do not

and amalgamations such as this could probably adopt a panther model. with the panther model did back in the 70's spiritual leaders and our community and they took the drug addicts and came together, centered around the children and their legacy became the program that ronald reagan eventually took credit for. what we can do is also look at our front line st. warriors, the guys out there that we talked to, and the women, combine that with the intelligentsia, the group like this, for example, tends to represent and we can impact several areas, public policy which we discussed in terms of how to alter things presently presented. we can look a citizen guide lines or anything that would help with this drug problem including access, whether that's decriminalization or whatever they may be. we can also use that as a tool

for information so that we can inform the general public of what really goes on because even when people hear describe their experiences there were still some oohs and ahhs from people in the audience and if you say you are on the front line, why are we oohing and ahhing because it's been going on a very long time. and as we talk about, we can begin to address the family issues, we can engage in some type of stability and move on from that point. thank you so much. >> thank you so very much. [applause] the next person that's going to come up, the last person to present is someone who over the course of the last four decades has played a leading role in some of the most significant social and political movements of the time, and i know he was introduced much earlier, but including the liberation support to become of the national black assembly, national black independent political party,

national african-american leadership summit, many more movements. he was the executive stricter of the constitutional right center. he's a distinguished lecture at the new york college -- university new york. the princess of the end of the 24 century is going to come and give the call faction. dr. ron daniels. [applause] let's give a big round of applause for taifa nkechi. we want to thank all of you for being here this afternoon, and i want to acknowledge the work of our team is also board members of the institute of the 24th century would they please stand? i know we have some especially of the board members, would you please stand? [applause]

and really we would not have been able to do this with a strong work of the person who keeps us in check and keeps us in line. she is a veteran of many years of work and hangs out with lenni dunston because we know what made him an excellent president of the black social workers. it's due to rahm ron prudho. [applause] >> what i want to do in conclusion, because as taifa nkechi said on the values of the word of my dear friend, we reminisce these days and he says we've been doing this work all of our lives. all of our lives and we have to revise them it's more like five decades now. i mean, i don't really worry about that. i used to say my efficacy is almost the wintertime. but that doesn't matter either

because as the good book says or the spirit says i'm not going to waste time, so we have to keep doing what we have to do, because we have to win the many struggles we have been involved in triet so i will also want to give our appreciation to the black family summit, some of those representatives have had to leave but let's give a big round of applause to the summit. [applause] we say that because at the end of the day this is not the institute of the black 21st century, this is not about ron daniels. at the end of the day it is about our capacity to collaborate, our ability to take each other's experiences. i don't agree that we all have the choir. that's why we had some ncua because lot of r. dee believes the same thing. not everybody believes they're ought to be a regulation of drugs. some people are on the downward certain aspects of it, but at

the bottom might think we can all agree to begin with that the war on drugs needs to end. and so it -- [applause] the institute of the black world 21st century can be gathered on this day to declare -- and i don't like to use war now that she's, but this is so bad i had to even convince myself to use a war paradigm. a war waged almost the same way we've wage on drugs and glad to be associated because we claim not to have any particular expertise here. i mean, we are glad to have all these land panelists here. i don't come here claiming to know that i'm a drug policy reform expert. i'm not. what i am, however, is a veteran social and justice political activist. i've been on this along time and when i see something is wrong that is my charge and challenge to see what is wrong to analyze it and call us to action. so we are going to be calling to

everybody on this panel to help educate us and give more knowledge with the black family summit, the board of institute of the black world 21st centuries we can get up to speed on all of the information because of the end of the day, knowledge is power. sometimes we don't do things because we don't have the knowledge. sometimes we have year because we don't have the information that would overcome our fear about doing certain things. so again, we don't come here as experts. but we do know this, and i've known this for many years, the we've looked at a strategy which is decimated our community. when we look a what's going on in our communities today, every urban inner-city community, and i know that elsie talked with the small communities all across the country. as malcolm x said, we are catching more help than ever before. those of us in this room are doing pretty good because we really now have to black americans, and we need to write on the challenge and those of us that within the black community

doesn't mean we don't the allies. that's not what i'm saying. but at the end of the date of those affected must first strike the first blow. we must be willing to in fact stand of ourselves. and we have to acknowledge this fact that we have some of us as a benefit of the civil-rights human-rights black masses of the movement doing better than we ever thought we would do. i mean, you know, a distinguished lecture at the university in new york. that isn't too bad from the son of a coal miner and coal miner's daughter of pittsburgh. i'm trying pretty good. so, that doesn't mean i don't deal with racism. they follow me around 19 shopping and -- [laughter] the profile me when i'm on the highway. but for me, it is an inconvenience. that is what is called the reach of the privileged class, because we are now the privileged class in the black community. i'm not -- by nuclear we are not on the same level as the counterpart, but we do it relatively -- we are doing relatively well off. but on the other hand, and what

kenneth clarke and use this term the dark ghetto, the urban community, inner-city areas all across this country are catching more help than ever before. it is open warfare, gunfire, crime, violence, and we all admit, we talked about it but we are not doing a lot about it in terms of moving it forward because we have a sense of inertia. we don't know what to do about it. but i'm here to tell you that it ain't the only part of it -- i will talk about that in a minute -- but one of the most fundamental pillars of what we see going on in our community, this compostable cauldron of genocide and def is the war on drugs. why? because it is a racist war on drugs. i don't -- many people are not there thinking i felt racist was still on, why are you still talking about racism? because the evidence is there. that is not the largely -- if in

fact we have a phenomenon where a largely white people are the ones who use the most and drugs as deborah small said why are black people mostly in prison? we can say there's something wrong with our care and culture. no, that's because we have been targeted for the police action. the war on drugs is a war on us. the constitutional rights were taught to the streets crimean that, the stops and frisking our community. they rolled on black and latino young men in a way where they're just used to it. they stand there and let them do it. we have become accustomed to the oppression of the late wife of malcolm x once said we may be oppressed, but we do not have to cooperate with the oppressor and that is the point again deborah small mentioned. [applause] so, at the black world 21st century we are joining, we are not creating, we are not

leading, we are joining with our brothers and sisters and those who with the drug policy and all these organizations represented here on the stage today and others. we just want to become a part of it. but in so doing we want to broaden it and make sure the national association of psychologists and sociologists and the social workers who may have had this on the agenda but maybe not the top, we want to elevate it a little bit higher on their agenda. the agriculture, the black professional fire fighters, all these organizations, who are associated with the black family summit, we want to broaden the discussion to include them in the discussions. because they also bring expertise. they bring ideas based on their profession. they are not coming at it in a professional way that others do. they come at it from an african perspective. that's why they are the national association of black psychologists. when they were told there is no such thing as black psychology, we said no, there is such a thing as black psychology and psychiatry and all these things.

so they already brought that to the population but we need to educate ourselves and begin to move forward. what we at the institute of the black world 21st century want to do, and we declare this on the war on drugs we want to organize an army. using the war terminology, an army of advocates and organizers to end the war on drugs. we want to organize an army of at tickets. we call on you to become a part of this effort. and on our web site, www.ibw2i.org covered you will see a petition which we just put out yesterday. when i got about 5:00 this morning and turn on my computer, the jury first person had already signed up to be part to be an advocate on the war to end of the war on drugs. two categories, advocates, we want to provide you with information on a regular basis, keep you updated. when we call upon you can spring into action.

but we also need organizers. that's the difference. we need organizers. you know, everybody may not be bling to do the same thing that we need advocates, but we also need people willing to be in the trenches, who will in fact receive intensive training and orientation about how to organize our people to engage the struggle. because here's the reality: one of the reasons why they cut the program, they are cutting of these programs that the poor people and black people. why? because black and poor people are not organized. they know they can do it with impunity. they can step all over us and nothing will happen. there will be no consequence. we have to change the equation. if you step on us, we will step back and fight back, not with violence that we will fight back in defending our answers. [applause] it is clear, the whole equation between incarceration and in fact stripping your voting rights. i mean, let's just look at this. you know, you have a first-round

bye right to go out here and demonstrate and protest, right? you don't lose that because you don't do it. you have a single and you don't vote you have to reregister and all that kind of stuff. that's ridiculous. why should it be double jeopardy. you did the time. if you did the time why are you sentenced to five years of not being able to vote? that is incorrect. that's wrong. and we need to change that. so if we move forward, you will see a ten-point program. the ten-point program is not just comprehensive as it ought to be but it includes such things as ending the 18-1 party. this reduced racism that's out there. ending mandatory sentences. and the unscrupulous legislation its proliferating slave labor. you talk about the new jim crow. anybody who knows the history about what happened after the reconstruction, we know that the cuts, the same maximus of the

system, the criminalization. it's a beautiful system, wrote a book, little book called the criminalization of the race. every since african american people have been of the country we've been disproportionately involved in the criminal-justice system. why? because we've been caramelized. laws are passed which make us -- they don't make us criminals but categories, so after the civil war was over, we were out there and, you know, didn't have anywhere to go, so loiter in. loitering became a crime. today too many young brothers are hanging out on the corner. so that became a part of how you get criminalize. he go on to the criminal justice system, and then they would lease us out and in leasing us out they would take our slave laborers, like the same thing, because they also pleased slaves, the same system going on today. the more things change, the more they stay the same.

so we have to bust that out. it is a criminal process peace that is going down. and in the criminalization, ending racial profiling which is still going on come as incarceration has become the de facto reality of our life today. looking at evidence based purchase, support for changes in policies that allow people, i mean, this is really bad. you go to the joint, you are incarcerated. many of the people in jail do not belong there in the first place. that's the other thing we in the black community have to come to understand. we were partly responsible. i remember i was out there in youngstown ohio. we had the unemployment corner from where my father lives. the brother was out there raising holy whatever else out there. all kind of stuff was coming on to understand what it was. we called it the unemployment corner is where all this was going on. and so people wanted a night of sleep and so they said bring the police come bring the national guard, bring anybody. what ever. we in the black community were

asking for that, too. so they said really? okay, you really want this? so they really brought it on, and they brought it on the tough and strong. but after awhile, we said we didn't really mean that. we didn't really know that you were going to send our sons and daughters to present in a way the we can't even visit them. we didn't know you were going to put them in a situation the had a plea bargain or face a mandatory -- we didn't know what the damage was going to be done. so now we know, now we know, right? now we know what the dealers. and now we know the deal is, we've got to change the deal. and we ourselves again have got to be these advocates fighting for the changes that need to be done. the brother talked about his discussion of the bishop. we need a dialogue of the question of legalization and regulation. the dialogue. so many in the black world 21st century agree and others do not. that's okay. let's at least put it on the table and have a discussion about it in terms of whether it works, doesn't work.

let's discuss it. because we are in such bad shape we need to discuss everything. on the basis of evidence. on the basis of evidence and have a rational discussion, and we of the institute of the black world 21st century art about doing that. my last point is this, and i will say this over and over again. ending the war on drugs in did by itself will not end the crisis in the black community. for the last year or 2i joined with others to say we have a state of emergency in the black community. a state of emergency. in any other community coming and we will use new york as an example, for the communities have indicated when you look at african-american and latino men under the age of 30, that on any one given day, 50% of african-american men in the city of new york are unemployed 40%

of latino and if that isn't a state of emergency, i don't know what is. and yet, as malcolm said, showed that noval came up in your jaw and suffer peacefully. it's almost like the pain isn't happening because there's no screaming, no outcry. there's a state of emergency without urgency. part of it has to do with the war on drugs but with a larger fact of american life. and that is coming off the civil rights movement, just, they brought the drugs and because i remember on heldman street in youngstown, ohio, people work rebuilding and organizing and one day, you know, brothers were on the street corner nodding. of a sudden the most ardent militants on the street corner nodding. they had in fact put the revolution to sleep. but something else was going on. i talked about that unemployment corner. the fact of the matter is there was a backlash against the civil rights movement.

there was a backlash against the gains, and as we move beyond the question of civil rights, talking about equity and poverty in terms of jobs and economic demint, all of a sudden this was an agenda that became too expensive. martin luther king talked about your the end of his life about the conversation that harry belafonte describes and also verified by congressman payne. he said i fear that we may be entering a burning house. we may be entering a period in which america is not willing to make the sacrifices that are necessary to finish this journey. and remember when martin luther king died, the civil rights phase was over. his march at last phase was for economic justice. he was on his way to launch a poor people's campaign for an economic bill of rights to make sure every person in respect of race color and creed had a job, housing, education, income, that is the radical proposition that had martin luther king assassinated. and so now, what we face in

these dark get -- ghettos, the notion of welfare and food stamps and poverty programs, all this that was conceived of in the mind of the american public as being programs for black people, when all along in terms of absolute numbers, more white people were being served by the programs than black people. [applause] there was a racial subject. and that was used to disinfest massive disinvestment. there are no programs any more for our young black, there are no joint partners for programs and there's no job or any more. in those days we thought of as reform. we were railing against these programs as being too modest. today we wish we had them because they don't exist anymore. and then you had the massive the industrialization during the political economy. love bill cosby but you need to listen to some of this.

it isn't about how people speak and how -- of that is irrelevant. we want every ready to do better. we want it ready to do their absolute best. but we have a situation today people do their best and it's still not enough because race still matters. w.e.b. du bois is right. the bar on the 21st century is still the bar in the 21st century. and so, the question is the the industrialization. i heard congressman danny davis talk in chicago though war has just disappeared. we can rectify that by simply ending of the war on drugs so we must add a demand to the agenda. we need a domestic marshall plan type of program with jobs, education, economic infrastructure to in fact deal with a holistic program. we call the martin luther king, malcolm x working on this initiative. so it's going to take that too

because what happened is rather than do that, rather than give the racial social and economic justice that we deserve, they gave us a policing of law enforcement program and a judicial enforcement program. that was the substitute. the war on drugs is a substitute for the kind of social, economic and racial justice that we should have asked what people. if we declare the war on drugs it has got to be holistic and include all these things. we want all these reforms, all of these whatever is required to get it ended up the end of the day it must also include a social, economic, racial justice agenda that will make sure we have jobs, economic infrastructure and the time of equity that would in fact he'll ever community and that is what we need. we want to heal our community. and we need to heal our community and in order to do that we have to move forward in this way. so i conclude, brothers and sisters, on this note, we want

people to join this army of advocates and organizers to end of the war on drugs. and it's very simple. we will be in touch with you. as we do that. but you've got to go to www.ibw2i.org and sign-on. and as i said before, this is not a one-person, one organization show. we will be working collaboratively and that is the other thing to get it isn't about turf, who's going to get the credit, who is going to be seen on television or whether their revolution will be televised or not. that's irrelevant. we want to make sure is our people get to the promised land. and they will get to the promised land if we do the work that we need to do as people of african descent and friends and allies, because it will require a coalition. there are latinos, there are asians, there are whites, arab-americans, native americans. will take all of those working together to end the war on drugs command to move us closer to the dream of a more perfect union.

thank you very much.

on friday's washington journal we talked the president of the service employees international union, mary kay henry. the seiu has about 2 million members with a million working for state and local government. this is 35 minutes. >> host: the last year mary kay henry has been serving as president of the servicehas employees international union, seiu. welcome back.erna good to see you again.. let me show you a headline on this friday morning fromabor wash cington times wrapping that headline from "the washington times" called richard trumka critical of the obama administration's handling of its proposed free trade deal with columbia. guest: we are all concerned by jobs in this country and all of the free trade agreements need to be handled with the concern of how we are protecting workers' rights in the u.s. is an important conversation to

have as we try to figure of how to get 30 million people back to full-time jobs in this country. host: in one suggestion, congress and the white house to fully embrace free trade. guest: my question would be if the bush tax cuts was supposed to create jobs, how is it we can make sure that does not vaporize if we did trade agreements do not vaporize job commitments as well? host: what does this tell you about the state of labor in american politics and the level of support that you and other labor leaders give the president in his reelection? guest: the state of labor is

about the struggle of what labor leaders want for our vision of america. we think our way of life is being threatened in this country if because we cannot be expected to own a house, retire with dignity, and have our children do better than we do. that's the debate we need in this country. it is what vision we want for america? host: as the president done enough? guest: we have made a set of steps in this country that provide the american auto industry. took it from a situation where it was going to be bailed out to now where we are producing jobs in this country and exporting more cars overseas than ever before. that is a huge step forward to that has happened under this administration. those kinds of actions where there is a business and government and wrecking people's partnership needs to happen across our economy. it would be great of the fortune 500 c e o's if we're trying to imagine with our government how

we get back to work. >> the economic recovery has been different from past recoveries in part because the middle class manufacturing jobs in cities like detroit, michigan, columbus, ohio, cleveland, ohio, buffalo, new york, those jobs have left. will they ever come back? >> 7000 new manufacturing jobs being created as ford's plan. i think it's completely possible. when you think about american innovation and we look at our history. after the great depression, we got people back to work. we put a man on the moon. we provide the american car automotive industry. we are capable of great things. manufacturing, health care, transportation, every sector has jobs proposals. we need to put our minds and money to it. host: did between 1989 and how long have you been there? guest: 33 years.

>> 78% to 80% of political donations going to democrats and 2% to republicans. $35 million altogether from 1989 to 2011. breakdown the numbers. guest: we are proud that 300,000 of our members give $5 per month out of their paychecks in order to have a say in our democracy. and so, we think what we need to do is have strength at the bargaining table with our employers. we also have to have strength in the political process to restore some equity in this country. because things are incredibly out of whack when wells fargo can post record profits, get a tax refund, and lay off workers. something is out of balance. working people need a strong voice in our government to get

things back into balance and to get back to where. host: is it safe to say the disparity between democrats and republicans. guest: 32% of our members are registered republicans. frankly, what are members care about our issues. we want jobs. we want a fair immigration policy. we want to retire with dignity and we need quality at affordable healthcare for all. the basic american values. so that working people can expect to raise a family and have our children do better than we did. host: finish this sentence. the state of the u.s. economy today is -- guest: worse than it's been in a generation. host: what does that tell you about democrats in the obama administration? guest: the democrats in the administration took an economy that was on the brink of disaster when wall street had collapsed three months before he took office.

he destabilize the economy. we have to think about stopping the blame game between democrats and republicans and between the president and congress and we need solutions to get people back to work. host: part of that solution is happening now with the vice president sitting down with congressional members to figure out the budget. can both parties work out an agreement to raise the debt limit? and figure out setting priorities in spending cuts? guest: i hope so. what i am talking about, people getting to the table, we need the private sector at the table. we need the federal government, state government, city government, and working people? speaking about how we can restore fairness to this economy. it is not simply about getting the economy going again. we have terrible inequities in this economy when 30% of the

national income that has been denigrated is consequent -- concentrated in the top 1% of our economy. that is not staring the responsibility and prosperity for getting our economy going again. that terrible inequality has to get addressed. host: how do you gauge your support for the president and democrats in 2012? is a strong and solid, is it causes, is it cold? guest: we think we have to back its president in order to get america back to work. if we want to hold all elected officials accountable to making sure that working people get a fair shake. host: is that strong or lukewarm? guest: i think that i will be in conversation with our over 2 million members and volunteering to participate in the political process, because we think we have to demonstrate, to all elected officials that jobs

needs to be the top priority for our nation. the head of the afl- cio wants to put a limit on campaign contributions. guest: it should not stay as a conversation about obama, the democrats, the republicans. this has to be a conversation on how car into our country shares responsibility for creating jobs. i think that we should be trying to imagine more ways like ford has done to create 70,000 jobs. as part of the health-care union inside seiu, i need to be a conversation with afl-cio on isn't there a way for the private sector to create jobs and what do we need government to do to incentivize doing it on a scale? our broadband system needs to be refurbished. we want to bid to compete globally. ceo's whathe top 200

they think we should be investing in and then do private public dollar matches and get this country going again. we are capable of the unimaginable in the u.s. that is what is so great about our country. in this moment we have lost that spirit. host: the relationship between organized labor and management has been often one of butting heads. we have not seen many strikes in recent years. is that a result of the state of the u.s. economy or better relations between labor and management? 0 guest: its one part of our history. inside seiu, much more the majority of our industry is labor-management partnerships. that helps us cut costs and improve quality and we can make sure people are care for in the safest way possible? in hospitals and nursing homes. i think what we need to do is create more labor-management partnerships. uaw has it whips ford.

the teamsters have it with ups. those types of partnerships are really important for getting america back to work. >> mary kay henry is the president of the service employees international union. phone lines are open. the numbers to call us: 202-624- 1115 for republicans, 624-1111 for democrats; 624-0760 for independents. and the consensus an e-mail o -- and you can send us an e-mail or a tweet. bob is on the republican line. caller: i travel a lot. i have seen some union members beat up a black fellow at a rally for the tea party. i've seen what is going on in wisconsin.

you people are really despicable. is this how unions are suppose to act? i have been in the union's 40 years. seeing you people do this is despicable. there's a proper way to protest. host: where has that taken place? caller: where ever i go. hotels or anywhere. i go to pennsylvania, ohio, and west virginia. people see this. you are caught in the backlash -- you are causing a backlash, or destruction in this country. right now the people being laid off are people that had seniority. it's getting down to them. they're getting angry. guest: i think you are correct to be and frustrated about the terrible economic times in this country. i don't think that our union has participated in any protesting that has not been peaceful and

nonviolent. and i agree that what we need to be doing is focusing a conversation on how do we make sure that when people go to work for a living that they can raise a family, own a house, and retire with dignity. we need to restore our sense as a country that people can get rewarded for the work they do. host: how you respond to the sentiment that unions have driven entire industries offshore and ruin the entire economy is -- guest: i completely reject that view of unions. i think that is a picture that has been painted on us. i think we have a responsibility for making it crystal clear that what we do in this economy is raise wages. and that we're facing the greatest income inequality in our generation at this moment in time, and we need order to be able to have a voice at the bargaining table? in order to get a fair shake. host: service employees international union has how many members?

guest: to appoint two members -- 2.2 million members. they are about $11 an hour on average. many of them don't have benefits. some earn between $50,000.70000 dollars per year. the dues range from $20 per month up to $100 per month host. host: you are on the line. caller: the man that just called, he knows nothing about what is going on about people really getting laid off. i got laid off. i worked for a holy cross' children services eight years. i was not in a laptop tier. i was a crook. -- i was not in the top tier.

we needed a union because that would have helped us keep our jobs. i am all for the union. we need to talk to the little people and not the high class ones. i am for the union. i hope to keep the unions. we need to get rid of democrats, republicans in the house of representatives because they are talking about less government. that is a government we do not need. thank you. guest: thanks for your comments. i think your experience with being laid off is something that we need to address as a country, because it is not right that it has happened to you at toll across while horizon is making $24 billion in profits, not paying any taxes and laying off 20% of its workforce -- verizon. guest: now, john from michigan.

good morning on the democrat line. caller: it boggles my mind to hear republican callers saying that unions are bad and that the union guys are causing a problem. it is clearly not the rich, andrful eo's and-- ceo's bankers refusing to put the country back to work. re are in three wars and thei are no taxes to pay for the course. you are asking the rich to pay a few more dollars in taxes to support the war and bring the country back to work. the only answer the republicans can give us is no.

that is ridiculous. anyone who thinks that it's ok, you must be out of your mind. another problem we are having with obama, his first two years when he had control of the house and congress, he should put his policies in place then. now he is fighting and begging republicans now and it's a mistake. he should've done by george bush did when he came in office. george bush, i give him credit on that. he did what he thought was right and the backlash later. host: thanks for the call, john. james says, does the brother know the reason the unions or from the beginning? guest: i think the michigan brothers spoke to the inequality that we are talking about, in the upside-down conversation we are having in this country.

i agree that if we need to look historically it to unions formed in a time that was not unlike the moment we are currently experiencing the in our economy, where millions of people are out of work and cannot find jobs. 5 million people have lost their homes to foreclosure and the greatest income inequality that we have seen since the great depression. we don't have a problem of not enough money in our country. we just have a problem with how the money is being invested. that is the question i think we need to call on ourselves. host: $0.4 billion in dues. gary says -- guest: we do not control all of our pension funds, because a lot of our members are in public pension funds. what we tried to do is work with public pension fund investments to make sure that they are concentrating on infrastructure

investments to get people back to work. dues money is used to represent the people we currently bargain wickes, members currently in collective bargaining, and to outreach to more non-union workers so they can have a voice on the job. host: you have been on the job with seiu since 1989. tampa been strikes since then? guest: yes, two% of all the collective bargaining that has occurred in the last 30 years has resulted in strikes. host: what are the lessons? guest: the ones i have been directly involved with, what are member leaders would say is it was a way for them to advocate for their paychecks. we made major breakthroughs in making sure there were enough stamps on hospitals. -- advocates for their patients. people don't like striking because they don't like the destruction in their family or in the service.

so i think there are some ways in which strikes have resulted in labor-management partnerships are now ways in which people can really participate in reducing employer cost. host: a lot of people weighing in on our twitter page. guest: i think in this moment, steve, warfare has been declared on working people. the unions are not declaring this war. there is a set of corporations in the u.s. that has made a decision not to reinvest their profits and are making record profits and cutting down on jobs. that is a set of decisions that we think we need to challenge. host: our guest is the president of the service employees international union. it linked to their web site is available to our web site at c- span.org.

what is the mission statement of your union? guest: that we are committed to improving the lives of working people and ensuring a just and humane society. host: brine is joining us from michigan. republican line with mary kay henry. go ahead. caller: thank you. i am a republican, but i do support you. i have been union and non-union. now i own my own business. i would like to see the free trade and nafta agreements being brought out into the open. i've never understood why they are not. i'm old enough to realize where we are headed as a country is actually back to 1960 and wage levels. i think corporations would love that. but i would also like to speak about the influence of

television and media and the advertising dollar, whether it is the big three or the other corporations, the influence of that dollar is the word that gets out. i would appreciate if you would think more along those lines. america needs you to wake up. unless you want to start making $2.50 and think you can get by, this is the way we are headed. i support you and i wish you luck. guest: thank you. you have made a point, that real wages in the u.s. economy have not risen since 1974. that's because of rising health- care costs and because of rising cost of living and because workers having a say through collective bargaining has been decreasing. those two things, we think, do make me believe that the collar's idea that we could be headed to $2.50 per hour jobs is

not far off, because the wages are getting more and more depressed in the u.s. economy and we have to think about how to create good jobs that people can support their families on, so that we can begin to consume host: again that the subject of this e-mail. tony says -- how do you respond to that sentiment? guest: about the founding fathers in this country, i think about them. i believe the country was founded on the notion of freedom and equality for all. and so, i think that both things are possible at the same time. host: and on the other side -- guest: i pitted its unions,

government, employers, and working people working together to make sure we can steer the prosperity being generated -- i think it is unions. host: and we have a caller. caller: i want to ask a question. who is the biggest donor of seiu? guest: we have 300,000 individual members that donates $5 to $7 per month out of their paycheck. it is a collection of individuals working people that unite together to have a strong voice in our government. host: do you have outside donors or contributors? guest: we do not. host: san antonio, texas, democrat line, gigi.

caller: good morning. i have worked on both sides of the street, for union and non- union. i am 68 years old. when unions, into a place of business they slowly but surely choke the business out of business. you charge $25 a month for d ues and anything else you can get. it is not fair to the american people. all you do is take and not give. as soon as you get in, you promise and you promise. there's nothing that you do except for take the business and choke it until it has to close its doors. that is the way i see it. we have a president that is all show and no substance. host: as a democrat, will you support president obama for

reelection? caller: absolutely not. host: will you vote for the republican nominee regardless? caller: i have no idea who is running. we have about 18 that have thrown their hats into the ring. it is too early to know what is going on until we, the american people, can see and hear what the republicans after sec. host: who did you vote for in 2008? caller: i did not vote for barack obama guest: i completely respect that you have an experience that is different from thousands of people that i know where unions have been a part of helping businesses expand. there have been many health-care employers that we have worked with or securities firms we have worked with where we have been able to expand the business. i am sorry that you had that experience. but what i know about this country is that behalf to figure out how employers that are

generating record profits and individual ceo's that are taking home record bonuses have some responsibility for dealing with the terrible economic inequality in this country. and so, that is what i think all working people should be joining hands together to think about how to make happen with our government and with corporate america. host: two questions from brian -- guest: we are against right to work because it weakens the working people's voices on the collective bargaining table and in the political process to our democracy. every working person has a choice whether or not to join a union when it is formed in the workplace. so, yes, i agree people should have a choice of whether or not

to join. host: are they required to be a member after it is formed? guest: it strengthens the collective bargaining agreement and to reap the benefits made by the original union members. yes, everybody is required to participate. host: outside new york city, republican line. caller: how are you? good morning, america. steve, i hear that you will be at president roosevelt's house at a book reading festival. host: i will not, but c-span will be there, hyde park, live on c-span 2 and you can check it booktv.org.k caller: state employees in new york, 9000 of them, about to

lose their jobs. we had $17 million in stimulus package to save president roosevelt's house. you guys at c-span 2 can find that story on the internet and there are multiple story lines to follow. as to the wage is going down, a guy got a job at roosevelt taus and his pay was $79 per hour or. while your clue is there tomorrow, maybe they would walk the grounds and take a look and do some videotaping and show the rest of america the chinese money that we got. -- while your crew is there. host: we will be live at hyde park in new york. this year we will be live although it has been taped in

the past. the schedule is on line. now, harold from houston, texas. caller: good morning. i have a question for the lady that is with you. it seems like in may of this year, a celebration in california, i believe it was los angeles, the communist party came out and have the support of this union. i would like to know her comments on that because she is about in the same thing, the distribution of wealth and redistribution and that sort of thing. i want to hear what she has to say on their support of the communist party. guest: we have 250,000 hard working members in the city of los angeles. i have not heard that story from them. what we are really committed to doing in the city of los angeles is making sure that the most devastated communities in south central where the unemployment rate is 50% and when about half

of the residents of l.a. don't have access to health care, those are the kinds of issues that are members in l.a. are struggling to try to address. host: and a statement from our twitter page -- guest: hmm. host: no response. now to market in new york. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. i had 15 years in the local seiu. i've got notices i may have lost that pension in the bernard madoff scandal. i was wondering if the status of that retirement pension and were any of the hedge fund managers fired for a lack of due diligence on that? guest: i don't know the specific

information. if you want to contact us on our web site at seiu.org i would be happy to make sure you get an answer. host: there's a comment from susan about the federal reserve. guest: i just think those questions do not address the fundamental problem that we have with wage increases in this country. i think we have a situation where more and more corporations are making a decision to force wage cuts when they are making record profits. what we are trying to have a conversation about is employers that make decisions to take advantage of workers economic insecurity in these times and trying to force wage cuts or layoffs when they are making record profits and ceo's are taking home record bonuses. i know of three cases inside our

own union where that has happened in the last six months. that is the kind of conversation we think we are responsible for paying attention. not the policies of the federal reserve, which matter for everyone, but as the labor union president, i am not an expert on that. what i am an expert on its collective bargaining and how that can be used to raise wages. host: when the employer is the state or local government, we continue to hear what's happening in ohio and wisconsin and other states, huge budget shortfalls in california. when states are dealing with that and you have union members working for seiu other states that are losing money or don't have enough money to pay wages, what are the solutions? guest: we would love for mni bank in wisconsin who has not paid a dime in taxes to pay some taxes in wisconsin and helped get wisconsin back to work. we would like the ceo of the

bank to consider not taken a 12 million-dollar bonus at a time when the bank has not repaid its tarp money. over you like the bank to consider not selling to a canadian owner. there's lots of different choices that are made by corporations that are not paying taxes to either the state government or the federal government where we can help restore some balance to both state and federal government and incredibly vital services that working people, elders, and the most honorable in our society need. if i think this country wants to be about the common good. i think it has to be about restoring some sense of fairness across the economic spectrum. host: as you look ahead in the political landscape in 2012, the democrats trying to regain control, senate facing 23 democratic incumbents or those seats up for election which could give the republicans control of the senate, and the president's own reelection

effort, what do you see? guest: what happens in the political process is one part of a comprehensive solution. we need to make sure argument response to working people to get them back to work. we need to make sure the private sector gets to the table and helps reinvest in our country. we need to make sure working people have the right to a voice at work and in our democracy.. host: ..

>> u.s. trade representative ronald kirk and former reserve chairman alan greenspan took part in a discussion hosted by the aspen institute. other participants include intel and diplomats from sweden and new zealand and margaret warner moderates this 50 minute

discussion. [inaudible conversations] >> hello, everyone, hello? [inaudible conversations] hello, everyone, hello, good afternoon, and welcome to the aspen institute. i'm vice president of public programs, and i have the great good fortune to be involved in this project. over the course of a couple years, we've been talking abouts issues around the innovation economy, and we've been lucky to have this work underwritten by intel and do it in partnership with the pbs news hour, both of which are great privileges. without further adieu, i'd like to welcome ambassador kirk here and margaret warner and our underwriter intel who demonstrated a real interest over the past number of years, and we really appreciate it and hope everyone else does too. i'll pass it over to the vice president and general counsel of

intel. thank you, doug, and thank you, everyone, for being here. >> thank you, jamie, and thank you all for being here. a special appreciation to ambassador kirk and margaret warner for agreeing to lead this discussion this afternoon. this is the latest of a series together with intel worked to organize the innovation economy and the crucial policy issues that need to be addressed if the united states is going to stay at the fore front of the global economy. today's discussion will focus on trade issues. from the perspective of a company like intel, there's something artificial about thinking about issues in the conventional issue as if they are issues regarding the boundaries between one nation's economy and the economies of other nations, and there's something artificial about referring to nations as trading partners. that's because we already live in a single global economy.

intel, for example, manufactures more than half of its manufacturing in the united states, and more than 80% of our sales take place outside the united states, and it's not as if we manufacture products in one country and import them to another, rather the manufacturing takes place in multiple countries as facilities from different countries contribute in different ways to make a finish product. from our perspective thinking about trade issues, we're not thinking about tried from international border as much as we are minimalizing governmentally created distortions to a single global economy. i'm looking forward to the discussion today and hearing from ambassador kirk, so i'll turn it over to margaret warner. >> thank you so much, doug, and welcome you all. this part of an ongoing discussion about how we can foster an innovation economy and

the topic today really focuses on how does global -- how do global markets and global trade contribute to that not only to focus to nurturing an innovation economy here at home, but the kind of economy that produces good paying goods for american employees and workers. our featured guest is special trade representative ambassador ron kirk, former mayor of dallas. we had a chat about the dallas mavericks before we came in, but we promise not to quote him. [laughter] he was a long time practicing attorney and secretary of state before serving seven years as mayor being elected twice, and president obama appointed him to this job that bob once called the best job in washington. i hope you feel that way, but right at the outset of the administration, so we're going to start with just a sort of 15 minute chat between the two of us to lay the table on these

issues, and then i want to invite everybody in with their questions and comments. a couple notes -- when you want to speak, press the red button in front of you, and just so i can sort of know who wants to speak, just put your table card, let's see if this works, on the side, and i'll know, after 10 minutes or so, but let me start with you ambassador, what do you think has been achieved in the last two years with trade policy and practice that has helped foster an innovative economy here at home, the kind that does create jobs? >> well, first of all, let me say thank you to the aspen institute for welcoming me here. i had the opportunity after my career as mayor to spend a summer in aspen in one of their programs. that is a fabulous place for exchange of ideas and thinking differently about how we govern and become better leaders, and

thank you for giving me the chance to be with you. we've done a couple things, i think, that may be instructive in terms of this conversation. one, to protect the idea and reality that for the united states going forward, we have to come to grips with the fact that we have very much moved up the manufacturing chain to a much more knowledge-based economy in that our ability to compete and win in the future and play outside of the realm that people can just throw hundreds of thousands of low-skilled workers is very much dependent on our ability to continue to do what president obama described as out innovating, out educating, out building the rest of the world, and companies like intel and so many others and ford and general motors are going to find their competitive edge comes from innovation. one practical thing we've done

during my tenure at ustr is focusing on enforcement of those rights within the global trading community. i'll give you one example. the itc estimates that the lost opportunity per u.s. companies in sort of the information age, you could value anywhere from $48 billion up. now, dan glickman can tell you the motion picture industry might say that that number's low. douglas might argue that's low from the software, but the bottom line without negotiating anything else, if we could just get other countries to help us combat online piracy and theft of intellectual property, that could be a $48 billion opportunity in many of those jobs that would be gained here in the united states so enforcement is the first leg of that stool. second, we have solved in all the trade agreements that we have either tried to renegotiate in terms of korea, panama, and colombia to have the very

strongest intellectual property rights chapters that we can negotiate, and in the case of all three of those, we have very strong ip language. we are building on that in what we are looking at going forward in terms of the transpacific partnership, and then third, we worked with a group of like-minded countries to conclude something called the anti-counterfeiting trade act which doesn't include all the 150 members of the world trade organization, but of those economies involved and, ben, help me, i think there's 24 -- 22 of us representing probably 60% of trade and information technology so we're using all of those tools from a practical standpoint, fist of all to protect what we have in trying to use our trade policy to spur the growth of trade and information technology by finding new markets, but making sure that we don't lose the downstream benefits of that by

piracy or counterfeiting effect. >> let me ask you about those three free trade agreements which now currently you have not actually submitted to congress for radification, but the total, i think it said, that there were 13 billion a year in exports, and finally doing the math, that's really what? only 78,000 jobs? i'm just -- give us a context about really how important exports are to our current job situation having lost 7 million jobs. >> well, i guess the mayor in my is always careful not to say only 78,000 jobs. >> right. >> if your job could be one of them, that's a pretty good job first of all. >> right. >> we think adding jobs and frankly using trade as a tool to say to the american public that trade can be a component of job creation for the united states going forward is important, and

korea alone accounts for almost 70,000 of those jobs, and the interesting thing about korea is that's pretty evenly districted across manufacturing and services and agriculture. it has very strong market opening access and by contrast, korea is more economically compelling than the last nine trade agreements that we did. for me, the opportunity whether it's 70,000 jobs or 700, to gain and keep for american exporters the market opening job creating aspects of panama and colombia is just as important because right now americans care more about job creation than anything else, and the more important message is that as counterintuitive as it is for some americans, we are now entering a period of time because our economy is so strong, but more importantly because barriers to entry into the american market have been so low, so low, and sometimes by

design. we just left the oecd in paris celebrating the 50th anniversary of that which was born out of our efforts to help build europe after world war ii. we helped the world grow. going forward, every one of these trade agreements is an opportunity for us to bring very high tariffs and many other economies down to a level closer to ours which enhances the value proposition of whatever we manufacture, innovate, grow here in the united states so i don't think we should discount the job numbers only. in a bigger picture, trade is roughly 13%-14% of the u.s. economy, much less than in other high trading economies like us, but if you think about it in another way, right now, trade is contributing almost as much to our economic growth as consumer spending so how do you look at the numbers? trade, as we like to say, really punches above its weight, and

when we can take more of what we make here and sell it abroad, the economic benefits to us, we think, are fairly compelling. >> so how great could it be, should it be if barriers to trade in a reasonable sense overseas were reduced to the way you think would represent equity with what the u.s. allows in the u.s. market? >> well, i mean, i think -- i mean, we use the itc number, for example, just in the information technology area, but one of the things that compel me to take the time to move around the united states rather than just build to geneva and paris and other places where trade folk gather is it gave me the comfort that as cynical as many americans are about the value proposition of trade right now, what i heard from them is they were not against trade, but frustrated because they just had an intuitive sense everybody else is gaming the system. i'm getting to your point, and my point is that if we can get

china to fully comply with everything they said they would do -- >> yeah. >> when they entered the world trade organization, if we can even get good friends like canada which we should never lose site of the fact, still, two of the largest trading partners are mexico and canada, but if you want to talk about intellectual property, canada has yet to fully implement the ip requirements of nasa. if we get our friends in europe to open up their market for agriculture, i think that 40 billion number we talked about approaches $100 billion of economic opportunity. >> what leverage does the u.s. have or you all use to try to force them to whrif -- live up to, as you say, ip agreements they already signed? >> we have three tools. one, we have enforcement, and i guess we have the art of persuasion, and third we have a tool that congressman dates that i send a report to them every spring, a special 301 report in

that we specifically have to report to congress on the compliance of our trade partners with intellectual property rights provisions. now, some people think it's no more than a name and chain exercise, but we have found that it's a pretty good tool because most trading partners don't want to be singled out as not being fully compliant. that's a fairly effective tool to work with them and come up with a plan to get them in compliance. >> let me ask a broader question raised by many, many op-eds lately and in a couple columns which is how arguable is the premise that global trade actually helps create an innovative economy here at home, but creates good jobs versus the argument that it undercuts it because as written suddenly in the last ten years, there's a market of 400 million workers all over the world, many of them

highly skilled, who are just as available at a tenth of the wages. i mean, on balance do you think global trade -- i mean, i know we're down that track. we're not going to roll it back, but how much of it actually has turned into a drain and a problem when we're talking just about this kind of innovative cutting edge industries whether they are purely intellectual area or very, very high-tech manufacturing in new industries, solar, whatever. >> we think it can operate to our benefit if we do the things the president talked about. it's not just enough to have a strong intellectual property rights regime which we have here in the united states, and, perhaps when we get to the open table, doug and others can speak, but you have to have the work force to drive that, and that's why one element of what, you know, we talked about is the necessity to protect it, but the others we have to really look at our investments in education

right now more than ever. if you're going to have a knowledge-based economy, frankly, you can't drive that and forgive the mayor in me, basically every major urban area in america has one thing in common, and roughly half the american hispanic kids who enter the 9th grade don't finish high school. we will not be competitive against india, asia, and africa. we have to look at everything we do to incentivize research and development. we lost in our news in washington, but it's not a small thing. the president and national association of manufactures announced an effort we're going to try to 'em power a half a million community college graduates with the skills needed just to drive our manufacturing engine right now, but we have to look at everything from education, training workers for the jobs we have, frankly, at

some point we have to have a much more honest conversation about visas for professional workers in math and sciences to take advantage of those skills, and all the way up the chain. if we do those, though, there's much likelihood that american companies will want to retain that knowledge structure here, and, you know, you aren't seeing it whole scale, but you're seeing more and more american companies particularly in china where many countries said you can come, but you have to transfer all of your licensing, you know, and technology to us. many more companies are beginning to say if that's what we have to give up, i'd rather keep that information here than sell it to the world, but we need to do what we do best first -- make sure we provide the necessary environment to have the capital formation that feeds us, the research and development, but we really have to get our arms around what we need in terms of the educational infrastructure.

>> well, that opens it up. if you want to ask questions, go ahead and put your cards up or make comments, but currently, do you think globalization or how big a factor is globalization and the fact that now for the first time really in our modern history, you're seeing a divergence between economic growth and job creation. in other words, our economy is back to the size it was in 2007, $13.5 trillion, but with 7 million fewer jobs. how much of that is because of globalization? >> you know, there are people who are trained as economists who i think can speak much more thoughtfully to that. i think it is becoming a convenient excuse to blame trade for all the shrinking of jobs many manufacturing -- jobs in manufacturing when you peel it away the research i've read on it, there's probably productivity advances in

manufacturing contributed to much more dwindling of the work force than globalization in and of itself. from my per spective, we have to make a compelling case to the american public that as much as they are worried right now, that trade means essentially we have frankly traded off cheaper t-shirts and laptops for jobs going elsewhere. we have to make a compelling case to them if you do it right, but if we have strong enforcement, not only intellectual rights, but environmental precisions that we can reap the job producing benefits of our trade agreements here rather than seeing those go elsewhere. >> okay, could you turn your card around? oh, so nate herman. >> hi, ambassador, thank you very much for your comments -- [inaudible] >> did you push your red baht ton. i was supposed to mention

there's members of the press here in the back, and this is all on the record. >> ambassador, thank you very much for your comments and for your leadership on trade. i'm nate herman with the american apair -- apair reel and footwear association. i want to talk about where we are as an industry and how many people we still employee in the united states. today, 99% of all footwear and 98% of all shoes sold in the united states today are imported, yet our industry still employees over million and a half u.s. workers, and so these are not just sales clerks working minimum wage sells clothes and shoes in the stores. these are high paid job in design, marketing, transportation, logistics, and these are direct employment by our industry. this is not all the other

industries benefits from our industry like technology and in terms of trying to speed up and make the most sufficient supply chain possible, but we have a lot of jobs in the industry, and a lot of innovative jobs like designing new types of clothes, a lot of innovative clothing you've seen. trade is not necessarily a bad thing. it can be a good thing. we have a lot of jobs in our industry even though most of the actual appar reel and footwear is assembled overseas. all that knowledge that goes into that aapparallel and footwear is in the united states. >> we were not going to move the trade agenda forward so i've been to detroit, pittsburgh, mains, i've been to north carolina. i've been to the clive research institute at clemson which if

you haven't been, you should go. where we're going to win is in the information sector. i've been to one of the most productive textile mills over in glen raven in south carolina, and that is a good story to tell, but they made it plain that where we win is innovation and coming up with that next generation technology, but we have to protect it. if somebody takes it and steals it, it's going to be lost, and what is most compelling to us particular whether i for small businesses is that it's a bad thing when boeing has so slowing it out -- slug it out, but if you're a small to medium sized company which so much of our information economy comes out a entrepreneurs, you know, three and four or five person first names. the idea of having their work product stolen, and they don't feel whether it happens in china, asia, mexico, that's the

death mill of them. it underscores the importance of what we're trying to do in seeking the strongest anti-piracy provisions that we can get. >> alan greenspan? >> it's never been clear to me why jobs are the object of trade when historically all of the conceptual framework with respect to trade had to do with the division of labor and the highest standards of living, and if you take intel's story you described in the beginning, you have to think of the maximum terms of labor throughout the world if we're seeking the maximum level standard of living, and indeed, the simplest case is the one in which there's

a single currency and no tariff barriers and competition that at least theoretically engenders the highest level of material well-being distributed by market forces, but the issue i'm concerned about is jobs are a secondary consequence that they have created by the process, and in effect because of the relationship between productivity and the level of standards of living, that labor is the denominator of that ratio, and one can argue that an endeavor to increase the denominator puts you in a position where you're endeavoring on the one hand to increase trade for the purpose of increasing employment, but on the other hand, you're increasing trade to lower the

standards of living by lowering productivity, and i always wonder why we do this because what we're looking for at least using the word increasing jobs, at least use the word "productive jobs" because there is an essential medical contradiction between trying to get the highest standard of living and the maximum number of jobs. i mean, you can have everybody in the society employed if half the work force digs a hole and the other half fills it in. i mean, that's full employment. [laughter] i mean, i say it facetiously, but i think it makes an important point. frankly, how -- i know everybody's talking in terms of jobs, but the question really is trade policy is always -- has always been the issue of essentially enforcing agreements

and lowering tariff barriers and essentially, i mean, all the trade negotiations going back to the kennedy round and earlier have all been focused on removing barriers to trade which every economist will tell you is a splendid, excellent idea. the word "jobs" if any recollection has never been in that discussion, and i don't understand why it is we brought it in in the way which seems to have become more important than rising standards of living, and what we find is you're going to do that sort of thing you got the chinese who are basically manipulating their currency to get low quality labor products produced for maximum use of employment. that's doing great damage to china, and i don't know why we're accepting that general principle. [laughter] >> no one told me that i would

be getting in an academic debate with alan greenspan. [laughter] you know, not to be -- >> i'm sorry. >> no, i'm just completely intimidated. [laughter] i'm just trying to buy time to collect my thoughts. [laughter] you know, not to sound flippant, mr. greenspan, i was a mayor, not an economist. economic theory sounds great, but i don't want to be traps, but against the backdrop of the sort of economic uncertainty that still grips us and an unemployment rate that's too high, the only way to get americans engaged on further liberalization of trade for all the reasons that you articulated is if they believe it isn't just a proxy for the transfer of jobs

somewhere else because there is job growth associated with trade even with the more noble goal of reducing poverty around the world and providing the maximum environment for the division of labor and efficiency, americans get that. we understand the consumption benefits of trade. we doesn't qualm with that, but when you look at the trade balance and you look at the reality, and i didn't report it, but as recently as last fall, i think the "wall street journal" and a news station is ask the americans do you believe the proposition trade has been good for america -- >> nbc. >> nbc, and when 78% of the americans say no and the single largest block moving in their cynicism about trade are now white clal middle class -- collar middle class families, i think it would be a huge mistake for us not to speak in language that resinates with the american public in which we help them understand the reality that

because we are interwoven with the rest of the world and first of all the idea of withdrawalling from the economic community is not one worth spending time on. we have to go in and compete for the 95% of the world's consumers who now live somewhere else than the united states. the way we get them engaged and committed though is they have to believe we can do it in a way so that some of the jobs stay here in the united states, and innovation, recognizing to where we're moving in a higher level of manufacturing is one way to build that faith. far be it from me to disagree with you. i don't think the inclusion insertion of the discussion about jobs as a component of trade all runs counter at all to the more notable goal of lowering tariffs which we have done in this country and taking the highest division of labor. >> could i ask alan greenspan a

question? >> yes. >> do you think though that the "innovation economy" more innovative industries here would, in fact, help create higher paying, more productive jobs here? right now, most of the jobs being created have some median income of $19,000. i mean, it's quite the contrary the jobs that are even being created right now, and the best disconnect between the economic growth of the economies which are doing well and up no vatting, but somehow because the work force, for whatever reason, i won't pine a reason, i'm the mod moderator -- >> [inaudible] >> no, no, i'm asking you though. i mean, isn't this the first time that economic growth of our leading, you know, our nation as an economy has gone one way, but employment is not following?

>> [inaudible] there's many other occasions when that has indeed been the case, but remember there's something different going on now, and it's basically that we are about to see and are, in fact, in the process of seeing the most productive, highly skilled, educated part of our labor force retiring. it is being displaced by a cohort of very young workers, very young families, and these are the people who scored so poorly in the educational matchups of the last 15 years. more disturbing, the average household income ratio, in other words, the income of households now with householders 25 years

of age and younger, has been declining relative to the average. this is a reasonably good indication that the productivity of that part of our work force is declining relative to the average or more very specifically, to the level of productivity that the baby boomers while phasing out risk, and this creates vie major -- major concerns about the quality of the work force. this is not the subject of the issue today, but i would say one of the things we do very poorly is import skilled workers. h1b restrictions are a disgrace. here we are with a whole bunch of people around this room all not realizing it, but their

incomes are being subsidized by the fact that we protect them from the competition of highly skilled people coming from abroad whom we need to fill in the productive mechanism, in fact, make the whole standard of living go up so i'm confronted with this terrible problem. if you wanted to take the severe increasing inequality of income which i think is a major factor in the debate on trade -- >> yes. >> one way of handling it is preferably to bring the lower level up, but it also works by all various different types of measures from a political point of view to lower the top, and if we opened up or, in fact, eliminated -- my view is give a green card to everyone who gets an advanced degree who is not a citizen of the united states

when they get their degree. i mean, the proportion of those people who will be terrorists is minuscule. [laughter] i heard that argument. it's bizarre. >> that's the argument of advanced degrees you should get a green card? >> absolutely. that would have a major effect. now, the problem i'm having in all of this discussion is that the quality of jobs grant you are important, but history tells us that to the innovative cutting edge industries and those who have a highest technologies go the highest standard of living. that's always been the case. if ours is slipping, it's basically because our educational system is broken. that's all i have to say.

>> justin wanted to get in on that. >> ambassador kirk, i'm going to try to not continue the economics seminar quiz for you, but ask the question in more political terms, and that is in your role and for the administration, a lot depends on proper expectations management, and it has been the model for few political dialogue to always talk about us winning. you said in your opening remarks that we want to outcompete the world, and i would submit that that's an impossibility because probably these days intelligence is distributed rather evenly including in places in africa that are shooting up in an amazing fashion so holding that proposition to americans who are feeling very uncertain at this time that we're here to win again and be number one, you didn't say that, but that's the old political paradigm, to me

only extends the misery because it is an improbable proposition that you have so i'm wondering now that you've been into your job for quite some time and bring this blend of mayor and a federal dc official, don't you think it's really time for a new realism because the utc model has always been be the cowboy to go into the world and get something from the world because the rest of the world is unfair. my supposition is there's as much unfairness in the united states than in many other countries so again this idea to talk about americans being victimized, now, there are exceptions where there are egregious cases, but talking about major economies like in my good marriage, the fault is 50/50, but you propose a different model, so i'm wondering strictly talking about what a mayor knows, political communications and expectations

management whether you would like to revise some of your thinking. [laughter] >> you asked me a lot of questions. [laughter] but i will start with the proposition that we're okay to not be a terribly motivating slogan. that's not going to get people's attention. good or bad. listen, we do know we're in a hooshbly competitive -- horribly competitive environment. we looked at the results the educational achievement that chairman greenspan spoke of, and i think the president in his articulation of what americans need to do to win the future wisely laid out a number of things that have to happen. you can't just do any one of them. i mean, we have to continue to invest in research and development and innovation. we have to make our infrastructure this competitive with those of our partners. where the president i think has wisely focused as much attention is honestly on the issue the chairman talked about is looking at the educational requirements

of our work force all up and down the chain from grade school from what i reference in terms of community colleges. we know we have to look at decent reform, but i think if you do all of those things, america can continue to innovate and lead. where we get won in the past is where we produce the products, the ideas, the services that the world is desiring of. now, where i will completely disagree with you is the notion that somehow the united states has been as protectionist as many people perceive our partners to be, and i'm told i shouldn't draw attention to our trade deficit, but you cannot look at our trade balance in conclude that the united states is protectionist. if we are, we're doing a piss-poor job of it. [laughter] we flunked that test marvelously, and i do know what i am concerned about when i took this job is more and more americans are beginning to rebel

against a proposition without being involved in further trade liberalization. i think that's a losing proposition for us as a country, but i don't think you change the attitude by saying we're in a world where we can't compete and everybody is equal and we should just accept that. we should honestly address the concerns we've heard. look, we opened up the markets. why can't you get them to do theirs? one of the reasons we have the opportunity now to pass the korea free trade agreement is rather than just come into an agreement saying it's fine the way it is, send it here, and the other half says you have to be an idiot to think we're opening up our markets, but instead we sat with those concerns and said what are you angry about? we sat down with korea and said, you know, you really can't justify this incredible imbalance in terms of access to your automotive market and ours, and we fixed it. instead of letting panama and colombia linger, we listened to

those who wanted us to move forward. we lrned to those -- listened to those who were concerned and what they were upset about and we fixed them to have agreements that are more balanced and allows to go forward reaping the economic benefits from them in terms of more sales, but also in jobs, and that's the way we're going to have to move forward, but i think in case after case after case, and i would agree with you the united states is not per perfect, oh ours -- but ours is one the most open in the world, and we will insist as long as i'm privileged to serve the american public and president obama as u.s. trade rep, we're going to insist our partners do one simple thing, you have to play by the rules and open up your markets the way you agreed to whether we signed the trade agreement with you or whether we allowed you to come into the world trade organization, and if you do that, americans aren't looking for special privilege. we are -- maybe you feel there's

a little american bravado in there. we are proud and confident people that believe if we have a level playing field, we think we can compete and win, but my jobs is to make sure we get that level playing field as much as we can, and i do not think that our partners on the whole have been as faithful about opening up their markets to our products as we have been as receptive in many cases to taking their products. >> i don't know whose card went up first, but will. >> over half of all of teamsters work for ups, and my question is why do the teamsters and long shoreman union not support trade agreements? [laughter] >> i mean, if i was mr. hoffman or head of the long shore

agreements, look, those are industries that feel they have been hurt by trade disportionly more than others. i have to let them address that. i have gone out of my way to reengage labor in our trade policy and find out what they like and don't like. i suffer from no illusion that in 48 months, we are going to create an environment in which labor is now in a position to endorse and bless trade. here's the way they do in germany and others, but what i owe them is my best effort, and i'm proud of the fact that at least with korea, we did something to get something happen in the town we hasn't seen in a long time. when he announced the agreement, not only was it blessed by nato, the chamber, and manufacturers and others, but it was blessed by the united auto and united

commercial workers. we'll do everything to address their concerns, but they also understand we are firmly committed to the proposition that the united states has to continue to look for opportunities to open up new markets for our exporters and their workers, and we're going to do it in a way that has the strongest intellectual property rights and labor and environmental provision, and hopefully, over time we can begin to soften some of their opposition. we'd rather have them with us, but it is time for us to move forward, and that's one of the reasons we're working dill gently with congress to get -- dill gently with congress to get approval. >> clive crook. >> thanks. al -- alan greenspan's point reminds me that china early in their reforms have to take steps to see a close sal engineering project and was struck little

heavy machinery was being used, but thousands of guys with shovels. he pointed this out and said why are yacht not using -- why are you not using heavy earth movement and so on? they said it's job creation and we're here to make work. if it's job creation, take away the shovels and give them spoons? [laughter] i wanted to -- that's just on the economic agreeing with the point mr. greenspan made, but i have a political question to you. i do understand, of course, that the politics of trade reform is incredibly difficult, and you have to make this case to a skeptical public, and i know how hard that is, but isn't there a problem opening markets overseas as a way to create jobs? in other words, exports equals jobs, and combining that with the theme you press hard about other countries being, you know,

playing in bad faith in this process, but they are not doing what they promised to do, if you establish in the u.s. public mind the equation exports equals jobs, then you're also establishing the idea that imports equals unemployment, and if you do that, you undermind in the long term sense the possibility of public support for free trade. >> clive, i will tell you that i think not. i mean, i believe obviously there are down swing jobs associated with the import of products, and you can again build, you know, if we're interested more in the intellectual academic discussion about trade, i will say absolutely, but i'm interested in trying to find the way to allow us to move forward with these agreements and deal with an increasingly skeptical american public. america doesn't question the

value proposition of trade in terms of the fact we get more diverse products. we get them at better prices. we have what they question is whether or not we benefit from the job creating aspects of it, and if focusing on exports is one way to reengage them, i think it's the right thing to do. i mean, part of one of the other lessons we learned from this economic meltdown from anything else, and you don't have to be an economist. the wisdom of our grandparents, you ought to save more and make more things. the more we begin to talk about manufacturing and what we do well, i think we can dissolve some of that concern that people somehow think we've lost this big manufacturing. i wish i knew the exact number because the example you gave me in china. i mean, we are so much more productive than our counterparts in china. >> pointing at the logical fallacy. i agree with you that politics is a key thing, but i'm just trying to press you on whether, you know, this line is

politically going to succeed. i mean, what about the argument that trade is about cheap goodses? that trade is about retiring -- >> clive, i can't help it. we are now. americans have always thought that. they understand trade is about cheap goods. they don't want nymph that. what americans -- they don't want nymph that. americans want to know, i'm the proud father of an unemployed graduate from college as of three weeks ago. i'm not alone. what americans worry about now is are we the first generation to look at our kids and say you're not going to have a life as good as your mother and i had. that's what people are most concerned about and they are looking for leadership and a plan to help us understand how we're going to create the jobs of the future, not so much for us, but for our kids and our grandchildren, and selling them an argument that you'll have

cheaper t-shirts while unemployed and technology you can afford is not the way to get us moving where we want to go. i welcome others to make that argument. i don't think that's a fairly compelling strategy for us to regain the public's trust because in the broader picture, i don't think you're going to have the continued liberalization and global trade if the united states is sitting on the sidelines. >> i'm sorry. i have dan glickman left. i wish people in industries wish they were doing more to weigh in here, and i hope doug will when e get to him, but reed hunt. >> i enjoyed your piece in the paper about getting investment and using the overseas profits. >> nice of you to mention it. i wanted to ask you to segue from jobs to bits.

yesterday, congress secretary locke said that the obama administration is thinking about treating foreign restrictions on the internet as a nontariff trade barrier and thus adapting existing trade tools. i would say that he's on his way out, and then he's handing you a hot potato, and i thought you want to comment on that. >> i would make that same observation. [laughter] he made be sliding from his perch, the next meddling ambassador to china. [laughter] no, we obviously have had a lot of concerns from congress. particularly what's happened, you know, in asia and other markets in that, and that's something we're studying, but we have not made any hard decision on that yet. i tell you our guiding prince pl on everything is we want government to be as disengaged from the process of letting the market determine what ought to

go where and how it should be produced. our broad philosophy is just get government's thumb off the scale, and that includes us. if we get other economies to do a that, we want them to. we understand there's unique challenges now because of the way information moves across the internet and we should not be in the business of trying to trump some other country's legitimate concerns about security, but we also know you can hide a truck behind quote-on-quote purposes of securing the market. it's one of many elements of what we're looking at across the board in terms of protecting intellectual property. >> doug melamed? >> well, i really -- i'll comment on -- i want to respond briefly to clive crook's suggestion that even at the level of rhetoric, the notion of

the trade as export is creating jobs and implying imports creates a loss of jobs as a zero-sum game here. i think there's two compelling answers to that, and i'll refer to the ambassador on this, but i think that politically sailable. one is it's a positive-sum game. it increasing the total number of jobs in the world and therefore, overall would increase jobs in the united states. second, even if it were a zero-sum game for the world as a whole, the market outside the united states is vastly greater than the market inside the united states. that perhaps is less important a couple generations ago when the wealth gap was greater than it is today. there's record quarters, for three quarters in a row, and we're not getting it by selling computers in the united states or europe, but getting it from the emerging economies. even if it was a zero-sum game and we're not selling to the vast bulk for the increasing demands for goods and services around the world, we are

impoverishing the ability for us to find markets for its goods. margaret, a comment you knead about mon -- made about nontariff trade barriers. they are serious and very real. in the technology sector they manifest themselves in and among other things, efforts, effects to reappropriate and failure to protect ip as commented earlier, refusal to participate in international standards, and to use local standards from which foreign or multinational firms are sometimes excludes, and what seems to, at lease from the u.s. advantage point, to be a necessarily broad definition of industries of national security, but these are markets for the reason i said a minute ago that are hugely important to the united states so it doesn't seem to me that we should be ideological about it and up cyst on purity before we're trading.

i think we should be hard-headed and realistic and do what we can to make the markets open to us, and if we have to take half a look, take half a look. >> what more would you have in the ustr do? i mean, what else -- is there leverage or are you saying that it's as good as it gets? >> i'm going to bust out -- >> no, but as someone who would like, and then i would like his answer, but -- >> let me say one thing. the leverage american businesses have and goes back to what i agree with on clive, and i hate all these things becoming china-centric. the biggest leverage with china is jobs. i can bang on the table and say you have to do this. if you're going to behave this way, maybe we have to move the jobs somewhere else. that gets china's attention. i don't blame them. they have 600 million people they are worried about being engaged in productive behavior or something else, but the jobs component is a huge lever when

you look at the reaflt of how much -- reality of how much of american money is invested in china, india, and africa. it's a huge lever america has to play in at least getting the other countries to behave in terms of protecting intellectual property rights and not engaging in the ntb's. we'll use all the legal tools we have, but that takes time. nothing is as compelling as when our industry will stand up and say if you're going to continue to behave this way, we don't have to be here. >> you're saying, doug, you think that's self-defeating and the u.s. industry is not ready to do that? >> i think a lot of u.s. companies feel they should be participating in these rapidly e merging and large economies, but plan not participating as robustly as they would be if the economies were more hospitable in the quality of the trade system and barriers talked about. again, it's a question of being

willing to sell half a loaf and that's better than none at all. >> william davis. >> mr. ambassador, i'm will davis with the office here in washington. thank you for your time today. you're a former local politician so from that perspective i'd be curious to see what you have to say to our friends in europe when they have to tackle the political buss saw of lowering the agriculture subsidy. we've been mixing met tores for a long time, and seeing that's the major hang up it appears, what new can we bring to the table to help them realize the challenges of their situation presenting in the global trading system? >> wul, one, and this may be some fusion, will, of your observation and mr. richter's that no industry is probably as protected that local politicians are more attuned to than agriculture. the example i give is whether

you were an elected member of the united states congress or a parliamentary body in asia, africa, not every elected official is blessed to say i have i want or boeing -- intel or boeing or texas instrument in my backyard. every one has a farmer. they look at our farm support policies, but broadly the argument we make to euroeurope is the same we make to everyone who joined the world trade organization. we have to operate with sound, sanitary, and vital sanitary standards if the system's going to work. now, i happen to believe that just as you were seeing, i think, a remarkable debate played out in our congress right now over agriculture supports because of the reality that budget constraints, fiscal

responsibility is going to be with us for awhile. that will do more to frankly reform a.q. supports not only in the united states, but all the countries around the world of all the banging we do on one another and the decisions and can we afford it? i meet, and i was in africa last week for the forum. we'll have my counterpart from europe here next week, and the other thing we have to do is honestly look at the challenge of a global population that if it's going to add a billion people over the next 20 years and continuing to grow, we have to stop looking at ag as a competition, and the number of countries around the world blessed enough to be able to feed themselves and make the net contribution are going to all be challenged to make sure that we find a way to feed an increasingly expanding population with a lot of that growth coming from economies

that are going to be net importers of food so the more we begin to work with whether it's europe or brazil or other economies that are net ag exporters and see this as an opportunity to feed the future so to speak i think that can be one way to attack what has been historically a pretty protected environment. >> we've now have a lot of people with cards up so i'll start cop -- combining. no one asked you this and it's in the news, the colombia, panama, and south korea agreements and negotiating, and the administration said, and you said it first a month ago, you're not going to send them to the hill unless the republicans agree to renew the trade adjustment systems, the retraining program for displaced workers, and i'm just wondering, and you're getting a lot of push back and a lot of criticism on

that. i'm wondering whether -- obviously you think it's smart, but why do you think it's smart to hamstring or mortgage what you say are very, very important free trade agreements on over the taa? >> well, first of all, we don't see these are hamstringing or mortgaging these agreements, and you're right, we have conditioned moving forward on getting an agreement on how we would advance the trade adjustment assistance program. ..

>> give them the training they need to be retooled to stay in the work force. particularly since the composite makeup of these workers. it's a 46-year-old male who's the single wage earner in that family.

we just think it's a smart thing to do. the good news, i think we'll be able to find support for. but the fact it makes republicans uncomfortable gives me no comfort. you ought to try to be the democratic trade rep. when i showed up in detroit in maine, they didn't have parades. listen if this president, a democratic party that's going to vote 70% against trade can try and -- the courage and the wisdom to build a case that has the right thing to do. we don't think it's as much of a push for republicans to understand this is equality smart to make sure we keep that covenant with workers. it's one the ways you begin to build a new paradigm of support for what we are doing in trade. it's been a part of our trade policies since the '60s. we think it's the right thing to do. >> why don't we combine. bill hughes, i'm sorry, james w.

-- wilkinson. both make your comments. then the ambassador. >> i don't mind, you'll be brief. we'll hear from all of them. >> yes. oh no. >> ambassador bill hughes with the retail industry leaders association. welcome. i'd like to take up the offer to provide a specific proposal or suggestion. currently there's the tpp negotiations going on. one perspective from the retail industry point of view, there's a thought which is important to us. some interesting on that. it maybe a bargaining chip to open up their markets more. i'd like it give you one other perspective going back to the issues of jobs here. from the retail, we believe changes in that rule to allowing, you know, not just chief goods, but a standard of living. the retail, they are all part-time minimum wage, we have hundreds of thousands of jobs at the management level that are

$85,000 a year. if the ability to important and provide better business through that is there, there are more of those jobs there. it's just an additional perspective to take in. not just simply balancing the textile, it does help the retail. perspective and suggestion there. >> okay. >> good afternoon, james washington. you had spoken at the group a couple of months ago. the question has less to do with trade and more what i hear at our events. members asking about the backlogs of patents and the delay of the lag up to nine months. other countries, it can be a month or so. particularly in the high-tech, you need to get those out quickly. you have second and third generation development before the first generation has hit the market to counteract the quickness of the reverse

engineering. what's the administration doing and how do it see it fitting into the entire ip portfolio? thank you. >> thank you. kathleen coolidge. focused on africa and trade and development. thank you very much. we appreciated your thoughts on agriculture and food security in particular. which is something that i think is central to this conversation as well. and i just wanted to ask about -- as we think about emerging markets, perhaps think differently and how to innovate even going into the markets. looking at africa where there is such tremendous food security, but also such a tremendous opportunity in agriculture that is virtually untapped. if we look at some of the other trades partnering around the world, they are moving into africa very aggressively and are taking risks much differently than we would. i just wonder whether this might be the time. i'd like to ask if ustr since

you mentioned food security is willing to engage into a deeper dialogue on food security and trade. i think sometimes the policies are at odds. to think creatively about some of the solutions to really open up the markets, looking to the ideas the africans themselves have put forward but be creatively involved instead of waiting too long until others have gone and decided how they will develop. thank you. >> i'm kimberly elliot, a fellow alum to the ambassador. >> good. how are you? >> good. glad to be here. following on the comments in the cycle. just a little bit and in addition to agriculture and nate and bill's industries, you know, apparent, footwear also very highly protected. those will the remaining areas

where the u.s. discriminated against the poor and u.s. and the country. showing how the clothing and footwear, it's the lower cost item that is tend to have the highest. maybe it doesn't so much to the middle income to have a cheaper t-shirt, but to a poor family trying to buy inexpensive footwear, it could be important. it's the poorest country that is are heavily impacted. doing something about it and the context could give a boost to the doha round next week. it's going to be one the key things on the agenda in geneva, i think there would be lots of gains from addressing. one final comment on the closure to the topic of today's lunch on innovation. there's been a lot of talk about intellectual problem. it comes out of the work on development some concerns about the highest possible intellectual property protections. but also just to say that also

is relevant for the american economy because the economy as a whole benefits not from sort of the rest that go to the industries that have the patents and the copyrights, but from the broadest possible expansion or dissemination. and that's how the whole economy benefits. it's a balance. it's not the highest, strongest possible. it's got to be a balance between the innovation, but also we want the innovation to get to people. we need to have more of a balance there. i want to put that on the table. thanks. >> excuse me. thank you ambassador. so basically two relate to what's already been said, i think it's it's -- it's obvioust the world is aging. next -- well, early in september will be the first summit as the u.n. on chronic decide. which opens up tremendous amounts of markets to our pharmaceuticals, and how to

build medical infrastructures. so we do have the many pharmaceutical. we haven't always been great in the way we dealt with this. i think it is an industry and technology and something that america looked towards as having the finest health care and the opportunities with this are staggering if we can do it right and gain acceptance and jump over some of the barriers for acceptance in countries for low resource devices developed for low resource power sources. i just put that forward as another opportunity. >> and, i can't read your lips. >> gary with the parties -- peters institute. >> of course. >> ambassador, some of the people around the room are alumni of the treasury departments. we know very well if you mention the trade deficit, you get your hands slapped, if you mention

the exchange rate, you'll get tape across the mouth. so -- >> but you maybe a retail politician from dallas. but you know very well that the trade deficit is quite closely linked to the jobs issue and the exchange rate is the single most powerful impact both on the deficit and the president's ambition to double exports by 2014. so given those obvious kind of facts in the room, my question to you is whether you feel frustrated by the monopoly that the treasury has long enjoyed since jeff and i were in the treasury on exchange rate issue. maybe they talk in secret to the fed. otherwise they don't talk to you or the commerce. whether that frustrates you at all. and secondly if there is a kernel of frustration whether you think when you leave office

you might have changed the dynamic on, you know, who's appropriate in the room and discussing the exchange rate. that's my question. i do have one comment. you said earlier, that agriculture is probably the most protected industry. it is certainly highly protected. very relevant to the united states is at the services sector across the board are probably more highly protected and certainly more important for u.s. position as an expert power in the 21st century. >> well, let me -- thank you all for your comments. let my thank the institute again. i imagine we got to be getting close to then. if i can, i'll try to combine some of these. let me say the easier thing is nothing makes me happier than the fact i don't have to deal with the exchange rate. i'm happy that it resides with treasury. i think secretary geithner is doing a fine job. i will not -- i'm more than

happy to defer to him on that. i will say what i have said, not to make light of that. i do think it is -- i think there is a risk for people to believe that if we could just get china to address the exchange rate, everybody would be okay. when you talk to dan glickman, everyone from the industries they go whoa. when you look at the breath of what they are going under the head of indigenous innovation and some of the things you heard. there's so many other ways to try to manipulate their process to the advantage of their manufacturers. we would still be in a disadvanced position. i would just say the exchange rate is one element of it. the broad argument, you know, for us, again, is just have government to allow as much as we can to market dictate those forces, rather than others. nancy, i think your observations

about our ability to make a contribution to the world in terms of help, monetary, i do think this will feed a little bit into my classmates from austin college worse than about global development. that is one the balances that we try to strike. we look at it, you know, ip, we want to make sure we can share this incredible american advance in technology, particularly in terms of health care with the world. but we also, i think, have to recognize, ken, that if we don't have a way for americans to advertise the extraordinary expensive research and development which for the most part happens in the prospect, not the government, we lose the risk of having double advances. we cannot settle for a world in which the rest of the world gets to hide behind poverty as an excuse to frankly just rip off american innovation. there's more in loss of jobs in

terms of health care. many people don't know the economies that are freely ripping off american products. i agree with you, it is a matter of balance. but we think given the innovation plays in our economy, we are coming down on the correct side of making sure we are combating piracy, and fraud and strongest ip regimes. one of you made an observation about pattern reform. it was one the first thing secretary locke and i were struck with when we were doing the round tables around the country. i know secretary locke has challenged patent trademark office first of all just to reduce the time. i think i'm told right now it's like a three year wait to get a patent. they are trying to get that down to less than a year. one the practical things we've been asked to do is add another office. you know, i think about 2/3 of

the patent filed in this country i'm told come from west of the mississippi. if you really, you know, back load it, they come from california to texas. everybody has to come to washington. that makes no sense. i know they are looking at everybody from whether we additional offices, but also trying to attack the backlog, realizing that we got to get those patents in to market sooner. there were a numbers of comments about retail and bbp. first of all, thank you. i know gail strikeher has spent an extraordinary element of time. we've had more engagement with stakeholders as we try to develop and take our positions in this proposed transpacific partnership. we have put on the table a number of the ideas that you have brought to us. obviously, some of our partners aren't ready to go there. we are committed to trying to

have a textile chapter. i don't want to at all lead you to the assumption this is a closed issue. it's one we've had a lot of engagements with you on. respect to africa and food security, it was a huge part of our discussion and our work, katherine and i recently concluded a goal form. i would tell you if you recall the president challenged us about 18 months ago to look at all of our aid and development. one recognizing there was some frustration, even among many of our biggest supporters of aid portrayed broadly. it felt like the united states for years had tried one approach with africa, we weren't seeing the results that we wanted. the second recognizing we are not in a world to go to congress and say give us more money. one the things we've realized is rather than trying to do well in a lot of places, do a little bit here, we have to begin to make

much more difficult decisions and really weigh in this places. tunisia, zambia, for example, tunisia is the largest beneficiary, we are also working with them on food security, the same with zambia. we are looking at every element of africa's competitiveness, potentially as a partner to address that. >> thank you so much for engaging with everyone here. thanks, everyone, for engaging so. and the aspen institute and intel. we're almost out of time. [applause] >> coming up on c-span2.

>> "the supreme court" is available as an standard and advanced e-book. 11 original c-span interviews with current and retired justices. the newest includes an interview with elena kagan. c-span "the supreme court" available now wherever e-books are sold. [applause] >> president nixon first used the phrase war on drugs 40 years ago. the institute of the black world 21st century is called for an end to the drug war and hosted this conference about it's effect on the african-americans. speakers include jesse jackson and michigan congressman john conyers. this is just over two hours. >> brothers and sisters, this is a momentous occasion. to be here with the institute of

the black world and all of you, is an honor for me. and in a sense, i represent in the congressional black caucus. all 42 other members. particularly including congressman jesse jackson jr. and the congressman scott. give them a ground of applause. all of our members. this is an old subject for us. it's not new. we've been fighting the whole thing in the make of making the justice system better. and we have some problems that have developed. namely the rate of incarceration

has grown even as the crime rate is going down. one part of the paper, you are reading that the crime rate is down. when you look at the facts with rainbow push or the naacp, or the congressional black caucus, or the institute of the black world, the rate of the incarceration is going up at the same time. the reason that i suggest is that people are being rearrested and incarcerateed on technical violations, violations of patrol or probation and the whole drug question is something that i'm going to say something here today.

that i've never said before. i think we ought to decriminalize marijuana as a criminal activity. [applause] [applause] >> why? why do you want to do that, chairman? because the use is so widespread, as a matter of fact, it's going up. it's common place. and the medicinal harm has not been established nor have we connected it necessarily to the use of other addictive drugs. and so i say that as we meet here today in washington and 700,000 people are coming out of our prisons, federal and state,

every single year. 700,000. now in the states that bar a felon from ever voting from the rest of his life, that's something that reverend dr. jesse lewis jackson is going to comment on. that means our voting power is decreased because of the disproportional number of african-americans that are incarcerated, sometimes right now, and sometimes wrongly in the first place. by the way, let us give a round of applause to the man that worked with reverend dr. luther king and gone on and continued his legacy more accuracy and closely than any of the people

that surrounded dr. king. reverend dr. jesse lewis jackson. [applause] [applause] [applause] [applause] now i don't know if our distinguished leaders dr. ron daniels ranged this with "the new york times". but ex-president jimmy carter published on the editorial page a column entitled call off the global drug war. how many people have seen this in today's paper. quite a few.

and it's very instructive. because more and more people are realizing that our encars ration of our own citizens exceeds the rate of more than any other country on earth. we all know that. i think it's accurate to say there are more black young men in prison than there are in college. it's been true for over 20 years i've been advised. so we have a more serious problem. this is what we're here to talk about today. one of the things i want to do is connect all of the organizations that have been seriously working on that

problem. starting with the institute that brings us here today. but rainbow push starts it's conference in chicago tomorrow i'm going there. can i get about a 20% of you go to there with me to chicago? going to chicago. yes, as a matter of fact, you can go to delta airlines, american, and tell them i sent you. addition. if you don't care to fly, you could also go to the train station in washington and tell them the same thing there. i'll be looking forward to seeing you in chicago. because i will be there. and i wish you good luck too,

brother. now in addition to rainbow push, and the institute for the black world, it's the congressional black caucus. on september the 21st at the washington convention center, we have our 40th -- god, dr. elsie scott, head of the foundation, walked in. give her a ground of applause. the executive director of the foundation is here. what we're doing during those five days from september 21st, we're having workshops. i have a whole day i think it's friday that we will be doing a workshop on this criminal justice system that is not just.

we got to deal with that. we've also began -- i've got to begin to organize those people that are coming out of prison. do you mind if i say something about you, my brother? here's a brother that's been looking for a job for how long? about a year. he has been working for how long? and they came to him three years, they came to him one day and said, oh, by the way, we found out that you had one time been incarcerateed. you know what that means, we got to let you go. wasn't anything about coming to work on time, or the quality of his work or the way he comported himself. somebody looked up and found out he had a record.

he has been out of work ever since. there are many others that don't ever get fired for having a record. what we've got to do here with all of these organizations that i haven't mentioned the nacp and the urban league and the number of other organizations. and there are a lot of local organizations. we've got to do what reverend dr. charles adam at the baptist church in detroit has done. they have a committee in the church working with people that have been formerly incarcerated and they meet and they are organizing. do you know how much strength we'd add to struggle of justice?

uh-oh. the hook is coming. [laughter] >> he always coming. he always starts off nice. he has been known to get physical. [laughter] >> we with are doing with who controls the microphone. do you know how much power and conclusion that we have if we were to organize everybody that's been sent to prison and recognize and encourage them and help them get jobs and help the congressional black caucus change some of these draconian laws at the federal and state level. as they say on congress on the floor,ly put the rest of my remarks in the record. you can read them from there. thank you very much. [applause] [applause]

>> the audible john conyers. give it up for him again. i mean, he was a jazz man. that means he can improvise from now on. he is mr. jazz. one the highlights, in addition to all of the other things that goes on, he ever year convenes a session on jazz, workshop, and concert. we may not all be able to go to the rainbow push, we know we can be on september 21st at the congressional black caucus. i also wanted the special privilege of introducing the keynote speaker. we hope everybody is going to hang for the afternoon. we have an incredible panel here, incredible panel that is going to layout the devastating impact of the war on drugs and talk about alternatives. some of it is not going to be

easy. it is going to challenge some conventional thinking. that's why we are here. we didn't get here by our choice. we're in the predictment. we know need to find our way out. one the reasons that i needed to stand, the honorable john conyers has to catch a train. and reverend jackson has to get a plane. it is now my honor to introduce one the foremost leaders of our time, one the foremost leaders of our time. he is my former boss. for many, many years we worked together. i had the privilege of being the executive rainbow director and manager for his 1988. campaign that's important. few people have the opportunity to serve at that level. [applause] [applause] so many people now down in brazil or on television. they got their opportunity

through a process to incredible crusades, they are not just campaigns, crusades, 1984, and 1988. if it had not been for the reverend jesse lewis jackson, there would be no barack hussein obama in the white house. some people may confused. i'm not. more important, we argue every now and this about this and that and the other. as a self rights leader on the issue of public policy, because this doesn't get changed because we are angry, frustrated upset, because we organize to impact public policy. i can remember many, many times, prevalent jackson talking to ministers about how within the context they began to focus on public policy. as they advocate an analyst of

public policy, he has no peer. he has no peer as a civil rights, human rights leader. he is just an authentic genius in terms of capacity to analyst and put forth prescriptions. he is genuinely a historic figure. he is a historic figure still among us, still chanting the cause. we wanted him to come together because people pick up the issue here and issue there. over and over again for years and years and years it was a reverend jesse lewis jackson that talked about the issue of investing on the front end insed of the back end. he didn't just start this. he's been on this for decades. going to schools and encouraging people to do better in their lives and avoid the trap of the criminal justice system and linking it to the social economic crisis that we face. would you freeze -- would please

now acknowledge the president of the rainbow push coalition, the reverend jesse lewis jackson. [applause] [applause] >> let me express my sincere thanks and appreciation for dr. daniels for his kind and generous introduction for our kinship across the year when he was just a youngster? ohio. the feeling is waved through in the career we've all been blessed, and may have been because of the continuous service of dr. daniels, he is all of that and more. one that's written the most, the most consistent of what it was fighting an organizer in ohio,

helping write the document for the black convention in gary, indiana, helping direct the agents, he's always been there. let's give dr. daniels a big hand. shall we please? put your hands together. [applause] [applause] >> there was the idea that john conyers could not win. he was running just to kind of make a statement. but did not have the support of the michigan power structure, dr. king, or endorsed in congress. he won by 36 votes. every vote counts. he's the only man that dr. king endorsed. he did the rob call for mayor

hanson, and black resistance to a black man, gary, they challenged him not to come to gary. he campaigned actively for john conyers. both of them won. dick hatcher and john conyers are part of that legacy. i want to thank you the existed guests here today who spent so much time in the shadows, it seems, making this case for 40 years. and being the only case, we thank you sincerely so much. as ron indicated, the rainbow push convention started tomorrow, june 18th through 22nd in chicago. as we deal with this and other issues tomorrow morning. big focus on them now. 34 straits the same forces to deny the right to vote, the united states was officially suppressed to vote. remember the turnout and the victory from 2012.

thank you, dr. vance, allow me to share with you today, you and rick. 150 years since the civil war. 40 years since the drug war. and we are still targeted. targeted for negative action, but never targeted for affirmative action. being black in america is an expensive proposition. chances are a high infant mortality rate, further life expectancy and much in between. the war on drugs has not failed to keep it's purpose. it's politically inspired to arrive at a given conclusion. the war on drugs has failed to

stop drugs. it has not failed to stop profit. is it has not failed to stop political disenfranchisement or the disopportunity of people. why not focus so much on public policy? i learned early on we live in our faith. we live under the law. people of faith must fight for just law. many of us are stuck on faith and live within the limits of unjust law. if we had faith, much prayer, and slavery time. but until the 13th amendment was passed. >> uh-huh. >> we could not walk away from the plantation. >> you said it right. >> we had faith in some alabama.

but august 6th, we didn't have the right to vote. and so i believe in faith as the weapon against the strength to fight for just law. but the faith without the just law is to be faith on the back of the bus. >> yeah. >> faithful and disenfranchised and trapped under the throes. african-american has been the objects of degradation, exploration and isolation and despised. the only group that required the 13th amendment and emancipation through the 26 years of slavery, and 100 years of legal government enforced segregation. the patterns of race discrimination continue today. most pronounced in the prisoner complex, denial of equal education and employment. the tragedy of the drug war, the

fellow government took the lead in the race in class discrimination. we had some relief when there was government intervention in the big debate between states rights and the more perfect union. the government had to intervene in 1863. had to intervene to save the unity in slavery driven by the question of slavery. it had to intervene. 1954, the government had to intervene. the government had to intent veer. the 65 voting rights act, the government has to intervene to get elc the contract compliance and affirmative action, employment and unforcement of the laws, the government had to intervene. now states right seems to end in intervention. and to move the troops, you have to get leading up the people exposed to something less than

full citizen, government intervention. so today, there is some data that's well worth reading today on the internet, i pray you get it today. more whites use drugs, more blacks in prison. blacks on collateral damage is not the direct object of the drug war. the war on drugs is fairly targeting african-americans who are far more likely to be in prison for drug offenses than whites even the former whites using illegal drugs than blacks. according to new report by the advocacy group of human rights, the report to be released today is that african-americans aringed for 62% of the drug offenders since the state prisons, nationwide in 1996. the most recent years of which statistics are available. only they represent 12% of the u.s. population. we are all black men sent to state prisons, at 13 times the

rate of white men according to the study. which analyze the wide range of justice department information for 37 states to come up with a -- with the findings. they exist even though data gathered by health and human services should '91, '92, and '93 five times as many whites used cocaine as blacks. drug transactions among black are easier to target because they more often occur in public than drug transactions among whites. transparency is in states where black men are sent to prisoner at a rate 57%s greater than other white men. in maryland, for example, blacks make up 27% of the population and 90% of those sent to prison on drug charges. a rate that's 20 times greater

than that of whites. in virginia, 82% of those sent to prison for drug charges and 20% of the population. they include repealing the mandatory sentences, laws for drug offenses, increasing drug treatment, and eliminating racial profiling as police tactic. largely because the huge disparity for drug offenses, blacks are sent to prison 8.2 times the rate of whites. it doesn't stop. setting examples in the "chicago tribune." highway robbery. all of it explains police have found the way this is in texas.

they offer the out of towners to voluntarily sign over your possessions or face crimes of drug trafficking. another chase in texas, 35 people convicted based on the testimony of an under cover agent later charged with perjury. they decided a text system that's tough by fair. more than 25.4 million americans have been arrested on drug charges since 1980. 25.4. about 1/3 of them were black. the african-americans make up about 12% of the population. watch this data, in georgia, the population of blacks 29%, prisons 64%. arizona is 16%, black prisons, 52%. lose 33%, prisons 76%, mississippi 36%, prison 75%,

alabama 26%, prisons 65%, tennessee 16% population, prison 33%; south carolina 33% population, prison, 69%; north carolina, virginia, 60% and prison 68%. this is a crime against humidity. a war on drugs is a war on black and brown. and must be challenged by the highest levels of the government in the war for justice. several things, one this is government sponsored terrorism. number two, this is -- this has raised the price on black

existence. it has raise the price on black existence. three on the family, and four the interrogation, five the least users paid the most price because of race. those with money paid the least price because without remain behind bars today. the farther for the complex, the operation complex of america stock exchange today. money has been -- even was atalk, this is not back in the day, this is today. we need a presidential commission, a review, remedy and action. we can stroll on truth and reconciliation in south africa and make cases for peace and reconciliation, let it begin at home. we need the presidential

commission on review, remedy and action. let us take our case to the united nations. this is a global crisis against humanity. we're 5% of the population and 25% of the jail population. 5% of the prison and we engaged in the war in libya against leadership that destroyed it's own people. we must have a higher standard. [applause] [applause] >> the rationale for war in libya is we must stop gadhafi, waging war against his own people. we should. we should have a higher standard. this is a war by government against black and brown citizens. now that we know better, we should imperically do better and act now. the feds must be aggressive, but

not an interpret of it. treat and heal the sick. 4,000 a year for the treatment, 25,000 for incarceration. we must meet with attorney general holder, petition the president for relief, remedy and action now. closing this note, dr. ron, the most fundamental to all of our rights is the right to vote. in "new york times" editorial said last week, we are one vote away from the states right supreme court. that's 1896. the one that the 34 states attack in the voting rights act, there's a common theme attack workers rights to organize, the working people's lobby, real portion people into isolation, and attack public education and fire teachers and use the impact

of the vote, not to stop the vote, but to save points. there was a big game the other night between the mavs and the heat. if the referee are a player not stopping to shave points to corrupt the whole thing. this determines how to end the war. less than one vote. arguably because to vote in chicago, led by congressman dawson, the margin. in '68, king kill, kennedy kill, they got young blacks to organize don't vote campaign arguing that nixon is white,

humphrey is white, don't vote for white. '96, bush and dole got more whites than clinton. he won the margin. in 2000, gore won the election by the inspired black vote and taken away by the supreme court. margins really do matter. so in 34 states if the use the scheme, number one, seniors must have birth certificates. many of them live on fixed income. they can use student id, but not for voting. in texas, they can use gun registration, but not student id. or are also, five and a half millions black do not have a driver's license. so you if reduce the strength of blacks and browns by the scheme and seniors and students that was determine the outcome of the election in 2012 at every level

of government. lastly, my point to you is this. this remains our civil rights struggle. what is the civil rights? the civil rights is the right to have an evening playing field. why do we do so well in football? basketball? baseball? golf? tennis? it's hard to beat the best in the world at being a track star. a lot of people can run. hard to beat the best in the world at basketball, football, baseball, why be the best at that? which is so hard to do. because whenever the plan fell and the rules of public and the goals are clear, the referee is fair and the rules are transparent, we can make it. all we are saying we want one set of rules. illinois for the run or the accomplished congressman times, 11% of drug users are black.

prisons 61% black. 61% of users are time, 10% of prisons are black. all we want is the rules. let's use healing. let's engage youth not encase them and choose hope and healing over free and division. thank you very much. [applause] [applause] >> greetings, everyone. thank you so much, dr. rick adams. i'm sorry. i was here late. i'm coming from moderating another panel at the american constitutional society on the issue of collateral consequences of ideal conviction. i'm glad to be here today with

the institute of the black world 21st century and black family summit. i'm thrilled to have the opportunity to moderate this distinguished panel at this dynamic and event hosted by one of the nation's leading progressive organizations, the institute of the black world 21st century. the keynote we heard earlier has laid out the problem. his words and everything that has gone on proceeding today, including those rivetting remarks from the human experience have all prompted my things change and moments in history and the need for my narratives. and as i reflected, i realized that ever so often, a moment occurred and a window of opportunity for a new narrative and way of thinking opens ever so often, a glimmer of hope

sparks and the real possibility of change. and i always say that window opened in 1955 and rosa parks sat down and helped to bring about the chain of events which began dismantling the legal systems of injustice, a new narrative. that window opened in 1991 when a video tape exposed attack on rodney king and spotlight was shown on police abuse in the united states. a new narrative. it is clear that in the fourth decade of the war on drugs, we are another another moment today. perfect storm is forming on the new narrative. within the past 40 years if there's ever been a moment, nationally and internationally when the change has been on the horizon with respect to the policy with respect to the war on drugs, a war that quickly

became a war on black communities which collective police practices have resulted in a mass incarceration of nearly one million black people, families have been disrupted and communities def -- devastated by drug policy, that time is now. john conyers spoke earlier and opened that window. jesse jackson opened that window, dr. ron daniels opened that window. but our panel discussion this afternoon will open that window either further and put flesh on the new narrative by discussing what has been the impact of the war on drugs on african-american communities economically, socially, psychologically, is the drug war the new jim crow? what alternative to incarceration should be explored in order to curb the mass incarceration. dr. ron daniels says it's time to declare war on the war on

drugs and vigorously open up discussions, the base, dialogue in the black community to explore just and humane alternatives to a failed strategy. is the regulation of drugs a viable option and alternative? time for a conversation. just a discussion. i now have the privilege and the honor. i know they've been sitting up here for, you know, a while. but to introduce our distinguished panel and i'm not quite sure what order they are up mere. but the order that i introduce them on them will be the order that they will begin responding. this is going to be in the format of what we called a guided discussion. i raise up questions to the specific panelist, they will respond five minutes, then back and forth and open up to you at the community. is that okay? jasmin tyler, deputy director at

the drug policy alliance, nation's leading organization promoting alternatives to drugs grounded in science, compassion, health, and human rights. jasmin has been a long time, a ardent supporter that reduce the disparities and increase access to social and health services and treat people with drug addictions with dignity. hillary shelton, director of the naacp washington bureau of senior vice president for advocacy and policy has the responsibility for advocating the federal public policy issue, the country's oldest and largest perhaps most widely recognized civil rights organization. his portfolio is vast, ranging from affirmative action to employment protection and education and stopping gun violence, federal sentencing, profiling and the list goes on and on. dr. edwin chapman, private

practitioner, medal director for the comprehensive treatment program which focuses on taking a whole patient approach to treatment of addiction is also an active member of the national black leadership commission on aids advocates for public policies that break the vicious cycle of drugs, crime, and incarceration and exacerbating the hiv and aids epidemics. arthur burnett, found effort of the black policy coalition and superior court for the district of columbia. as national director, he seeks options to incarceration, including the use of drug courts and treatment instead of incarceration and his organization is a collaborative initiative to address issues of drug abuse in the african-american community. and