incredibly important. it is again one that the president and vice-president are so incredibly concerned with. the right thing is a mixture of policies, and the number think -- #one thing to do is to help services and everything else, get the overall economy going. it can affect the whole economy and because manufacturing is inherently more cyclical intensive, anything to get the overall economy going disproportionately helps manufacturing. we do know that things like getting car exports going, one of the main things that we're good at is high-tech manufacturing. if we can do things that make it easier for those firms that export, that is something that would certainly help them. but he has identified one of the areas where there might be a market they year. we can see the future coming, we need cleaner energy, we need to be more energy-efficient, so one of the things he has identified in the recovery act is, can we do more to help the economy make that transition? if the market system is not doing enough to realize that that is what the future will hold, can we do some targeted investment? can we do tax incentives for renewable energy? there were $90 billion of that in the recovery at. including some tax incentives for clean energy manufacturing. that is been one of the biggest success stories for the recovery act. when we're talking about additional measures, that present budget -- that program was sold out very quickly. if we got more money that, we get the applications there, there is work that could be done to rebuild manufacturing. it could help but become more energy-efficient going forward. >> how should congress approach the question of extending the bush tax cuts? >> as the president made clear, the important thing is to renew those tax cuts for people earning less than $250,000. we certainly believe strongly that middle-class folks who have had a tough time, they need this money for them and for the economy. but the president and the economic team have said consistently is the high and tax cuts, we're talking about $34 billion in 2011, that is money that we should not stand, is special because while we were about that if we renew them once, the chance that they become permanent becomes much higher. it could be only $34 billion in one year, but $750 billion over a 10-year period. that is fiscally irresponsible and we simply cannot afford. the other thing i feel very strongly, tax cuts can be an important recovery tool. that is why we had one in the recovery act. that is why there were some $300 billion of tax cuts in the recovery at. but all the economics editor says that tax cuts for high end in come earners do not do as much. even on stimulus, it is a bad bargain for you want to spend $34 billion, i guarantee and find much better ways to create more jobs. >> last night was the formal end of u.s. combat operations in iraq. but the attacks to the u.s. economy as the war runs down? >> one of the things that always strikes me, as an economist at as an area that you know a lot, and then you suddenly discover there are other areas that you need to know just about the economy. then i let the president and i said, he has to know everything i know and then this whole other realm of things. with you realize how complicated his job is. for the overall economy, one of the things that has come back once done in iraq, the president has said we move that toward focusing on our own economy. there is of budget costs associated with the war is fully put to work here, help to bring down deficits and debt. also just in general to give us the opportunity in the resources to be focusing on everything possible we can do to recreate jobs. that is his focus is the day he took office. -- since the day he took office. he announced his focus as we go into the fall. it is obvious that we need to do as much as possible to bring this unemployment rate down. >> a couple of questions about consumers, companies, and cash. how'd you get companies who are now sitting on so much cash to invest more? >> there are a couple of things. this is a topic that the council of economic advisers look into some. we know that firms are holding a lot of cash. one of the things that was helpful for us was to get historical perspective. it's not an unnatural thing is you come out of recession, a strong cyclical component to cash holding, and it goes back to what i said about consumers. consumers have been through an incredibly frightening two use. the same as been true of firms. that is why firms are sitting on the sideline, they've been through the crisis like the rest of us. the main thing you do to give firms the confidence to invest, is the answer to everything, at the overall economy going. al will be the main thing that makes the firm want to build a factory, they say customers out there. what you may not think of as an investment-related policy like a task that for consumers, but it gives firms more confidence about their sales. it is also true, one of the things that we have tried to do with the recovery act is to give particular tax incentives to invest. i will put in a plug for the small business job tax cut. that bill has been sitting in congress. there is a big chunk of bonus depreciation for firms, which gives them an incentive to do more investment and take that cash into buying durable goods and putting people to work. >> on consumer cass, is there any danger that the american consumer to go to far the other way and actually be saving too much? >> one of the things -- i will put in a plug for the economic proposals, every every word we put out a comprehensive volumes which is a very big job. one of the things that we did in that was to talk about not the immediate period but as we go forward, what do we expect for the american economy. one of the things -- the president has been very strong in emphasizing this -- we do not want to go back to where we were. we know that before this crisis came, it's helpful to remember the president was running for president economic issues before there was a recession, but for there was lehman brothers, and we are not investing enough in the economy, we were living in a bubble of consumer saving almost nothing. and we've seen some of the consequences of that on balance growth. what are estimates as we started thinking about the world looking like when we come to the secession -- recession, the anticipate that consumers save more, we anticipate how we fill that gap, expecting firms will need to invest more, exporting more, that is why we had such an emphasis on investment and exports. right now the reason -- we did some empirical estimates of what we think consumers are likely to do, given the state of the economy and what has happened to their wealth and their expectations? the current saving numbers were dead on. they are following our predictions. as we come back to normal, the saving rate will be in a 4%-7%, rather than the 0%-2% that was before. that will help the economy. will allow consumers to be a little bit more robust to help get people back to work. but coming back to that sensible place will be ultimately good for the economy. >> several questions about your outcome and live and how your experiences in washington will inform your contributions here on out. how has it inform your plans in academia? and your husband is known to offer his students chicken soup for economists, advice for living. as she prepared to leave washington, can you offer chicken soup for all of your colleagues, some here at the table, who will be still working to turn the economy around? >> let me start with what i've chased about my life. in the spring, i'll be teaching a course on macroeconomics policy, from the great depression through the great recession. whole thing is to take what i have learned, but i think economists in general have learned from the crisis that we've been through, to show what has worked, what has not worked, but questions still remain. that is going to be hugely important. and the chicken soup -- i am not heard that. david is much better than i am at giving wisdom. i will tell you what i say to anyone i think of bringing to the council of economic that pfizer's. -- advisors. it has been an honor above anything i could imagine, but also been for me very important. i often described as sometimes you hit 51 and you're not sure you can still learn again. as an economist, you tend to get narrower and narrower. very good one kind of research. what was very helpful is to be brought here and said, and i care if you're on macro economists, health care is the issue. it has been incredibly liberating to find that the skills that you learned in graduate school come back to you. you can for yourself into another area. that is for every policymaker, to be open to that ability to learn and to embrace it, the can be terrifying, but it is important to realize that what makes the job both important and incredibly rewarding is that it is a chance to learn about so much that we need to know about. >> we're almost out of time. before asking the last important question, we have a couple of important matters to take care. reminder guess about the rev. david beckman, who will discuss eliminating hunger, the people in congress. on september 30, senator john yn and another center will disagree on things. and the chief staff of the rough -- u.s. air force will be talking about challenges dealing with the service branch today. second, we like to present our guest with what will soon be the most coveted item in berkeley, the traditional national press club mug. >> thank you. >> and thank you for spending time with us today. our final question comes from an anonymous questionnaire from the audience. they wish to remain anonymous after the question is as. or maybe not. dr. romer, you seem like you would be a lot of fun at parties. [laughter] are you? what is the party persona of christina romer? and will it change now that you are getting out of here? >> jason berman said, are you going to reenact dancing in the streets? i will have to take it on my word, we can be the life of the party. [laughter] and i will have a lot more sleep so i will not fall asleep at parties nearly as much. >> thank you once again. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> we would also like to thank the national press club staff as well as our catering group for organizing the event. for more information about joining the national press club, and on how to apply for a copy of today's program, go to our web site at press.org. thank you for speaking, listening, and attending to date. this meeting is adjourned. [applause] fas >> in a few moments, a live debate between california senate it canids. that is followed by hearing of the financial crisis inquiry commission. and later, middle east leaders speak at the white house at peace talks in washington. the financial crisis inquiry commission continues its investigation tomorrow into the causes of the 2008 financial crisis. members will question federal reserve chairman ben bernanke and the head of the federal deposit insurance corp., sheila bear. you can watch it at 9:00 a.m. eastern time on c-span2. >> join us with gordon wood on book tv's in debt, live for three hours with your calls, e- barbara boxer faces of former hewlett-packard ceo carly fiorina in november. this is courtesy of ktvu. our live coverage is from st. mary's college. a little bit more about the candidate, a poll shows senator boxer a three term democrats narrowly leading republican challenger. cinderblocks are one relatively close senate race in 1992 and 1998. -- senator boxer won a relatively close senate race in 1992 and 1998. >> good evening primed i am -- good evening. i am randy shandobil. let me introduce you to the journalists to be asking in tonight's question. scott shafer is the host of public radio the california report. we will also be taking some questions from ktvu the worse. it is time to introduce the candidate. please welcome barbara boxer and carly fiorina. [applause] >> thank you both for joining us. democrat barbara boxer is a three-term united states senator. she has served in the senate since 1993. before that, she served in the house of representatives for 10 years. carly fiorina is running for office the first time. she served six years as the chief of the data officer of hewlett-packard. think you both for joining us tonight. before tonight's debate, your campaigns can participated in a coin toss to seek who would get to answer first on the opening remarks. senator, you won, but chose to let carly fiorina go first. >> thank you so much. it is great to be with all of you here. thank you for letting us into your homes deceiving. i have led the american dream. i started out like most americans doing a small business. i typed, i filed, i answered the funds for a little 9, -- nine- person company. my husband started out driving a tow truck for the city of pittsburgh, pennsylvania. i am running for public office now because i think our country is headed in the wrong direction and i think the american dream is too hard for too many people. frank and i are worried that are two granddaughters and not have the same opportunities that we have had. i've never run for public office before, but i think our founding fathers -- got in fathers intended hours to be a citizen government. i have created jobs, i have cut spending, i have solved problems. i think we need some common sense in washington d.c. barbara boxer has been in washington d.c. for 28 years and the she may say many things tonight, her track record, her long track record, is consistent and clear. the result of her policies are devastating for the state. in the last 20 months alone, our unemployment rate has gone from 10.2% to 12.3% credit card debt has grown to $13 trillion. barbara boxer may say she is fighting for californians, but the truth is that she is fighting for another six years in washington d.c. >> thank you very much, everybody. it is wonderful to be year. thank you to the good people of california to put their faith in me. because of that, i've been able to enact a thousand provisions for children, the first ever after-school program. for our veterans, the first ever comprehensive casualty care center in california for our wounded warriors. we have double the transportation funding. that means thousands of jobs and jobs are my focus. that is why i am working to make california the halt of the new clean energy economy. that is why i am working to make sure small business gets access to credit. that is why i am working to stop tax breaks to companies to ship overseas. when i talk about shipping jobs overseas, i am reminded of my opponent. when she was ceo of hewlett- packard, before she was terminated, she shipped 30,000 jobs overseas. think of it. that is the size of foster city. through all of that pain, what did she do to show any sacrifice? she took $100 million. that reminds me of wall street. that is what happened on wall street. bonuses at the top pain for everybody else. i want to see the words made in america again and ask for your vote. >> thank you. now to the questions. a few guidelines. you build it up to 90 seconds to answer a question. the other candidate will have 60 seconds for a rebuttal. we have lots of questions tonight. i am sure our audience at home would approve -- would prefer brief and concise answers. >> let's get to the economy. he supported tax cuts for business and for the wealthiest americans because they pay for themselves by creating jobs. but you opposed to recent jobs bills, a teacher's bill that would bring 16,000 jobs in california. the other, a small-business jobs bill. how do you justify the immediate help for the wealthiest americans when not -- to average californians? >> we need to start by describing what the 2001-did thousand three tax cuts really were. tax cuts that are going to expire in january. the vast majority of that tax relief when to middle-class americans. if those tax cuts are not extended, at the m -- the average california family will pay up to $1,600 more in taxes. it is also true that small- business owners are struggling under the weight of -- senator boxer has voted against small business tax relief every single time. we had 88,000 farms in this great states -- in this great state. we need to make sure that it's our small businesses, are family owned businesses, are freed from strangling regulation and free from taxation. i think in the middle of a terrible recession, this is the worst economic crisis since 1979 and since 1929 in this state, just think about it. we have 12 metropolitan areas with unemployment above 15%. we have 23 counties with unemployment above 15%. meanwhile, in the last 20 months, the federal government spending has increased 10% each year and federal government employees have increased 14 plea 5%. -- a 14.5%. >> i would like to go back to the question. it is very important. we have 16,500 teachers get pink slips in the mail. they were going to not be in the classroom. what is more important than our children? i am a product of public schools operate 95% of our people go to public schools. this was a bill that was paid for. my opponent actually called a bad bill -- called that bill a disgrace. she called a disgraceful. she does not like it because we paid for that bill. it was deficit neutral because we paid for it by stopping tax breaks are for companies to shift -- ship jobs overseas. every time you really get past the surface, you see my vote is fighting for the -- my opponent is fighting for the billionaires' and millionaires. she even opposes the small business legislation that most everybody votes for. >> scott, you have the next question. president obama officially ended a combat mission in iraq. more than 44 americans died during that war and tens of thousands more came home with physical and mental disabilities. the think the war was worth the cost? going forward in afghanistan, what criteria will you used to say enough is enough? >> i am very happy that our combat troops are coming back from iraq. i was one of about 23 that did not vote for that war. i did support the troops. i voted for 85% of all the spending bills that we had, even though i had disagreement on that war. when i opposed to any of those bills, it was because it was not good enough for our wounded warriors. i am so glad that they're coming back. the reason why we are at this point is because america finally said, this is a day, we are coming home. say to the rockies, you have to step up to the plate and defend your own nation. iraqis, you have to step up to the plate. i did vote you to go after osama bin laden. i do support the president trying to see that we can train in the afghan people to defend themselves. but i do want to see more time lines drawn there. i think it is important to send that signal. this is the timeframe. i am on the fine gold the bill. it's says, give us a timetable, give us the conditions in which we can bring our troops on. i think we're on that track. i support in getting the withdrawal by 2011. i am happy that our troops are coming home. they are the bravest, the greatest, and now we have to take care of them. they have some terrible injuries and colognes. i just wanted a comprehensive casualty care center -- >> the time is up. before we go to your answer. if the president does not come up with a written timeline, as you suggested he do, will you call them out on that i did president bush? you were very critical of president bush. >> i have party stated publicly -- i have already stated it publicly. this is not a matter of partisanship. this is a matter of our troops. we need to rebuild america. i think we can help afghanistan and helped iraq, but we need to rebuild our country. last twor boxer's answers are a perfect illustration of for rhetoric versus the reality. let's look at her record. she voted against the body armor. she voted against support for a brain trauma and posttraumatic stress syndrome. she voted against extended family leave for their families. the vote that she cast so upset senator joe biden that he said, this is a political vote. nothing is worse -- in regards to the two bills that he talked about earlier, the truth is the small business builds and she supported could have been a great bill. they threw in their part, jr.. the opportunity for the federal government to take equity positions in community banks. it did not work so well with tarp. it did not get credit flowing again. we are playing political football with taxpayer money. sacramento and washington d.c. have been fighting over who gets to spend that money and the vast majority of teachers will not be employed until 2012. some of it may just go to reducing the deficit. >> every year, 65,000 young men and women graduate from high school in the u.s. and have a hard time furthering their education or even finding a job because they were brought here illegally when they were children they are documented through no fault of their own. but you have them continue to live in this limbo? would you send them all back to countries they do not remember or no? would be supportive of legislation that helps them pass citizenship if a study? >> i believe that the 21st century is the century of brainpower and innovation. we need to cultivate all of the brain power weekend by making sure that people are well educated here, yes. i would support the dream? because i do not believe that we can punish children who through no fault of their own are trying to split the american dream. i do not support amnesty for those who have come here illegally. i believe the federal government must secure the border and it has not done its job. i believe the federal government has to come up with a guest worker program that works. senator boxer has vilified the people of arizona, even though the federal government is not doing its job. in a critical moment in 2007, when a guest worker program was on the table, she was the deciding vote that killed the program. it destroyed a compromise on comprehensive immigration reform. when she voted, and her comment was that immigrants represent a cheap source of labor that threatens the american worker. if you look at occurred long track record of 28 years in washington d.c., you will see this. she is for more taxes. she is for more spending. she is for more regulation and she is also for big government and a leap, extreme environmental groups. >> first, i have to say that i am very proud of my record for veterans. that is why i am for bipartisan, i am the co-chair of the bipartisan military families caucus. i have a record that when the aid awards from doctors were trying to find a better treatment for burn victims. i got the first funding for traumatic brain injury and my husband served in the military. i love the military in a very personal way. what i want to say about immigration is this. my opponent called comprehensive immigration reform distraction. we have 11 million people here who are living in the shadows and here is where we stand. under the law, since my opponent feels we should deal with this issue, they would have to be deported. we just had a recent study from usc and several other very important institutions that economy going again is to go with comprehensive immigration reform. the dream pact is part of that. >> over the past few weeks, readers have been sending in questions they would like to hear the candidates cancer. right now, we will shift gears a little bit and hear a couple of those questions. the first question comes from a democrat in oakland. >> senator boxer, why don't you let other people tried? -- why don't you let other people tried? >> i did hear it. [laughter] every election is a chance. that is what america is about. i have to say this. our founders decided to put the power in the hands of the people. the people have to vote. i have been so fortunate. i'm a first generation american on my mother's side. my mother never graduated from high school. she had to work to support the family. i am in the united states senate because i fight for people, i fight for the dream. every time i run, i have a tough fight on my hand and people are going to decide if they want to have the back or if they want to elect someone who made her name as a ceo and hewlett-packard laying thousands and thousands of workers off, shipping their jobs overseas, making no sacrifice while she was doing it, taking $100 million. i do not think we need those wall street values right now. every race i run in, there is a clear choice. there is a clear choice here on jobs, on the issue of offshore oil drilling, and of a woman's right to choose and many other areas that we will get to tonight. >> your reply? >> it is a good question and senator boxer is right. ultimately, the choice is up to voters. one of the things that voters believe is that result count. in our 18 years in the senate, senator boxer has four bills with her name on them. four pieces of legislation. that is far below the record or even the average. those four bills include gaining a river in virginia, naming a courthouse, renaming a post office, and bringing some federal dollars back to the bay area after the earthquake. it is all well and good for senator boxer to continue to miss characterize my record. it was she who voted for the wall street built out. is she who had taken many contributions from wall street executives. i would remind her that when you lead a business, whether it is a nine-person business or wanted 50,000 people, you sometimes have to make the agonizing choice to list some jobs to save more. what enrages people in california is that they see people making those tough choices absolutely every day. >> time is up. >> our next of your question is for carly fiorina. it comes from a pencil and a republican. mr. watson is an entire -- retired employee from hewlett- packard and he has a question regarding the alabama sourcing of jobs. >> will you were at hewlett- packard, you send thousands of jobs offshore. you coined the phrase -- also, in a keynote speech into thousand four, -- into 2004, that there is no job but as an american's god-given right any more. diaz still feel that way? -- do you still feel that way? >> this is the 21st century. and ahmadinejad can go anywhere. what worries me deeply is the jobs we live is now may not come back. we have to fight for every job. the truth is that california has a higher than average unemployment rate because we are destroying jobs and others are fighting harder for our jobs. texas is fighting harder for our jobs. n.c. is. so was mexico, china, russia, poland. china, for example, like texas, like brazil, this company's huge tax credits. they help them cut through regulation. they reward research and development. they provide access to credit. that is what we need to do. i proposed a five-year tax holiday for new businesses that locate here. to use the power of the federal government to create special economic zones to help companies cut the red alert -- regulation. instead of bailing out general motors, let us give them the incentives to bring their plans back home and hire american workers. in this country, we are going to be number one in innovation. we have fallen to 17th in the world. we have to fight for innovation and that means we have to be number one in the world in terms of the incentives we provide. we can grow our economy again. it means we have to fight for private sector jobs. i do not think there are enough people in washington who understand why private sector jobs are created. >> you have said that school teachers should have their cake connected to their performance. schools course down, they should face the consequences. when you were at hewlett- packard and the board of directors forced to resign because of the stock market dropping with regard to h-p, you got a seventh of $21 million. some people might say, shouldn't as's have the same standards schoolteachers? >> absolutely. during my time, i read that my employment contract and i put my pay up for shareholder vote. every dollar that i earned that hewlett-packard was voted on by shareholders and every dollar was tied very specifically to performance. in these six years that i managed hewlett-packard during the worst technology recession in 25 years, we doubled the size of the company to 88 billion. we triple the rate of innovation we quintupled the cash flow and we improve the profitability in every product line. >> we have to move on. >> i think we are entitled to our opinion, but we are not entitled to our fax spread as a $21 million severance check. my understanding is that it was taken after my opponents was fired. the stock went down more than 50%. if she is calling for accountability but teachers, there ought to be accountability 's.ld ceo -- with ceo0 if ever we needed a united states senator from california to fight for american jobs, it is now. my opponent, we know that she ship jobs overseas. we know she fired workers, tens of thousands of them. but we also know that she has opposed every jobs bill that we voted on. it gave a tax holidays to business people if they hired an unemployed person, she opposed that. she opposed the teacher is bringing back 16,500 teachers into the classroom. she opposed that. she opposed wall street reform. >> time is up. >> many of our readers asked us to ask you this in regards to one of the repeated cliffs on the internet in which you -- keep appeared before you in committee. you told him? you should be called a senator because she worked hard to beat -- she worked hard to earn that title. a lot of the readers that you remained untouched. >> people have a right to criticize me for whatever i do. in that particular moment, we were having a lot of back and forth. this is a formal hearing. i made the call that i should call the general general and it would be better if he called me by the formal title instead of sir or ma'am. afterwards, i called the general and i said, do i owe you an apology? he said, no. we worked very well together. we are working very well together. he is working on the army corps of engineers project as we speak after the bp spill. he is helping us with our control and sacramento. that is what that was about. cox i am certainly -- >> i am certainly pleased that senator boxer called the general and asked if she needed to apologize. i take him at his word. if he indicates that he was not offended. absolutely agree with senator boxer. we're not entitled to our own facts. i think it is actually a shame that barbara boxer would use hewlett-packard, a treasurer of california, one of the great companies in the world whose employees work very hard and his shareholders have benefited greatly from both my time as ceo and all the hard work of the employees that i had the privilege to lead, i think it's a shame that she would use that company as a political football. i'll understands that she will miss characterize my record and a severance package, but i think it is a shame that she would use the company in that way. let's talk about wall street reform. wall street crisis hit and it turns out there are 20 agencies that were asleep. what that was to reform bill did was to say never mind. >> time is up. i am sorry, time is up. >> you are both drifting off the question. i understand it is frustrating for you, but if you could answer the question directly, that would be great. >> you have supported proposition 8 and say that marriage should only be between one man and one woman carried domestic partnerships and civil unions are not recognized by the federal government and the defense of marriage act means that committed gay and lesbian couples are denied more than a thousand federal rights that heterosexual get like benefits from social security when a spouse dies. should federal law be changed to allow for equal legal status for same-sex couples and if not, why not? >> i do believe that marriage is between a man and woman, but i have been consistent and clear that i support civil unions for gay and lesbian couples. the defense of marriage act had bipartisan support and the position that i have -- the spouse is consistent of that of our president and the vast majority of senators in the u.s. senate. what we now are saying on proposition 8 is that the voters were quite clear about their views on this. this is now going through a legal process. whatever your views about gay marriage, i think that many of us would conclude that when the voters have such a clear decision, for that decision to be overturned by a single judge, seems not appropriate. this is now the beginning of what will be a long legal process. i support very much the repeal of don't ask, don't tell and i know that the military is getting ready to release its report on the best way to execute that decision. the legislature and the legislature checks the president. that is what our constitution says. yes, a lot of the laws that we pass may well go through that test. if you read his decision on this, a republican who was appointed to the state of california bench, he is clear. he said the only way to get equal rights to gays and lesbians is to say, there should be marriage equality. the only way to get the right is to go for marriage equality. i believe people are coming around to see it. i also would say in terms of what we heard about the fact that i should not talk about my opponent's stay at h-p, she is running on her record as the former ceo of hewlett-packard. i'm going to keep on telling the truth about it. >> and i am going to keep watching the clock. >> this is for the senator. it appears that voters tend to at carly as the one that can work with the other side of the aisle and u.s. the more partisan senator? >> let me say that i am a co- sponsor of 500 republican bills. i can give you a list of things i worked with my colleagues -- the afterschool bill was done, and a lot of work i have done with veterans have been done with republican colleagues. with president obama at this particular point, we need an exit strategy from afghanistan. i think it is very important. that is one clear example. and i would appoint elizabeth warren right now to head that you consumer agency that is going to be looking over credit cards, because as you know, people do not read all that fine print, and we did have someone looking over their shoulder of the bank's. my opponent opposed wall street reform. it set up that consumer agency for the first time. you have someone looking out for you to make sure you do not get -- i do know one use that word -- make sure that you get treated fairly on your mortgage and you get treated fairly on your credit cards. >> miss fiorina, your reply? >> i think the center is right. we both need to run on our record. i am proud to run on my record at hewlett-packard. i think the senator must run on her record. the truth is our record is long on talk in short of achievement. the reason it is short of achievement is because she is someone -- one of the most bitterly partisan members of the u.s. senate. after 18 long years in the senate, she only had four relatively insignificant hills with her name on them. her signature piece of legislation as the chairman of environmental and public works, she could not shepherd that to a conclusion. that bill was taken away from her and given that john kerry because it was believed that he had a better chance of getting bipartisan support. i do not happen to support her capping trade bill. it has been called the most expensive piece of regulation and legislation in human -- in american history. it is telling that her bitter partisanship prevented her from getting her top priority accomplished in the u.s. senate. >> you are pro-life and you said you would vote to overturn roe v wade hit given the opportunity. you believe that life begins at conception. would you deny findings to institutions involved in the embryonic stem cell research? >> i am pro-life because of my personal experiences. my husband's mother was told to abort him. she did not. her health was threatened as a result. she lived to the age of 98, and my husband is the rock of my life. i recognize that not everyone agrees with me on this. i recognize as well that the most important issue right now in this election is the creation of jobs and getting our government under control. with regard to your specific question for, i am comfortable with federal funding for adults themselves research which shows more promise according to many scientists. i have been very clear in saying that if the embryos were going to be destroyed in any event, that i have no trouble with research. it is when embryos are produced for the purposes of destruction, for the purposes of stem cell research, that i have a great deal of difficulty and at the the judge's ruling there recently came out basically suggested that we do not have clear enough guidelines about whether embryos are being produced for destruction. senator boxer voted against this, so we know her position. they are extreme. she has said they do not think -- she does not think the baby has rights until it leaves the hospital. a judge has said we need clarity about these rules to ensure embryos are not being destroyed. >> before the senator replies, i want to make sure that the question was correct. you do suggest that we overturn roe v wade? >> there were an opportunity, it is not an issue i am running on. the reason for that is that i am a strong believer in states' rights. voters have to make some of these very difficult decisions. i am prepared to trust the butter's judgment on offshore drilling. they have the right to choose. and californians have made their decisions on those issues. >> i respects everyone's personal view and everyone has the story as to why they come to a certain position. i respected. that is why i am pro-choice. i let people decide. but the people of california at to understand that if my opponents of views prevail, women and doctors would be criminals. that would goaded jail. women will die like they did before roe v. wade. this is about my opponent's personal view -- about the women and the families of our state and of our country. my opponent says that i have passed four bills. she keeps saying that. she used to say three. 1000 provisions had been done, and we have a list of them on my website for udc. i am very proud of the .rovisions o i do not whether my opponent is trying to confuse people, but the fact of the matter is, the way a double bill becomes a law has many tracks. it can be straight fall board. >> i have to be a broken record but time is up. scott, you have the next question. >> senator boxer, there's no question that president obama inherited a terrible economy, and democrats blame his predecessor. and yet democrats have controlled congress for almost a quarter years, president obama is near the halfway point maine, and the unemployment rate is the above 9% and the economy may be slowing down again. at what point main should democrats stop blaming president bush and take full responsibility for the economy? >> we are taking responsibility and action. i have talked about a number of those things we have already done, making sure teachers stay in the classroom, that small businesses get access to credit. all we need is one republican to get that bill done when we get back. i think we will, and then we can create a million new jobs. i feel that you have to look good history, otherwise you repeated. let me tell you -- i served for eight years with bill clinton and i supported every budget and every economic policy. we created 23 million new jobs, net. and not only did we balance the budget, but we created a surplus. then i served eight years with george w. bush. i did not support his priorities in his budget. we wound up with a $1.30 trillion deficit and the worst job creation record since herbert hoover. yes, we did not get here overnight. we're not going to stop overnight. but job by job by job, we're going to solve it. there is a man out there in the audience -- i do not want to embarrass them, j. smith, who is because the economic activity at. 2000 workers working because of the economic recovery at. yes, we're taking responsibility, but people in this country in my state have to get a whole picture. >> the summer of recovery have become the summer of despair in california. in the last 20 months, our unemployment rate has gone from 10.2% to 12.3%. i have talked with small business owners up and down the state, and they are being strangled by too much cost, too much uncertainty, too much regulation. barbara boxer it is promising numbers and jobs now. when she voted for that stimulus bill that manifestly failed, and she said it would bring hope and 400,000 jobs to the states. we now have 2.3 million people out of work. as for the fiscal deficit -- fiscal discipline, why has she voted six times against the balanced budget amendment, including during president clinton's times? why has she voted to increase the debt ceiling six times in the last 20 months alone? and voted four times about of modest bipartisan proposal to slow the rate of increase in federal government spending to 1.5%? her record is crystal clear. >> this is for miss fiorina. that seemen out an ad to equate global warming with the weather. you said that the anti-global warming lawsuit is pending. there is a proposition that would do that. i'm not sure that you have taken a position on that to you think warble warming is real or is it just a problem with the weather? >> the ad that you are referring to, we're really talking about national security. what are our priorities for national security? that is a very legitimate question to be asked of senator boxer who has been campaigning since 1992 on cutting our military budget in half, who believes it terrorists should be given the constitutional rights of u.s. citizens, that is what that abbas about. we should always have the courage to examine the science. but all scientists agree on this -- the only way to impact global warming is to act globally. a state acting alone will make a difference. what we need in this country, a priority of mine if i'm fortunate not to gain the confidence of the voters of california, will be a national and comprehensive energy bill. if that means that it will be superseded. it would've been superseded by the cap and trade bill, but her bill was completely the wrong track. if it would have cost us trillions of dollars in lost economic output, millions of jobs. what we need to do is fund energy r and d, we need to give more to berkeley, and also take advantage in an environmentally responsible way of every source of energy that we have, including nuclear, wind, solar, and we have to acknowledge that we cannot put bills in the place that punished excessively energy intensive energy is like farming, light manufacturing, -- >> you didn't answer part of the question -- do you support proposition 23 which would suspend the other bill? >> my focus is on a national policy. >> just answer it. >> i have not taken a position. there is no question in my mind that ab32 is in the short term of a job killer. but what we need is a national energy policy. >> senator boxer. >> you cannot take a stance on proposition 23, i do not know what you will take a stand on. this is a crucial bill. if we overturned california's clean energy policy, that will mean that china takes the lead away from us with seller, that germany takes the lead away from us us with wind. i guess my opponent is used to creating jobs in china and other places. i want those jobs created here in america. i want to see the words "made in america" again. the whole world is going green and i know my opponent has done his support from the coal companies, from big oil. they are hoping that i do not make it. and i am asking the people of the state who care about these issues to really take note -- because if my opponent gets there, california is done for in terms of its lead on clean energy. nobel i ever wrote ever superseded california's clean energy loss, because i honored those laws and they are creating jobs now. >> now would be a good time to go back to a couple of questions from viewers. this mess question is for senator boxer from an undergraduate student here at st. mary's college. she is not a democrat or republican. she refers to herself as an independent. >> growing up on a small farm in the central valley, one thing that has always shocked me is the fact that the largest and wealthiest agribusiness interests collect 74% of the farm subsidies. while small family farms are unable to compete. what have you done in the u.s. senate to rectify this inequity? >> for the first time, finally, in the last farm bill, we were working together with my colleagues and were able to get the first recognition that our specialty crops need to take a place in the farm bill. we have 300 different products in our state. for the first time we were able to do that. there are very big subsidies going to ethanol, the corn, that do not make any sense. i fought hard to change those. we had in fact limited some of the subsidies. if you are a giant form and you're not a family farm, you're not going to get the subsidies. i will tell you something else senator feinstein and i are doing. we want to make sure that the estate tax does not kill again for a family farm where the family continues the farming. if you are a huge farm, that is that different story. but if you really are a family farm, then you should not have to pay that estate tax. we want to encourage those forms to continue. >> miss fiorina, your reply. >> it is a lot of great words, but in the real world, actions speak louder. senator boxer has voted against that tax relief 18 times. her track record is very clear. 88,000 farms in california, most family-owned, struggle with a lack of water. senator boxer refused to lift a finger. as chairwoman of informal and public works, she could put an amendment forward to wave of biological assessment to britain -- to turn the water back on in our central valley. she refused. she voted against it. when senator feinstein stepped for to put an amendment on the table that would have waived that assessment and provide needed water, she pressured her colleague to drop that amendment. here is the truth. central valley struggles with record unemployment. they need water. senator barbara boxer, the chairwoman of and our men and public works, has stood in their way and she has over and over again refused to give them a death tax relief. >> time is up. our next viewer question is for carly fiorina. it comes from a democrat from oakland. i think it has to do with guns and airplanes, something you talked about in a primary debate. >> i read earlier it that you are in favor of people on the no-fly list have guns. i am a resident of oakland and that does not sit well with me at all. please explain your strengths. >> i know it sounds strange but let's talk about the no fly list for a moment. my sister-in-law was on the no- fly list. my friend of 20 years's has been was on the no-fly list. edward kennedy was on the no fly less. it is not the typically well managed. people who should not be on it are on it and people who should be on it like a christmas day bomber who almost made it out of the country, was not on it. here is the truth. we should not be taking constitutional rights away from citizens and at the same time giving constitutional rights to a terrorist. that is exactly what barbara boxer is in favor of doing. barbara boxer agrees that the vast majority of a crime committed with a gun or committed by criminals who have broken laws to acquire their guns. let's prosecute those laws. but prosecute those criminals. but let us not deny law abiding citizens their constitutional rights and instead give constitutional rights to terrorists, as senator boxer would like to do. >> it is hard to know how exactly the start. let me say this. it is shocking to me that my opponent would say, it even if you are on that no-fly list, there are only a few thousand. it your sister wanted a gun, that would look in the sec could have that it and that she had been in california. she would have to go to the local sheriff. as someone who authored a bill with republican colleagues which became the law that said, pilots who are trained have a right to carry a gun in the cockpit because there's so much concerned by the pilot that they be able to take action -- that is where you want to have the gun on the airplane, and not giving it to people who are on the terrorist watch list. when i saw my opponents say that, he did not get very excited but i saw him get excited. when she said this. he said, my goodness, and that was for him really getting excited. [laughter] that is so out of step, that is so out of touch, and having that you in the united states senate will harm us and make us less safe. >> unbelievably we are out of time for full questions with full answers. let me ask something quickly. you are also for allowing the ban to disappear. >> i think it is crystal clear that we have loads of laws. most of the time criminals are breaking those laws. we are curtailing citizens lawful rights to carry guns. the assault weapons ban is extremely arbitrary, and what qualifies as an assault weapon -- senator boxer, perhaps she is truly confused or perhaps she is just -- in-line >> i am sorry. >> the terrorist watch list and the no-fly list are different things. >> we will the senator to have a quick response. >> the assault weapons ban has been in place in california since the 1980's. to go back to that dangerous yesterday makes no sense at all. it has bipartisan support. and my colleague senator feinstein has worked so hard to get that assault weapons ban to be in place nationally. and i have been a strong supporter and that and i hope i can go back. because we want our streets safe. >> we're not going to shift to closing statements. miss fiorina, you go first. you get two minutes. >> thank you so much for the privilege to be here and have a great debate with you, senator boxer. i have traveled up and down this wonderful state and i have been struck by the duty and by the spirit of california. i am also struck by the anger, the frustration, and even the fear. i remember meeting the immigrant who had built a small business from the ground up, only to see it ruined with too much taxation and too much regulation, and he said, this is not the country i came to. my own government is destroying the livelihood. i remember speaking to the city councilman who talked about his struggle to keep this community together while they struggled with almost 40% unemployment. i remember as well the woman who said, i have never voted before, but i am voting for you because i am afraid for my children's future. promise me this -- when you get to washington, you will not forget us. we can turn our nation around. we can get it back on the right track. peeking get our state on the right track. we can grow our economy. we can control government spending. but to do all these things, we must guard by changing the people we send to washington. i ask for your support. i ask for your vote. and i pledge to you this -- i will go to the u.s. senate and i will fight for the millions of californians who love their country, who go about their business, who pay their dues, who serve their communities. you do not ask for frills or favors. you give a lot and expect little. you are asking for one simple thing now -- that we take our government back, make it listen, and make it work. >> senator, you now get two minutes for a closing statement. >> thank you for this opportunity. i think you have seen this is a clear choice. and i'm going to run through some of those choices. this election is between someone fighting for jobs day in and day out. jobs right here in america. someone who had a chance, laid off 30,000 workers and shipped jobs to china. this election is about someone who is working hard so that we can see the words made in america again versus someone who was proud of her time at h-p when she sent when she stamped made in china and made in india or her products. this is a clear choice between someone fighting for taxes for the middle class's and small business person is someone who is fighting for the wealthy few, the billionaires', the ceo's. this is a big difference. clean energy -- one of us is fighting hard to make california a hub of a new clean energy economy and the millions of jobs that go with it. the other is being supported by big oil and big coal. this is a choice between two people who differ on a woman's right to choose. i worked my whole life to protect a woman's privacy and her health. my women -- might have on it would turn that woman into a criminal. this is a very clear choice between someone who is of all her life to protect park coast and a 400,000 jobs that rely on the beautiful coast. the fisherman, the tourism industry, the recreation industry -- and my opponent does not support the legislation to permanently protect that coast. finally this is a choice between a candidate who park really hard for wall street reform to in that mess over there, and someone who opposes the reform. i think frankly, acting just like a wall street ceo. destroying jobs for americans and taking it for yourself. i hope we do not go back to that. >> bank you both -- the thank you both. we all apologize for not getting the more questions. we would have liked to. hopefully what we have talked about tonight will help people here and help viewers and listeners at home make informed decisions on what they should do, on election day november 2. thank you to our panelists of journalists. thank st. mary's college for hosting it. thank you for joining us and good night. >> up next on c-span, the day's hearings of the financial crisis inquiry commission. then middle east leaders speak at the white house had a peace talks in washington. later, another chance to see tonight's california senate candidates debate. on tomorrow morning's of the washington journal" we will talk with members of the new american foundation about the israeli-palestinian peace talks getting under way in washington. mike kaufman will discuss the u.s. withdrawal or right. and kenneth doyle on how it changes the finance laws will affect this year's elections. "washington journal" starts at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> finance is not like rocket science. this is the fascinating thing to think about ponzi's scheme, the biggest ponzi scheme for wall street is telling someone who has worked really hard to earn a dollar that they're not smart enough to understand how that dollar will be invested. >> and 2007, meredith whitney was the first to predict major losses for citigroup. she is our guest on see is bands q&a. >> the financial crisis inquiry commission today continued its investigation into the 2008 financial crisis. this hearing lifted how which financial firms were considered too big to fail. but this is included the former ceo of lehman brothers which went bankrupt in 2008 as well as the former ceo of wachovia, a troubled banks deemed too big to fail by the federal deposit insurance corporation. the commission is a bipartisan panel created by congress and is due to wrap up -- to report its findings this december.