and the stories are not washington obviously become a factor in the waiting you relate to someone that is the president because there are so many people that tell stories about the president, and in his case, you know, even people who are political antagonists would say he was a great drinking buddy and he could tell terrific stories. so there was that since about he was great company and then the whole notion of reading the cue cards at not being that smart it became a joke because he would play on it. he wasn't afraid. ..

and if you come forward from that from bill clinton, is much more of a different generation, much more of a young man who i think i'm always captured a dat is that he is a young man at georgetown university was already thinking about how he could become by the president, how he could help students unpack and get to know them and their parent and insinuate themselves into the lives very quickly. and he has the sense that he is extremely smart and not as -- not as much as a reserved

figure, if you will, as the first president bush, but much more out there, friendly, sort of a hail fellow well met type attitude. and of course, if you come forward from that to george w. bush, a gang, what struck me they are was but a nice person. in other words, this is the guy is working really hard, someone who's really disciplined about his life, the money was put is whole life on his check to make the best of what he has to understand the opportunities he has an absolutely feels less to be in this position and is working really hard at it and is obviously in very different circumstances. if a president obama, what always strikes me as no matter what the topic, no matter the discussion, whether were having lunch for a press conference or

in a receiving line, here's someone who can have a discussion about any issue. and no more than anyone in the room and be totally conversing with people who are experts on the topic. it's just kind of an amazing range of intellectual bandwidth, just terrific. and so, what strikes me as not white. two things strike me, but i don't know if there's any commonality. they're our leaders, but they all have different characteristics that i would identify as leadership characteristics. >> good morning. >> my name is hillary brown. bankruptcy cisco state university. my question is that now, the republicans took over the house. would there be any media coverage when it comes to restorations? >> i didn't understand the last part.

>> any media coverage? >> like the race to help the wealthy class and all that stuff. will that be media coverage, specifically on race relations click >> definitely. i think for republicans, one of the challenges they have been exclusively white and the congress until just now, and so this 112 session. you can have two black members elect to. tim scott, south carolina and allen west from florida. and that's a breakthrough for them. you have to go back to jc watt. i'm forgetting frank's first name. the congressman from connecticut. so it's been a while since we've seen anybody black in the republican ranks on capitol hill and the challenge for republican is also the need to understand

the party going forward because the country demographics are shifting so quickly, not just in terms of african-americans. i don't think they're going to make a lot of embryos there at the moment, but i do think they have some chance at 16 x, although the chances diminishing given the parties on immigration and immigration reform issues. so, this is a critical issue, race and the republicans. and sometimes when a journalist either assume well, there's not going to be much motion on that front, not much change or there's an occasional piece that points out what a dire situation it is. but i think they're reluctant to talk about it because it could be simply translated as the white party and democrats are the party of the people of color in the united states. i would also make the case that if you look at major issues like health care reform, tax cut

extensions, you could say republicans have become the party of the older generation in america and democrats are the party of younger people in america appeared he can do this in terms of president obama's approval rating. he is a think most white americans disapprove of his performance in office. most americans of color are wildly approving of his performance in office. you look at health care reform bill. tremendous support among democrats. tremendous opposition among republicans when you boil it away in singapore the republicans and democrats and then you come back. and from 1% to two of racial prism in which he say look, people of color and also lower in income, older people come away people are not supportive of this health care bill. so there's race that plans though many of these issues.

it's a very touchy issue. people are discomforted by the discussion, but it is reality and i hope he'll be allowed to find that coverage. >> hi, my name is cat named from the university of san diego and i was wondering, have a say in journalism change the years and in the terms of quality journalism, where do you think that's going? >> well, you know, for me, i came in 76 as an intern, as they told you. so i been here no more than 30 years. and there's a little bit of a forthcoming. you're still young. i don't know if you saw that movie. but there's a fourth come quality to this because when i was coming along, as they told you, i was working initially for an afternoon newspaper. what they don't exist in the united states anywhere. so now you think about it coming forward. you think about the declining

number of morning newspapers in the declining size and quality of disney's papers in the united states, the whole crisis in terms of the newspaper industry. and then you come forward in time and there was the advent of cable news in the early 80s. cnn and the like. and of course the 1990 and the gulf war, everything was focused on cable news and the idea of a 24 hours news cycle that was constant it would take each of the same animals fed them the morning paper was an afterthought because you know everything because he sought the night before. you throw in talk radio, especially conservative talk radio became so big. you come for commandments are talking about the internet and then you're just not talking about the internet itself is the source of news, which are talking about in the popularity of blogs. and now you're talking about beats and all the rest.

and you know, if you throw into this also the fact that cnn, which was initially the premium cable news it's now number three far behind fox news and msnbc. it gives you a sense of how things have changed, the landscape. another way in which i think of this though, as i guess it was last year that walter cronkite type. i think to myself when i was a kid growing up, how much i admired walter cronkite. as i told you i was a black kid in brooklyn. i love this guy is good, i like listening to him telling the news of the day. and i don't think the mets a liberal. i don't think of immense weight. i don't think of him as democrat or republican. i think that's a trust for the good. that's walter cronkite. i'm not sure that would work in this political environment. in this political environment, people seem to want to know if a

host, a liberal or conservative and i want to know about their purse maladies in their views and that's what drives the top-rated primetime cable program in the country. so, you know, even if you swing back over to something like the nightly news and again declining ratings for all the three big networks in terms of their nightly news broadcasts, there's tremendous -- those audiences tend to skew much older. people there are trying to become their personalities. i think he tried to do feature presentations. the whole notion of focus on hard news and what is a very small window, about 22 minutes from a half-hour is gone because they are trying to hold the viewers attention in a way that's quite different than anything i would have seen when i was your age. when i was in your position, also i think the quality of writing about politics was much

different. i mean, i was inspired by books like teddy white rating about the making of the president in 1969. yet a series of books about taking you behind the scenes so you want to do and who was really pulling the strings behind the choice of a political candidate and then to advance that political candidate. usually it david halberstam's books, best and the brightest without policymakers involved in american diplomacy and the war effort and be at tom and the mistakes they have made and what led president johnson that he could not stand for reelection. and then you get into books about like he talked about why mention woodward and bernstein of watergate. and again, getting behind the scenes, these are books that would time idea of how you can get people to understand the

game of national politics of a game in which they are real flesh and that people with real flaws in real strength can take away these are larger-than-life people you could never touch. now those ways, journalism has changed. in the 24 hour news site, constant attention that gets blown up. there is less in the way as it stands a debate that around here and the way of political polarization, although lots of people disagree with me about that. at a conversation with don rumsfeld, secretary of defense. you know, we've you're in the 60s? i said i wasn't. and when they arrived in the streets and there is racial anger, anger over the war in vietnam, all the rest, that political polarization of a different kind. the political polarization you

see today, where there is a clear policy of instruction is on that is employed very little talk across party line, very little debate on big issues because everybody is afraid they will lose their base would not be able to win a primary election, makes for a certain kind of political paller says her polarization that is in the later eristic in my mind of my time in washington. back at morning and ann taylor wiki from a1 university. but the shift in congress there's been talk of having to scale back the education program. and are just curious of your opinion having written on policies, particularly nbc what you thought the first step should be taken to remedy these problems and budget cutbacks. just thoughts in general. >> well, i don't know exactly the details of the cutbacks are thinking about with regards to education. i think the big challenge right now is whether they're going to

reauthorize what remains of no child left behind now called race to the top under the obama administration. congressman boehner, you may not know this, but he was one of the leading forces behind the creation of no child left behind and now a speaker he has an opportunity to put republicans in the part of making sure that that kind of attention to improving quality of public education k-12 continues in the united states. but the very issue that you've highlighted here this morning of budget cuts, include discussion of education because people are saying that's discretionary spending and their arguments from a conservative point of view about legitimacy of the federal government being involved with local schools at all. why is the federal government have anything to say? well, from my perspective if you ask in my opinion, i think the

federal government needs to help the standards. at things one of the great opportunities of america and promise of america is every child will have the chance to succeed. that should have a chance to move up that ladder of upward mobility. it's key to social, political stability that everybody believe that i don't know if it's still true people believe they can become president, but that you can succeed, but you can have a dream in this country and you can have your dream realized he would welcome you can't do that without education. if they're certain places whereby just accident of birth you find yourself wanting a community with low standards, low quantity schools, i think that's a prescription for disaster. i think it's the case because you're a minority are you come from a single-parent family, the presumption is you're not going to succeed and there's not the investment in need to give you the chance to demonstrate that you want to be a good student and that you want to have those opportunities. again, i think that sends a

signal we have become a very different society than the one we've been historically. so to me, this is critical and i would hope people who are taking up the budget ax would realize that you can't cut the roots. because if you do, the people who would become the leaders, the people who would keep the american dream of flame will not be there. so this is a critical issue i think going forward as we look at this new congress in the change that's taken place in terms of political control of the congress and the ability of that republican majority in the house to do business with president obama the democrat. >> hi, sir rehires. but if that sticks out it was your favorite to report on? >> well, that's tough. i've been around a while. i would say, you know, the book i wrote on justice marshall

released dance out for me in the sense that i remember wanting to talk to him so much and he was reluctant to talk to me. he had been described in several books about the supreme court in a negative way, as a buffoon, as someone who came in late, left early, someone who is really not intellectually of the caliber to deserve to be on the supreme court. and he couldn't just in the press. and he was just by serendipity that he finally agreed to do a book with someone else. and then that fell through. and finally, i think at the urging of his law clerks and his family agreed that he should talk to somebody toward the end of his career. and i had been sending messages out there, asking for that for a long time.

and so i got a call. it's a little bit of a funny story and how i got that call because the call came to the "washington post" and i wasn't at my desk. so this is in the 1980s -- late 80s. the phone then ran over to the receptionist was a friend of mine and knew i'd been trying to reach just as marshall. so when justice marshall's voice came on the phone and said hi, this is justice marshall at the supreme court, and like to talk to juan williams, her response was something to the effect of yet right i don't have time to play around. what are you doing? who is this? they said no, this is justice marshall. is that i'm sick of you and then hung up on him. but you know come to think about it and you guys may end up being the supreme court were present in the united states. you don't have to put up with that level of foolishness.

so he called back to the woman in the publisher of the papers with katharine graham. and she took his call and then they found the editor and a reporter and i said chief justice marshall, so sorry. we do know is really you you and all that. and then to go over and to meet him was like meeting someone who would living history. clearly, this is someone as president johnson said the supreme court was going to be in history books on the board of education. through us and a supreme court justice that involves so major rulings. everything from pentagon papers to roe v. wade to pocky. and he's just a great storyteller. so for me, this was an amazing experience and i would go out and visit once a week for about six months and it became a long magazine article and then a boat. and i think i always remember that experience.

but i remember there's so many being the president vacant on the golf course in it that justice orca when they were attacks on the kind of scattering of craziness that attended that moment in life. i remember, you know, i could go on. the point is these things come and go at the moment their front page top of screaming headlines and 24 hour coverage. and of course it fades into the woodwork. and in washington, the response to this weekend would be quite and quite absorbing for an experience, but then you move on to the next story as we think maybe the books got in my mind.

because the newspaper the next day tv and radio seemed to be rather favorable, you know, they don't stick with you. but books stick around. >> whitney donahue from suffolk d. within talk about media buyers this past week and i was just wondering if he tended to lean one way or another depending on the network you are working with at that time. when the difficulties i had it been in the middle. but it's not a difficulty. it's always been a blessing. the fact is that what they fired me at work for npr for 10 years. and so they saw value in what i was able to bring to their listeners. and then i've been working for fox for 14 years and they see value in what i'm able to bring to their viewers. and i work for the "washington post," cnn. i could go on.

but the ideas in terms of my training, when i was your age i was able to tell a story in a compelling, accurate fashion and i didn't care who you were. it's like, you know, steve said we've got a plumbing problem in the building, i don't think he would say and i want a democrat or a want a liberal or a conservative or i want a black person or a hispanic or white boy wants a man or women. each just said get somebody to fix the plumbing and get them here now. while i think it's like that. i was training just to do the work. i can tell you the story. i can collect information that the facts hopefully get the right people, hopefully to a quicker than competition. when you read the story even at a later come and say that's a better telling of detail. and more from it than i did from the competition.

that's what i was trained to do. obviously the earlier question that i've seen, platforms i present that information have changed. i never thought, you know, where do you go from the afternoon paper to a morning paper and then you go from newspapers to tv and radio. i never thought i'd be doing tv and radio. and you know, it will print different formats like talkshow tv and then do something like sitting in for a primetime cable host by bill o'reilly. i think the same skills are can you identify the heart of the story? can you bring information that helps people to better understanding of the dynamics that created the story and what the story is going. so you're helping them to see the broader goods. to me, it's not about whether i

am -- and i am a democrat. it's not whether an liberal or conservative and depends on the issue you're talking to me about. do you know, there's certain people a notice in the black community. often they say you're pretty conservative. i said why is that? they say you're tough on things like out of wedlock birth or high dropout rate or, you know, you don't like a lot of the content of rock music, especially when they use in the. and i say that's true. if that's what you want to do it, that's fine. then he say when you know what, i'm big on gun-control. i live in the district of columbia. i like all these aren't people, especially gang bangers running around with stolen guns. that's a threat to me and my family, so i had a very acute sensitivity to the idea of everybody having a gun. i think everybody might have the sensitivity after what happened in arizona this weekend.

or you go to issues like subsidized marriage or gay in the military. it's like that amount to. it depends on the issue. i don't fit into any talks. a message in the current media environment, there's a great advantage. there are people who advertise themselves specifically as being a voice for liberals or a voice for conservatives. in one of the changes that take is that the audience seems to have an appetite and they say i just want to hear somebody who will reaffirm my preexisting political positions. and tell the other guy what a he is and how silly and make fun to mock the other stuff. the people like their news delivered. that outfit and not box and i haven't changed to make myself identify one way or another. and i know sometimes i might aggravate the audience and

there's evidence they certainly aggravated some people at npr. but that's what you get with me. >> tanks. >> you're welcome. >> and/or charlie from university of san diego. my question is one of your recent departure at npr, the shooting at tucson and the great divide in american politics that's evident, how do you see america's ability to respectfully disagree with one another and just be okay with that, still be friends? and what if any role do you see the media has been trying to bridge that divide? >> displays little on the last question we had. you know, i mentioned earlier that one of the characteristics in terms of the american president is for the most part, that when you meet them, they are our people you feel you could talk to. i don't care what your political affiliation, you don't come in and say, you know, that guy

doesn't deserve to be here. you might question their intellect in some cases but in terms of their commitment to american progress and their love of country and their belief that america really is a blessed place, there's no question. and so, in moments like that you say, a lot of this political fragmentation, a lot of the polarization and hyperbolic but jim that it tends the political process and start to boil away and you have a very clear view of what's really important as embodied, listening to president or any political leaders once you get them away from the rhetoric. to me it's regrettable without a doubt that you have people who simply take one line or another, without a willingness to

acknowledge when the other side makes a good point. now i think debate is absolutely essential. and i think strong debate and strong voices and sharp points are wonderful. i think that's good stuff. that's in keeping with the american tradition. if you go back in terms of american history and go back to the founding of our country that things like the federalist papers, you understand that the founding fathers with all their rebellion against the british were pretty rebellious on an intramural basis with each other about what our country would be in the direction were going. obviously we've had a civil war in this country, was a way no internal division. this isn't our first dance. but i think for the average american trying to make sense of the political system and trying to understand what's in the best interest of the country right now, the tendency is to say that

red state or blue state. arb. and that is so simpleminded. and that does not serve them all in terms of news consumers for it doesn't serve the political process while. the consequence i think as we go from the 06 cycle where we saw at swing towards democratic and then await when it really was another huge swing towards democratic and now he going to 10, where we see a swing towards republicans. so you see this wild oscillation in terms of political process. but the undercurrent tends to be wild discontent with those sites. people don't do politics. they think politicians are corrupt are all about money or simpleminded gap, just craving soda people. so there's a disrespect for politicians and therefore in for the political process.

and you know i must tell you, i think the world of the process and it ain't the world of our congress and institutions and they've been too important in terms of the world and world progress. so the idea that most people think well, i know exactly what to write and i'm on the website or the right side. or in the case of your generation, all these politicians are a bunch of clowns and jon stewart and stephen colbert would they make fun realize how silly and these people are. i think to myself sometimes, this is not helpful in terms of developing people who understand how difficult it is to become a successful politician, to make an important debating point, to make that point in a way that is persuasive so your fellow americans can hear you and appreciate the importance of what you're trying to say. that is the core of democracy and they just wouldn't sell it

cheap. you know, you can obviously get lots of laughs and i don't mean to bring you guys down, but i think it's a serious process and at some point worthy of your consideration. that's why it's so please only made the trip to washington today and treat the subject with some care. >> good morning, roxanne taylor from suffolk university in boston, massachusetts. my question is do see a lot of advanced than we would've reported from newspapers to tv stupider net. so what changes do you see for the way we report news in say 10 years? >> well, i think there's a huge change coming and it's taken me a lot of time to appreciate it, but clearly news is migrating to the internet and that's where people are going to get their news from. so for all the worry about what's going on with newspapers were the major nightly news broadcasts, the reality is now

that news has -- if you're looking for breaking news, people don't go to the major networks anywhere. they go to cable. they go to cable news. and even more so now, from what we're starting to see, puget said a study on this, people are going to the internet. if you think about how people get their news off the internet, they get them from major news brands, but then they quickly go on to blog and they're going to do some research, exploration, a little reporting on the road so they can try and find out what is behind the news. i think in that sense it becomes more days. news becomes more available, but it also becomes much more planted if you will because there are fewer gatekeepers in terms of standards and editors who say yes, this is information that confirmed, that were shorter. in this environment, if you have a presidential assassination like making 63, you couldn't

have the country glued to let say walter cronkite and say well, he's getting the news, yes it's confirmed, et cetera appeared and. and so do people plugging into various websites or blogs in picking up bits and pieces. some people believe in what they're reading. other people say i saw something, not knowing if it was edited and the way if you're familiar with the shirley sharad case where something comes across the internet and find out it's been placed in a way to make it appear to be something that is not. but that spirit going. there's no? going to the internet for news and i will be the source of the question is not only the quality of this product, but how it will be delivered and the economics behind it, you know, who pays for that. and so the news, for example, about something like a piece of legislation on capitol hill if

it's related to the say the drug industry come from the pharmaceutical industry that has an economic interest in how the legislation is reporting in great detail and depth for themselves and their client as opposed to coming from a general interest news organization that's covering for the entire public. that's the difference in tone i think. it's going to be harder to identify exactly the bias behind the person who has put this information into the computer. so in that sense, brands will play a bigger role because it will convey trust. but the question is what's behind the brand? because even now we're not sure how news on the internet is going to be paid for. >> hi, my name is peter. i'm a student at the university of san diego. do you think the issue should be addressed her as a matter of certain groups pointing fingers?

>> know, as i say, i think michelle is an important issue because it didn't pack the political process. and certainly if you can't go to your congressman or congresswoman without a gun on the table between the two of you, i don't think that's a good situation. i think you have to have a free-flowing debate, disagreement, agreement. you have to do you know, thank you standing up on an important piece of legislation. and i think people who are striving to be our political leaders -- i don't think they're going to be so anxious to cannot position. they feel like it's the okay corral for anybody who states an opinion or tries to make a point, that people who disagree feel it is okay to physically attack you, that violence is called for. i mean, who wants that for themselves or their families? so it is a big issue. now, can you attach b-tree out to the actions of jared lochner

in arizona? that's a big issue. what we've seen in some cases as a knee-jerk instinct is to my left to say well jared loughner was inspired by some of the victory all. what is clear this moment is that it is a mentally disturbed person. >> it's time for one more person. >> and nick witkowski for bradley university. my question is over the past year a lot of things have happened politically. has it been any single piece of legislation that you thought was kind of a surprise or did that a pastor didn't pass in what were your viewpoints on that? >> i share president obama's feeling that i was surprised at you and i pass. i thought that was a real opportunity to say we understand how difficult this issue of immigration is. when it comes to young people who came to this country because their parents brought them, so

it wasn't a matter of their own actions. a lot of them came at the mom and dad. and they say to people who are completing school, serving the u.s. military. these are people who i think are really, you know, the bread-and-butter of her future. but everybody's going to agree. we have defined awake to get them a path to citizenship. but the opposition is so strong on this issue. i think again feature all plays into it. i think the demonization of legal immigrants in specific, but anxiety over the amount of immigration is so high right now, but it has prevented the congress from dealing with this major issue for us as an american people. you know, you can talk about added security at the border, but we have to put more security

in place than ever before. you can talk about added strain on the social safety net in terms of hospitals, schools and all the rest, but for the most part -- or you could talk about drug dealing and only collect dvds. for the most part if you look at people who were immigrants of the country i think historically clearly immigrants have been a blessing. but even the current moment, you would have to say immigrants had so much in terms of the workforce and revitalization of neighborhood that were indicating the rest. and if you even go to the high-end of our employment market, you will find that companies going in terms of the high-tech industry come the pharmaceutical industry are trying to get talented, educated people from overseas here to add to our economic duty, to add two jobs. and so you get people from the highest and other business leadership community saying we

need immigration reform. but somehow, the congress is unable to act and even unable to act when it came to the transaction that was a huge disappointment. well steve, it's been a pleasure. i want to thank you all for coming and thank you for listening. [applause] >> we have our traditional speaker gift as well. thank you very much. >> i just wanted to say, juan, that is 30, 40 years ago now when i was here in washington anchoring the morning news for abc, i kept reading this young guy at the "washington post" and identified him as a calmer and it's nice to see how far you've come up with marvelous career. thank you very much.

[applause] >> it also goes to show that it helps to be in the right place at the right time and at the circus is in town. good, good, good. so we're going to take a quick little standup stretch break and we're going to get going here just a minute again. [inaudible] if you leave the rimini to come back in, please try and do so through the stores over here so once we get started were not walking across the camera angle. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> on c-span 2 tonight, john

kerry talks about partisanship in washington. the president of the u.s. chamber of commerce discusses the economy in the state of american business. and fox news political analyst ron williams on his career in journalism. >> massachusetts senator john kerry said today that he hoped

the tucson shooting would change the tone in congress on debates over energy, the deficit, infrastructure and other issues. senator kerry, the foreign relations committee chairman supported the gridlock in washington is hurting america's ability to compete in the global economy. this talk was hosted by the center for american process access time. the center's president john podesta introduces senator kerry. >> -- action fund and i'm glad to join all of you this morning. a special thanks to senator john kerry for being here today. this is a difficult time, butrta important and timely address ang discussion. as we get started, i want to take a moment to the member ting those lost and wounded in thet shootings in arizona laste weekend. if anything is to come out of saturday's terrible violence, i hope that those of us here in washington will begin to work with a renewed sense of purpose,

service and cooperation to honor congresswoman gifford's role, gr i amstina green and the other. but dems. i'm pleased that we have senator kerry here to read this call to action.ishe the senator has a long andd distinguished record of rising abov e the partisan fray in the interest of our country. and is acted with honor, dignity and compassion throughout hise d career. apla i like to udbriefly recognize ar applaud senator kerry's most recent achievement, the passage of the new start nuclear arms reduction treaty in december.c five months of discussions come down to the wire.ssly t senator kerry worked tirelessly to shepherd new start to theenas summit, even as a handful of senators tried to stop the treaty from coming to a vote.prf thanks to senator kerry's leadership the vote was approved in the final hours of the 111th congress. senator come and thank you yourr hard work on new start treatyuls and congratulations on all of

your success. on [applause] with so many challenges on the corizon, passing a budget,te e getting the economy back on track, putting people back toinm work, dealing with many national security challenges our country faces. the vitriolic rhetoric that slows down new start is a wastes of time and energy and aenator i dangerous distraction from the real problems at hand.cisions as senator kerry will discuss come as the decisions we make now for sale to make that will determine strength, influence and prosperity of our nation in years tot come.the wld i if we want to compete with the rest of the relevant technology in and education and energy and economic power, will have to make serious and sober efforts to lead today.da. that means spending far lesstimt time in debates and much of ourk time getting to the serious work of governing.end's in light of last week at the polling events, it appears congress will tone down its rhetoric at least in the ep

short-term. scheduled votes including health care repeal both in the house will be postponed in order to focus on and address the enormous tragedy in arizona. meanwhile, there is a loud in place public debate, which has takenae place over the causes ofhould be violence and whether the way we express ourselves should be restrained from this part fink s forward.a that's an important day, but i think it ignores a larger point. in order to move onto a new erad hf stability, we have to goacalc beyond the words we use and change the way we do business on a day-to-day basis.to stop we need to stop pointing readers at each other and start taking responsibility for our actions. we must seek opportunities for cooperation and collaboration and try to understand one to address ther our enormous challenges facing ourie country today. i'm glad we've got people like senator john kerry in congressbk fighting to bring the focus back to larger challenges before use it's my pleasure to introduceas them here today. senator kerry's first elected to

defend in 1984 fromkly massachusetts, where he quickly established himself as an expert on foreign relations and tional national security. feate he won the chairmanship of the foreign relations committee into those annoying nine. he chaired the senate committeed on mall business and onto premiership from 2007 in 2009. e and of course he ran as thedemoa democratic president for a candidate in 2004.n foreign affairs, competitiveness, climate and energy and on military affairs and i could think of few public servants more qualified to address the challenges facing the country going forward. senator kerry, welcome back to the center for american progress. the floor is yours. think you for being here. [applause] >> john, thank you very much for a terrific personal introduction, but more importantly, i think thank you for capturing the importance of

our shifting the dialogue and the importance of talking about the future of the country even as we face these difficult issues. let me just say with respect to your generous comments on the s.t.a.r.t. treaty it was a tremendous team effort and president, vice president come secretary of state were enormously engaged and would not have achieved without the kind of team effort that was produced. it's an honor to be here today. i know that someone might well ask why but our country in the morning act we are here this morning continuing to talk about the business of the country. but the truth is that's what gabrielle giffords was doing is talking about the business of the country and the truth is talking of the business of our country is more urgent than ever. john and i did consider

postponing the speech which had been planned for some time. serious times call for serious discussions and after reflection both of us felt not only should the speech not be postponed, but that in fact it was imperative to give it. so obviously as we gather here this morning last weekend's unspeakable tragedy is at the forefront of all of our minds. our thoughts are very much with congresswoman giffords and be paid for her recovery even as the nation mourns the life of such a senseless act. all of us struggle to understand this terrific event. there's much we still don't know about what happened and why, but here is what we do know without any question.

on saturday public servant went to meet with her constituents in the best tradition of our democracy. and while out just doing her job, congresswoman giffords was shot down. today she's fighting for her life and six people lost their lives in a senseless assault not just on them, but in its calculated planning for assassination and assault on our democracy itself. yearlykos i heard this weekend's news while in sudan of all places her presenting the country in a collective effort to help the people who have endured unspeakable violence and they were trying to make a fresh start through their democracy. yet as i stood beside those africans who lost loved ones in pursuit of the space values that we americans separately export to the world there was another clash with of the events

unfolding in tucson. a dramatic underscoring of the work that must be done to revitalize our own democracy here at home. many observers had already reduced this tragedy, the simple questions of whether overheated rhetoric is to blame or one partizan group or another. and surely today many pundits and politicians are measuring their words a little more carefully and thinking in little more about what they are saying. but in the weeks and months ahead, the real issue that we need to confront isn't just what role divisive political rhetoric may have played on saturday. but it's the violence, decisive overly simplistic dialogue does to our democracy every day. in the week of the weekend's tragedy, speaker boehner was right to suspend the house's usual business. the question now is whether we

are all going to suspend and then end business as usual in the united states capitol. because even before this event shook us in all of our partisan routine, it should have been clear that on bedrock questions of civility and consensus, discourse and democracy, the whole endeavor of build a new politics of national purpose, the big question wasn't whose rhetoric was right or wrong, but rather our political conversation was indeed worthy of the confidence and trust of the american people. millions of americans wake up every day knowing that we can do better, much better than we've done these last years because our history has proven it time and again. when the soviets and the first satellite in history into orbit half a century ago, the leaders

from both parties rose with a sense of common purpose and result that never again would the united states fall behind anyone anywhere. president kennedy summoned the nation to reach the great and audacious goals before the decade is out of landing and then on the moon and returning him safely to earth. there were no partisan divisions that blocked that way with a daring determination we moved immediately to unprecedented levels of investment and science, technology, engineering and research and development. and only 12 years after sputnik, to americans humble lee took mankind first steps on the moon. back then, just as today, our leaders, democrat and republican, had deep disagreements on many of the issues. but back then, they shared in eastern a deeper commitment to

stand together the strength and success of our country. for them, at that turning point politics stopped not just at the ocean's edge, but at the edge of the atmosphere. for them, american exceptional listen wasn't just a slogan. the new that america is exceptional not because we say we are but because we do exceptional things. as i first set last month, we as a people face another sputnik moment. now, today, and the great question is whether we will meet this moment as americans did so boldly five decades ago, the decisions we make or fail to meet in this decade, new energy sources, education, infrastructure, technology and research all of which are going to produce the jobs of the future, and our decisions also on deficits and entitlements well without a doubt determine

whether the united states of america will continue to lead the world or to be left to follow in the wake of others on the way to decline, less prosperous and our own homeland and less secure in the world. some will question when the world could this be possible, america less prosperous? america on the decline? they forget that exceptional some for america has never been an automatic fact, a birthright on autopilot, but it is an inheritance of an opportunity to be renewed and revitalized by each generation. so let me share some facts with you. right now as john adams said, facts are stubborn things. right now, other developed and developing countries are making far reaching choices to reshape their economies and move forward in new and very different global

era but instead of us responding as americans have in the past, the frustrating reality is that our american political system is increasingly paralyzed and falcon iced into a patchwork of narrow interests that have driven the large national good fortune than the national dialogue altogether. increasingly over he to ideology and partisan in sight leave us less able to address or even comprehend the decisive nature and scale of the challenges the will decide our whole future. the fact is our strength here at home determines our strength in the bottled. and other countries are everyday constantly taking measure sizing us up, watching our politics, measuring our gridlock. on issue after issue during the consensus has been freed or shredded by lust for power

cloaked in partisan games. health care individual mandate. guess what? it started as a republican idea. a pro-business idea because rising insurance costs leave big holes in the profits of corporations. cap-and-trade. guess again. another republican idea based on market principles and with bipartisanship successfully implemented by president george herbert walker bush, now denounced as our theological heresy. and energy independence? for 40 years, every president since richard nixon has recognized that foreign oil imports are america's achilles' heel. but whenever we've had a chance to act, we've been blocked by entrenched influence and the siren can call up short-term interest instead of achieving long-term success. even as we were calling our way

out to the ratification of the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty that john just talked about last month, i noted that far more ambitious treaties had previously been ratified by votes of 90 or 95 to zero. i joked that in the senate in this hyper partisan washington, 67 might be the new 95. i'm proud of that in the end we send a signal to the world that in american foreign policy however uphill slog and improbable victory, partisan politics can still stop the water's edge. but the fact remains that it was closer than ever should have been. all of this underscores the current danger to our country, clear and present danger to our country in ways that go beyond far the single debate and highlight a host of other issues

that demand and deserve common resolve, not constant suspicion and division. if the treaties ratified almost unanimously yesterday just 71 votes today what's the forecast for other decisive and divisive endeavors that once would have commanded 79 votes in the senate? we can't afford for the old 79 to become the new 49 common dooming our national will to undertake the gridlock. because in 21st century where choices and consequences come at us every day so much faster than ever before, with larger consequences and downstream impacts the never before, the price of senate inaction isn't that we will just stand still. it isn't just that america will fall behind. it's that we will stay behind as

we see the best policies of this young centuries to others who are more focused and disciplined. just think about an issue as simple and fundamental as building and investing in america -- an issue that was once so clearly bipartisan. the republican mayor of new york city, fiorello laguardia, a famously said there's no republican or democratic way to clean the streets. well, for decades there was no democratic or republican way to build roads and bridges and airports. the building of america was every americans' job. this wasn't narrow pork; there was a national priority. but today, we are still living off and wearing out the infrastructure put in place by republicans and democrats together, starting with president eisenhower's interstate highway system. we didn't build it; our parents

and grandparents did. and now partisan paralysis has kept us from leaving the inheritance even as it decays from neglect. and the question is for all of us what are we building for our children and for future generations? the lawyer of the modern infrastructure, my friends, it's te bl f y. ..economy -- the key to connectg our markets to moving products and people, generating and sustaining millions of jobs for american workers, the key to not wasting hundreds of thousands of hours and millions of gallons of gas on colin highways. in the face of global competition, our growth and exports are directly tied to the modernity of our infrastructure, but you wouldn't know we'd in today's congress. and as we invest too little and of our competitors invest more

and more, the harder and harder it will be to catch up -- and the more and more attractive those countries will be for future investments. in 2009, china spent an estimated $350 billion on infrastructure -- 9% of its gross domestic product. europe's infrastructure bank financed through $50 billion in projects across the continent from 2005 to 2009, modernizing seaports, expanding airports, high-speed rail lines, reconfiguring coal city centers. brazil interested over to $40 billion in infrastructure in the past three years alone with an additional 340 billion planned over the next three years. and what about us? well, we know that americans have always been builders. we build a transcontinental railroad. we build an interstate highway system. we built the rockets that let us explore the farthest edge of the

solar system and beyond. but as a result of our political gridlock and attention to the short term and partisan games played today, that is not what we are living today. for too long we have under the old and under invested and too much of what we have done has been on informed by any long-term strategic plan for the nation. in 2008, it was estimated that we had to make an annual rent a spread of 250 billion for the next 50 years just to legitimately need our current transportation needs. right now, we are not even close to that. right now we are as many miles away from that as we ought to be building in order to get their. other countries are doing what we ought to do. they are racing ahead because they created a infrastructure banks to build a new future; but we have yet to even build a new consensus for our own national

infrastructure bank in order to make americans the world's builders again -- and plain and simply to keep our country the leader in the new world economy. i can't talk with you how many times and dealings with foreign leaders as we move for him, world if you see this feedback, doubt about people and asking about the country. and just imagine the possibilities that for americans would come from this endeavor. financing projects from high-speed rail to air and sea ports, with the expectation actually of being repaid, lending directly to economically viable initiatives of both national and regional significance, without political influence. run in an open and transparent manner by experienced professionals with meaningful congressional oversight. that is an indispensable strategy for prosperity and a legitimate vision that americans

could embrace. and if we offer america the leadership that it deserves, it ought to be an on delta the opportunity and necessity for bipartisanship. it's not just infrastructure we have to rebuild our sense of national purpose, my friends. virtually every measure shows that we are falling behind. today the united states is co ranked tenth in global competitiveness among the g20 countries. america is now 12 worldwide and the percentage of 25 to 34-year-olds with a college degree, trailing, among others, russia, new zealand, south korea, and israel. this year investors have pulled $74 billion out of domestic stock funds and put $42 billion into foreign stock funds. high-profile multinational companies including applied materials and ibm are already

opening up major r&d centers in china. and as we look to the google of future it is increasingly possible that they will be funded by students from tianjin university rather than mit or stanford. so we need to face up to these new challenges, not just as individuals or separate interests, but as a nation with a national purpose. the world of the next generation will change too rapidly for political parties to focus too narrowly on the next election. the 21st century can be another american century, but only if we restore a larger sense of responsibility and free place of the clattering cacophony of the perpetual campaign with a wider discussion of what is best for

our country. for the last months we've watched the news and read the campaign literature and heard a lot of the set of -- some points. we've heard politicians say they are not going to become a part of washington. they say they are for small government, lower taxes, more freedom. but what do they really mean. do they want a government too limited to have invented the internet? now a vital part of our commerce and communications. do they want a government too small to get america's auto industry and its workers a second chance to fight for their survival? do they want taxes so slow to invest in the research that creates jobs and industries and fills the treasury with so much more revenue that it takes the children to matures disease and defends the country? we have to get past the slogans. we have to get past the sound

bites and talk in real terms about how america, our country can do best. if we are going to balance the budget and create jobs and yes, we should, we can't produce we are going to do it by just eliminating the earmarks and government waste. we have to look at the plain fact of how we have done this before. by the way, you don't have to look very far back. in the early 1990's our economy was faltering because deficits and debt were freezing up capital. but they are capable of being responsible. we've done just that and as a result we saw the longest economic expansion in history creating over 22 million jobs, generating unprecedented wealth in america with a freezing guinn come brackett rising -- income

bracket rising. the clinton economic plan, the country to a plan of discipline that helped unleash the productive potential of the american people. we invested in the work force and research and development read we helped new industries, and working with republicans and a bipartisan way we came up with a budget framework that put our nation on track to be debt free by 2012 for the first time since andrew jackson's administration. how we got off track is a story that doesn't require retelling. but the truth of how we generated the 1990 s economic boom does need to be told. we didn't just cut our way to a balanced budget. we grew our way there, and we cannot now just cut without remembering the vital need to invest in the future of the

nation. nothing played more important role back then the and the fact the we developed $1 trillion technology mart with 1 billion users. here we are today staring at another economic opportunity of extraordinary proportions, staring us right in the face, and so far we are doing precious little about, far less than any of our principal competitors. the current energy economy is a 6 trillion-dollar market with today's $4 billion -- 4 billion users growing over the next 30 to 40 years to perhaps 9 billion users and the fastest-growing segment of that is a green energy project at $2.3 trillion in just 2020. yet as of today without a different policy decision by us,

most of this investment is going to be in asia and not the united states of america. two years ago, only two years ago china accounted for just 5% of the world solar panel production. today, it boasts the world's largest solar panel manufacturing industry exporting about 95% of its production to other countries including us, the united states of america. just two years ago they produced 5% and today they are producing over 60% in the span of two years. we don't have one company in the top ten companies of the world and solar production despite the fact that we invented this technology right here in the laboratory is 50 years ago. shame on us. what are we thinking? what are we doing? china is reaping the rewards from the technologies that we invented and china's government is to spend its on the united

states three to one over projects the next several years. they've installed a 36% of the global market share and wind energy in 2009 and dave surpassed the united states as the fastest-growing market. so this is a critical, absolutely critical component of where we have to go. let me just share deutsche bank's, kevin parker who manages $7 billion in climate change related investments, almost a bad word here now calls the u.s., quote, asleep at the wheel on climate change. and on the industrial revolution taking place in the energy industry. this is a foreign observer to say we are asleep at the wheel because political uncertainty and inaction in this country guess what he's doing? he's focusing the deutsche bank's investment dollars more and more on opportunities in

china and western europe where the governments provide a more positive environment. today only 45 million of the 7 billion green investment fund deutsche bank manages is from the united states of america. simply put, because we are asleep, the investments are going elsewhere. so now is the moment in my judgment and i think the majority of americans and with many of our colleagues but not yet the coalesce majority we need now is the moment for america to reach for the brass energy bring to go to the moon here on earth by building our new energy future. and in doing so create millions of steady higher-paying jobs at every level of our economy. make no mistake jobs that produce energy in america are jobs that stay in america.

the amount of work to be done here is literally stunning. it's the work of many lifetimes, and it has to begin now and this shouldn't be a partisan issue. but instead of coming together to meet the defining tests the new energy economy and the new future and economic future we are now leaving the political season in which too many candidates promise not to work with the other party. it was a platform of running for office. and in this, in the wake of a senate session that started for republicans with a power point presentation renouncing, and i quote, the purpose of the majority is to pass their agenda, the purpose of the minority is to become the majority. now obviously it's no secret i am a convinced democrat and i know it's better to be a majority in the minority. i've been in both in the 25

years i've had the privilege of serving in the senate. and i don't want anyone to come to the senate and check their beliefs at the door and go washington. it's not what i'm asking. and the founding fathers didn't want anyone to do that either. certainly no one is elected to the senate promising to join an exclusive club or forget where they came from. but the truth is some of the most fiercely independent plain talking direct and determined partisans the life ever known in the senate have also been the ones who have tackled the toughest issues. finding common ground with people they disagree on on just about the damn near everything else they thought about. daniel patrick moynihan was a new york liberal. alan simpson was a wyoming conservative. they could sit down and talk and debate and disagree about the deficit and debt and entitlements and somehow, someway they could shape the way forward and they did it in a way

that in listed liberals like bill bradley and moderates like jack himes and conservatives because they knew certain issues were too important to be lost in the partisan squabbling. and you couldn't find three more proudly partisan and ideologically distinct politicians ronald reagan, tip o'neill and bob dole but they found a way to put politics aside and save social security for the generation rather than saving it for misuse as the next campaign. they didn't capitulate. the compromised. and speaking of the backroom deals, they agreed not to let either party demagogue the issue against the incumbents who passed the tough votes in order to pass the bill. now let me tell you, if you've got to make a backroom deal, that's the kind of backroom deal we ought to make in washington. folks, you're not going to find a republican today who would

dare criticize ronald reagan. last week when the candidates were chairman of the republican national committee had their debate, grover norquist asked each of them to name their favorite republican other than ronald reagan, and he said he had to add the caveat so that everyone didn't get the same answer. well, we would all be better off if some of these republicans remember that their favorite person ronald reagan worked across the aisle to solve the problems and we would also be better off if grover norquist thought of that ronald reagan before he announced by partisanship is just another word for date rape. that is the difference today. all ideology isn't new to the political arena and ideology itself isn't on healthy. the biggest breakthroughs in american politics have been brokered not by the middle or splitting the difference, but by

people who had a pretty healthy sense of ideology. ted kennedy and orrin hatch were a powerful team precisely because they didn't agree that much, and they spent a lot of time fighting each other and so the senate cleaned in and listened on those occasions when somehow this ultimate odd couple of things that they were willing to fight for together. sometimes as john kennedy once said the party asks too much. sometimes party leaders also asked to much especially if the exploit the rules of the united states senate for the sole purpose of denying it president a second term but that is what we witnessed the last two years. republicans nearly unanimous in opposition to almost every single proposal by the president and almost every proposal by democratic colleagues. the extraordinary measure of a

filibuster has become an ordinary experience. today it's possible for 41 senators representing only about one-tenth of the american population to bring the united states senate and the congress to stand still. now certainly i believe the filibuster has its rightful place. i used it wants to stop the drilling for oil in the wildlife refuge because i believed it was in our national interest and 60 or more senators ought to be required to speak up on such a decision. and which preserve the capacity but we have reached the point where the filibuster is being invoked by the minority not just because that kind of major difference over policy, but as a political tool to literally undermine the presidency. consider this. in the entire 19th century, including the struggle against slavery, fewer than two dozen filibusters were mounted in the

entire century. between 1933 and the coming of world war ii, it was only attempted twice. during the eisenhower administration twice. during john kennedy's presidency, four times. and then ate during the lyndon johnson's push for civil rights and the voting rights bills, big issues. by the time jimmy carter and ronald reagan occupied the white house, there were about 20 filibusters' a year. but ladies and gentlemen, in the 110th congress of 2007 to 2008 there were a record 112 cloture votes and in the 111th congress, the one we just left, there were 136, one of which even delayed a vote to authorize funding for the army, navy, air force and marine corps during a time of war. that's not how the founding fathers intended the united

states senate to work and that's definitely not how our country can afford to work. chris dodd said it best in his farewell address a few weeks ago. a speech the republican leader called one of the most important in the history of the chamber. chris sounded a warning. he said what will determine whether this institution works or not, what has always determined whether we will fulfil the framers highest hopes or justify the cynics worst fears is not the senate rules, the calendar or the media, it is whether each of the 100 senators can work together. there was a speech the needed to be heard. but the question now is not whether it was heard. it's whether we really listened to it. because when it comes to our economy, our country really does need 100 senators who face the facts and find a way to work not just on their side, but side by

side. no one who runs for the united states senate are giving that the key united states should have one-fifth of its foreign debt held by china. no winning candidate has ever suggested that the united states ought to trail poland and education or that germany should invent the next google or develop the cutting edge new clean energy industries. no one has ever gone to a debate pledging that indian workers shall hold the jobs of the future, not american workers. but that is effectively what is happening. there is a bipartisan consensus just waiting to lift our country and our future. if senators are willing to sit down and forge and make it real. if we are willing to stop talking past each other, to stop substituting sound bites for substance. if we are finally willing to pull ourselves out of the

ideological cement of our own mixing, we will, no doubt, continue to be frustrated and angry from time to time. it's a nature of life and politics. but i believe that more often than not, we can rise to the common ground of the national purpose surely we can agree and back to realize the goal set by the president who called his fellow citizens to me that earlier spot next moment in america, and in an america that isn't first if, not first but, but first period. so in this time of crisis and in this time of mourning and a lot of soul-searching, in this time of challenge and opportunity, we all need to commit to reaching across the aisle as colleagues did before us to unite to do the exceptional things that together can keep america the optional

for generations to come. that is our mission and we need to get about the business of accomplishing it. thank you. [applause] senator, thank you for the call to the higher national purpose and call to common good. i think the senator is on a tight schedule the test plan for a couple questions. maybe we will start in the map. the gentleman in the aisle. would you please identify yourself? >> dean space, washington. could you talk a little bit about your condition for climate change this year and when you think can be done on this important topic given the challenges -- >> absolutely.

we are working now to rebuild a coalition and consensus on a national basis boutwell revalidating the urgency and the science effectively. i think what happened is the u.s. was exploited you talk about some of what i'm trying to say today it was that fortunately it became too politicized and as a result we lost track of where we were trying to do. i think there is a coalition waiting to rebuild. if you look up and in california last year where they beat back an initiative the was calculated to try to undo their efforts on climate, they won overwhelmingly and this very significant battle. that is an example of what needs to be done.

now congress isn't going to be there yet so the key is when the energy. there are a host of energy initiatives, of which can reduce global emissions, all of which can put the united states on a path towards increased job production and new technologies that's really what i was talking about in my prepared comments today. this energy future that is as i said staring us in the face is the largest market in the world which other countries are rushing to words. i think if we can build a consensus that doesn't require a command and control, doesn't require a excessive regulatory effort, but unleashes the entrepreneurial spirit of the nation, encourages capital investment, since it will to the marketplace about the long-term goals of our country so that private capital begins to move into mr. sections here in this country and people like the deutsche bank reevaluate their

current position and seek america moving in the direction there is a huge amount that can be done. there are all kind of possibilities in terms of new energy sources. we have a proponent in this room ic is deeply committed to something like fusion many people think we can be doing more research in terms of fusion. there is a host of different things we could be doing more of, better, faster and commit ourselves to, which ultimately will reduce emissions not to the level we need to according to science, but sufficient to be able to allow us to rekindle the year urgency, rebuild the movement at the grassroots, reconnect to americans on this issue and hopefully build a new consensus in the congress about why this is good for our economy as well as our national security and as well as our health. i was with somebody the other day who is going to be engaged in the public campaign, i'm not going to tell you who it is now

but somebody well known who was talking about you walk into a doctor's office and get a diagnosis that tells you you've got a certain kind of cancer and when you have a certain kind of cancer, 99% chance if you don't do this and 80% if you don't do this etc. it's basically what we've been told. 99% of the doctors in the world decide to do research on this say we've got this kind of cancer yet we are not behaving like a normal patient who comes out of that office so we need to go reach america on that and i am convinced we are going to rebuild that consensus and we will start with energy and ultimately we are going to wind up my hope creating a job base and the energy future for the country that will lead the challenge. >> thank you. [inaudible] with key to the the

administration proposal to solve the mexican threat issues? is this something you will support? how do you see the climate in the senate to solve this issue? >> i think this is just a huge challenge for all the fuss. it is tearing apart the fabric of the life and society in mexico immediately on the border, and there are ways in which we are contributing to this problem, not just in our use in america and therefore the demand, but also in the trafficking and the flow of weapons that have empowered people to engage in a kind of civil war within that country. we are going to look at this very closely in the foreign relations committee and we are evaluating whether or not we would even have a joint hearing or round table, not hearing but roundtable discussion in mexico and explore all of the ways in which we can be the most

helpful, i think the administration is on the right track but we are going to look carefully whether there is more we are able to do. because this is a national security threat to the united states of america, and we are partly inadvertently in some cases turning the of your ray and others complicitous in the problem. we'll the mexicans our best effort to try to respond. >> sam stein with the huffingtonpost.com beat use book about the use of the filibuster by you stopped short of endorsing the one proposal out there by senator tom udall to revamp the rules of the senate. i wonder if you're planning on signing on to the proposal and when you think is the landscape for achieving the reform on january 24th. >> it's quick to be very strong. i do support that 3 >> it's quick to be very strong. i do support that proposal for

the basics of the proposal. i think we want to protect the rights of the minority, the founding fathers envisioned in the constitution and i think it is critical to do it. what goes around, comes around, and clearly having been on the minority i understand that power. but we have to find a way to guarantee that as i said, it is being used not as a day to day tactic that has no accountability but that it is being used in a way that in cages the nation in a legitimate debate about something substantive, and as long as that takes place, i think it is a fair place to have that kind of fiscal if you will to try to find the way to get the 60 votes. today you don't have to do that, you don't even have to talk to ken gist announce you're going to be opposed to something and it effectively shuts things done and there is no accountability and whether -- the reason is or who is doing that. that has to stop. and i am completely supportive of the efforts to try to

guarantee that we make it a responsible process. >> right in front, sam. >> [inaudible] for ratification of the other human-rights treaties particularly the disabilities and others, and i'm just wondering i know there are a lot of lessons from s.t.a.r.t. but if there are any particular lessons you think could guide work going forward, and particularly where it has been of sound bites and not a discussion so i would be interested in your reflection. >> ausley in tend to seek the majority leader's support in bringing another treaty to the floor of the senate hopefully sooner rather than later. i need to run through a number of traps and talk with colleagues and workout which treaties that will be. there are several possibilities.

but i think it is imperative has just said, we've got to do the business of our nation. there are several treaties, one of them for instance is the law and you know the list of them, but the bottom line is there's very broad support in the military community and the business command, the chamber of commerce, the environment community, brought by partisanship even for some of those and my hope this if we reach out to people early enough, have discussions with them early enough, do this sort of groundwork as necessary i hope we could avoid people taking the quick hasty ideologically inspired or outside interest groups inspired positions of opposition until the have had a chance to evaluate what is at stake and that is my prayer with respect

to all of those kind of issues and i hope out of today's discussion and beyond this will not be the only one obviously, we are going to be talking about a lot of these things in the senate among ourselves and there will be a national dialogue on this i hope. hopefully we can really have a good campaign for 2012 but not lose sight of what we are here to do and what the interest of the country are and not just with respect to those treaties but as i said, with respect to this enormous agenda staring us in the face that has been gridlocked now for too many years. president nixon talked about energy independence. president carter took major steps to try to move us toward energy independence. since september 11th, 2001, not only have we not reduced or energy independence by 1%, which actually increased by 25 for

40%. so, we have become more indebted and bound because we failed to invest in these obvious alternatives that would not only liberated us from borrowing money from china so we could buy oil from someone else and then follow the atmosphere and make people sick and send them to the hospital and spend more money on that, avery and virtuous cycle. not only are we doing that, but we are not turning that around so we are actually creating those jobs here at home that reduce all of those negative impact. the irony of this is in public life i've learned in the years i've been here very few public issues where you get to benefits for doing one thing. usually it is one for one normandie 1.542. here you get five or six benefits because you clean up the air and you are healthier. you reduce dependency on foreign

oil. you are not sending money to terrorists through back channels. you're making american free to make certain kinds of foreign policy decisions because you have more leverage because you're not dependent on other people who can hold you up because you are indebted to them for the supply of your energy. you have better health, more jobs in america fund increased our national security. how many things to you get that kind of benefit for? for one big choice. i hope that we will get their and i am going to do everything in my power to help get us there. thank you very much. >> thank you, chairman. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] thank you. appreciate it. >> [inaudible] doing the opposite of what the bank is. >> good for you. where are you doing that from? >> italy. [inaudible conversations] i have been told to have some interesting things going on. >> people in the senate and -- [inaudible conversations] >> i'm glad you did. thank you very much. how're you doing on dimare;

all right? >> [inaudible] blank we hope you can visit. [inaudible conversations] >> i think people are going to have to be thoughtful about it. i think unfortunately the key is we don't want people to be isolated and somehow separated. the whole purpose of our democracy is to be interactive and talk to people. i love going to eve ensler people are frightfully pretentious sometimes and disagree with you forcefully but you can have a debate about it. you know, we can agree or disagree, but we can do it in a -- we can just agreed to disagree. that is what i was trying to talk about when you have pat

moynihan and these other figures, the disagree, but they can be friendly in their process. now it's gotten angry and people are somehow better, and i think one of the reasons -- i should have talked about this. if one of the reasons is that a lot of americans are feeling this slide in their savings and their job and their income and their health care and their day-to-day lives and the policy us responding, so the lack of response from washington is just driving people sort of you know, the deficit is dealt with, and there is the frustration builds up and i think people are taking that out on so i hope a lot of people will think about the degree to which we are to blame buy not responding to some of these things or the increasing lack of stability.

>> effective step back to the filibuster -- >> all of those will be a cumulative. no one think it's going to do it. [inaudible conversations]

u.s. chamber of commerce president and ceo thomas donohue said earlier today that the state of american business has improved and that he is cautiously optimistic that the economy. he outlined the business community priorities for the next year in his annual state of the u.s. business speech delivered at the u.s. chamber of commerce in washington. >> welcome to the u.s. timber os commerce.commer. i am barbara spelling president of the u.s. forum for policy innovation. thank you for being here this inno morning.va coming in, sitth andown and grab your coffee. in a few moments come on and sit down encryptor coffee. in a few moments, those president ceo, and tom donohue will give his annual state of address. he for he does and the two say a few things about my friend tom

donohue. 2010 with a challenging year for this organization, as he contended that the worst economic climate of the great depression, one of the busiest legislative session in recent memory and of course the midterm elections. while our success in such a difficult environment can't he completely attributed to just one person, tom deserves most of the credit for what the chamber was a book to achieve. he provided the leadership and the vision that led to a number of legislative aries, tremendous success in the elections and another strong year of fundraising. what make's time so effective? for starters, the fact that he works harder than people less than half his age, for one. but it's also his ability to anticipate and take action on the next big thing. tom always has the organization

positioned to play an important role in the debates that matter to our members and business. this means that the american business community always has a seat at the table. as we face the challenges and meet new opportunities in the coming year, i'm confident that tom will leave the chamber to even greater success. and i'm really thrilled to be a part of that. here now to share his outlook on the american economy and other policy issues that will impact business is chamber president and ceo, tom donohue. [applause] >> thank you very much, margaret. that sounded somewhat like an obituary. but i appreciate very much you all being here today. and good morning, ladies and

gentlemen. let me thank margaret and the national chamber foundation and office staff who organized this event. and thank you all for coming. at the outset, i'd like to express on behalf of the united state chamber of commerce, our shock and sadness over the tragic shooting in arizona. under any circumstance, the violence, injury and loss of life that occurred are an outrage to all of us. we are especially offended by the fact that this rampage was directed at our democracy so, striking down public servants as well as free citizens who had come to engage in a dialogue and express their views. we are praying for the full recovery for congressman giffords and others who were injured and our hearts go out to

the families of those who lost their lives. while the new year has begun on this site know, i can report that when it comes to the nation's economy, we began 2011 in better shape than we found ourselves last year. at the state of american business is improving. last year we worried about a double to recession. today we are cautiously optimistic that the recovery will continue and pick up steam as the year progresses. the new tax package could give growth and jobs a significant boost. overall, we believe the economy will expand by 3.2% in 2011 and create 2.4 to 2.6 million new jobs by the end of the year. yet, we still face a number of

risks that could send us in the wrong direction and our recovery is fragile and uneven at best. housing and construction are still very weak. a new wave of home foreclosures could drive down home values in both again. oil and gasoline prices are rising rapidly and could reignite inflation. major state are nearly insolvent and will be looking to raise taxes on consumers and businesses. and we faced a long list of known and unknown geopolitical and national security threat that could change our economic aspects overnight. to be sure, november's election result, the tax package, progress on the korean trade agreement and a new tone coming

from the white house have addressed some of the business communities immediate concerns. yet i searched the on companies, lenders and investors still abound. there are many unanswered questions about regulation, taxes and other policies that must be addressed in order to run these aggressive hiring in the air. and ladies and gentlemen, when it comes to jobs, we have a steep hill decline. unemployment has succeeded 9% for 20 consecutive months. that hasn't happened since the 1930s. some 27 million americans are either unemployed, underemployed or have given up looking for work. let's suppose we do create about 2.5 million new jobs -- net new jobs this year.

as welcome as that would be, it would only drive the unemployment rate down by about 1%. in fact, we must create 1.2 million jobs a year, just to absorb the new insurance coming into the workforce. on our current cost, it could take years to get back to where we were before this recession and the financial crisis head. in my book, that's not good enough. therefore in 2011, the chamber's top priority will be to turn an economic recovery into a jobs recovery so that we can put americans back to work. to succeed, we must work to enact policies that will sustain economic growth or removing regulatory uncertainty and doubling u.s. exports over the

next five years. we must make our domestic economy more dead to global investors, to job creators and do startup entrepreneurs pay clearing away the impediments that are causing them to sit on their capital or invest their money outside the united states. and we must do right for future generations by beginning a serious effort to cut runaway spending, reform entitlements and bring government deficit and debt under control. to successfully improve our own economy, we must take into account what other nations are doing to improve their economy. in many respects, america is not keeping up. too deep in our understanding about our nation's competitive challenges we are doing what any smart coach or political

candidate would do before a big game for an important election campaign and that is to learn everything we can no about our opponents strengths, weaknesses and those of ourselves. what about our weaknesses? what about our strength? the chamber is no examining in a factual and object to equate the actions by our government and the actions by the business community that are either moving us forward in a global economy or holding us back. we will then compare it to what our competitors are doing around the world. these findings, which we planned to release this spring will set the stage for a major project to strengthen americans competitive position in the global economy. at the same time, the chamber will seek to focus our

government's attention on a host of immediate priorities and we're prepared to work with anyone in order to make progress on these issues. time doesn't permit me to cover them all, so let me briefly touch on just a few issues, particularly in four areas. regulatory restraint and reform, expanding america's trade, rebuilding the nation's economic foundation, its infrastructure and reducing runaway spending deficits and debt. first, we must rein in excessive regulation and reform the regulatory process. at the federal level alone, regulations already fill 150,000 pages of fine print and it cost to america of $1.7 trillion a year. outlook, many of these regulations are important to the

economy and we support them. yet in recent years, we have seen an unprecedented explosion of new regulatory dignity. furthermore, the administration is likely to turn increasingly to the regulatory agencies now that getting legislation under the congress could be more difficult. the result resulting regulatory tsunami poses in our view the single biggest challenge to jobs, our global competitiveness and the future of american enterprise. for example, the new health care law -- think about this a minute, creates 159 new agencies, commissions, panels and other bodies. it grants extraordinary powers to the department of health and human services to redefine health care as we know it. by mid-december of last year,

hhs saturday granted 222 waivers to the law that it just been passed. it would pale in acknowledgment that the war is not totally workable. and with key provisions on the challenge in the courts by states and others, it's time in my opinion to go back to the drawing board. last year, while strongly advocating for health coverage form, the chamber was a leader in the fight against this particular bill and does he support legislation in the house to repeal it. we see the upcoming houseboat, however, as an opportunity for everyone to take a fresh look at health care reform and to replace unworkable approach is with more efficient and take measures at a lower cost, expand access and improve quality.

the regulatory tsunami is also about to wash over our capital markets. the dodd-frank contains the numbers again. they change all the time. 259 mandated rule makings. another 188 suggested rule makings. 63 reports in 59 studies. your grandchildren and my grandchildren will be old and retired before it is all implemented. the chamber's center for capital markets competitiveness is deeply involved in the regulatory rulemaking triggered by this massive law. we are particularly concerned that the new consumer financial protection bureau does not use its broad authority and ways that will deny credit to small businesses and consumers and the financial products that business

needs across the board. we want to make sure that main street and users are still able to use derivatives in an effort to way to manage their legitimate business risk without sidelining billions of dollars in productive capital and costing tens of thousands of job. and although our pending litigation against the sec over its proxy asks us to roll has delayed its implementation. that battle is far from over. we will continue to oppose proposals that would expand the ability of special interest shareholders such as unions to exploit proxy access rules to the detriment of companies, jobs and all of the shareholders. job creators are also facing unprecedented regulatory activity and case law changes and the department of labor. the national labor relations

board and in similar agencies, over 100 such efforts are underway today, covering compensation, contract team, leave, ergonomics, workplace safety, hiring, firing and union organizers. you can only wonder what will be forthcoming. the chamber is going to fight hard throughout the year to challenge policies and rulings that are unfair to employers. but much more than workplace rules are at stake here. some unions, particularly the public employee unions are pushing an extreme agenda that extends well beyond representing their members in the workplace. they have been using their position as a powerful political force to sabotage the nation's trade agenda, which has damaged our standing around the world. someone to vastly expand the size and force of government,

perpetuate the status quo and are feeling public schools and the type of nation's best companies through destructive taxes. the sad irony is that all of the fact deputies undermined the nation's ability to create and keep good paying american jobs. we will also continue our legal and legislative efforts to stop the epa from misapplying environmental law in order to unilaterally regulate greenhouse gas. the chamber will support appropriate bipartisan legislation to delay or stop the epa and return the important climate change issues to the purview of the congress and the united state. beyond greenhouse gas, epa's regulatory agenda list 342 rule

makings in various stages of development and completion. of these, 30 are deemed economically significant, each with a cost to our economy of more than $100 million. how would the chamber challenge this faster rate of regulatory committees across our government? will use a range of tools, depending on the circumstances. get the time has come to also reform this regulatory process it felt, to restore some badly needed balance and accountability for the system. this could be done by giving congress the right to vote up or down on major roles before they take effect and by strengthening the burden of proof that all the regulatory agencies would have to demonstrate when they are imposing major roles on the business community and other elements of society.

finally, the chamber will soon stand up a new group that will engage one or more of the most respected advocates of stature and experience in the regulatory arena. this group will continually told the story to the american people, to policymakers and the media about the massive cost of excessive regulation on jobs and found our personal and economic freedom. we cannot allow this nation to move from a government of the people to the government of the regulators. that's where it has been added under the republican party and democratic party a lake. we're going to be engaged in this fight for years to come and turn this curve any more acceptable direction. another key priority for the chamber is to create jobs by

advancing a pro-american trade n doublesat they'll bth expo next five years. .. years. last year, we heard a lot of talk about expanding trade, but we didn't see very much action anywhere in our government. we have a good bipartisan opportunity to change that in 2011. a year ago the chamber released a study, which warned that the united states will lose more than 380,000 existing jobs and 40 billion export sales if we fail to implement our free trade agreements with -- that are all standing, ready to be implemented. and if we don't do it, what is going to happen, both the e.u., canada and other nations are putting their free-trade agreements in and they'll take the business would like to have. the administration must work

urgently with the new congress to approve south korean in colombia and panama agreements. we will pull out all the steps we can to help the administration get the vote to pass these bills. we also strongly support the transpacific partnership negotiations to open market and expand trade with some of the fastest-growing asian countries. that's where our opportunities are. and let's not overlook america's largest commercial partner, the e.u. this month i'll be traveling to dublin, brussels on the world economic forum in dumbo switzerland. at one key object of my trip is to advance the idea of simply eliminating all tariffs on goods and the 600 lan dollars transatlantic trading relationship. an independent study

commissioned by the chamber, but done in europe found that doing this would increase transatlantic trade for more than $100 billion in the next few years. we think it could also jumpstart global trade negotiations and set the stage for similar agreements with other parties. we also need stronger global rules as well as more effect of enforcement to address the rampant success of intellectual property in both the digital and physical worlds. this is an issue that unites business and labor. republicans and democrats. no one wants our intellectual property stolen. consumers should not be threatened by unsafe and counterfeit products and we cannot stand by as 19 million jobs and our most innovative and creative industries are threatened.

in addition, we need to reform export control rules, which are designed and were designed during the war and cost us billions and billions of dollars in lost export sales. the administration deserves serious credit for the progress it has made in creating a single export control list that distinguishes between the crown jewels of american tech allergies and those widely available anywhere in the world. we urge officials to move quickly to move these adjustments. we also continue to press our major trading partners to open their markets and create level playing fields for american goods and services. china is a vital market for the united states. our exports for that country are growing faster than i must anywhere else in the world. but we are also concerned about

a host of chinese policies permit expert to promote indigenous innovation to the favoritism that shows two domestic industries to its lax ip protections, to its undervalued current v. some progress has been made on these and other issues. more progress is needed and soon. but starting a trade lie with one of the fastest current export markets in the world is not the answer. as we work to persuade china and others to adhere to the principles of free and fair trade, we must also live up to those print, we must also live up to those print, we must also live up to those print. that's why we welcome last week's news that the administration is taking the first serious step towards resolving the longest-running u.s. trucking dispute. it's been 15 years since the

united states promised carefully inspect the trucks to move back and forth between our countries. the resulting tariffs imposed against us and authorized under nafta has cost us 25,000 american jobs in recent time. it's time to keep our word and get the trucks moving. we also need to make the united states more track is to global investors. to global talent into tourists. the chamber will work to reform our tax code, lower the corporate tax rate, which is the second-highest in the developing world. almost all of us, our sons and daughters are descendents of immigrants. the chamber will continue to pursue with others a comprehensive immigration reform program.

we also urgently need to improve visa processing, oppose attempts to get temporary worker programs and increase the number of worker visas. regrettably, many americans think that trade agreements cause jobs to foreign integration and our national sovereignty and the u.s. investments abroad take the domestic jobs away. to change these misconceptions, and they are misconceptions, will launch a major initiative to educate citizens and policy makers on trade that will clearly link global engagement to american jobs. 95% of the people that we want to sell some into live overseas, outsider country. there are 283 free trade agreement in force around the globe today.

the united states has just 11 free trade agreements covering 17 countries. it's time to get our country back in the trading game across the globe. another priority that we're putting front and center this year is the need to rebuild america's economic foundation. the platform of the infrastructure on which our society runs. as we fail to act on gross returns will soon run out of capacity. our economy will hit a wall and we will be physically unable to grow. we will lose jobs and even lives as a result. of course service transportation, aviation and water resources programs are all operating under a series of short-term funding arrangements.

makes it impossible for states and the federal government to work together, to fix these problems and to create jobs. but the chamber will lead the fight to remove the lakeview tory vico at barriers that have locked away federal money, but hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars of private infrastructure spending. but we must also have a strong, consistent and reliable commitment to infrastructure or these private dollars will go somewhere else. now with crude oil prices on the rise again, i'm sure we all noticed with gasoline costs, we are all reminded of the compelling need to develop more of our own fast energy and other natural resources. according to one study, increasing access to american domestic oil and gas resources, could in the next 10 or 15 years

create a minimum of 500 dirty thousand jobs and give us about $150 billion in government revenue or the equivalent of 4 million barrels of oil today. we use about 20 million barrels of oil a day in this country. there is no good and valid reason to send her money to other countries, to pay something we have an adequate supply of right here at home. we can create jobs, reduce our trade and budget deficits and increase their security by prudently and environmentally soundly developing all forms of alternative renewable in traditional energy. in order to expand trade and move people, goods and information and money throughout the world, we have got to focus

our attention to this country on america's global supply chain. now it operates on our infrastructure, but it is a supply chain that moves everything that i just mentioned. and so, we have done something i think will help us and we'll all benefit from. we think it shut potter, the former postmaster of the united case, the longest-serving postmaster general said the 1800. we pass them to the base. portend projects for us. he will consult with the leading supply chain firms and experts across the country and the world and help us validate the business community around a plan to improve, maintain, secure and advocate for a 21st century global supply chain imagistic systems. that rebuilding america's economic foundation is about more than physical infrastructure. it is fundamentally about we the people.

in 2011, the chamber will continue to mobilize our grassroots federation to the cause of improving education and training opportunities for all americans. this is more than an economic issue. how can any of us that still when millions of americans children are track and ailing schools and a third don't even get a high school diploma. this is a moral outrage and a taking social timebomb in this country. business, like all americans, must also do its part to help address another defining challenge of our time. the growth of government spending and entitlement and with it, the explosion of government debt on a federal and basis. the national debt are dx reads $14 trillion is on track to

nearly double over the next 10 years. our current fiscal path leads only to one destination, insolvency. to control deficits, we must first put unemployed americans back to work so they can be paying taxes instead of collecting benefits. the congress and the administration must also move swiftly to reduce spending. now this next sentence i am going to say i'm not sure on the numbers are going to love it, but the chamber will support strong proposals, even if we don't like all the details. we also make the case -- will make the case for entitlement reform because any plan that fails to tackle these runaway programs is doomed to fail. great preponderance of our expenditure on entitlements.

now ladies and gentlemen, let me end where i began. i note of optimism about our economy and our country. our economy is picking up steam and will see stronger job creation ahead. and while the philosophical gap on some issues will be too wide for us to bridge, i believe that our elected officials can find enough common ground or at least some shred of the blatant self-interest to make progress on the priorities that i've outlined today. to help her save them from the chamber will keep our grassroots system, including our voter education and issues advocacy programs fully mobilized, funded and fired it through this year. we'll continue to expand our free enterprise programs and all of the committees were conducting around the country.

we will also significantly expand our efforts to support small businesses and do everything we can to assure their success. but at the same time, we look at small businesses more actively engaged in the chambers political, legislative advocacy veterans. and we will spare no effort to vigorously defend the rights of companies and associations to lobby, to petition the government and to fully participate in the political and policy debate that will shape the future of this country. we will not allow to be intimidated and we will use every tool at our disposal to challenge those who try to silence our voice. our approach in washington will be to call them as we see them. we'll continue to have our differences from time to time,

but a white house on some issues, but on many of them will work vigorously together. will support the new house leadership on many occasions and will work with democratic legislatures as well. but no one should expect the chamber to march in lockstep with anyone. we have a clear mission and an agenda of around to continue to win important policy victories for our members, the american business community. it is to support, protect and advance the free enterprise system that made this country great. and it is to help create good jobs and promising opportunities for the people of our country so that they can achieve the american dream. i want to thank you again for coming. we look forward to working with all of you to vigorously on proudly represent the one institution in our nation that

really works one institution that can put our nation back to point to my right and you're left is transfixed in charge of all of our committeest in dealing with the congress and the government. and i would like to ask that when you ask your question, if y you had police identified yourself and your organization because there's lots of other people who would like to havee that information as well as we quld, too.he first

who has the first question? yes, ma'am. >> tenpenny start with cms news. he said news. you said you were in favor of reforehensive immigration ans to you and d your it include a pathway to citizenship? >> we think the most important parts of a comprehensive immigration reform would be first of all away for a show with 12 minute people to adhere to legitimacy so they can easily participate in the society, pay their taxes and drive cars, do that sort of thing. second, we need a guestworker program that people can easily come back and forth for work. and some of that would be probably seasonally for crops and for recreation, organizations and that one. third, we definitely need a way

to deal with high-end talented folks that are needed in this economy. it's amazing that we take 12 years to train a chemical/phd in chemical engineering and then we used to always keep them. and now it's hard for them to stay. they are were a lot of issues of that type. and we could go on and on with other parties. to answer your specific question, i don't think the citizenship thing is necessary right now. i think we have to pick four or five things everybody needs and let's get it done. of course to make it work we have to protect our border. yes, ma'am. >> hi, kim dixon, reuters. on the deficit issue, can you be more specific about which parts of the deficit panels recommendations the chamber would like to see legislation

that may be worked upon the? >> well, you made it a more difficult question when you added it this year. we absolutely believe we ought to begin a to find ways to reduce spending in every way possible, while recognizing you're not going to get in the short run and lot of deficit reduction until we get all these people back to work. but does burrs continually points out, that when we get to the issues of the recommendations of the different groups that have been studying our challenges, we're not going to get anything very serious dive into which we do with fundamental issues of entitlements. i guess when you put -- bruce, when you put together the entitlement issues as well as the interest on the debt, which

is mandated and which could easily go up as interest rates go up, you've got -- you've got more than 60% of our total government expenditures. [inaudible] >> well, they call for restructured entitlements and budget process reform. we would agree at that level, the 30,000-foot level with all three of those principles. >> yes commissary. [inaudible] >> -- how would you categorize your relationship with the white house after the end of the year? >> well, you know, it's really interesting to look at the two-year relationship at the white house. we have supported them an extraordinary number of issues, including by the way the stimulus question, which a lot of our members to think was important, but we really did. and we continue to work with the people all throughout the white

house. and so, it's never been personal with us. it's also been arguments about with about a bailout, environmental law, health care law, but been personal. many of its people over there that that sort of excited and energetic about representing their interests. i do think that the new people will be helpful. bill daley is a real pro and we worked with him for many years and sperling has done this before and knows the people. but it's very important to focus on the issue. the only real serious exchange and back-and-forth has been on the question of a particular issue under discussion. we have our respect for people to serve in the government. we have a great respect for the president. by the way, we never participate in presidential politics, never.

of course, we do in the senate and house politics. yeah? good move. [inaudible] >> -- in mexico. and on the other hand, i would like to ask you, how do you think the new house is going to accept the new program of the mexican drugs? >> well, we have a relationship with mexico that it is fundamental and absolutely essential to our long-term economic well-being and to our long-term national security. we wary and work hard on the challenges that mexico has in

dealing with the drug gangs. we have a vigorous trade program with mexico and one that facilitated. we are very pleased to see the expansion moving forward on trying to get the tracking issue resolved. but this is an issue that commands the attention of everyone in government and the business community. and we're going to work to make sure that it gets better irregular basis. [inaudible] >> -- approve this program. [inaudible] >> i think that we're going to have some chasteen about on issues of immigration and questions of that type. but i think that the house will act in a very responsible way on matters of our national security

and our national well-being as it deals with mexico. right here. >> i'm with "politico." mr. donahue, there's been a lot of discussion with the business community that the white house pays lip service to business concerns, but doesn't quite get it on the policy level. what three things could the white house to policy wise that they could implement, that would show to the chamber at the white house gets it and may not just paying lipservice anymore? >> do you want to do this first? >> well, number one, as tom articulated i thought this morning, were drowning in a regulatory overload mode. it doesn't seem to regulatory agencies can even handle the workload you've seen in terms of 200 some waivers on the welfare space. predictions for the financial area are a decade or longer to figure out a way to deal with nearly 450 while making going on

comparing to what is actually talking about trade. we've had good pep talks were cheers. as thomas mentioned, it's time to get off the sidelines and get in the game. he went through the numbers. i won't repeat them about we've been out of the game which means removing backwards. white house has talked about fundamental tax reform. the business at large has embraced that discussion. but again, what is going on around us that the rest of the world has been engaged in tax the competition for decades. oecd has dramatically boost the rate from 23 to have to 26. were at 35. japan is ahead of us. they announced two weeks ago their candidates are almost cutting theirs in half. i mean, if we continue to sit and do nothing and furthermore fail to develop our ample natural resources in oil and coal and nuclear and on and on and on, not just solar and wind

in renewables and alternatives, we're going to fall backwards. it's pretty simple. [inaudible] >> they're not going to suspend it. but the art spending and health care, by giving those waivers. they are going to be more. i think they need to get it right. our concern is get it right. right now, the agencies themselves are under stress and can't even handle that type of workload. we've got to move beyond talk. you get the real action of policies here and proposals. >> just one point. i think the issue here that this white house is beginning to understand, as we are together, that even though the economy is percolating that were going to get a 3.5% economic growth this year, were still going to end up with 8.5% or 9% unemployment.

we had to figure out what we do to take away in take away uncertainties causing companies to sit on their cash, causing companies to forestall the decisions until they figure out what's going to happen in capital markets and health care and environment. and i think the white house has to pick and choose. and by the way, we won't agree in all of this, but i'm absolutely convinced that they are ready to move on trade and regulatory issues to do what it going to take to get people back to work. and we'll go right here now. >> miller segura from voice of america. the u.s. chamber was harshly criticized last year perhaps unfairly so on the issue of campaign contributions. is there any thought by the chamber to provide perhaps a little bit more transparency in the future in terms of campaign closures? >> no, not at all. >> here is the basic issue. the law allows us to behave the

way we do because we're in the voter education business. we are doing this in a way that allows us to bring together independent expenditure money and enter the elections without any international money, by the way. and the reason that it's important to us not to changes because when it is known who made the contribution, then it gives others an opportunity to demagogue than our attack them or encourage them not to do it. so i don't think you'll see a lot of change right now. right over there. the guy with the mic. >> jam coda with "the associated press." he spoke about commitments to infrastructure and i'm wondering if you have a dollar figure you think would be necessary in order to accomplish what you think is needed. and how does that square with your call for deficit reduction,

given that's likely to come to a buzz saw with the house republicans? >> well, i think you're exactly right at the end of your question that there is hesitancy to move on the infrastructure question. but we all know if we don't do it the infrastructure, or going to have a significant reduction in national productivity. so we have to deal with the highway bill and the aviation bill and the water pills that are all in suspended animation and keep getting pushed forward on three-month extensions. and therefore those situations, the state and federal governments, who jointly do this are not able to make a plan and are not going to make the kinds of investments we need and i think it's going to have a negative effect on our economy. we can then talk about how this is paid for. traditionally now, both the aviation trust fund in the highway trust fund -- some people call them taxes, but the are user fees. if we don't dislike or drive on the road come you don't have to

pay anything. and so, for the most part. so for us to say, if people want to use these resources that we have to find a way to pay for them. and i would say the really exciting thing is if we could get that weird al, i think we could spring up $200 billion worth of private investment that could go into the nations infrastructure in a big hurry. you know, it's very simple to sit and say well, if you want to reduce spending, how could you ever do this? well, you can apply that to a lot of things. it's still think we want to take care of people's health needs. i still think we want to take care of the fundamental issues of our society, their safety. but we can still look for the expenditures that are really crippling us. and it doesn't have to be infrastructure.

[inaudible] >> i think you'd have to figure out having a long-term plan for all three of those trust funds. >> no. well, you'd have to put a little more money and it from the users, the research may get your return. jp, who do we have over there? >> neyland ux or national public radio. on deficits come use of the chamber would support strong proposals, even if we don't like all the details. with those details -- could they include higher taxes quite >> well, you know, bruce just gave you a very clear statement about what is happening to the american business community on a globally competitive basis. second, a nike to think about the fact that every state that is in financial difficulty -- i hear them talking about increasing taxes on business. what we would look at is a

fundamental serious adjustment in how our taxes are good. and we will be there because we as citizens and we have a business community have to be a part of that solution. but i'm not going to negotiate with myself right here by picking one or another issues. we're not going to win it all and we've got to be a part of the solution. we're not going to be a part of the problem. yes. >> eric coolidge, american shipper magazine. just one follow-up than a question. regarding the infrastructure, what's your opinion about the house was open the door to the highway trust fund potentially to be used for other uses and not to be sacrosanct. and then, could you explain more about what you're intending to get out of the supply chain project you're working on and why mr. potter is the right person for that, given that the post op does not function in

this kind of and rooted in the 20th century. >> i hope he is here to hear you. listen, first of all, to the whole question of the issue of why we want to do the supply chain deal, the single perhaps all-encompassing opportunity for us to drive national product to the is to significantly improve our global supply chain. you know, it wasn't very long ago the supply chain was around the country and from year to europe or here to the americas. supply chain now which moves goods, people and money and information on a global basis, with half of the economy being in asia is something that we really need to continue to refine and improve.

and by the way, as you look at it, gets more complicated because when you think you got it, technology changes and the trading partners change and the means of transportation's change. we want jack to go around and talk to these people and figure out how one of public policy basis that this institution, which represent the broadest scope of american business, large and small, from every walk of life can lead the way in that hearing. now, contrary to your suggestion , what has happened at the postal service. two interesting things happened. first of all -- first come of it is out downturn. and that affects business. second, they been affected by all of the other mailing systems both solid technology stuff. and potter come you probably don't know it, but it's taken

200,000 workers -- unionized workers i might stay out of the postal service and is regarded by people that know a lot about this is one of the best people in the supply chain logistics and transportation business and we are honored and pleased to have him. how come you were the first part of the program -- of the question. [inaudible] >> yeah, my bottom line is to break the highway trust fund -- is to take something that fundamentally works. we have some other trust funds you could do the same thing. and i don't think it's a very good idea and i'm not sure that some of the leaders of the congress tonight you're going to be in concert on what they'd like to do. i'll come back there. >> trimark shaft or an investment news. i have a question about dodd-frank. even among house republicans, there's not nearly the passion for repealing what you have for

health care reform. as a practical matter, what can you do about dodd-frank? and secondly, to sec reports are due within the next week. and i'm wondering if the chamber has a position on a universal fiduciary duty for reinvestment advice in the establishment of a self-regulatory organization for investment advisers. >> first of all, i don't think anybody top about getting rid of dodd-frank. there are about four or five or six things that need to be paid attention to. the parties sued the sec on the proxy access to, which is nothing more than an absurd to help unions and some broke hedge funds put leverage on corporate boards that are in no value at all to anybody but those two groups and would be of high value -- would be hurtful to the

overall shareholders of the corporation. so that's one place. if we can get rid of that, will be better off. i think we're very concerned about the consumer protection group and how it's organized and what its approach is going to be and how they try and use the authority that they're going to have. and that will be an interesting debate. i think the issue of how we're going to do with the customized derivatives, as i mentioned in my talk, we don't want to put all that cash on the sideline. we want to keep it working when it is not needed to be tied up. and i think will be able to resolve that. and so, we could go through four or five or six things and say that if the congress or the courts or the administration or the regulation agencies themselves ought to address these anymore up the way, that we could get -- we could get to

a much better situation in a hurry and it is my view we will make progress on not in one of those venues. and as far as the sec, what they're going to say, we think that both of those are moving in the right direction. if their findings are helpful, and they probably will be in those areas, that will be fine. if they're not, will challenge them. yes, ma'am. [inaudible] >> -- the affordable care it provides an opportunity to provide workable measures with those that are fact give to command access, lower cost and quality. could you cite one or two such measures the chamber with the poor? >> sure, but let me put this in context. i believe that the congress of the united states will probably

succeed in not vote. but if you look when you see our press release on not and when you look at what i said in my comments is that will move us immediately to look at these issues of high significance. and i believe that the senate, following the house and the president of the value in making the constructive changes that are needed in the bill so that there is not -- the president is not put in a position and the senate is not put in a position where failure to address is four or five issues, which bruce explained to you in a minute, will be too i think a much more difficult vote for the proponents of this health care, which by the way, we are one of them. then it would be -- that we learn something from the house

vote and then go ahead and work on these issues. and bruce just hit the five issues. >> tonight on mandate reporting has bipartisan support and we expect we'll see that repeal at gunpoint. we have huge concerns about the employer mandate. .. states, particularly individual to market which affects our business members because it is doubtful if the state of maine and others have pointed out that their policies by virtue of how the makeup of the health care marketplace is ever achieved. by the way, ensures that handlec

insurance abroad cannot comehe y close to 15% or 10% because of the way they operate on a 24 sevenths eyepieces.k some they think some consumer driven elements that really get severe haircuts in this bill, like health savings accounts, spending accounts which are consumer scharfen which has enabled some companies including a large companies such as safeway and the cost curve down for five years went in the wrong direction, just to go up a handful. so our issue here is as tom points out the size of the majority will clearly go through clearly with democratic support in the house i would imagine. i don't feel that it's going to, you know, make it in and out of the senate floor nor would i expect president obama who signed and enacted into law to sign it if it ever got to his desk. so to us this is a tandem deal

between h.r. two and h.r. nine to begin the process to make some changes and corrections so that this is more workable and affordable. i would agree with cbo and cms; this is not brand and the cost curve. cbo had dhaka and caveat warnings -- don't forget future congress are going to have to implement these tax increases and a lot of the rest of this. i have my doubts that we will see half a trillion dollar cut in medicaid for the sample with 77 million of my generation joining a club 44 million under the cms scenario the will drive 20% of hospitals and doctors out of practice and so those aren't winning strategies for anybody that needs health care in the united states. >> matej zenas batres. a question for each of you. on the tax question, corporate tax rate the at ministry is floating around ideas region of

the business community which are you recommending in terms of the offsets trying to do this in a revenue neutral way, can be done it? what do you think will be off the budget that you would support? tom on china whose visit next week the currency always gets the issue but there is a lot of underbrush. what kind of things are you trying to put away for the chinese and export controls were pushing the chinese to open certain areas? >> first i would say thank you for asking me the china question and him the tax question. the china issue now currency is important and the beginning of there's going to be a further reduction in the currency but the real issue here is to continue the massive expansion in the exports while at the same time challenging the indigenous innovation rules the set of our intellectual property, both of

the technical and real terms, and the questions that are being put in place that make it more difficult to move our goods in and out of china. the whole issue on the supply chain. we are going to work all of those things in a positive way. we are going to press to make sure we have a fair opportunity for american exports to create jobs. i've been very engaged in this. i'm looking for which a very positive visit by president hu. >> i'm not going to sit here and talk about what we will offer after converse but i would suggest in the tax base you have to look at this very carefully. for example, whenever we have reduced dividend in fact we have produced more revenue for treasury, not less we have got about i'm guessing close to if

not a trillion dollars abroad since we're the industrialized country left in the world the tax worldwide income that seems to be pretty stupid based upon what everybody else has done and is doing. getting that money back here sooner to help out with a cyclical and help the economy through repatriation would be a smart idea that if in fact we got our tax rates low where we were globally competitive which today we are not, then you're not going to see the level of income like that abroad you're going to see that money be moved and reinvested here in the united states. so we've got to get this thing in a way that induces economic growth and induces investment and investing in plants, equipment and people to read the ghanem is to look at the total package. there isn't one yet. there's a lot of talk. we will work with them and aggregate obviously for where we

sit and represent our members' interest in that process but the reality is we are being knocked out of the game. >> i've got a microphone. to victoria -- >> [inaudible] >> when you are in the back speak up. >> i will. satori with the "wall street journal." two related questions on dodd-frank. one, the ctc and the cftc were both scheduled to get budget increases have as part of the dodd-frank law and those, to date, have not happened. does the chamber have a position on whether those funding increases should have been? and then also really did come there has been some talk about among house republicans especially as the need to slow down the rule writing process and may be kind of move those deadlines back. where does the chamber -- do you support that? >> well i think some of the issues that we face in dodd-frank, flexible the

consumer protection -- i would like to have that slowed down so but we can really think about what we are doing, and what are we doing to limit the availability of credit for small and large companies and what's going to happen to the consumer economy if we do that. so i think that would be fine if it slows down. do i think that actually reducing the management budgets for the fcc is something we would do? we would rather have the fcc the smartest most capable people we have so we can deal with these issues, where we would be where we would be in working hard on the financial side is the money to implement parts of the rule either there or on health care or on other energy or other issues that we think are going to do nothing but cost this

economy jobs and make it difficult circumstances for the american business community. >> mark from bloomberg news. door forecast for growth of this year is higher than the kind of average per analyst. number one, what makes you more bullish than the average wall street analyst and second, to date corporations have been making record profits this cosa that hasn't translated into jobs in the u.s. to beat you mentioned uncertainty that is their something you should be asking members to do to create jobs in the u.s.? >> well, first of all why our numbers are a fraction or two above the others, i think we have a pretty good sense of what's going on in the economy and on the trade side and, you know, in the domestic consumer economy. but you will give me the benefit that when i made my comments

after i made this prediction i gave you the four or five things that could change that. for example, oil prices. when we take that number, the price of gasoline is probably half a dollar lower than it is right now. we've got the small oil pipeline problem in alaska but i think the will be fixed this week. we are stopping -- we've made it almost impossible to start new drilling in the gulf. those things become more difficult than the price of fuel goes up and then, you know, we are going to have inflation, more inflation, and then we are going to have reduction and consumption or travel or whatever it happens to be, so i think our number is based on logical conclusions, but i am not too sure the we are going to get there.

i think i said that it's a very fragile kind of economic growth and by not sure we are going to get their depending on what happens in the interim. now to the question of when you raise that the end, it got to think about this for a minute. i think the most important thing to tell a company is to return a reasonable return to their investors. the ceo of a corporation, the board of the corporation, their primary responsibility, law, the activities the sec and the congress and the treasury, the law is to maximize the value in an honorable way to their shareholders. now one of the things you want to start writing the story that is very, very interesting --

this unemployment pergola time, this problem has been going on what, 20 months? guess what, if i am running a company and i have laid off let's say 800 people in a big company, i figured out how by now to be a without them. i used technology, have done -- gotten other people to do the work and by using some part time, using some over time coming and why did i do that? i am doing that because that is what i have to do to keep the door open and the people that are working employed and return a reasonable share to my shareholders, and particularly worried about that. the second thing is now that they have sitting on a lot of cash and there will be some acquisitions. you can see them going on right now because people see the economy of scale. the place that bruce would probably talk to you and the

health care -- if we can't change some of those requirements, i mean, there is no way for them to succeed without consultation. and you know what happens when you consolidate to companies. you're not going to add more employees, usually some go, but i think the issue is companies use of ford motor yesterday said they are going to add 7,000 jobs. when companies see consumer spending up and when companies get rid of some of the uncertainty of the cost for example with health care, and when companies can see a way on the environmental side, they are going to be much more robust in spending that we that creates jobs. >> i would add i think you have to bear in mind that we have gone through a very, very rough patch the past 20 months. at the end of the day it is a fundamentally a supply-demand issue and you are running the 70 or 80% it's not the kind of economy the companies are

motivated to invest. second, you have had a massive deleveraging of debt both at the business and at the personal level. we have actually seen consumers go from the net - savings to the positive savings and just 20 months. and we saw a slowdown of retail. we haven't yet i think gotten back to the pri's mine 11 members of the tourists coming in from abroad so there's a lot of things that have been going on here and as we saw the uptick in consumer spending and as the automobile industry which don't forget salles 43 plus% decline year over year of the top of the sales at the top of the recession and while the numbers are encouraging we are far and away from 16, 17 million units that they were regularly used to produce things we have a way to go. it's a supply and demand equation and when the demand picks up and whisper to see some big and encouraging signs to that than companies are going to

be forced to invest. >> what bruce said is interested. i love tourism. degette good time and leave a lot of money and they go home. when tourism picks up the recreational sites and hotels and restaurants are going to do better and that's when to cause hiring. they're going to go back here -- >> [inaudible] >> just don't play with it. >> on the greenhouse gas emissions issue i wanted to ask you you said that you are opposed to the epa regulating that and you are poised to legally battle that both on the hill and in the courts but at the same time certainty is a mantra in this discussion if there are some elements of the community that want congress to act on this are you willing --

are you going to work with people like senator gramm and others to bridge the divide in the republicans and democrats on this issue in the next two years despite the conventional wisdom which is that nothing will get done the next two years on this particular issue? >> one of the great thinkers of our modern society who ran the hudson institute propose great books used to say the prevailing thought and conventional wisdom is almost always wrong. we have had extensive discussions with gramm and carry and the lieberman and others and that any time those discussions were to begin again as a substitute for what's being done by the epa or with the epa is trying to do we would be honored and pleased to participate. bruce may want to say a word or two about why we are pushing so hard on what the epa is doing be

on the fact we don't think they have the authority to do it. >> we don't believe the clean air act is designed to regulate the greenhouse gas emissions. we don't think this is compatible. second, to correct the record you should know since the bush administration the u.s. chamber has called for comprehensive climate change legislation from congress rather than the unilateral rulemaking by the epa. we think the rule making is different than what other agencies need and have to go through. we think it's necessary that we tackle this and think there's going to be movement. i would agree we are not going to see a massive comprehensive climate change bill. we are going to see pieces of legislation however that help get you to words a reduction in greenhouse gases. bingaman has a bill on the renewable portfolio side of the

ledger in our world that should include nuclear to be part of it and if it does it will some the cut in july republican support. don't forget efficiency reductions and process of manufacturing is a single biggest gain he can make in reductions and as a nation we have already done that for the tune of about 40% reduction in units of energy use per unit of output in our in manufacturing sector. companies are highly motivated particularly with increasing fuel costs to take every appropriate step they can. this is another legacy of not being opposed to something. it's being opposed to something that if you look at waxman markey creating some 1400 mandates, 400 new agencies, all kind of taxes in our view and i think and many others i can't think of a single business organization in town that, quote, indoor stick which is simply not workable. so, we've reached out gramm

caribbean the lieberman. it covers our initiative. we met with them repeatedly and helped organize a coalition of energy producers and heavy industrial energy users and that was then literally for months providing input in terms of how and what would be necessary to turn the corner to get to a good bill and get into the floor of the senate and off the floor of the senate. we will continue to work with people when it is in everybody's interest to do it read >> thank you. right here. >> i am pleased u.s. chamber is falling. in your speech today [inaudible] and what is making more to china. i visited