could a person logically say you should have had that at the outset? are would take part of our commission has been business,

protective lessons learned and the same infrastructure they are laying out that ought to be able to take that tremendous buildup that is the nature of contingencies and more effectively deal with it and not waste so much money. last of all i have to thank everyone that is here because it was a collective effort. >> thank you all very much. [inaudible conversations] >> i will give you a direct e-mail address. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> over the next several hours two views of jobs in america. first from the u.s. chamber of commerce and then the afl-cio. and we will be live at 9:00 eastern with a forum on lessons learned since the september 11th attacks. >> this weekend a three day holiday weekend on booktv on c-span2 from katrina secrets. former new orleans mayor ray nagin's account of the storm and after the storm. afterwards, randall kennedy looks at the influence of racial politics on the first african-american president. and live sunday three hours in

depth. former editor and columnist for newsweek magazine ellis coats on race in the media. look for the complete booktv schedule at booktv.org and sign up for booktv alert. the weekend schedules in your in box. >> u.s. chamber of commerce president thomas donahue says the government has not done enough to address unemployment. he spoke yesterday at the chamber's briefing on the economy. up next we will show you an hour of that briefing. [inaudible conversations] >> good morning, everybody. welcome to the annual labor day briefing. we are looking forward to hearing from randy johnson. but before that, tom donahue,

ceo of the chamber has some remarks to make and he will take a few questions before he has to run off to another appointment. >> we look forward to your latest economic forecast and your assessment of the state of the economy. marty is one of the best in the business. he speaks plain english. for an economist that is a rare skill. you may not agree with him all the time but at least you understand what he is talking about. we are going to hear from randy johnson. he gets to deal with the easy issues at the chamber like health care and labor relations and all of the topics where parties seem to agree all the time. i will be very interested to hear what he has to say about the three new regulations that were issued at the and r. l. be as the chairman made her way out the door yesterday. they will be very interested.

their presentations will help create some useful context to the major economic debate that are now regaining their momentum as people come back from their holiday. in the coming days everybody and their uncle will be offering a jobs plan and that is a good thing because that is where the focus needs to be on jobs. we are not going to be able to deal with the other challenges we face if we don't start to put people back to work, take some of the public payroll and have them pay in taxes and driving economic confidence. at the chamber we have been intensely focused on jobs since the outbreak of the financial crisis. just look at the front of the building. we have been talking about it for along time. we want to share some ideas from the institutions that actually create jobs and opportunity. that is the american business

community. the most immediate priority facing our nation is to create jobs for some twenty-five million americans who are either unemployed, underemployed, have given up looking or are new in turns coming into the workforce. graduating from college, leaving high school with a lot of hope for the future and trying to get into the workforce. to do so we need policies that promote and sustain stronger economic growth. we need to address the extraordinary fiscal and competitive challenges that are smothering growth. but at the same time, we must also address the immediate need for jobs now today. for those twenty-five million americans. we need action now, not next month or next year or after the next election. we need it now. so the u.s. chamber is currently finalizing a letter to the

president, the congress and the public, with specific practical steps that we can take to help quickly create millions of new jobs without increasing the deficit. because a lot of the systems and plans you are going to hear are going to cost us more money than we are going to put back in the system. let me give you a very short preview of some of our ideas which for the purpose of today's fall into six baskets. the first basket and perhaps the easiest is trade. we need to push the pedal to the metal and get these three pending free-trade agreements with columbia, south corey and panama completed. i have been saying for a long time that by doing that, we would save 380,000 american jobs which would otherwise go to our competitors. as you know canada has an

agreement with columbia and the e.u. has an agreement with korea. i would hope we save that many jobs because i know those people are picking up business that we are losing. south korean deal alone i am told would create 280,000 jobs for americans in the very near future. here's another ride the on trade you don't hear much about. under the executive authority the administration could enact nearly all of its proposed export control reforms without legislation. they have been working on them for three years. there's a lot of agreement on doing it so that we go out and sell these things that you cannot otherwise bar on a street corner in europe. one study says we could create as many as 340,000 jobs by increasing the number of products we can export without compromising national security. that is a lot of jobs. the secondary is energy. we can create literally millions

of new american jobs if we simply develop our own abundant energy resources on federal lands offshore and on private land. those resources are primarily oil and gas. we can do so in an environmentally responsible way generating economic growth, job creation and government revenue while reducing our reliance on foreign sources. we can also create jobs by building more in the infrastructure. you all heard the argument about the keystone pipeline connecting alberta, canada and the u.s. refinery in texas. i have been very encouraged to hear that the administration is moving in a positive way but we need to do this because we can create 250,000 american jobs in a big hurry and investments in the united states by more than $20 billion and government

revenues that are about half a billion dollars a year. this is a sure thing and we will in our letter outlined before or five more of these. when you add them up your talking millions of jobs without spending money. only giving the go-ahead to do what needs to be done. the third bucket is infrastructure. i am very pleased to be talking about infrastructure right now. david chevron -- chavin is with the president on infrastructure and tomorrow i will go to dallas and to join the president's council on jobs and competitiveness to talk about this. what do we need? we need a highway bill. we can't cut the size of it. it pays for primarily from user fees. we need the f a a bill and a water bill because this is a complicated issue. if you don't have them then you lose the jobs you have today. if you do get them, and we keep

pushing forward on it we can create jobs that we need tomorrow. an estimated $250 billion is sitting around in global private investment firms that would like to invest in our infrastructure because they have a sure way of being paid. we have seen it happen in individual states and we are very anxious that we move forward on this in of big-time way because the people that get these jobs would otherwise be working in a housing industry that doesn't exist. we can create probably 1-1/2 to two million jobs over the next period of time and i hope to talk more about this tomorrow in dallas. the fourth issue, the fourth basket is travel and tourism. we have 7.4 million people in the united states who are

employed in the travel and tourism business. if we could simply go back to the 2000 level of bringing people into the united states we create another 1.3 million american jobs. there are issues. there are national security and border security issues but people are not very well come when they come here. folks go from the e.u. who would normally come to the united states and going other places because we are not treating them very well and we can do some stuff without spending money and get more people to come here and bring their cash with them. the fifth issue is regulatory relief. if there's ever a time variation's history when we should say hold on a minute, we are putting out regulations as fast as you can count them, look what comes out of the nlrb yesterday or thing they're talking about coming out of the

epa. it is time for the nation to take a breath when we have to be very careful when we look at what regulations we are going to put into place. the administration should immediately issue an executive order directing agencies not to issue any discretionary regulations that would have a substantial economic impact until the economy improves. you hear all of the discussions in today's news about the billion dollar and above regulatory issues. there are tons of them. maybe they are important. if they are not life-threatening issues we hold the mall for a while. now is not the time for a slew of new regulations that kill jobs. now was the time to create jobs. finally, let me say a word on taxes. we need a tax reform and entitlement reform program. we have written to the congress

and the 12 apostles get themselves together and start doing this. we need to really look at those issues. we can't do that in the short term. we can do it quickly but we can't do it right now. there are some tax things we can do right now and i will just mention one. we need to think if we can have a tax holiday and let companies bring some of the money they have already earned. we are the only country in america now that pays double taxes and corporations do when they earn overseas. they leave the money over there. if we had a tax holiday lower the number significantly they won't bring it all home because a lot of their future business will be overseas. that is when 95% of the world's customers are. they will bring a lot of it home and put it into the system. by reducing the rate for a specific period on these profits earned overseas, u.s. multinationals could bring as much as $1 trillion back here.

i don't know whether they would but a good number. a new study suggests this move could create 2.9 million jobs over a two year implementation period. i don't know if it is that many but if it is 30% of it, it is worth doing and there's nothing lost. there is no cost. they will pay less taxes on it but you won't get any taxes right now. let me conclude. these are a few of our ideas. our letter to the president and the congress will contain more details on all of them. our job panel will be accompanied by a massive mobilization of our underlying membership of three million companies and our grass-roots army. we are encouraging them to tell their elected officials have our plan will create jobs in their community and share their own ideas of other things that ought to be thought about that will

get jobs there in a hurry. this will be our underlying focus for as long as it takes to get our economy moving again and put people back to work. our jobs plan doesn't absolves us from the responsibilities to tackled the other big issues like federal spending reform and tax code entitlements and a whole basket of issues we all know have to be dealt with. the point is we need to act on all of this now. we need to get moving and we need leadership in the business community and congress and the administration. some will say we have heard all these ideas before. the answer is yes you have. not in as many details. with not settle harris how you doing but the reason we're here is they haven't done a thing about them. we will keep pressing the points until our government leaders start moving on them. there will be questions about

how quickly these ideas can work. we believe they can start working in a very short order. there is no magic want waived here. if you are looking for a miracle go to church. we are not giving away miracles. if you are looking for practical ideas that can start the process of recovering millions of jobs we have lost since 2007, then start these things right now. one thing is for certain. if we do nothing. if we sit on our hands and wait for things to improve, we go ahead and try to spend more money to make this work, we won't create jobs we desperately need. we will continue to fall further behind. the chamber is committed to being the leader in trying to push this particular plan. we look forward to other people's plans but this one doesn't cost. this one is stuff we can do with the authority of the congress

and the authority of the administration. we are committed to working with all parties to ensure that america remains not only the greatest economic power on earth but the greatest country on earth and we better get about it because right now we are losing some of our traction. so i thank you very much. when you talk to marty and randy you will see why we are making these proposals. we are focusing very clearly on what is going on in the economy and what we can do to help and we are focusing very clearly with a sharper focus than we have a long time on what is going on the labour side and in health care and other matters, all of which add to the cost side. what we are talking about starting this morning is how we head to the job side. thank you very much. i have to go and do another thing but if you have questions i will take them. only one rule. you have to tell me who you are and who you represent.

we will start with you because you got up real fast. >> thank you very much. my name is ben hancock for inside u.s. trade. you have been very clear in calling for the free trade agreement to come forward from the white house to be submitted to congress. given the current atmosphere in congress right now, what makes you think they can work together on that issue specifically? do you have -- >> it is very clear there's a commitment to work together on the trade agreements. they're looking at the numbers fading away. they held them off agreement by both parties when they were doing -- trying to avoid a debt default. everybody agreed as soon as we came back in september we will send the. not only the trade agreement but the trade adjustment assistance and they have to figure out a sequence of voting. i think everybody is ready to do

it. if they don't do it, not only will we lose a lot of jobs, not only will we lose our position of some responsibility in the americas but we will lose our position in the world and it will be a very sad day if we walk away from these deals and others will step in to our place. they already are. the e you's business with korea went up 13% in the first seventeen days after they signed the agreement and we have got to get in to see them. >> all the details haven't been worked out. is there a reason your confident that they will? >> everybody -- who goes first or second. the urgency on this deal was significant when they agreed to wait until they came back in september. today it is very significant. we are losing jobs every day. we have to get off our buts to

do this deal. i will take a couple more. go over there. the blue shirts. i will keep coming this way. >> who is presenting? eric martin of bloomberg news. at this point who is presenting the greatest resistance to a tax holiday? members of the republican party or companies divided as to whether -- >> i haven't heard a lot of discussion. from time to time mentioned. you don't see a lot of resistance. we are saying if you do this you will put a lot of money in place. and it doesn't have to come from the government. put a lot of money in play, they claim last time they gave a dividends and they didn't start new jobs. what did people do with the dividends? they went to the store.

they bought a car. they pushed the economy. i don't want to get in that argument. this is one of those things you can do. you can do it by the stroke of a couple of pens. i think people might find a use right here. it is right behind you. >> you said $250 billion is waiting to be invested in infrastructure from private firms and public spending is the answer. >> i didn't say that. i said -- i think the public spending that we get money from the user fees should not be cut. all three of those bills are languishing and we are getting short-term issues. they don't get a six year bill. those in state and local communities won't put their money up when they don't know if the government will be in for three months or forever. that part of the federal money has to go and i don't think -- we support and infrastructure bank. i don't care how you do it but

there's lots of private money. people found investing in infrastructure is a good idea but they won't do it until they know there are programs. >> the second part of the question regarding infrastructure bank. do you see much chance for support of that in the republicans in congress? >> i think it could be done if we did the other stuff. if there was movement. if everybody thought this would create a lot of jobs. this does not require a good deal of federal money. if any. i can't do a lot of these because these guys have got to do their thing. >> in order to get a highway bill of sufficient size you think the gasoline tax needs to be increased or is there another way to get the revenue that is

needed? >> there are three numbers. there is the current highway bill which some people in the congress want to cut back 30% and that is categorically stupid idea. there are some people who think we could do sufficiently with the amount of money we are now spending. that would keep a lot of people employed and might give us a chance if it were a long-term bill to attract some private equity. by private view is before this is over, it has been 18 years since we increased the federal fuel tax and i would say we are getting more mpg that we did then and that means we are doing less with the money we have so you can make your own conclusions about that. i thank you very much. you are really going to enjoy this. anyone who wants to track this down with another question will

be announced. it is all yours. thank you. >> i think i will go first and randy is going to finish up with some of the issues specifically in the labour market. look at the economy today. we see an economy based on the most recent data has gone through a much deeper downturn and come out in a more -- fashion than we originally thought. some interesting -- you can draw some interesting conclusions from that. one is perhaps the stimulus bill much maligned stimulus bill might have had a little more impact than people have thought. what you see is an economy that grew to 3.3% or 3.4% in that

range and that the stimulus package expired you saw the economy drift down a little bit. part of the most recent downturn in the first part of this year was due to natural disasters, fled in the midwest, earthquake in japan and nuclear meltdown at a spike in oil prices all of which have run their course and are now starting to pass behind us. it gives us a little hope going down the road that we can accelerate in the second half of this year back up to 2.5% rate of growth. the problem in the long run and the problem for jobs on the labor day discussion is that growth is not fast enough. when you look at an economy and

this shows the economy relative to its long run potential you see the economy drops below the potential during the economic downturn and then it comes back and generally comes back fairly quickly. in 74-75-82 when we had long lived economic downturns by historical standards we got back fairly quickly. we did it because we grew very quickly. in the recessions and recoveries since 1991 even though they were more mild recessions, really quite mild, we didn't get back very quickly. we didn't grow very quickly. this goes back at least 60 years. kennedy asked arthur oak, is chief economist or chairman of the council of economic advisers to explore this and he coined

the term where he looked at the relationship which later came to be called up's law. the relationship between growth and unemployment. how quickly you have to grow to get unemployment back. he said you have to grow 3% to get 1% drop in the unemployment rate. we every estimated those relationships over the years and it looks like a 2:1 ratio. if you want to get back to your potential rate of growth or get back to your long run unemployment rate you have got to grow above your potential rate of gdp. we have to grow about 4.5% or 4.5% for two to three years to get the unemployment rate going down from 9% to the 6% level or 5.5% level most economists believe is our full employment level. nothing is new here. i hear about the association

between growth and jobs. there is no dissociation between growth and jobs. we don't have enough growth. when you don't grow at or above your rate of potential rate of growth you don't create jobs. the little chart we put together and updated with the most recent data shows coming out of the downturns prior to 1982 we grew very rapidly in the first year and the first two years well above our longer rates of potential rate of growth. we put people back to work fairly quickly. in the most recent recessions and recoveries we grew much more weekly. in the first year of the most recent one we grew barely 3%. just a little over 3%. if you look at the first two years we're down 2-1/2% rate of growth which is just about our long run rate of potential gdp

growth. what does that mean? the way we define these measures, our long run potential or the non accelerating rate of employment is to look at how fast the economy could grow and employ a workforce. that is your potential. that is estimated to be around 2-1/2%. if we grow 2-1/2% you create enough jobs to employ all the new entrants. you grow faster than that you start to make up the slack you created during the downturn. you grow slower you create more slack. okay? you will ask later on which forecast for friday on the jobs number it is like 75,000. people say why that? because 70,000 x 12 generates 900 some thousand and that is

the new entrants to the work force when you are growing at just about long run potential which is a round 2-1/4% and the numbers that. that is not real scientific but it is the way most people do forecasting. you can build a 300 equation mall like i just did a couple sentences but you won't get much more in the way of accuracy than you do the back of the envelope straight line approach. we are not growing fast enough. we have to get the economy growing faster if we want to create jobs. when you look at components that are holding us back with 70% of the economy's consumption we are not seeing a lot of it. consumption is not something that is hard to explain. .. economics where we actually put together a mathematical -- mathematical relationships that do pretty darn well not only

explain the past but what it ought to be in the future. the two biggest components are always income and wealth. if you look at this graph, incomes have come back a little bit -- generating a little, by hook and by crook. not creating a whole lot of jobs. there is some real wage growth. and we are also doing it with tax cuts and reduced taxes and things like payroll taxes and the like, all of this which contribute to disposable income and in turn drives consumption. every additional dollar of disposable income drives about 65 cents spending. the other big component as well -- and that -- is well. that is where the shortfall is. we've made about 8 back in the stock market mostly. the other big asset on most people's balance sheets, their homes, have not contributed. so, when we look at housing and i look at housing, it is really two questions. one is, how many worked in housing and how much income could degenerate building and selling more homes. but the other factor is, when you get the housing market settled out and you underpin those housing prices and

actually start to see price appreciation again, you start to get the welfare no. and that is the more profound impact on housing of the economy today. it is not what you can do with building more homes and building new appliances, which is important. so. and lost a ton of net worth, and where we have to make that fact is in the assets we lost it. there's no the assets that's going to step up and take over for the house, the home in the average american's portfolio. 60% of americans, 67% own theire own homes. and in most cases they have seen the valley of the films decline in some cases precipitously.ple that's what we have to see improvement. unfortunately, that's a hardequs market to fix when you've gotrno

embedded losses in the home. make a loss to make good on these things, in which case we add to the deficit significantly, or the individuals will hold those loans, namely the banking system, will take a loss. nobody is anxious to take a loss so everybody kind of dragging their feet. on the one hand, nobody wants to -- wants to throw people out of their homes and go through the expense of foreclosure and then have to turn around and hold the property on your books at a depressed value.

it has a negative impact on capital. if you could keep the people in their homes and talked about up a little bit the ultimate loss is a little bit less. everybody kind of drag their feet. when you drag your feet of these things you don't get equilibrium in the market, and when you don't get the market selling out you don't get them coming back. you can look at the various markets around the country and see where it has worked out. in the places where there was not a lot of overbuilding and overcapacity, we have seen house prices firm -- upper midwest and places like that. but in areas where there is a lot of over-building and a lot of current that vacant homes for sale, that is whether prices are most depressed. places like las vegas, and to a lesser extent southern california, the phoenix area, around atlanta and down on to seven florida. those places that were highly speculative. it is going to take some time. the economy will not get back to above potential performance, consistently above potential performance, until we see the housing market bottomed out and start to come back.

i think that is the key. unfortunately there is not a whole lot of policy that can be devoted to that that does not get prohibitively expensive and at the same time takes a lot of winners or losers. because the people who stayed in and continued to make their payments on their homes even though in some cases they have negative equity, two of such people are my son and daughter- in-law who live in detroit -- they continue to make those payments. they view them as rental payments as well because there is not any capital appreciation. but it is unfair to people like that to sit there and turn around and say, the guy across the street stop paying a year- and-a-half ago so we will step in and make good on his negative equity. it is a very difficult problem to dress and a very expensive one and in the and something the market will have to sort through and it will sort through overtime.

we have seen that short sales are up and more of those are taking place. we have seen that the foreclosure numbers are continuing to gradually eat away at this sector of the market that is still not performing. and it is making headway. we are not building any more new homes so we are working that supply back in. it is just taking a long time. one of the reasons why the economy has underperformed. investment -- we saw a couple of investment incentives. investment incentives work break -- great. they're robbing peter to pay paul, they shift the investment over time but they did not generate net new investment. if you have a long-term policy, long-term tax policy that decreases the cost of capital and increases the rate of return on investment than you will see some fundamental change in long- term investment. but just providing a temporary tax credit, it moves it from next month into this month or next quarter into this quarter -- which is what happened. a big spurt in investment, which is highly and more -- at normal. big consumption drives and the door down and businesses produce and hires more people advise new equipment. this time we had virtually no demand but we were able to trick anybody into investing up- front. however, those policies have a tendency to run their course and without any demand behind them

to keep businesses investing, the investment spurts, and in biblical sense, like the cd who falls on the ground and sports of quickly and dies. a big surge of investment for a couple of quarters and now very much a lower rate. we still expect to see a% to 10% on growth in that area. -- 8% to 20%. but it will not pull out the economy. generally speaking it kicks in in the middle of the cycle, to give you a little bit to get towards the end. it is not something you can depend upon to drive the cycle. you look at the trade side, and with the dollar very weak -- talking about tourism, a great time to come to the united states but not a great time if you want to visit europe.

the situation is the terms of trade have shifted in our favor, continue to shift in our favor, and helping to make our goods more competitive over time. so, it is a shame when you look at the trade agreements and the like sitting on the table, that we are not doing it. with our weak dollar, now it is the time you can make an impact. we got the terms of trade, the pricing mechanism working in your favor and you have this artificial obstacle in selling and penetrating the market. this is when you want to make hay, when you want to get in there because you got a leg up. we are really kind of squandering a great opportunity not to take advantage of these weaker dollars in our ability to trade around the world. the other thing is growth of around the world -- you know, in order to drive an economy with trade, especially a large economy like ours, you need the

terms of trade in your favor, a competitive advantage, and you also need growth abroad. the problem is the areas we have seen growth, like china and india, are not places where we have large penetrations of exports. we export more to western europe, to canada, to mexico. those areas, while not doing terribly bad, are not the primary areas of growth of around the world. if we could penetrate the chinese market to a greater extent and india, these would provide a growing markets for us to sell into rather than some of the other markets which are not stagnating, but are much steadier and the rates of growth have been much steadier. now we are seeing issues in europe with the european debt situation route -- slowing the growth in europe and providing less of the potential to sell into. trade is helping but it is not going to be the great driver. it is much more of a neutral as you look at the components of

the forecast. summarizing the forecast quickly. consumption, 70% of the economy. we expected to get back around 2%, 1.4% gdp growth. picking up 10% growth in investment of 10% of the economy, so you picked up about one gdp point. trade is a wash. looking at 2% to 2.5% as to what you can achieve with your grove, kind of the base forecast, and then you kind of work off some of the more marginal issues to drive it up a little bit or down at little bit. "at is why i don't see getting back much above 2% or 2.25%. where do you get it -- get it from? when house of -- housing comeback more, consumption will be back more -- up to 3% or 3.5%. business and the tories are low, you will see businesses invest more which will give you more out of the investment side. the forecast is and it's in pieces.

right now, what we are seeing is very tepid growth across the front. what does it mean for the labor market? we lost 8.5 million jobs. we put back 1.5 million or a little more. we've still had 6.75 million in terms of jobs. you've got the situation where the marginally attached workers, in that neighborhood of 2.5 million -- it would normally be 1.2 million, so you have 1.2 million you have to replace. part-time for economic reasons, meaning they want a full-time job but there are not full-time, meaning they want a full-time job but there are not full-time jobs out there, that number is 8.5. it is down from 9.5. it is a good thing. but 8.5 is 4 million higher than the norm. which is about 4.5 million. so you add this together and you need about 13 million jobs to replace what you lost and get

back to where you work. -- were. then you add a million every year. the next 10 years you get that is where you get to the numbers tom talked about all the the next 10 years -- 23, 24, 25 million jobs. we have never grown fast enough year. it is probably the case of this time around we will not be able to grow for 10 or 12 years straight and generate those kinds of jobs this time around, either. it is important to make hay while we can and that is what this economy is not going. it is just not growing fast enough to generate these jobs. if you focus on creating jobs and not focus on creating growth, you are not going to be successful. it just doesn't work that way. you can create growth without jobs because you have productivity improvements. but you can't create jobs without growth because of the growth has got to be fast enough to outstrip the productivity improvements of the businesses can't meet demand just with productivity increases

and therefore they have to hire. that is what drives the hiring process. everyone says, when will businesses hire? when they don't meet demand. when they are losing customers to the cost -- competition because they are not producing enough. right now they are more than meeting the demand with their existing work force. that is why the productivity numbers are going up even while gdp numbers are going down. that is what we need. it is going to take some time because, as i said, and to stop -- 2% to 2.5% growth you generate a million jobs a year would just provides enough for the new entrants and you have something in the neighborhood of 13 million you have to work off. we need to 0.5 million to 3 million a year for a good four or five years to get the process going. that does not get you back to way ahead of where we are right now and we are not doing even

that. so, i am going to stop there because i wanted to focus on the short run and the labor market. we have some longer run issues that we know are out there. we have a deficit and debt problem that the congress is calling to be focusing on of the next couple of months it -- hopefully -- and hopefully we will be productive coming to some sort of resolution on how to begin to address that problem. we also have a situation with the fed and the monetary policy issues. we have heard recently from mr. bernanke and a light of the question is, are we going to get qe2. think it will matter because saw it is something very focused and in turn shoring up the stock market but very little impact on overall gdp growth. and the money supply, by the way.

you talk about that people are worried the fed at's policy will be inflationary but it can't be if it does not affect the money supply. the reserve position most primarily affected was the excess reserve position. what it means is the banks held these as idle cash reserves and not put them into loans or money supply increases, therefore it will not be inflationary but it did not in fact help gdp growth that much. i do not think the fed will continue because their intent, i believe, was to shore up the banking system. i think it was a successful approach. i think they let everybody sit blissfully in their ignorance because what they were doing was re-liquefying the banking system and at the same time providing the banking system a ready supply of profits because they paid a positive margin on the borrowing versus the reserves bread. -- reserve spread. it pumped capital and retained

earnings in the banking system. i don't think they will do it again because i don't think the banking system needs of the help. it is the economy that needs help now. what they are going to try to do is try to figure out ways to get the banks to begin lending out more of the excess reserves, which will have the impact on the money-supply and gdp growth. i think they will be fairly judicious. and i do not think it will be a the next year or year and a half. i will stop there and turn it over to randy. >> thanks, marty. in view of the time constraints i would like to direct you to the material in your press packets, an overview of our activities in health care and pension area, and the long list of regulations in the pipeline the chamber is working on, along with a letter to the chairman to

-- providing a overview of everything going on with the national labor relations board. i will touch on it today but it is a little too complicated to draw down in detail. marty provided the macro overview and i provide the microbe. -- micro-focus on the workplace. i do that because there is a story to tell with facts and figures, but often the union's views labor day not just to talk about their agenda, frankly, but also an opportunity to go after and lawyers, often in an unfair way, in my view. i want to direct your attention to the fact sheet on workplace benefits. it is true, it is tough times, tough for employees, particularly those who lost their jobs, but employers also. we are still in a situation where employers are providing american something close to -- health care, close to 170 million americans, providing some storm of pension benefits, whether defined contributions or benefits to well over 100 million americans, they're spending upwards of a trillion

in wages and compensation. something like $1.50 trillion in benefits. that is in today's economy. looking back even a year when the economy was arguably in a worse situation. i just want to say for the record that employers are trying to do the best they can for employees in these tough economic times. that is a story that often gets lost and labor day that the unions often coincidently don't bring up. i also want to mention, and frankly, i have been surprised -- surveys have shown repeatedly high level of satisfaction of employees and the work fit -- workplace. one came out may 31. 87.5% of those employed surveyed expressed between high satisfaction and a fairly high level of satisfaction with their jobs. the poll noted it was down from

89.4%. but still, 2% drop. i think it's given our economic times, a rate around 87% is worth noting. a survey by the university of chicago national opinion research center came in at about 86% of very satisfied or moderately satisfied. i think it belies some of the claims by many that employers are cutting corners without reason, that they are insensitive to the needs of their employees. employers need their employees to compete, and they are well aware of that. a quote on healthcare it -- i just want to mention, 80% of -- 88% of those with employer coverage -- the lucky ones with employer coverage -- they say their overall experiences with the current plan have been positive, including 42% very positive. one out of tens saying the overall experience was negative. this was a recent survey and it goes to the fact that employers what are trying to provide

quality health care to employees. they are not just simply raising premiums and cutting benefits but exploring creative ideas like well as programs. -- wellness programs. it's talking about the nlrb later -- you will hear and the next couple of days, we need to change the rules of vote road of the board even though they have been there since the 1940's, but we need to change the rules of the road because the rate of unionization has fallen. employers are no longer the employers of 1912 and made famous in "the jungle" but fairly decent men and women trying to run a business and they treat their employees fairly well. that is the reason most employees choose not to join a union or feel one is not necessarily. obviously the federal government stepped in with statutes to provide the basic protections that the not exist in the past. going back to the theme of job growth. marty's.me and

if you look in your packet, you will see a long list of labor and and when the regulations that we are looking at in the chamber. if you had insomnia, feel free to read the package. these are the only ones of the chamber is work in one. there are the ones. there are 67. i had my staff go through and say how many of those are pages and the code of federal regulations, the federal register, that we've as employers and the real world would have to go through to act -- understand exactly what is coming out of this administration. it is many, and it comes out to 1910 pages. you might say, that is not so many. hopefully you will say it is quite a few. in any event, if you think is not so many, this is one page dealing with the proposed health-care regulations on administrative appeals. now, i can tell you, going through that -- it is complicated stuff.

i have staff that has gone through it. this is only one page out of over 1900 that we have to deal with here at the chamber, but all employers across the country have to deal with it and they want to understand what is going on in the regulatory sphere. many say, to heck with it, i don't understand it, so i am afraid and i will not hire and i will hold back. there is a common theme in these regulations. one can debate the merits. i am sure i would have a disagreement over at the board regarding the posting ranks and with phyllis over at the pension benefits security administration over certain regulations, but the one common theme of these 67 regulations is none of these help job growth except for lawyers and consultants. i would ask the administration, as tom did, in this kind of environment, what the heck is really going on here with regard to the white house says one thing but the people below the white house level are pumping out regulations that create uncertainty and it cost a

lot of money. you might say how much money? we are not sure. but i can tell you the department of labor and other agencies typically under estimate the cost of these regulations and leave out -- i spent six years at the department of labour -- they leave out little things that are important. for example, one regulation says you must train your employees on this regulation and would -- we estimate it would take a half-hour or. it is more like two hours. the point is, and as regulation and the titular the department of our did not cost out what it might cost the employer. a half-hour of time away from the job has a cost impact for any employer concerned about any level of productivity. that is just a small example. if i do share a regulation -- let out multiple areas of coverage light ira's and small pension plans that would have to comply with an -- new regulation and assume, well, we can't figure it out so we will

not hot bother and say it is zero. under the nlrb posting regulation of that i will talk about in a little bit, it covers literally every employer except for the smallest. the national labor relations board assumes no cost at all for every employer except for those very few hit with the unionization campaign. i can come back and say this is what the cost are. my point is these agencies typically underestimate the cost -- it is and the normal course of business but in this time of the economy i think it is troublesome. we will go through those as we comment on the regulations. attention. i think it is an indicative -- it indicates the arrogance of "

these agencies as they pump out these new initiatives. the national labor relations board had been in the press lately. there was a letter in your packet addressed to chairmen klein that goes through the case is pending. i will not go through them there. the infamous boeing case. it is now pending at the board. there will be legislation on capitol hill to reverse the case, to prevent the board going forward with a remedy that would require the company to close down in charlotte and go to the state of washington. i think the dam has broken. we will see a lot of new cases coming out. i think the letter to chairman klein paints a good mosaic of not just the three or four cases the press focuses on the what is really going on at the agency over there. i'd think you will see that what we see in the press is just the tip of the iceberg, a lot of other things that unbearably seem to be directed at one

thing, which is, make it easy to organize. make it tougher for employers to talk about their side of the case with regard to why unionization could be bad, often at the expense of employee in free choice. with regard to agency arrogance, i do want to talk about a little about what is often a sacred cow, the equal employment opportunity commission and also mentioned the other area of the law, enforcement, that often people don't want -- focus on. this is often below the radar screen. and yet we have seen their -- there situation where they have gone after employers and basically have taken it to a new level where it is sue first and take questions later. some companies have taken eeoc to court and they have had to pay attorneys' fees, $2.6 million in one case, two runs and $25,000 in attorneys' fees to another company. $225,000 in attorneys' fees to

another company. this is the situation with the underlying cause of action is extremely for the list. courts rarely step in and did this. real money coming out of the taxpayers market. it comes out of the eeoc budget but out of the taxpayers' pockets, and it takes them away from legitimate cases it can be pursuing. we can talk about the law, statutes, and regulations but the murky area of enforcement often gets lost. you could at the best laws in the world but if you have an agency of using its discretion bigot be just as bad as a bad law. it costs employers real-time and money which takes away from their ability to create jobs. that is just a few cases. you could imagine a number of employers just confronted with an agency that they can't afford to fight and they are bludgeoned and sediment. we have seen similar action with contract compliance programs. i am just going to mention immigration at some point. tourism, tom brought it up. there is big money involved. marty is right. this is the time to come to the

united states and spend money but what we are seeing is a lot of tourism, to france and england, particularly from brazil and china, because it is increasingly hard to get to the united states, increasingly hard, particularly that you are from a country that is not a visa waiver program to get a b-1 or b-2 music. -- visa. why is this going on, we are not sure. but we are seeing a slowdown but i can guess why. it is real money out of the pockets of american businesses and something we have a strong coalition on and will be going after. we do support mandatory e- verification laws that will likely hit the house floor next month. a controversial position for the chamber. there is a new manned did -- it puts a new mandate on employers but it is a time for a new system and we see it as a downpayment. we see that as a down payment on other types of emigration reforms, if the bill can get to

the house. health care -- what's done is done. it's interesting. you look at the public surveys and see an increasing declining support for the bill, even among democrats. the more people about it, the less they like it. it is unfortunate we are in a situation we are in. we are working on several improvements, part of the early the elimination of the employer mandate. we will be having a press conference on that. other areas, like taxes, the non-deductibility under the flexible spending account. the real action there, until there's a change in the white house will be in the regulatory area. they have, and some areas, the administration has worked with us. in other areas, they have been less than friendly. health care is one of the ongoing issues we will have to deal with.

it's in the courts. it's in the regulatory regime. we will continue to deal with it. we have testified on it many times. i will say that our predictions, when we testified three years ago, have turned out to be true. that is, it will result in job loss and less coverage for employees as some employers drop their plans and move their employees into exchanges. it is unfortunate, i think the president did not more honestly talk about the deal to begin with. this is not about saving costs. it's about covering more people. that is the deal on the table. it's not about saving costs. the legislation was never about controlling costs. i think there's a little bit of -- it is a lot of the land and we are dealing with it as best we can. aboutt going to talk pensions.

but i could. it is 11:00. >> hi. it's on. catherine lewis. i'm here for "fortune" and i wanted to ask you -- the question of job creation, when you look at the state of the economy, gdp's only bright spot is often the profits of private companies. as much as $1 trillion is on the sidelines waiting to be invested, waiting to create jobs. why isn't that money being spent by companies to invest in the future or to create jobs? >> as i said during my presentation, companies do not invest and hire people just because they have cash on hand. they hire people because they can put those people to work

producing a product, good, or service that they can sell at a profit. that's what they do. right now, the economy is not presenting that opportunity. there's no exigency in the market right now. businesses respond to competition. if somebody were taking their market, invading their market share, selling products to their customers, taking those customers away, they would be responding very aggressively. that is not happening. in a moribund economy. if you really want to get businesses to spend that money, give them a reason to spend it, not a part-time subsidy that says, "hire a personnel and we will give you a break for six months on their salary." that business has to weigh the following equation. cam that business to generate revenue -- can that person generate revenue through the

life of the employment, not just the six months, that warrants the salary we pay them? if the answer is no or we are not sure, then you do not hire them. that's really what's holding it back. as soon as businesses start to see the market working and the economy working, then they will want to step in and step in quickly to get ahead of the game. it's only going to take that spark. it's not like you have to finance the whole process. the money is there to finance the expansion. what we need is the spark. it is difficult. that's the least that economists know about the economy, it occurs at the turning 0.3 is always a chicken and egg -- it occurs at a turning point. it is always a chicken and egg

thing. with as much uncertainty as we're having now in the economy, it's much more the latter than the former. everybody talks about uncertainty. a lot of people say, "businesses are always operating in a certain environments." that is true. i liken it to one of my favorite sports and that is standing at the craps table. when you look at the dice, you do not know what is coming up. i do not know what is coming up. you know what the rules of the game are. you know what the odds are. people will stand up there and that into adverse odds again and again and again and again because they know the odds and they know the game. if you took the same game and said, "ok, before every role of the dice, i'm going to cover up one of the spots," now what is the betting going to be?

you would find a whole lot less people willing to play that game than the game that we all know and either love or despise, as the case may be, on any given night. that's what's happened to the uncertainty in this economy. because of the rule changes, businesses and not only have to deal with the vagaries in the economy, they have to deal with the vagaries in the rules of the game. that adds a level of uncertainty that many are incapable or unwilling to take on. when you see that, you can see that there are compound levels of uncertainty. what we're facing now is a very, very high level of compounding nine dealing with that uncertainty -- compounding in dealing with that uncertainty. >> going into an election year, do you think it will take until next november until there's a clear certain path forward? do you have a scenario where

there could be some of that certainty for businesses to start to hire before the next 14 months? >> i am not a big fan of campaign speeches and i do not believe most of them. they are more for entertainment value than anything else. i think that as you see the campaign for and you see the platform is being discussed, you may get a feeling that some of the longer run uncertainty is changing. as you see the various candidates getting narrowed down and the odds on the outcome been posted -- outcome been posted more often, you may see some changes. in all likelihood, it will take some time. in any kind of difinitive way. >> thank you. >> veronica smith. how does the chamber view the

infrastructure bank? agence france presse. what is the chamber's view on this. >> infrastructure bank is an interesting concept, and if structured appropriately, could work quite well. the questions are, what is the exact structure? what is the funding? there's that old commercial that you cannot fool mother nature. you have an economy that's not fooled easily either. robbing peter to pay paul to somehow provide a better bang for your buck -- most times, it does not work.

when you look at the infrastructure bank, the concept is great. public-private partnerships that pyramid private money with public money to get a bigger pie -- that makes sense, as well. it will depend on how it is structured, what the rules are, what types of limitations there are, how much, and what kind of a return of crews to the bank versus the private sector? it's almost impossible to say. conceptually, it is fine. the devil is always in the detail. >> [inaudible]

>> the best investment the country can make is to create jobs. we will show as much of this news conference as we can until our life event at nine eastern. >> let me say good morning and thank you all for joining us. as labor day approaches, we to rarely on of the people who actually make this country go. and so instead of hearing mef deliver some long remarks, i me want to ask you to listen to tho stories of some of the peoplesoo that i am honored to represent along with my fellow officers. ia working american member from

minnesota, -- >> hello. i live in maple grove, minn.. i am a member of working america, and i am currently unemployed. i have been employed previously as a retail manager and a business manager. every company i have worked with, we have a pretty close to quadrupled sales and cut costs. i have a reputation for that. however, last year, a startup company, but we were profitable and our first year. for me to put them in a business plan, moving forward to be profitable. we did it. when that contract was up, i thought i would go back to being employed. i did not think it would be difficult. i have never had difficulty before. for the last five months, i have

been putting resonates in -- resumes in. i am unemployed. i have never been in a situation like this before. what i would like to see is our politicians encouraging companies to keep jobs here so that people like me can be employed and support our families. also, if our politicians would stop telling us what their colleagues are not doing and start telling us what they are doing. thanks. >> oh thanks. and by the way, her last name is spelled -- if your interested. and now, steve, who works at a communications company in is a member of the ibew from new hampshire. steve? >> good afternoon.

i am a conservative and a republican. from the united states navy. i am a communications worker, and i do not support what the republican party is doing today to diminished labor unions with right to work initiatives. those are not the issues that i vote when i vote as a conservative republican. i do not vote to have labor union as diminished. over half of the employees serving in the military or you're at home, trying to feed their families. unions fight to keep wages at a fair level and benefits intact for families. my family benefits from what labor unions do. my family directly lives on the money in benefits that are brought about by collective bargaining, and i do not agree with any position that tries to diminish collective bargaining or the power of labor unions, so

that is why i am here today. >> thanks, steve. and now, i would like to introduce our secretary- treasurer. >> thank you, rich. it is very clear that people are not paying attention to the impact of the economic crisis and its impact on young workers. one year ago, we met in this very room, and we talked about how dire the situation was then, and yet, today, very little has changed. young people in this country are still struggling it, and the lack of attention and that officials and have given to this widespread problem is inexcusable. we hear a lot about unemployment rates in this country generally, but those numbers are even more dismal for our young people. the unemployment rate for high school graduates under the age of 25 was 22.5% in 2010.

compared to 12% in 2007. partner that with the increasing cost of tuition for higher education and the resulting debt that young people are suffering under it, and what options do they have? the strength of this country has always been that anyone can access the american dream, and if you work hard enough, you can achieve it. that is really not the case today. supposedly, our elected officials focus on debt as it reduction. there was partly out of concern for the future of american youth. we have heard a lot about that, but how does cutting funds to public services and programs provide the public safety net, health benefit the young people of america? how do those cuts benefit than people?

the number one thing that will help young people is devoting our nation's smartest minds and best resources to creating jobs and making sure young people have access to those jobs. rather than spending all of our time and energy on cutting programs, we should be focused on creating the new economic engine that would help our economy thrive in years to come, so without investment and job creation, young people will suffer in the future as a result of stunted opportunities in the present. the long-term repercussions will be devastating, and not only to our young people but to our entire country. it is neither justin or intelligence to set aside as a generation is impacted by the mistake of the previous generations shortsightedness. the good news is that the next generation is not just going to

sit back while their opportunities are squandered away. young people are making a difference all across this country, across the globe, from egypt to wisconsin to ohio and arizona and anywhere in between, where workers and students are being treated unjustly. it is no wonder with unemployment at an all-time high, jobs being scarce, growing debt, and a tax on workers' rights that young people are mobilizing for social and economic justice. there are countless examples of their activism. we hear about them every day, and we are so proud with what we have been seeing, and one of the exciting examples that has been coming up is a summit which begins september 29 in minneapolis, minn., and hundreds of young workers and activists and leaders from minneapolis and all over the country will take part in a creative dynamic

summit that is designed by young workers for young workers, and our affiliates in workers are excited by the aggressive, creative efforts that the afl- cio are undertaking to in power the next generation of activists, and there is no question that this effort will benefit not only the young workers who so sorely need it but all workers in this country. thank you. >> thank you. and now, " we have a bus driver from ohio and a member from out there. >> good afternoon. my name is -- everybody calls may -- me v.j. i am a very proud bus driver and a been a bus driver for many years now. i have not seen the governor create any jobs in ohio. he wanted to get rid of the

unions. he wants to take away -- take away our rights. then there is a voter id which takes away the rights from black people, the middle class, and the unfortunate ones. he took our money from the public schools to do vouchers, telling us this was pointed up the budget. when you take money from the public schools, this does not take and help with the budget. all we want to do is work. he is attacking our police. he is attacking the fire department. our teachers. the common worker person. he wants to take all of our rights away. we just want to work. we want to raise our families. we are not trying to be rich. we just want to feed our families, get a closing, and

educate them, and when our children go to college, we want them to be able to come back to our community and make a living and work their in their community. we pay into our pension, and the money we get those back into our community. that is what we want. we want to be able to have a decent job and work. >> and now, i would like to kazakhstan the afl-cio executive vice president to take some words. >> thank you so much, and thank you so much for sharing your story. we reflected on dr. martin luther king and the march in washington 48 years ago. we are reminded that dr. king, who talked about jobs and freedom at that march, that that message is as relevant today to us, because, quite frankly, we are in a crisis in this country with 25 million people

unemployed and underemployed, and then you think about the percentages, when we think about 9.1% of our people overall not working, but you break it down for communities of color, african-american, 16% unemployment. latinos, 11% unemployment. it still continues to resonate because people need the freedom to work, but there is another freedom that people must have in this country, and they must have the freedom to vote, and what we're seeing across the country in so many of our states is this disenfranchising attempt to disenfranchise so many with these so-called voter i.d. laws, which, quite frankly, our voter suppression laws, and it is a new poll tax, if you will, and so, in order for people to fight aggressively for new jobs, they have to be able to vote for those who support an economic

agenda for all and to support the american dream. we know a little bit about poll tax. i know a little bit about it park -- personally, because in 1958 1959 when i asked my mother to buy me a pair of new issues, she told me she could not do that because she had to pay her poll tax. as an adult, she paid her poll tax until 1965. voting should not have been that hard for my mother. it should not be that hard for the millions who will be impacted by these laws today, and when wewhen we talk about te numbers we're talking about people who do not have identification because it costs. it is shocking to see that and unnoticed push, all of these states this legislation has been introduced by republicans. they have done that under the guise of preventing voter fraud.

but these laws disenfranchise voters rather than stopping actual fraud. there is little or no fraud to stop. even the bush administration's investigation uncut -- uncovered only 86 instances of improper voting across the entire country. about 21 million people is in danger because of a lack of state-issued ids. it should not have to be that hard but it is a certain community that will be disenfranchised. it is young people and people of color and the port. -- poor. this is not acceptable. we are civil rights advocates

and a voting rights advocates. we will continue to fight. we will not be silenced when it comes to putting america back to work. we will never be silenced when it comes to ensuring that everyone in this country has the right to vote. >> thank you. he works at at&t in missouri. >>, afternoon. -- good afternoon. i am a vice president for the local 6300. i am active in organizing mobilization. i am active for many reasons. for my daughter, she is 10 years old, and for the future of our kids. the right to work is something they want to take away. it is not deserving. i will continue to fight that

fight until it cannot do it anymore. thank you. >> thanks to you for telling such powerful stories. and to my fellow officers for their leadership and a tremendous energy. these stories from across the country are only a few of the stories. to many people inside the beltway or people who live in a gated communities never here. making sure people hear the stories is one of the core purposes. working people with a powerful voice when we band together. now more than other. working people need to have a voice heard politically. to pare faced bill clinton, there is nothing wrong with america the cannot be solved by holding our politicians and our executives accountable.

we got here because our politicians experimented with an extreme economic theory. deregulation of the nearly every imitation on the whims of the elite. these were supposed to generate wealth that would trickle-down to working men and working women. that theory failed. millions live with the consequences. 25 million americans are out of work or working part-time. this is a moment where working people will judge all of our leaders. will they propose solutions that are on the scale necessary to address the the job crisis and that america has right now? we need to return to the america that i remember, and that millions of us hope for. with each generation, more and

more people's voices matter. we what purpose and progress. the economic mess is the result of politics. it means the solution must be political as well. our politics must be flipped right side up to work again for working families. we must give the working people that i share this stage with and the millions more that we represent a new independent voice in our politics. that is what the afl-cio intends to do. only together can we reinvigorate our democracy. that is why unions of the afl- cio are pooling our resources

and developing your around mobilization capacity of our own. independent of parties and candidates and fuelled by the power that comes from unity. we will listen, and we will talk to all working people. not just those with the benefit of a union contract create the problems and solutions belonged to all of us. as we declare our political independence this labor day, we are announcing our independent advocacy arm. this will help build the power of america is silent majority, the middle class, and poor, who are struggling to just get by. it will not directly fund political campaigns. nor will its matched the endless flow of cash from

corporations. but it will be an effort by and for working people. communicating beyond our membership and striving to ensure that all the work -- all who work have a strong voice in the political process. what do we want to accomplish? first and foremost, we need to put america back to work. we cannot let the cramped politics of washington prevent us from realizing that our great nation can and must return to full employment. the afl-cio has developed a jobs plan that is serious and reflects the scale of the crisis that we face. with an air of bipartisan consensus. in an area where everybody agrees that precious little action has taken place. that would be investment in our

infrastructure. with construction workers idle, and our schools crumbling, now is the time to rebuild our schools. in fact, i just got back from the white house. the chamber of commerce and i stood side by side with president obama to call for investment, large investment in infrastructure. we also need to remind u.s. manufacturing and stopped exporting jobs overseas. we need to put people to work doing work that needs to be done it. targeted work needs to be provided in communities of color, african-american and

latino communities where the unemployment rate is two and three times as high as the national average. we can and we must provide the funds to end state and local government layoffs. we must help fill the massive shortfall of consumer demand by extending unemployment benefits and keeping homeowners in their homes. quite frankly, we must reform wall street so that main street can create jobs. we must also recognize that our joblessness has hit all communities the terrible force, african-american and latino communities have been hit especially hard. in the world's richest country, the rates of unemployment among people of color art and outrage. it really -- are an outrage. it should preoccupy it all politicians regardless of race or party.

in this land of plenty, one out of five children now live in poverty. in african-american communities, that is three times as high. in the latino communities, that is three times as high. that is why our agenda is both ambitious and essential. we take seriously the job of making sure that jobs are good jobs. we at the afl-cio take seriously the job of making sure jobs are good jobs, expanding rates for a better living standard and helping more working people gain a voice with more aggressive tactics that fit the twenty-first century. the country is changing and our approach to organizing is changing as well. together with our community affiliate's work in america we go door to door in communities across the country. with three million members and a

recruitment model that works anywhere, working americans engage nonunion working people, very massive scale. and working america members are going deeper and members are becoming leaders and building activist net works. we are working with groups such as the taxi workers alliance that are doing some very exciting organizing among workers who are refusing to let the law stop them from coming together for collective action. that also means working with domestic workers to assure the dignity of their work affords the recognition that it merits. more than any time in my memory, we at the afl-cio are working hard to build a movement of, by and for all working men and women. the voice of workers has never

needed more amplification than it does right now and we are moving forward to make sure that the voices heard clearly across the entire country. as you heard today. at this time i would like to wish you a happy labor day and say that all of us are happy to answer any questions that you may have. could i have your name? >> go ahead. [inaudible] >> mr. trumka, i don't think the microphone is working very well right now. >> it is working now. >> mr. trumka, experts on both sides of the aisle agree the current fiscal situation in the

federal government is unsustainable. i believe i heard you call for a lot more federal spending. is that responsible at this time with record levels of debt and deficits? >> first of all, i am tempted to ask you to come with me and look of the real figures because the united states doesn't have a short-term debt crisis. it is a short-term jobs crisis. if you look anywhere else in the world let's look at it this way. the cbo said if we let the bush tax that expire, fully half of the debt you just talked about would go away. moreover, if you put twenty-five billion workers back to work so that they are contributing rather than needing from the economy did that go away. it is an investment in america. i ask this. whenever you went out, a lot of people got married and had

children and sometimes you by house. you don't pay for that house this year. you pay for it over 30 years. why? because it is an investment in your future. then you send your kids to school. you don't pay for those schools because most people can't afford to pay for a whole year's cooling. in one year you borrow. why do you do that? you are investing in the future. investing in job creation is the best investment this country could have and putting people back to work like the people that are up here, twenty-five million around the country, will help solve that problem to the extent that it exists. >> next question? >> sabrina at eden from the cleveland plain dealer. i want to ask what the afl-cio is planning to do about the legislation on the -- being

modern-day poll taxes as well as issues like sb 5 in ohio which was detrimental to unions. >> you will see the same action on -- 194. that we did on sb 5. you will see us working in collusion with progressive partners to get the necessary signatures to put that on a citizen's ballots the citizens can actually vote on them. >> if i could at september 29th is the date we have to submit those signatories. the citizens in ohio gathered those 1.3 million signatures for the citizens veto event. people were working diligently to get the necessary 230,

100,000 signatures needed to qualify to have a citizen detail of sb 194. again, be reminded they only needed 230,000 for sb 5 and turned it 1.3 and they will have the same kind of diligence for 194. >> i was just curious. typically unions focus on the ground game, knocking on doors and that sort of thing but with the advent of the superpackage ushering in a new era for unions and political advocacy. >> it does and it will allow us to do several fingers. it will allow us what we plan to do is have year-round advocacy. in the past, six to eight months before the election we build the structure and election day will come and will perform and the day afterwards we disband. we intend to keep that structure

in place year round and continue to build on it between election cycles. that will allow us to move seamlessly from electoral politics to advocacy to accountability all at the same time. in addition to that, our program in the past was gearing towards talking to our members. we will now expand out and talk to all workers which we will do. we will build those partnerships and talk to workers beyond our membership educating them and mobilizing them and getting them out to vote in their best interests as workers. >> do you have fund-raising? >> no we don't bet the necessary funds to build the structures in the states that we need. >> that is -- >> ben hancock inside u.s. trade. you have been clearing your opposition to the free-trade agreement when you talk about supporting jobs.

with the current atmosphere in congress are you hopeful or do you expect maybe they won't be able to pass free trade agreements given all of that atmosphere, what do you think is going to happen? >> we intend to oppose the bill that we think a bad. it will cost us 159,000 jobs. at a time you had twenty-five million people looking for work we don't need to be going into opposite direction. you also have very low domestic content requirements. europeans have a 55% domestic content requirement before to be considered one of their own. this deal only has a 35% domestic content. that means korea could produce 35% of a car and it would flow through corley at domestically. that is not a smart deal.

the columbia deal is completely different. i don't know if you know this but yesterday, the twenty-second trade unionist was assassinated, shot four times, killed dead. we are told the colombian government has suspended its union protection program. one of the hallmarks that we were told signify the change of the colombian government and their desire to protect workers is now suspended. that doesn't bode well. i asked this question of my ceo friends any time in the business round. last year, 51 trade unionists were assassinated. not accidentally killed. potentially assassinated. 51 ceos had been intentionally assassinated last year, how many people here think there would be a clamor for a trade deal with

columbia? we happen to think that workers, union officials are no less deserving as human beings than ceos. so we will continue to fight that. i will add this. workers on both sides of the border. the korean workers' and colombian workers also oppose those traded raiments because they know they're not going to be good for workers on either side of the border so until we get a trade regime that is fair to american workers, not jobs, we will oppose that regime. >> i certainly understand your opposition but with the poisonous atmosphere in congress are you hopeful maybe they won't be able to get this done, that they won't be able to create --

>> first of all, the republicans don't want to add taa, trade adjustment assistance to train workers who lose their jobs because of trade. they don't want to add that. that makes our job when frankly all lilies easier because no one will support those trade agreements without taa adjustments and even tea party people. affect the colombian government has not been able to stem the intentional violence against trade unionists. should bring most people to their senses and hopefully they will vote as well. >> let's go to melanie troutman. >> can you tell us -- melanie troutman of the wall street journal. can you tell us some of the

things you are asking the labor department to do? secretary scalise, to stimulate job creation and also insure that workers who are currently employed are getting the wages that they are supposed to get. >> we are asking them to enforce the laws that protect workers and that is whether it is health and safety laws in the workplace of all americans or in the minds -- i think she is doing that. we are asking her to step up enforcement of fair labor standards act which means people should be paid the fare rate for the right work raid. sometimes they get reclassified, wrongly classified. we are asking her to look at the classifications. we are asking her to make sure workers get the full pay they are entitled to and quite frankly she has responded admirably. she has enforced f o s a better

than anyone in the last two decades. she has done a terrific job of it and we are very supportive and thankful what she does to protect workers, health and safety. >> at this point, to go to the phone. operator, if you could give us a question? >> first question is from josh idleson. >> caller: with the democratic majority -- one of those -- [inaudible] >> we are having trouble hearing if you could start again. >> caller: with the democratic majority on the nlrb heading down from 3-1 to 2-1 and pearce having his recess appointment scheduled to expire, how satisfied are you with what they

have done in their cases of far this year and which cases do you want to see resolved before december? >> i think the nlrb has done a good job under trying circumstances. first of all you recall that under the bush administration for the last three four years the nlrb was nonfunctional which is exactly what senator linda graham says he wants to do now. make it nonfunctional. there were thousands of cases that got backlogged. they had to resolve those backlogs and worked steadily to go through that backlog and did a good job. than they did some routine enforcement. the law says when you threaten a worker, when a worker does collective action you can't threaten or retaliate against them. boeing openly says we are retaliating against them for doing concerted activity.

clear violation of the line and has been for 50 years. what do they face? they face and a tremendous backlash by everybody out there. the republican, trying to intimidate them. trying to get them for making decisions and they have investigations and they have subpoenas and do everything they can to prevent the nlrb from doing what it is intended to do and that is protect the rights of working people in this country. we are all working men and women and so i think they have done a good job and we are hopeful that we will be able to keep the nlrb fully staffed. we know the intentions of the republican party and that is to make it dysfunctional because if you only have two people on board, the supreme court said they can't make a decision even if they both agree on that decision. we will do everything we can to

prevent that from happening and president obama and secretary scalise of making sure the rights of workers are protected and we have a board that can function and remain independent as it was intended to be. >> thank you. the person in the middle? >> chad program from fox. do you feel the president has made good on the campaign promises he made in 2008 to organized labor and rank-and-file and they will be able to support him again last year? >> i think to the extent that he has been able to, it hasn't been a 1-way street for a walk in the park. i think he has delivered on some things and hasn't delivered on others. we continue to push him on the things that are good for working people. we continue to push on job creation. he is going to do everything he

can to create jobs on the scale that we need. we will see if there's any bipartisanship. [inaudible] >> is it reflected there have been some suggestions made that this superpack was not to flee get behind him in the next election effort and may be an effort to fund elections on the ballot. is that the case at all? >> we have always funded or participated in elections down the ballot. we will continue to do that. the superpact is to allow us to talk to workers beyond our members so we can reach out to workers everywhere and bring them into the fold and enable us to be more independent. it will allow us to build a structure that is beholden to working people 365 day the year. in a leap year 366. not only to working people and we will continue to do that.

to our friends it will give us greater ability to help them. to our acquaintances it will do to them what they do to us. tell them we love them and wish them good luck. >> thank you. in the gray suit? >> i am jim mcdick from barren's. do you agree with the chamber of commerce on the concept of an infrastructure bank? i wonder how close you have gotten to tom donahue on that issue and if you agreed on what the nuts and bolts of the infrastructure bank should look like? >> i won't speaker tom but we're in agreement the infrastructure bank is a good thing that can help out. if it is properly funded so it can do things. he agrees with us that infrastructure is woeful in this country and we have to address it and it causes us as a nation

to be less competitive and causes individuals additional cost, society of american engineers estimated it could cost individual the couple trillion dollars over the next couple decades if our roads, bridgees and highways and schools starts to crumble and we don't keep pace. we use 2.4% of our gdp on infrastructure. that is less than we used in the 50s and 60s. europe does 5% of their gdp on infrastructure and china is doing about 9%. he and i both understand the cost. the longer you postpone doing the infrastructure, the less competitive we are and the more it costs to fix it. right now you have low-interest rates and a lot of people that need work. it is insane not to be putting

them together to fix a problem that the country needs fixing and to make us more competitive in the world. in addition to that, we have joined with business and a couple others to put together a fund from our pension funds to be able to leverage. the clinton global initiative for instance. one of the first places we do the retrofitting is in this building. we have an audit done to see how we can come in and become far more energy efficient. hopefully we will make is the headquarters, the example of what people can do. it can actually pay for itself. buys a savings generates, the case for itself and it becomes a tremendous investment in the future by doing two things. going down the cost of energy so we don't have to import and creating work for people that need work so they contribute to society. >> let's do another question

from the phone, operator. >> next question is from the line of doug cunningham from workers independent. >> caller: doug cunningham, workers independent news. you said you would declare political independence this labor day. this go beyond the superpack and communicating to workers not in unions and does it have more practical implications for your political effort in the 2012 cycle? >> i don't know and what you mean by practical implications other than the fact that it will allow us for the first time to move from a lack durrell politics to advocacy to accountability. it will allow us to talk to all working people and get them involved in the process and give all working people union and nonunion like a greater voice in the process. working america will be a real part of that process. we will be expanding and talking to more workers at the doorstep about what we can do to create

jobs in an economy that does work for everybody. so the practical effect of it is it makes us more effective and gives workers a larger voice and a broader voice. >> thank you. go-ahead. >> dave leventhal from politico. a lot of the superpact created so far by other organizations and fuelled by five and especially six, seven dollar figure donations. is your superfact going to follow suit or will you raise the dollars you need to do the work you need to do in another form or fashion? >> we will use the superpact to talk beyond our numbers in different forms. we will also enable other people to come together that want to support that effort to coming to the superpact to give us a broader base. >> do you expect to raise large

salary donations that rely on smaller dollar donations? >> we will take them wherever they come from. probably workers will donate. there will be a smaller amount and they will get their voices heard. >> the woman in the back? >> kathryn willis covering for fortune. looking back at last year's labor day, in the past 12 months would have been the most significant events or changes for american workers both union and nonunion, public or private sector? >> you have to look at the unprecedented attack on state and federal workers from the overreaching of a new class of governors and state legislators and the attacks in wisconsin and ohio. all of those are unprecedented

attacks but remember people act like this was a spontaneous thing. it really wasn't spontaneous at all. alec, you know what alec is, american legislative exchange council. i can never remember all the acronyms. had a meeting of 2,000 state legislators, passed out hundreds of pieces of legislation. whether it was taking away rights or increasing the amount of people pay for health care or pensions and people like scott walker took advantage and turn surplus into a deficit so we could jump on the bandwagon. also the goal was to eliminate the vote, 10% of the people that voted in the previous election. they know it was a low vote, they win. that is what you see. the thing that arlene talked about. wisconsin. personally voter id law. we have to do this because of

fraud. 86 cases in the whole united states. it sounds like an epidemic to me but that is a different thing. look at what it does. 78% of african-american males between the ages of 18-24 get disenfranchised because of that law. 25% of the elderly, the seniors get disenfranchised because of that law as it stands. 55% of latino women get disenfranchised because of that law. what does that law do to create jobs? think back to the state legislature and give me one instance where those attacks created jobs. those people were sent to office because they said they would create jobs. that is the most important thing they can do. not only for the workers in the states out there but the local

school system, for everything else. that was probably one of the most shocking things and then the response was just wonderful. we have been trying to have a debate on collective bargaining for 20 years and we haven't been able to do it and scott walker, the best mobilize their we have seen for a while, gave us that opportunity. we may present an award for being the best mobile either of the year. we will see. but people responded. it wasn't just union people. young people. independent business people. people from all walks of life and political backgrounds came together and said this is outrageous. this is overreaching. this is outrageous. we didn't vote for this. let's put an end to it. we had a recall election.

somebody out there sort of smirked at the recall election but i got to tell you why we were so hard by it. in 2008, barack obama won wisconsin by 14 points. bose six districts where the recalls were won by an equal margin. they were the only six district we could recall. it wasn't like we beat those six and said this was the best chance. they were the only six because of the way the law was written and in those six districts we took 49% of the vote. tell little over 49% of the vote. if i were a republican. of 5 was scott walker and looked at my six best performing districts and said i want -- won 59-49 i might not be too hard and by that. i might look at the other side and see them smiling which is why i am smiling.

that was a very heartening thing to see workers come out, independent business people come out and it brought us a lot closer together. they tried their darndest to make this wedge between public workers and private sector workers and you can see that that wedge doesn't exist. let me conclude with one thing. the most disheartening thing that happened during that period you talk about was people coming forward in leadership positions and saying oh, look! those workers in wisconsin have a pension! and they have health care! and you don't have it! so let's take it away from them! that was never the american way. america always looked at those