which comes closer to your view, that a college education is a ticket to the middle class today, you see the number on the left side of the pie, that green slice, a minority of the sample. it's 40% of the people. and on the right side people are saying that a college education today is an economic burden, it's a burden that's often too expensive and requires taking on too much debt. you know, if we're going to create the high-tech jobs that eric spiegel was talking about a minute ago that are also outline inside a great piece in the atlantic this month on the nature of our high-tech labor force and why there are high-tech jobs that eric said are going to have to be done in the unite, we are going to have to change this attitude again, we're going to have to keep investing money in colleges, not cutting student loan programs, adding to it. we're going to have to do a better job with education and invest not just to revent layoffs, but to address some of the issues that mayor villaraigosa talked about.

.. >> i don't mean that justice this week don't want to be small businesspeople although i was one before i had this business. i was a beer distributor in crown heights in brooklyn. but americans, this was our strength. we always believed that all had to do was to work hard, get my job well, showed up, unicode progress a little bit, that i could get ahead in this world.

and that number has declined. it was 73% in set timber 2000. by march 2006, it was 64%. now it's at 58%. there's a sense you do as i said they just want to be rewarded. they want to be recognized for the work they do. there are doubts about how this economy is changing and how it will affect them. it's creating some anxiousness here. perhaps the biggest dynamic that we are seeing or attitudes on risk and how they're shifting with the american people. we are a pretty daring people. a lot of us come here from different countries. a lot of our grandparents did. our parents did. but today the reckon people see an economy that presents more risks than opportunities to their standard of living. when you look at the data on the left that people are asked compared to your parents when they were your age, do you believe today's economy presents you with more opportunities to improve your standard of living from the same amount or fewer?

if you look at the big chunk of the pink bike, 42% say more opportunities. parallel question on the pod on the right side of this slide. in the same survey, 2009 compared to your parents do think today's economy poses more risks that endanger standard of living as your parents did when they were our age? there's a 20-point gap, 64% think today's economy poses more risks for their standard of living than opportunity. at a pair low point in their parents lives. that may be hard for us to understand. we may just say it's all the macroeconomic issues, and there is some of that, but they also understand when you dig deeply and talk to them in one on one interviews, or fortress -- focus groups. one of the things you learn in some of the badges of working and middle-class success, the mortgage on your home, your cars that you were able to buy with

financing admittedly, and going to college are now points a burden for you. they create some economic anxiety, that slide a college should before. now you were, can i handle that debt? there's a point here when people thought that those who controlled the risk, if i refinanced my home, the folks at the bank have figured it out that i couldn't afford it. if i wanted to go get that second car and get a new one instead of a used one, the folks of gimme the car loan have figured it out and they knew i could afford it. today, what shifted, this is across the consumer work we do as was seen it in this political environment, people are changing the way they view risk. they are not entirely risk-averse, but they become more wary of risk. they feel better about the choices they make when they wait risk carefully, and to take a less risky choice. so for example, if you look at new car purchases, which

arrested detroit has been fabulous. we have jobs saved. with all three automakers profitable for the first time in a decade. a today new cars that are being bought, the average age of the car this thing turn in his 10 years as opposed to seven which is used to be. more people are willing to buy used cars before new cars. so they are not totally risk-averse but they are wary of the. it manifests itself in some interesting ways. if you look at the top arrow and the data at the top of his chart, you ask people which would you prefer, opportunities to change employers or professions, or long-term implant with a single employer. by two to one now americans are saying long-term employment with a single employer. i don't want to say i'm to record here but that's a very '50s, '60s kind of approach for today's of a company down our long gone. kids coming out of college for the last 10 or 15 years have

anticipated that and they haven't lived that way. in fact, what's really interesting is the little bar beneath that this is among my meals, even 55%, 18-34-year-olds, 55% say they would prefer a single long-term job or you have to understand about that age group is that the statistic showed that for them on average by the time they're 35 years old, they are already going to have five to seven jobs. it's a very different world than a lot of us grew up in. so they are weighing risk. they are looking for things that provide an element of security. they prefer guaranteed lower return on their investment even if it meant giving up less control. that shape their attitude going forward as well. i think something, and i'm sure we'll get to this, i know it's a bipartisan group so i would be happy to take questions on this subject but it is a sign of turbulence that people are identifying, and they are saying

that today come and this is a quick and that is asked by the pew research center in california, which comes closer to your view, does wall street helped the economy more than it hurts it, or heard it more that it helps it? and by 51-36, americans say wall street hurts it our economy more than helps it. what's notable on this slide, if you look at the bars on the right, that breaks it out by democrats, independents, and republicans. and this isn't just democrats saying this. among independents in america, 54% to 37 say wall street is hurting our economy more than it is helping. and i mentioned the turbines but don't forget the folks think and believe we have lived through two bubbles in the last 10 years. we live through an internet bubble that led to one recession. we have lived three housing bubble bubble, many of which, which affects many people are directly invested in that housing market.

an important distinction here, as you think about that, this come at this shapes a lot of the debate that is going on, this was an institution that was extremely admired 11 years ago, wall street, big banks. and this is for many of you who are mayors in cities, you know that community banks are still very revered him and are. would ask a question, ready to go to build build a big thanks from wall street, community banks, community banks are off the charts. small business are off the charts. large banks and wall street has also gone down. and from a perspective of the personal lives comment on the left side, a push of those of iq few as well, do you think there's too much power and has a few rich people, and large corporations in the united states, or do you not think so? by 77-19, and begin that is that bar, across the ideological spectrum even a majority of republicans actually say yes to the. i don't think yes no questions

are always great questions. very easy to say yes or no, but on the right side is a similar question that goes at it alternately that the economy in this country unfairly favor the wealthy or is it generally fair to most americans. and here, by 81-36, not quite could want but a clear majority people believe the deck has been stacked against them, that they are not the favorite group at the new york times on how many of you read this, the story about a week or so ago that economics, economists have done a study that shows that we have a lot less mobility in this country than we have believed. in fact, with a lot less mobility from income quartiles from one level to another. and again when you look at democrats and independents on the right side, very strong majority saying that they do not, they believe this current economy favors the wealthy more than americans. the significance of that is fairness and balance, the things or people talking about when

they express these attitudes are fundamental american values. and those are the things they believe have gotten out of whack. and it manifests itself in one of the hot button issues, mayor villaraigosa referred to tax cuts and the payroll tax cut before. the thing that bothers most americans about taxes today, they don't believe the system is there. if you look at the left by 55-43 they say that but when you ask them the follow-up question, what bothers them the most but taxes in america today, the thing that bothers them the most is the notion that there are some wealthy people who don't pay their fair share in taxes, 57%. the amount they pay themselves is 11%, and then there's about one in four, 20%, to say it's just that the system is too complex. if you wonder why you see in any polling data why about 70-25 people say we should be raising taxes on people who make $1 million a year or more, it's because beneath that surface of the believe there are people who

are not paying their fair share. they get up every day, they go to work, they do what they're supposed to do, they pay their taxes. they don't get any special breaks. many of them don't get deductions. and they resent, in fact, they don't think that fairness permeates the system. you folks are on the front lines of government. you're a lot closer to a. you will note that local governments get the highest rating, higher than state and higher than the federal government. but this is very important in terms of the debate that we're going to have in 2012. the fact of the matter is that the american people do not demonize government. they actually seek out and having a role in an array of areas, many of which the mayor talked on tasha touched on in his remarks before spoke. this one is always a big debate. we look at the data, this is job creation and people do not think, yes, they believe the private sector is the most important engine of job creation, but on the left side is the question from all states on whether or not inward to

develop solutions and a dress national economic opportunities and challenges, do they believe business should lead, take the lead on its own? should government and business work together? or government should take the lead and timely? very few people say government should take the lead and other. that's a small slice at the bottom, that green slice is 12%. 60%, the big slice says government and business should work together. only 24% say business should take the lead. on the right side, the question is asked specifically about the federal government because you folks know that you're at the local level, everything happens more at the local level. everybody believes, mayors, governors can have more of an impact. but on the right side how much do you think the federal government can do to create jobs in the united states? this is from an associated press poll in the summer of 2011. over 70% say a great deal, quite

a bit or a moderate amount. only 29% say very little or nothing at all. this is kind of interesting here in an environment where we have taken steps that have come under attack. i think you all know the jobs numbers. we are seeing growth month by month and the private sector jobs. with great over 2 million jobs now, about 20 months straight of private-sector job growth. another factor, the number of federal government employees nonmilitary is actually at a lower level than it was in ronald reagan's last year in office in 1988. so at the same time private sector is coming back, there has been contained on the federal level as well. the debate going on and we hear a lot about it, particularly from the republican candidates during the debates that they've been having on television during their primary season, and one

thing that is absolutely clear is that americans do not want to go back to letting wall street right its own rules again. on the left side of a question from a gallup poll on whether or not people approve of the legislation that increased government regulation, not wall street reform, not dodd-frank of increased government regulation come it would window gets bandied about in negative context, of banks and financial institutions 61% of americans approve that legislation. 76% are democrats, 62% independence, and four out of 10 republicans. and the center for responsible lending asked the question just this past summer do think the wall street reform law should be repealed or should be allowed to take effect, because of been a lot of call for repeal, every candidate i've heard on the other side has said they were repeal it. by 63-20, americans say don't repeal the. to have a very similar attitude about defunding the epa.

american people and communities like yours understand that having clean air, clean water is something that government has to do. back in the '90s one of the things president clinton pushed through was a law that required companies to to local fire departments what chemicals they had in their buildings. americans understand that part of building strong communities is having that information and having those kinds of protections for kids who breathe our air and water. with the recent gains we've seen in the economy there is an uptick in optimism both about the economic future of the country and about their personal situations. this doesn't suggest they think we're on easy street or that we're totally out of the woods yet. but if you look at the data on the left from october 2011 to december 2011, ask whether people think over the next 10 months the economy overall will improve or worsen, act in october, about 50/50 split as you can see the green bar and the blue bar, 50 and 46.

right next to that now in december, late december, i 56 to 36, a 20-point spread people believe conditions over the next 12 months will improve. when you also asked people if they believe the economy is going to get a little better, a lot better, a little worse, a lot worse, close to 60% say it will get a little bit or a lot better over the next 12 months. on the right side is data about their own personal finance. on this question is a similar question, do you think there are personal situation will improve or worsen over the next 12 months but there's a solid band of 40% when both of these numbers appear a good part who say they think it will stay the same paper where change has occurred is a year ago, little more than a year ago the number of people about their personal situation would improve was 30%, 25% worsened. now when you come back in december 2011, same samples, 44

to 14 say that they expect their personal situation to improve. i think when you look at presidents policies and how are they viewed it going forward, and i said i would do of that of politics at the end, and it will and then i will wrap up. if you ask the forward-looking question here, on what impact, what they think president obama's impact has been and his policies looking backward first am thinking back over the policies president obama has pursued during his presidency, would you say the country is worse off, significantly, the better off significantly, or is it not significantly better off but they're going in the right direction because of the policies president obama has pursued? 54%, a majority now say that things are either significantly

better or not significantly better but moving in the right direction, because of the policies that president obama has pursued. small minority of 38% say the counter argument that their significantly worse because of the presidents policies. when you take afford a look at some of the areas that the president has advocated from his jobs program to the recovery act to rescue in detroit, what's clear is americans favor investment in infrastructure. in fact, 80% of americans believe that investments in infrastructure are a good idea. such as bridges, schools, airports, and ask if it's a good idea or a bad idea for the federal government to provide money to state government so they can avoid layoffs of police, teachers and firefighters, 65% of americans say that's a good idea. they see over these as investment, not just in building and creating an economy that is

built to last but creating communities that are built to last. so while there mindful of the deficit, while they want that under control, they also understand the need for investments in cities like yours. same is true by the way of alternative energy. let me come back to the as we have another discussion. the republican ratings in congress have taken it. the race of congress over all have taken a hit. if you look on the far right congress is at the lowest approval rating it's ever been. the fact of the matter is when you look at the ratings of democrats in congress and republicans in congress, in april 2011, democrats in congress were 36% approved, and 62% disapproved. republicans were 34% approved, and almost the same. and now republicans are down to

21% approved, and 75% disapprove. democrats have only dropped from 36% approved act in the spring to 33%. the toll that has been taken on congress has come not from a decline in the democrats ratings, but in the decline in the republicans ratings. and the last to put a want to make and then we'll take questions as look ahead to the politics, and i'm taking allocated to use because it has a longitudinal data. if you like your president obama's approval rating is today at 46% approve, 46% disapprove, it's exactly identical to what president clinton's ratings were in january 1996, identical numbers. now, that's not to say that the election is a foregone conclusion by any such president clinton won that race by nine points but we think this is going to be a very tight race. we believe the president, based on somebody's underlying attitudes, based on the fact the american people see this as a

make or break moment for the middle-class, they understand that the last thing we should do is go back to letting wall street right its own rules again, that we can't ignore things like detroit and auto industry, that we need to make investments in our infrastructure going forward, and our schools and the education system, creating job training programs that link up the skills that we need with the jobs that are vacant in america today. there are bunch of ceos at the white house of you which of the to present obama they can't find people with the skills they need. they have a million vacant jobs sitting there. so what it's going to a competitive election, so the dynamics that have changed that we can talk about this or anything else that we presented here, is that when you look at what's happened in presidential elections over the last, about 12 elections, and in particular the last eight, the average national vote margin between democrats and republicans, between 1980-1992 has shifted

significantly. if you look at the four elections, one starting in 80 and ending in 1992, democrats averaged only 42.5% in presidential polls come in presidential elections. the republican strength of same for elections averaged 50%. they had a net of plus eight on the democrats. if you look since 1996 elections have been close and they have been hard-fought. there is a shift. the democrats over those four years have averaged 49 points that in%, and republicans in those presidential elections have averaged 46.3%. pretty dramatic shift in the margin. i don't believe that averages in the past performance and the password we are determined outcomes of elections, but in terms of the economic ties that this election is going to be fought on a new standing up for the middle-class and working people are trying to get there and who isn't, the policies that will help people advance, who is

and who isn't, in terms of some the demographic shifts that are contributing to this shift in the presidential margins, very big increase to the percentage of the national electorate that is african-american. big increase in the latino, bigger gains have been among younger voters in every election cycle. people are 18-29 years old. i think a lot of the dynamics or suggest that own a close race, but a race that portends well for president obama going for. i don't think it's going to be easy but of anybody in our camp thinks it will be easy. jim messina, the campaign manager, has laid out five different maps, pathways for president obama ticket 270 electoral votes. i think we're going to be hard long fought campaign but what i wanted to share with you today are some of the attitudes that are shaping the debate that we're having. i don't think any of these attitudes are fleeting or are going to shift in the near term because of the nature of our economy. and i think they will shape and

determine the outcome of the election at the end of this year and 2012. thank you very much. [applause] >> you will take a few questions. there. >> fellow angeleno, mayor of -- thank you mayor villaraigosa, great conference. it's my first. a little nervous, very intimidating group. but a question to the pollster. obviously, your numbers are saying the same thing that the public, that we are hearing from as saying, the same message that we are sending to our federal and our state legislators, and they are not listening. and that's extremely frustrating when we are tasked with fixing outpost local budgets, and in the state government will walk

in and say oh, you have a pot of money, we'll take some of that, too. and put us back in the same position we were. the frustration continues for us. i was wondering, of your opinion, what if there's too much confidence by our legislators and republicans, democrats, that's our side, that your second we'll have to worry about in the middle but what if there was a social media movement urging people to remove themselves from their current party to, sending a message that we want to cover my scum something similar to what fdr got in his first 100 days, send a message. in my room to 20% of the republicans from the republican party, 20% of the democrats from the democratic party. would that affect the decisions on both sides that compromise is being asked for by the people, act now? >> will look, it's a question, and an idea i have not heard of before. i become all the data indicates

that more people, everybody heard the question, i sent with a microphone, right? okay. look, the trend has been a more people, we call independents, what you call declined to identify the trend has been that number has gone up, the number of people to fight as republicans and democrats has gone down. although it splits chilling out in a presidential electorate and even a congressional electorate close to a third, a third and a third. i think one of the challenges for that to happen is that in the world were our politics are polarized, people do want to identify with one party or the other. they do want their philosophy aligned with one or the other. we are not having close calls after. were having big debates on whether or not, you know, wall street should be regular with a commonsense set of rules or not. we're having a big debate about whether this country should invest in bridges, roads, in schools or not.

we're having a big debate about whether or not we invest in spark researched in clean energy, or not. and directed by the way on the last one is paying big dividends but i don't know how many of you in this room know this but for the first time since 1949 we are a net exporter of barrels of oil. first time since harry truman was president. and our dependence on foreign oil is under 50% for the first time since 1997 because of investment in renewables. so i think while you're having that kind of debate it's going to be very hard in this moment to galvanize the people to suddenly walk away and go to a middle position when many of them are seeing some pretty stark differences. i think you need an election result to change that, and presumably we're going to have a pretty clear indication as we go forward in 2012 and forward in the coming election. do you want me to just -- yes,

sir. >> hi. i am green bay mayor jim schmitt. comment first. you mentioned 55% of the people, their attitude is that the kids won't have a better life than they did. i'm wondering if you defined a better life? my comment is because i think kids today, things -- they want things different than those. i have two kids in college come once in orbit in africa. the other one doctors without borders. secondly, i would like your comments more on i think we hit this panic mode in americana but jobs, jobs. where's the focus on education? talked about that this one was secretary duncan, and our people overreacting right now to the economy and they're not focused on education? i'd like to comment on the. >> thank you. i think it's a great question. the question is a historical one that gallup has asked the same

way. so, you know, would have a better life than you did at a comparable age? and and was unlikely by the way. it wasn't definitive. so the room there was it's not like they're consumed with pessimism but there are doubts about whether or not. it's like there's a majority always please the next generation would do better. but we invested in the next generation. so when you talk about education and when you talk about that, i think it's going to a central issue actually in this campaign. i think one of the disputes we have had is how much money do we invest in education, the nature of before but i think secretary duncan and administration and president obama in terms of race to the top have struck a chord that is resonating where people are saying yeah, let's put in some intelligence, you know, and more commonsense standard for evaluation and advancement or so i think this will be a fundamental discussion, because the american people understand

that education is linked to our economy. so when you say they are so consumed with economy that cannot think about education, i think it's fair to say that the economy and jobs and because of some of the instability that has occurred is their most salient concern. but they understand that things like education, infrastructure, research and development, energy investments in renewables so that we are not dependent on foreign oil are critically important to our economy. they will be all intertwined and i suspect that we will have that kind of holistic debate as we go through this campaign. anybody from another side of the room? yes, ma'am. >> what i didn't hear in some of your presentation are the issues that really affect mayors who have large disproportionate numbers of poverty, and what are the issues in some of your, your

strategies and analysis going forward? because if congress and the white house are going to ever get to the bottom of addressing poverty, and particularly women who make up 72 million of the workforce, and hope pay scale in equity, why aren't there any questions being driven on that in our to be able to help shape, you know, policies both in the house and senate, and have those issues driven in the next election? >> when you say question being shape by that gaming in the polling data i presented? >> yes, yes. >> sure. because i'm a political pollster, what i thought i would do is, you know, people to focus on is what's really shaping the attitude, how does this impact the politics. so i focus on those questions that are the ones with what we call swing voters are the most salient. in terms of the issue that affects you as mayors and

poverty, and employment, i don't think anybody believes that, i become people know the numbers, you know, it's interesting that, you know, we get accused of class warfare on our side of the equation and you hear people in debates talking about, you know, food stamps society or an entitlement society. i mean, this country i think stay believes that we have a responsibility to each other. i think they believe we have to start with education. i think they understand only way out of poverty for many people who are in poverty or who have fallen or slid back into it as a result of this is either through better education, better job training, thinking of the community colleges with businesses which is probably happen in many of your cities so that they develop a curriculum and training programs that actually lead to jobs. that's probably the central issue in terms of how you deal with this, the issue of poverty

and the numbers that we see today on a long-term basis. again i think it comes back to this gentleman's question. i think education and job training and skills are going to become a central question in this debate going forward. [applause] >> give a big hand to joel. analysis and advice. with the plenary session, with that, the plenary session is adjourned. mayors, the mayors, those of you are going to the white house should board the buses outside of the hotel, and please remember to bring your photo id, if you want to get in. i think, what time are we meeting, tom? [inaudible] >> the bus will be -- [inaudible] the bus will leave at four '05. give these guys a chance to go

to the restroom. the bus will leave at 4:05. [inaudible conversations] ♪ ♪ >> leading up to saturday's south carolina primary, see spence road to the white house coverage take july to the candidate events all this week. >> every time you turn around this is an administration which is against american business, against american jobs, against american energy. then they seem surprised that

they're putting people on food stamp. they think it's an accident of major. >> there's no reason we can't compete. you are doing it it be you are making bmws here and selling them around the world. we can manufacture. [applause] >> yeah. this idea, we can manufacture, that's wrong. week can compete. foreign countries to come here and right to work states. by the way, you what states have more jobs? make it right to work. i support right to work. >> candidates get their message out meeting voters. [inaudible] >> i have young people who have gotten the eagle scouts, you

know, there's a role for everyone, find out where that is -- >> find more video o on a campan to on c-span.org/campaign2012. >> only those who show the resolve to defend the freedom of the west can be trusted to safeguard it in the challenging turbulence at unpredictable times that lie ahead. [applause] >> mr. president, the decade and a century which open up before us must seek a lasting trial of liberty of common cause. the world needs britain, and britain needs us to. >> nicknamed the iron lady by the soviet media in 1976, margaret thatcher is currently being portrayed on screen by meryl streep. watch the real trend in online

at the c-span video library. more than 100 appearances including prime minister's question time from the british house of commons. >> the are some countries in the common markets that would like to hand over some of their financial affairs to a european central bank, and -- that is not our view. do not wish to hand over further powers from this parliament to other bodies the next search, watch, click and ship it it's what you want when you want. >> coming up later on c-span2 we will hear from a bipartisan group that he seeking to double the number of women elected to the u.s. house and senate. the group is called political parity and their band of the national press club. >> and over on our companion network c-span, 11 a.m. presidential candidate ron paul will be speaking to students at the college of charleston in south carolina. that is live at 11 a.m. eastern

on c-span. >> the house of representatives return for its first full legislative day yesterday and a group of house republican freshmen held a news conference calling on the senate to pass the budget. this is about 40 minutes. >> all right, so i'm going to speak and turned over to the next person and introduce the person is beneath you on this list. 10 was supposed to be second. is not here so rick. >> drumroll? >> i will be turning it over to you. thanks for coming, ladies and gentlemen. my name is austin scott, and this is the freshman class. this is a picture of my son, and our class we represent over 300 children and grandchildren, and from day one we have said that we're here to protect them, that this generation is more important than the next

election. on the day of our swearing and america had been 6% in eight days without a budget. not only was this is responsible -- irresponsible it was outrageous and the american people know that. is passed to present presented a budget. the house adopted the budget and the senate defeated both of those budgets. they then turned around and left town without producing an alternative budget. senator reid would like to say that the freshman republicans are responsible for the gridlock in washington. but that's simply not true. we passed a budget. we passed 27 jobs bill. we stand went to a process to work. senator reid has closed the door at every opportunity. the future of america is bright, but without a budget state of our union is uncertain. this next week the president on what will mark the 1000 day this country has operated without a budget will present the state of the union. we are here so but to ask the president to challenge harry

reid and the senate to pass a budget. pass a budget so that the job creators in america have some certainty and can go out there and do what americans want to do come and that's get back to work or i'm going to turn over to rick berg. thank you for coming. >> thank you. you know, we came out here to change washington, and the one thing that we see that is wrong is we have to get back to regular order. over 200 years america has faced wars, they face depression that they face all kinds of challenges, but they did that using a regular order. and one of the biggest obvious things we're missing right now is a budget. and so from our perspective here, we can't resolve the financial mess that our country is in an less the house the senate, and the president come together, work on these budgets can work on the numbers and move them forward. we have to get certainty back into this country. if we have certainty we will see

small business create jobs. we'll see people invest and grow our economy. so in order to give people that certainty they need to trust and know that congress will live by its own rules. it's going to make the difficult decisions that need to be made on their deadlines. this is one of the most important things that our class, that our congress can do in the second half of the 112th congress is to get back to a regular order. with that i would like to introduce another colleague, rob, from georgia. >> rick, i appreciate, i appreciate that. i just want to talk about them we know as a freshman class that it's easy to blame folks who believe in something when things don't happen as fast as america would like. and i want to say to harry reid here this morning, you can do it. you can do it. it's been 1000 days but he can do but i will take the proudest moment of my one year in

congress was the day we passed the house budget. proudest moment of my tenure in congress. everybody, you can do it, and you can't do it all at one time. even with his freshman class we couldn't get the balanced budget in a year. way to balance that budget over a series of years. you have to take it one step at a time. but it has to begin somewhere. thousand days next tuesday since the senate last took its first baby step towards these decisions. we are not just point the finger of blame here and in a state's house vote. the budget we do have control over, the u.s. house of representatives budget, we begin to enact 5% cuts off members budgets right off the bat here it begins at home and we're leading by example. 5% last year, another 6% this year. my office we took another 10% beyond the 5% and 6% because it begins at home. it's the little things. you can't do it all at once. but you can't get to where you're going into you take the first step, a thousand days

since harry reid took that first appeared america deserves better. and i know the united states senate can do better. with that i would like to introduce my colleague, i'm going to entities blake. >> right behind you. how were you doing? it's good to be here today. unit, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different result. we're trying to get this country's financial house in order that we are doing it without the most basic tool of financial planning. and that is a budget. when the state of human comes around, 1000 days, you can almost finish college and a thousand days. you all be able to come up with a budget. harry reid, let's do, let's go for the american people. >> and people want to know what the future holds if they want a better future, and a better future comes from financial responsibility, and it comes

from creating an environment where businesses and individuals know what's going to happen so they can plan their budget. every business in this country works under a budget, but the government doesn't. we've got to fix that, and i call on the united states senate and harry reid to make that happen. with that, steve stivers is next up. >> good morning, everybody. it's good to be here, and you know, every family in america has a budget. every business in america has a budget. the united states of american government needs a budget. it's been a thousand days since the senate passed a budget but i'd like to just dash do i like it is every to my daughter, sarah. all of her life has not been a budget in this country. that's sad. we need to make sure that the senate passes a budget. the house made tough decisions to all of us, we are freshmen. we came here. we have been here about a year. we came here willing to make

tough decisions. we need the senate to do the same thing. it starts with the first step and that's passing a budget. any budget. pass what they think is right. at minot be what we want but let's have them pass a budget then we can work out the differences. so i ask the senate to please pass the budget. you know, we've got some time here would like to see them do it sooner rather than later. with that i would like to introduce alan from mississippi. alan? >> thank you for being here. the president come senate democrats, are more interested in blaming republicans and working with us to find solutions. and approved to that is in their actions. they have not even bother to pass a budget in almost a thousand days. they are required to do that by law. mr. reed, we expect the american people to abide by the laws, and the american people expect united states senate to abide by the law.

it's a disgrace when they don't come up with a budget. several years ago when i lost my job due to a corporate merger, my wife and i sat around the kitchen table made a pot of coffee, we got out a sheet of notes that they've an onside we wrote down what was a revenue, an essay we wrote down this that we're going to spend it. americans are doing that at kitchen tables all around this country. that's a budget. families are doing that, small businesses are doing that, and they have every reason to expect united states senate to follow their lead. the president loves to lecture republicans about how we need to work together for the good of the nation. i hope you will use the state of the union to call on harry reid and the democrats to pass a budget. now, we have bob gibbs from ohio to come next. >> all right.

all right, come on, tim. i meant to say tim from arkansas. [laughter] >> doesn't get this cold in arkansas, good grief. thank y'all for giving me a second. this is sort of, this is a pretty fundamental point. if you want to know what my priorities are in my home, if you want to know what the house priorities are can you look at our budget, you look at my budget. when you put a budget together you decide where you want to put your money. and those are your priorities. we have no earthly idea what the priorities of the senate are because they don't have a budget. the last house didn't have a budget. we got into office last year, and we got our budget done. and a budget that we put together showed that we want to do with the country's debt and want a pro-growth tax code. it's been over, or almost a thousand days and the senate hasn't done once we have no idea what their priorities are, yet they run around attacking house

republicans for the work we're trying to do, get our, trying to get our fiscal house in order. we know why they are avoiding a budget, because you want to be able to have their cake and eat it too. they don't want to put down on paper what their priorities are. so i just want to reiterate what everybody else here is saying, which is you have a basic duty, folks over in the senate, to put a budget together, put it before the american people so we can see what your priorities are, and then we can start working together. thank you. >> allen west. >> well, thanks for joining us on this beautiful south florida sun a winter day. [laughter] i just want to tell you that this past sunday on "meet the press" we saw senator harry reid talk about people being

obstructionist. we saw him play in the tea party. we saw him play and senate republican speakeasy been blamed house freshmen on the republican side. well, with harry reid does not understand simply, because which is a conservative grassroots movement called the tea party stands for the. they stand for fiscal responsibility. they stand for fiscal sanity. and the american people have to balanced budgets and home. our small business owners have to balance budgets to run their businesses. so what harry reid calls obstructionism, i look at it, he stands for fiscal irresponsibility. he stand for fiscal insanity. and i would ask one simple question of each and everyone of you that a standing behind the cameras that are standing here with your pens and pads and your recording devices, when are you going to go over to harry reid and ask them, what's up with that? the fact is we have gone a thousand days. we came here as young freshmen come and we got a budget passed. we are asking the senate to own up to the one constitutional

mandate that we have come is to pass a budget. so that everyone continue to talk about how terrible house republicans are. well, you need to share the message. we are doing the job of the american people sent us a. to do, but obviously harry reid does not believe that responsibility for fiscal sanity, and, therefore, we see the economic situation in which our country stands. send harry reid the message, what's up with that? and i will be followed by my good colleague from texas, bill florez. >> thank you. good morning. what a coincidence that on the day the president talks about the state of the union, it will be the same day without a thousand days without a senate passed a budget. the president is going to try to tell the american people that economic state of the union is to come but americans know better. we have had over 35 months of over 8% of unemployed or quit

massive uncertainty in the private sector, and a lot of that starts right here in washington, d.c. because we have overreaching regulations. we got out of control deficits, and we've got a senate they can't even pass the most basic policy statements in that, the federal budget. my granddaughter is not quite a year old yet, and what she's telling me, even though she doesn't say very much, is that mr. reid, we can't wait. we can't wait for you to do your job. we can't wait for you to pass a budget that's responsible that doesn't take the burden of your bad decisions today and put it on her shoulders. thank you very much. i'd like to introduce randy holcomb from illinois. >> i'm from just outside of chicago where is kind of a nice warm january day here today. but anyhow, it is good to be with you and this is a really, really important thing we're

talking about today. a thousand days of failure. a thousand days of failure of a very basic responsibility that we have. and that is the budget. budgeting is important because it's an account the tool for the america people to see are we doing what we said we're going to do. i we follow through on the commitment or are we spending money we don't have? that is the reason why the senate has failed to pass a budget because they don't want to admit we are spending money we don't have. they don't want to be accountable to the american people. it's got to stop. it's got to change. we are here, all of us here fighting for our families. i brought a picture of my family a long today. my four kids, just remind me again that it is fighting for their future. the hope and opportunity that they deserve. that's why a budget is so important that's why we need harry reid to act. that's what we need the senate to act, to recognize a thousand days is far too long. this has to change. it's got to stop. we need accountability out here. we need to give washington live within its means -- means again.

with that, i turn it over to scott. james langford. is james your? >> thank you. simple issue. we have a massive debt that we're all very aware of, 15 with $3 trillion in debt right now. there is a bigger problem though than 15 points regarding dollars in debt. it is the fact that we have no plan to get out of the. we are on autopilot to continue to increase our spending. we have to have a plan to get out of this debt. by 15 points weekly dose is incredibly significant, 100% debt to gdp isn't really significant at the bigger issue is that is no significant plan to get out of this. last year when the president presented his budget this group of breast freshmen, we were anticipate to be a plan to get out of it. it took us from 14 to dollars in debt to $26 trillion in debt in the 10 year when of the president presented to us. where do not only work on the existing data we have to have an

established, functioning plan and the only way to do that is for the house and senate to work together through the traditional budget process and starting on top of this. this. i am sorry that the president does not like working with the senate and house to try to get things accomplished, and that he is determined you be extraconstitutional and say we can't wait is going to do this on on its get congress did he seem to work well with congress when the house and senate were both democrat. but now that there is another part to work with he has decided doesn't want to work with anyone on that point. the simple fact is the senate has to do a budget. the president has to work with both parties to be able to come to some resolution because we cannot continue to wait with no plan to get out of this very significant debt that we're facing as a nation. without like to introduce bill jones. >> thanks. it's good to be with you here today. if you don't member anything else that i say here, i want you to hear this. washington, d.c., is broke. that brokenness is affecting

people back in my district in extremely bad ways. all up and down the ohio river, all i hear from businesses is that why can't washington get something done? the uncertainty that is resulting from the gridlock in washington, d.c. is hurting our ability to higher, to expand, to grow our businesses. now, the system of government that our founders put in place is a divided system of government. and the congress is a code equal branch of the government with the president of the united states. we have a responsibility to lead and to govern. but we are not doing that. you can't say that leadership is being a simplified when we go of thousand days without a budget. it's irresponsible. i can take it as a former air force veteran, i know what happens to leaders when they

don't perform. they don't stay in leadership positions very long. we've got some very, very tough decisions to make in this country to get us back on the right track and to protect future generations. and tough decisions require tough leadership, and that's a we need the senate to do. others are showing pictures of their kids and their grandkids. well, i've got a picture of my youngest granddaughter here on my cell phone. she's a little over a year old. now, she can't talk too much yet, but i'm pretty sure if she could she would tell us that she is pretty kick. because we are in debt. she is over $40,000 in debt, herself, and that's climbing every day that the senate refuses to act. 20 some job bills, 27 plus jobs bills sitting in the senate that harry reid could act on today that would begin to bring some

certainty to america's job creators. folks, we can do better than this year the senate needs to come back to work. harry needs to lead america. america deserves better. i want to heal to my good friend and colleague, representative todd young. >> ladies and gentlemen, the american people deserve a budget. it is the first step to fixing washington. it's what those of us who are serving our constituents lay out our priorities. we put it all on the line. we establish priorities and we indicate where we stand, we present our vision for america. washington is clearly broken. it so that all of us here from our constituents when we travel home. it's something we here in our offices here in washington. the question is how we going to fix it and when are we going to fix it? i think the root of the problems is that too few people in washington are getting specific. once we get specific, lay it out

in a scorable written plan, then that allows republicans and democrats, conservatives and liberals to compare notes. and gosh darn it, maybe we'll even find some common ground. so harry reid needs to act. the president needs to encourage the senate to get in line. it's time to fix washington. let's get started. let's pass a budget that the american people will be proud of. thank you. >> at a very colorful version of mark is my other good friend, billy. so thank you. i didn't write the list. i thought i would step up here. when we were sworn in last year, the first vote i took was for john been for the speaker of the house because secretary vote i took was for continued resolution and i said why are we

going to continue resolution? why do we need to keep the government open for two more weeks. wait a minute, they didn't have a budget last year. you can ask yourself why we didn't have a budget last year, but why did the democrats not have won the year before when they have the house, the said at the white house? why did not -- why did they not have one day before that? i think and isn't the. et al. but getting reelected but that's all anybody cares about. when you put in a budget like we did last year, voted for our budget, it wasn't two days later we had a picture of grandma getting thrown off a cliff in a wheelchair. that's the reason will have the budget at the resort poppe have a budget all this year. just to cut to the chase and let you know why, they don't want anything inviting. we put something in writing, then they know what your point is, what your program is so your opponents can attack you on. this is a class made up of two auctioneers. jeff open behind is also an option if we have a pizza parlor owner, a termite exterminator, we have doctors and nurses.

were sent to washington, d.c. to do the right thing for the right reason every day we are here. not to get reelected. and that's what we worked on last year and that's what we're going to work on this year. i'm not marcam the day but i approve that message. [laughter] ..

maybe next tuesday when the president comes over here to talk to us he should talk about the state of the u.s. senate rather than the state of the union. it is offensive what's going on and in part the media is complicity. you ought to ask him why he hasn't done his job. he talks about his boxing days. it's time for harry reid to get in the ring and pass the budget. >> thank you, congressman. i appreciate that. i would like to introduce you to my family. if any family or business for that matter has a debt problem, a financial adviser will tell them the first order of business is to pass the budget. a thousand days since senator reid passed the budget. the present request of another $1.3 trillion in debt over 16 trillion by the time this president spends that money and a thousand days without a

budget. it's been a thousand days. there have been ten shuttle missions in those 10,000 days. in those thousand days hundreds of people have climbed mount everest. it's more difficult climb mount everest than to pass the budget in the senate. and a thousand days we have had the iphone 3g, the iphone four, the ipad introduced. still, no budget through the u.s. senate. mr. president, senator reid, when we sit down for that state of the union, the president will laud many achievements of the american people and rightly so, but there will be no achievements to log out of the u.s. senate; no budget, no nothing. i look forward to your action. next i will turn the podium over to the mayor, the gentleman who has to pass a budget numerous times, congressman frank.

>> good morning everybody. as tim said i was the former mayor of new hampshire state's largest city of manchester and one of the things we had to do by charter is pass the budget each year. it didn't always passed a budget that i would have liked to see what we had to pass and administer it. was the responsibility of those who were elected to govern. i like many freshmen decided to run for congress in hopes of changing how washington operates, changing america for the better. why have seen in my first year representing new hampshire is quite honestly the senate making a joke out of governing. if you are responsible not to have a budget we are going to keep saying this to you until you can be part of the solution and go to harry reid's office and ask point blank why he will not produce a budget. we would love to see that as

house members. we are here to work on behalf of our constituents and the country. we don't mind the questions that you bring to us when there are disagreements from the senate about what we are doing. we're here to answer them to ask those same questions of senate leaders. when senate leaders block for a thousand days the most basic and fundamental responsibility of our government it becomes a mockery and it's why people in this country are disappointed with those who govern and we want to change that about our country. we love our country. we love the opportunity we can afford our children and grandchildren, but it's the responsibility of leaders not to act like children but to act like adults. we are here to work. in the beginning session of this congress in our first term we are here to work and we will

work with anybody that is willing to work with us and we ask you to play that role and play that part as members of the media, to asked harry reid to join the house in getting a budget passed. with that i will introduce my friend from south carolina, the other option year, mr. duncan. >> thank you. good afternoon. you know there's an old adage that says a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. i'm here to tell you that the journey towards fiscal responsibility does not take a thousand days. it takes action. it's time for harry reid to take that action. it's high noon. we are here to challenge him to do what's right for america and i will turn over to my friend from new mexico,, congressman steve pearce. >> i'm from new mexico, small business, small state, big problems.

every middle class american family is facing losing their home. countries are filing bankruptcy, entire countries are failing and have collapsed financially. ireland cannot pay its debt, greece is insolvent and the u.s. is the same way. the common theme running through every country's failure is that they have that they cannot pay. the u.s. has decked it cannot pay. the sound you hear coming from the every institution is the feeling on this titanic. the reason people are frustrated and a degree is not because of the tea party it is because of the senate and its failure to act. they understand we in the house may not agree with them but the under understand we've taken some steps. the senate plans republicans while steadfastly refusing to pass one of jobs fell, steadfastly refusing to pass the keystone pipeline come steadfastly refusing to pass a budget.

mr. reed, you are in charge of the place. make something happen. i would introduce mr. canseco. >> thank you. we came here one year ago. i, one of 87 new freshmen, many of us coming from the private sector, many of us with real world experiences of how to do business, how to run a budget and how to run a financially sound operation. we came here as a citizen legislators to change things in washington. and we've worked free hard for 12 months in order to do just that. one of the first things we did was the most basic of all business principles and that is to pass a budget. we did that happily in april of

last year and yet we have no budget for this country. we have been fighting hard and fighting hard against a shrill of political lackeys -- accusations rather than to tend to the real business of america which is the business and making sure that we have a budget that we have sound financial principals running the nation. i urge the senate and harry reid to pass a budget. 1,000 days is just pathetic. we have to have a budget and with that i would yield to my friend from new york. >> good morning. thanks everyone for being here. you can tell the people that are not from the northeast have gloves on. this is ball mean by our standards. thanks for being here this morning. we will take questions and i'm pleased to join my colleagues

this morning in telling harry reid to just do your job. that's all we are asking, do with the american taxpayers are paying for. we fund a budget committee over the office and he's not doing his job. 1,000 days is inexcusable, it's reprehensible, and he needs to do his job and pass a budget. with that i am happy to answer some questions. you are on the budget committee. do you understand the budget reduces the promises and the cap to the committee? you have a statutory cap for stronger than any budget resolution does. so why is it -- what would harry reid passing the budget to do that's any stronger than that? >> let me start with the basics of the budget act requires the house and the senate to both pass it so law stands we are supposed to both pass the budget, face reconciliation where that has been the traditional process that's been

rejected so it's not just a simple we will just do the appropriations bill. this establishes a principle or trigger trying to accomplish, the president of the budget, the house has passed a budget and the senator refuses to do that that is the working document and to say that republicans blocking the senate, should have the committee structure they can work this through their own committee they haven't even got out of committee to deal to do it. it's not a matter of passing it's not even trying to pass it. we are going to skip the process as the abortion law since 1974 and we are going to remake the process. if we need to do a new process let's put it in law but not just ignore the laws in the books and say we are not going to do it. >> you may get the republican house and senator harry reid come together -- after all the failures we've had -- >> let's go back to years ago when they had the house and the senate the senate didn't to the budget. you understand this is not just

current right now. this has happened for a while even when democrats ran both sides of this bill. and so this is a significant issue with the senate functioning for while the first reading for all of us to say to your principles out there and again it goes back to we have to be able to work together on these things we have to do that and the president's frustration saying they are not going to work with congress because the republicans aren't the running part of it that's not an excuse. we have to be able to work things together and we are not even attempting that in the budget process. we have to get moving. >> all of you are going to vote against -- >> one of the first things you are going to be faced with when the senate comes back is extending the paper a tax cut i wonder how you imagine

>> the president in the united states asked the house and the senate for a year extension and consistently house leaders' stated that we were working on a year solution. we had a bipartisan solution. most of the country didn't see the. we would like to work together with the senate and those democrats in the house that believe in the functioning government. we continue to pass legislation whether it's jobs related or the budget, pick any subject matter we continue to pass legislation in the house and send it over to this dennett. why do i believe that we will get an extension past? because i still have the feeling that there's probably some good people in this building who will

think more about the country than their own election. that's why we are here. we are not thinking about our next election we are thinking about what's right for the country. and the enough, there's enough people in this capital the believe that and start thinking that way we will get something accomplished on the extension. but if they don't start thinking that way, what exactly is going to happen to them as they are no longer going to have a voice in this building because the country is fed up with that. we hear it when we go back to our district the country is fed up they want to see some action relative to the progress of our responsibility. i think republican leadership is going to continue to reach out, proposed legislation that can pass the house hopefully bipartisan. we are doing it this next month on the budget committee with ten

different budget reform bills. we are inviting and joining democrats to join in that in those solutions and i think leadership is going to continue to fight for the principles the country wants and expect that out of washington. we hope that the majority of this year is not a campaign year but it's about governing. that is what we are here to do. we would like to have them do their side in government as well. >> we've heard a lot about the debt and deficits and all that. but since march of 2011 house has continuing resolutions that have added something like a trillion dollars to the national debt. why continue to pass it, why not amend it? >> well i think that the bottom line is we need a plan to get the country out of this mess.

if you look across the country, all of the states have balanced budgets. governors whether democrats or republicans present balanced budgets. statehouses, state senate with controlled by democrats or republicans or one party may control one and the other party controls the other and they all come together at the state level and they've done their jobs to balance their budget and it's time for us to do the same thing. the fact of the matter is once we have a budget in the questions you've asked will no longer be relevant because they will be addressed in the budgets that the senate and house come to an agreement on. so, i will tell you your question i think is one of my greatest frustrations and certainly one of the greatest frustrations for the american public but you're going to take one more question. who wants the last question? >> are they going to announce it

will reject the keystone pipeline and what is your reaction to that? >> that's absolutely ridiculous. the bottom line is the only way for us to break this country's dependency on the mideast and oil from the middle east is to bring things from the keystone pipeline from canada and started drilling in america and i think the fact of the matter is the president rejects that that shows how absolutely out of touch he is with america and what it takes to get the economy back on track. thank you for coming. >> number of sources confirming texas governor rick perry is dropping out of the race for president and endorsing new gingrich.

governor perry is holding a news conference this morning at 11. he will make the announcement official. we are planning live coverage of that here on c-span2. more road to the white house coverage this morning as republican presidential candidate ron paul is holding a campaign event of the college of charleston this morning. he is expected to speak about 11 eastern planning live coverage of that at the conclusion of the announcement from the perry.

he the brookings institution last week held a conference on globalization and job creation. one session featured the

president of the united steelworkers union and president of the united states steel corporation. >> -- studies program and i am very pleased to be here with this very distinguished panel one to talk about some of the aspects of manufacturing and technology and we are also going to look a little bit about germany and what's happened in the german labor market over the last few years and how that may be different from what we have had in the u.s.. so we have a terrific panel.

leo gerard come to my right is the national president of under the united steelworkers union. >> [inaudible] >> mabey. i don't think when i was in the government i was necessarily the afl-cio's favorite economist. those days are past. relative to the current political spectrum. next to him is john surma, the ceo of u.s. steel, and next to him is elisabeth jacobs, a fellow here at brookings and government studies. and as i already previewed has written a paper which is outside and has attracted a lot of attention. it's a very good paper on what's happened in germany and some of the differences with germany. now, gary told us in the first panel of the morning that the

biggest problem for employment that we have is lack of demand. so this is still a business cycle. it's not a recession because recessions are designed as a part where you are falling and we are not falling we are not not rising fast enough. what feels like recession given the high unemployment and the reason is because the course of that spending is the business by consumers and by government also. so we are not filling capacity in the factory as an office and we don't have anything close to full employment. but this panel has some of the other discussions are turning about the role of the u.s. economy in the global economy, and its ability to be competitive globally, so it is products and services overseas.

i think we are going to have a great example both to hear about what's happened in the steel industry and also what some of the implications of that are for the rest of manufacturing. two of our panelists so i think they will be able to hit the ground running on some of these issues. i will say for the record i'm a little more skeptical than some folks that u.s. manufacturing can be a good source of jobs going forward. i think it may be we may have some jobs we've had in 2011 as some had said we had a modest increase in the secretary bryson said we had a couple hundred thousand, and we may be able to repeat that or do a little bit better as the economy recovers but i don't think over the next ten years we are likely to get much additional employment from manufacturing. i am one of those people who

thinks the main reason for that is because of technology, that it takes only two people to make a ton of steel where it used to take a ton of people to make steel. but within that is true or not i think that the importance of manufacturing and certainly the competitiveness of the u.s. economy is terribly important. we cannot go back to the period of 6% of gdp trade deficits that we had before we went into this recession. i think that would be a significant drag on growth and make it difficult for us to get back to full employment. i think you would also create a balance in capital flow and trade of the kind we had before. so i do believe that manufacturing is tremendously important, and the future of the u.s. competitiveness is heavily tied to manufacturing. with that sort of guarded preamble covering the different

directions let me turn to our panelists and i will start on my right at least physically on my right with leo. you had some fairly strong views. listening to you i'm going to change my third question slightly in the sense that you believe policy had -- the reason that manufacturing has declined so much is because of policy neglect, policy that's been hostile towards manufacturing. so let me ask you as my first question would do you think policy makers should do in order to create the kind of manufacturing sector that you would like to see, and to the

extent that you can point to examples within the industry that would be helpful, too. >> let me answer the answer i wanted to as opposed to the question you wanted to ask. i will try to say a bunch of things in platforms so i can cover a lot. first of all, the only real creator of wealth in any economy is when you take things and make things. manipulating financial instruments doesn't create real wealth it creates delusionary wealth and we've gone for an excessive 30 years in this country and countries that adopt its philosophy of saying it was a service sector and was this and that and then we set about in that period of time we felt from manufacturing being about

22 to 23% of our gross domestic product to now depending which economist you listen to, somewhere between nine to 11%. if my premise is right the wealth is taken when you take the material and mix it together and create something and that is put into something else you end up with 8,000 parts and you get a wind turbine or something. that's how you create real wealth. if my believe is right when we are saying leave manufacturing the way it is it is that less than 10% of the population is expected to create wealth for the other 40% and that can't be sustained. if you put that beside and i am pleased to hear your comment about the trade deficit except for what happened in 08 we had 25 years in a row of year after year record-breaking deficits to the point now one of our main

partners if you want to call it that is china and we've been running a continuous trade deficit in excess of 200 to $250 billion a year, and it's not about as john will tell you it's not about our man-hours and cost per man hour because we cannot make steel in pittsburgh as thompson worked with both two hours give or take a look a bit less than two man hours so labor costs don't enter into it. it's the achieving china does and i don't just want to refer to china because the asian economy that we are going to be competing against which is going to be our biggest competitor, they've actually got a job strategy and what america doesn't have is a job strategy. we wanted to go well and get renewable energy. we couldn't get a renewable energy standard so people couldn't make wind turbines

because there's no market, there's no standard. so at that point in time i think that unless america decides it wants manufacturing there is a saying that people tell me is an old chinese saying i don't know if it is or not it goes something like this unless you change your action you will continue in the direction in which you are heading. [laughter] and so we can't continue heading and the direction of losing manufacturing if it is an upgrade which i believe it is. manufacturing pays a higher wage union or nonunion simultaneous to that we've had for years of attacks on collective bargaining and the trade unions across the board by both governments and large employers, small employers, the chamber of commerce which has led to a falling and declining standard of living for many people which has led to the incoming quality that we have which has led to a demand crisis in america. we've got a deficit issue.

i'm not sure if the deficit crisis but we have a crisis in manufacturing, a crisis in jobs and an inequality. the only way to deal with those used to have a sit down and decide the we want to make manufacturing over the next five, ten, 15, 20, 25 years to grow its way back to 22, 23% of gdp so that we we can put people back to work. >> so you think that -- what would -- coming out what would be the top three things you say you sit down and change manufacturing. so you want to change the way that union bargaining so the conditions are for organizing and bargaining. >> this might shock to the first thing i would do is pull out the agreements that led to 25 years of record-breaking trade deficit. >> of the trade agreements. >> i would negotiate new ones. i don't believe there is such a thing as free trade. it's made on behalf you regulate

it for. america has to be a trading nation. we have to ask for -- let's back it up. the germans have a trade balance with china. they do. the japanese have a trade balance with china. why don't we? everybody but us does. >> of the chinese trade surplus is greater with the u.s. than it is in total and the deficit with everyone else except for us on balance. >> that is a policy decision transparency of what. sprigg the relationships on trade with all the other countries we have we want to know what we are doing and make sure we have doubles for apples and oranges for oranges i would want to make sure we are talking about and i don't know if we can get it but we want a level playing field.

john may want to make a point from this. in pittsburgh where edgar thompson works cheaper than a ton of steel in beijing because we have the top material and all that stuff. but we can't get a ton of steel into their. >> so the problem of manufacturing is basically treated and unfair trade. let me just ask a question. is their anything that you as a union could do in terms of skills, training, proving practices. >> we've been doing it for 20 years with employers what we will do it in the u.s. steel. we negotiated the institute for the development 20 years ago. we continuously train people. we have a training program in the plant. john s. the ceo of the workers where we can have influence with talk about community college

vocational training. we need to go back to talking about high schools to in vocational training. you can't expect everyone is going to graduate with a four year degree and get a job if there isn't the jobs there. so the other thing that -- you can only be angry at so many things and still get to sleep at night. i put on my sticker that i supported the occupied wall street, the occupied movement. you know why? i saw a kid they interviewed about two weeks into it and they stuck a microphone in his face and said why are you here? the kid looked like he was about 26, 27-years-old about the age of my daughter. he said i am here because i did as i was told i went to school and i got to master's degrees, i can't afford to pay the interest and i can't find a job. when we are at that level and we are carrying record-breaking trade deficits of $700 billion we keep telling people this is going to be the pathway to what

every and we don't get there at some people to the complete some people have to recognize we have to change direction. there isn't one thing you can do. we didn't get in this mess in six months or and 08. 08 just aggravated this mess. we've been here since the 1970's. so we need a plan to get us out of this mess. when we have an infrastructure bank why don't we set up an infrastructure banks of the people can invest in that bank and we could modernize our infrastructure the way they do in europe. we can't put energy on the grade without losing 7%. we don't drink water of the taft we are worried about sweet drink bottled water. look at all the things that we can do 60% of the schools in america -- [laughter]

>> this is great. >> i'm not sure i want to swap places with europe right now. but anyway, john -- >> that's the problem. >> i shouldn't have tried a comeback. john, i think you -- i think as everybody has said earlier and i think they would all agree, the technology is a very key part of being competitive. i think you've got some interesting things to tell us about new technologies or applications technologies to making the big difference in your industry to the extent outside of your industry tell us about that, too. meek, a distinguished colleague here, companies have operations in the united states and we work right here. [applause]

we operate in four countries, so we do it in a variety of places and we can compare a little bit of policy matters. i think the u.s. is a good place for manufacturing. we have a lot of natural positives we can use for our benefit. and manufacturing certainly will have positive direct employment benefits moderated by the productivity gains we are making and i think that you are right about that. there are some policy things i think could be very positive that blood encourage us to do things that are big investments but in our line of work we need hundreds of millions in investments and they stand for three years. we have to be positive about what we want to do and make sure we have a field to play on. on the trade front i think we need strict enforcement or trade walls to be maintained. if we can pastry up and my colleagues they represent and edgar thompson works within the first point still going strong and if we lose, straight up that's okay but i don't think they should have to compete with the country. that's perfectly fine with me.

one of the things that is the most important things that's happened in the sector and 20 years probably is the energy change the natural gas, liquids, the enormous technology benefits that natural gas industry and extraction industries have brought to our country. yesterday's trading for less than $4. let me give you numbers. and our business it takes about five mmbtus. that's $20. we make steel in your note and use the same five. in europe it's 50. in america the u.s. is a good place to come for that. we have an enormous opportunity to harness that energy it needs to be extracted in a proper way and a well regulated. it needs to be environmentally, stringently regulated. the technology here is not all that hard but it's a huge opportunity for the u.s. and manufacturing. we are once all industry, one small company. 40,000 people, 20 billion revenue. and there are others who are much larger in the chemicals

business to see better more enormous opportunity so i would say the energy policy traces the have to be made are extremely critical and they should not be exclusive. they shouldn't be only this were only that. we in the portfolio because they bring different things with them that the energy policy that encourages natural gas usage would be positive. the way we make our product we are an extract is industry so we actually extract from the mines in minnesota and michigan, and we read is that to the elemental note with carbon and it is today coal but we begin to coke and then reduce iron to make steel. it could be a little messy at times. we are building a new battery in pittsburgh that costs $600 million. 600 million. will run the next 30 years. big decision for us. instead we could take natural gas and use the sea to reduce iron ore elemental iron, about two-thirds of the cost. and about half of the capitol.

it's a destructive technology, several units are already being built. huge change in technology that will give greater opportunity to compete and it's all enabled by this enormous progress made in the country. there's lots of motion about that subject. we should give it a chance and in credit policy makers to make that a piece of what we do to rejuvenate the north american manufacturing. >> do you think again it's a little bit outside of your area, but do you think that you may see some of the petrochemical industry coming back to the united states? you see it's all going to go to the mid east or africa or somewhere where the raw material is. >> it's going to go to where the lowest costs are. that's where it goes to put it in technical terms. in pennsylvania where our home state is the marcel bushfield, you've heard about that, the largest extraction activities, with gas, lots of liquids,

methane, butane, natural gasoline, etc.. it can be easily consumed so there's probably enough there for a cracker which is an enormous investment and all the downstream that comes from that. i'm not a chemicals business but it's a huge opportunity and there are lots of plans which were shut down by other companies. was andrew here this morning with us. he had a much different view of natural gas than before. it's enabled his company and i think to be much more competitive in the world with investment. so the availability of low-cost c's and h's is a huge opportunity not just for our company but all. >> i don't want to put you too much on the spot, but you do have a unionized work force and competition in the united states. a lot of steel capacity has grown up that's non-union. you do have been reports as well

coming in. so, what is your secret? how have you been able to be competitive and survive and remain as a union operation and reman -- i know you and the steelworkers have had your fights along the way but at this point you have a good relationship. can you tell us a bit about how that's been accomplished? >> a lot of it is to my distinguished colleague but one of the decades has changed the way we view things in the early part of 2,000 the sector companies were in a tailspin and heading over the edge. 35, 40 companies have managed. and we began to talk about that and we agreed on a number of things. we agreed on our employees work hard under potentially dangerous conditions they should be reworded in a competitive basis. they should do better when the company does better they should

be safe and have a retirement that would allow them a dignified career and dignified retirement and the company should be able to make money to invest. we've agreed on all these things. we can argue with the premium should be. we can argue about that but i think the basic elements of safe compensated employees in a productive and competitive profitable company we agree on that. and the only way to get there we concluded was to be productive in our labor contracts through no fault of anybody except for us together, our predecessors over 50 years ended up putting so many barnacles on the way that we work. we were denying the benefits of capital in productivity and didn't work. we had a big change backend 03e and took out 35% of our work force. a greater on the inside i think is it all turned out. and we ended up with a much more productive work force. with dignity the pension payment

and everything was fine, nobody complained i don't think so today we are a much more competitive company and our costs from the wage and social cost standpoint are not a competitive disadvantage and in 20 years ago they would tell you or ten years ago raising social cost for the competition in the world in the sector we would complain about the europeans and what they pay for, but the japanese before. that's not the issue. they are more productive than the other countries in the world from the standpoint and the most environmentally efficient and reduce carbon steel industry in the world as well. the highest recycling lowest carvin and lowest overall environmental missions in the world. we did a lot of that together. >> let me say something for john. u.s. steel four years ago already exceeded the kyoto protocol for years ago. >> we are one-third below the carbon emissions in 1990 and beyond anything the folks talked about. not because someone told us to but it was a good business for us to make the same kind of

steel. i'm sorry but the story i will give you is we found enough things we could agree on and when we meet regularly we try to focus on things we agree on and not things we don't agree on and we give those to other people to figure out. [laughter] >> thank you. i turn to elisabeth who is here. it may have created a few bugs in you, too so we hope we can get through this presentation. it's not the economic situation -- >> not our presentation -- elisabeth has written a wonderful paper. years ago i wrote a book with a colleague across the street in

europe and the model in those days of the european economy that has done well in the labour market was a danish security system. denmark is a very small country. it would be hard to sort of transport some of the institutions that they have to bicker countries or to the u.s.. but germany is a big country. it's gone through some transformations. it's doing some things the same and some different. elisabeth talked about the labor flexibility and the working time accounts that they've been set up, so elisabeth, could you tell me some of that and how do you think its affect how they've gone through this economic crisis could >> despite the fact the contraction in the gdp was larger than the u.s. gdp during the great recession the labour market took a slight head and then it continued to improve and

its continued to do quite well. the unemployment is down compared to the u.s. unemployment as everyone knows. our labour market is really hurting and so the question that i came to this project what is germany doing right and what can we learn in the u.s. potentially to borrow from abroad and is a new perspective for me to read i'm not a comparative list but i came off several years on the hill working on stimulus, health insurance reform, and then looking more broadly at this very slow recovery in the middle of and it's really stocks of that is how i ended up turning to this german comparison. what i found is that the top line explanation is german public policy increases this program that incentivizes. incentivizes companies to hold on to their employees, reduce their hours but don't fire them so that when the economy improves you can grab back and there are policies in place in germany that typically the

short-time compensation for work sharing program which essentially let employers collect money through the unemployment insurance system that is then passed along to workers whose owners have been reduced so the hours are reduced the salaries are not fully cut back equivalent we so workers can security and they get to hold on to their employees so that was my starting point. i knew that before i started the project. a lot of people in the room of the herd them as comparison may have heard that particular point and in thinking about it a little bit more and starting to dig into some of the furniture, it was very clear that they're kind if wasn't enough. it's not just we can't just transplant, we should have short-term compensation here in the u.s.. we've tried and haven't done very much. but there is a sort of bigger question worth asking about how a german business, how the german government and employees and the german unions, what they refer to as a special partner and interact with how they think about their public project building and the economy works in germany. and really people in this room probably know it works quite

differently than a dozen u.s. reverses' much more of a commitment to the view they have a very public policies regarding job creation and regarding a really advanced manufacturing economy and the expert oriented economy. and the government provided a but say i don't think the government has actually done the work is the partners which are the employers and the unions which are far more colorful in germany than in the u.s. but i don't think that means they are not worth paying attention to. thir in the course of a decade and they've put together i've called it a flexible working time toolkit something along those lines with this idea that if you are thinking along the view it doesn't make all that much sense to five-year all of your workers during a recession because when the recovery comes upon you have to hide your workers and retrieve them. in germany that is extremely expensive because employers put so much time and energy into training their workers it is a different set up and we have in the u.s. and so in looking at all of this and digging into the

kind of private policy around labor market it's very clear that martin mentioned your part of the developed tool kit with private employers working time accounts for the short and if you think about the time bank if you think about an employee and you are working the union is conceded in the interest security to allow their employer to keep track of their time. they were allowed to be required to work overtime in good times and the kinealy hours and what happens then is rather than taking the cut the basically draw on those accounts. no employer would want to that. there is no immediate cost savings to lifting an individual drop on the imaginary save time. but just in the past. the answer is the way the programs were designed because of the negotiation on the union part. if you want to fire a worker during a recession if you have

the working time account you have to pay off a large severance so it is less expensive for employers to hold on to these workers in addition to the kind of long view you have to pay out a bunch of money let is a time you are probably cash poor. many new in the room have probably heard of about the demolition of a time of the flexing to leave to flexible working arrangements. going back to the big picture in terms of how labor works in germany, germany for a long time was the sick man of europe. the economy wasn't doing well. unemployment was quite high. they dealt with as i was saying in the lunch earlier he talked about the fact germany acquired a pile of rubble. many people in the economic

literature talked about what it meant for the german economy, and over time that meant that business and unions had to sit down and figure out how they were going to survive in the long run and unions looked forward and wanted to maintain the sort of productive and competitive economy and really made some concessions that have allowed for a lot more labor flexibility comparing that to the u.s. is not that germany looks exactly like the u.s.. that is an important and to make. germany didn't succeed because it decided to make itself look like the u.s. in terms of flexibility. germany is far more unionized than the protections are far far stronger even after a major overhaul of the employment insurance is far more generous and for more focused on training, getting individuals back to work effectively. the of wage. all kind of policies are still coming during the policies even for the progressives in the u.s. very much in place in germany but they got rid of some of the labour market rigidities i think

would potentially drag on economy and the result would be i argued there has been a sweet spot left in the recession that looks different from what the u.s. has been through. that is one of the quick and dirty summaries of the paper. i have some recommendations i keep the key for the u.s. is the lesson to take from germany is to vincent vice the kind of behavior that germany has come up with. -- the admiral will folks we have here with exception to the rule it's exciting to have them here but it's unusual for people like this to sit down and have mutual respect and workers and in coal years really do have a shared interest. that's unusual. finding ways they can incentivize the kind of thinking through policy is kind of the macrorecommendation and has some specific ones but that is a big picture project we haven't really put much time or energy into it and i include myself in that. i'm just starting to think about

ways that we might be more effective in incentivizing that kind of thinking because there has been evidence that has a potential not just against the workers but the macroeconomy in the long term as well. >> let me push back on you in a couple of ways. one, you sort of compare the u.s. recession and germany, and you say that the drop in gdp was about the same. let me question whether the recessions were that similar as i think i correctly identify we had this real estate bubble collapse and that is really at the heart of the consistency of the recession we are in now. we just don't seem to have the same coming out of the recession that we did in the previous recessions and 82 or 75 because of this loss of wealth in the housing doubled. so i wonder. if you look back germany had a housing bubble following the reunification.

and i think they had a pretty persistent period of weakness after that. so i think those -- i wonder if those recessions are quite as similar as one might think on the face of it. and then the second thing is there is a lot of problems in europe right now. what germany has done has been very successful at being very competitive. they are competitive in the global economy, but the way they are really competitive is within europe. so they've been able to now compete all of their neighbors in europe, and i was in a session the affair day on a panel with some german folks and i said look you are all in the same lifeboat and germany has made is off super competitive and greece has fallen off the boat and italy is about to fall off the boat. so to what extent has this -- number one is the recession really the same and a number two, has germany been successful

in part at the expense of its neighbors? >> to the first question you are right germany had the housing bill will come and it means it's not necessarily an apples to apples comparison. germany did have its own financial crisis not super well versed on the intimate details of the recession, but it wasn't completely unlike ours. i don't think that they are so different that it's worth saying that it's not worth looking at. in some ways it think it kind of gets to your second point that in my mind i don't think the most interesting thing coming out of the thinking in the work i've been doing so much getting the kind of precise answer to why germany does well. it's more thinking about whether there are the new ways of thinking about problems that we've been kind of stuck in in the u.s. that might move us forward. so i might be dodging your question and i'm quite sure it is, but i think that's how i

would go with answering it. and i mean, i can, you know, give my 2 cents on whether germany is succeeding at the expense of europe. in my home at brookings and the government studies from the government perspective is an easy case to make at the expense of your of and that is a separate conversation and not necessarily what i was aiming to get that in the paper. >> thank you. germany is really amazing. its manufacturing at least, not so much in the performance on the high wages. they don't work that many hours. yet they are still able to be very competitive, not only within europe outside. so there is something that they are doing right and i think that you have told some really interesting things about germany. so i'm taking out of this discussion that we need to focus on manufacturing. there is a view here that when

you're being treated unfairly in trade and if we can somehow change that, we would get a lot more jobs. we would love to use technology effectively to make ourselves competitive, and maybe we should think about the way we operate our economy and not so much short term is some thinking about how to use human-resources more effectively and not just to get rid of them as soon as the downturn as germany. let me now through the discussion open to the audience. i would be interested in comments, pro comecon or a little divergence. yes? must be an american made microphone. [laughter] >> he's probably from china. >> my name is keith rogers and i

have a question for a segue it does seem to be all over the world we are seeing a huge problem of the collapse of terribly built concrete buildings and earthquakes and other natural disasters or if reinforcing steel. is there any economical way that the steel industry could meet those needs either through reinforcing or others the best of all these terrible? >> certainly i think steel is we think the most construction material we have whether it is steel oriented or concrete. in other regions there isn't nearly the application of the reimbursement that you would see in the u.s. or other developed areas. we do evangelical work and all sorts of undeveloped regions to

produce the use of steel and applications because when you think about the basic elements of life, shelter and warmth and water and mobility center of the agricultural these other things and construction broadly defined consumes about 50% of the steel in the world. the biggest breakthrough market is steel and housing applications using multiple weld and applications, and it's the question of expediency versus building something that's going to last. you were in the gulf coast today or if you were in the fire prone areas in the west coast, steel roof, steel frame, so i think it is essentially the codes take care of that but developing there isn't nearly the kind of progress we would like but we are trying to work on that wonderful market. i'm not sure if that helps. >> let me jump in because not all steel is the same. i'm not very good at the social

media stuff, but if you go and google the bay bridge in san francisco, you will find there is a bridge that is three years behind schedule and almost two and a half billion dollars over budget that somebody decided it would be better if they meet with chinese steel. the chinese steel won't hold the weld. so when you talk about what can you do, there aren't many applications we could have that's made in america or and north america for that matter. >> the initial steel capacity which is installed is furnace based. that's part of the initial the investment traditionally and that is the way that it is in most of the world. >> low end of the scale. >> yes, question here. >> i was really wondering listening to you about europe clearly there are some very

serious reasons to be concerned about what is happening in the year autozone -- eurozone but my sense is we are overlooking something. what we are overlooking is that there is a difference between what you would probably call modern europe and southern europe. i, for one, don't believe for a net that germany has become competitive only relative to the rest of europe. it has become competitive in comparison to the rest of the world. the export things in competition with everybody else in the world.

>> and they have brought about pride ourselves on labor mobility. labor mobility according to some i have seen in northern europe is higher than in the united states. that had a reason and reason was it took some action. and i think that's what's being overlooked in this discussion. i would like your comment. >> i agree with it. if i said something to disagree with that, i take it back. but why don't i give elisabeth a chance to respond, or do you not want to go outside of germany?

what's your reaction? >> no, i think probably the point, i can bring it back to germany, that germany got what it did, particularly chancellor schroeder put a lot of cards on the table in terms of making real progress towards overhauling the way that germany balanced simply opportunity and securities. that's the umbrella i use. i think it applies to germany because schroeder put everything on the table. he lost his government because of it but he accomplished reforms. and i think while some of the evolution of what was happening in the private sector outside of the reforms which mostly went to on of an insurance reform but more broadly within the same space of labor relations, they all fit within the same idea that germans kind of saw that there was a problem, they realized it wasn't sustainable and eventually for a variety of reasons they really actually did something about it. we are not doing that in the

u.s. the paper gives a lot of good reasons as to why not, look at the political dysfunction and the ways we are really stuck, particularly in light of congress and again that's a whole days worth of conferences to talk about. political sclerosis in the us is having an impact on the economy. also more broadly as far as our competitiveness is what it means to be an american worker and what it means to be an american business for that matter. for the long run. that's my attempt at an answer to complete that gets at the heart of what i think it is. >> questions? yes, one at the back. >> ladies and gentlemen, i'm the president of tomorrow, an organization -- [inaudible]

thank you for your wonderful presentation. you talked about china and its strategy, and also import -- how do you look at -- now that china is going all over the world come if you're borrowing materials from africa and that china is going there, technology and strategy is going to africa. how would you look at robert hurt in the future and for how long? >> that's an interesting question. i think the premise is just for context, the world makes about 124 billion tons of steel every year, roughly. china about 700 billion. about half of the world's steel capacity is in china. the majority of that now, two-thirds is on importing material.

china companies have been very aggressive in buying resource positions around the world, many in africa, latin america as well, other places also, even some in canada on the energies on. the u.s. and north america are still making raw materials is very well-positioned. north america is a net exporter of iron ore, and that exporter of coal for cobra to a few things that are imported from china that we are concerned about. and, in fact, china was taking steps to limit exports, and the ustr, along with some other countries, very courageously of thoughtfully run a very strong case, i think we've had one positive step so far. there's marty cooper -- the big guys can u.s. north america is in very, very good shape. i think some of the regions that are also imported from largest awestruck, brazil, western

canada, u.s., probably have other concerns. it's a competition right now that's very, very important to companies in china has been very, very aggressive. if you're looking to build an iron ore mine, go somewhere in africa or latin america, asia, china, companies have already been there, very expensive. >> let me ask you, we only have about a minute or so left, if i look at the department strategy, it was really very heavy investment in heavy industry. and china has been down that road. are they already are they going to end up with a lot of excess capacity? is the result of that? can you tell i don't steal or from other sectors because i don't think anybody knows for sure but i think the policy that i understand the authorities in china have espoused in the 12th, five year plan, the view is that their steel capacity should be roughly equivalent to their consumptive needs and that seems to be a sensible policy.

to be nothing in it either economically or environmentally for china to build a big export machine like the japanese and creates this. materials would be imported, iron ore from western australia, brazil. poll, if you can imagine, coke and coal market is balanced by metallurgical coal from west virginia. people in china didn't know there was a west virginia 10 years ago. so it would be economically really not a good you move plus using energy on allocation, very high efficiency because of a lack of control. they say they don't want to be large exporter i tend to believe them but if there are small glimpse in the economy, and 10% of their capacity becomes export capacity, that's 70 million tons. it could be very dramatic if something went wrong. we keep it for a close eye on a bigger policy i tend to believe actually is a sensible policy. >> we are about out of time, but if you have a last comment,

throw it in. >> i just want to make a comment about something you said when you started this forum, that you didn't think there was much room for manufacturing growth. >> employment. >> well, manufacturing, employment. u.s. steel, as we work to get more productive, my understanding is overtime and less we can expand the market we will have less people. but we're going to take good care of the people when they leave because if you've ever worked in a steel mill for 35 years, it's hard work. so we'll take care of them because i want the cup as we work with to be successful so our people can live well. one of the things we need to understand, and i come back to it, we can't continue to fool ourselves and swallow these ongoing trade deficits and manufacturing. right now, people, even today both the future with an advanced technology projects, products and office, we are running a multibillion dollars, almost a $100 billion trade deficit in

china. in the last four years, since the recession started, we lost 2.9 million manufacturing jobs in america, and we could 2.7 million manufacturing jobs in china. with companies the left here to go there. we can't just continue to say that's okay. don't ask me what the solution is because i'm not smart enough to know the solution. i just know that we can do that, but i'm going to get into a room with other smart people and figure out how to with a policy that over the next 25 years we grow manufacturing back to 22 or 23% of gdp? so mike grandkids and maybe can't get a masters degree can go work in a plan to make 35 of $40,000 a year and be able to take care of his family. >> thank you very much. i appreciate everyone in the panel, and the audience. [applause] and our next panel is coming up. will also be about some of these labor issues.

[inaudible conversations] >> [inaudible conversations]

>> we are live now in north charleston, south carolina. this more and republican presidents or candidate rick perry is dropping out of the race for president. he is throwing his support behind newt gingrich for president. the ap reporting it's good news for newt gingrich who has been trying to unite conservatives behind his candidacy. in the advance of saturday's south carolina primary, but it doesn't mean conservatives will flock to the former house speaker. rick santorum is still in the race and was endorsed over the weekend by a group of evangelical leaders. again, this morning rick perry expected to drop out of the race for president. [inaudible conversations]

>> [inaudible conversations] >> good morning. good morning, mark. listen, thank you all for coming out, and particularly to my incredible staff is here. i just want to say thanks to each of you for the work that you have done, and you and rick, victoria, you all are awesome. nelson, thank you. it's been a real privilege to be

able to learn and to grow under your works. as i've stated numerous times during the campaign, this campaign has never been about the candidates. iran for president because i love of america. i love our people. i love our freedom. as a matter of fact, this mission is greater than any one man. as i have traveled across this great country, starting here in charleston and going to new hampshire and iowa, california, down into florida, numerous states in between, obviously, and i discovered this tremendous purpose, resiliency of our people. they never lost hope. despite the circumstances that we find ourselves in. they hadn't stopped believing in the promise of america. they haven't stopped believing in the american dream. americans are down, but we never

be counted out. we are too great a people for that. what's broken in america is not our people. it's our politics. and what we need in washington is a place that is humbler, with a federal government that is smaller so that our people can live for your. i entered this campaign offering a unique perspective, a government led a large state in the nation in job creation, and executive leader who had implemented conservative principles, a son of tenant farmers who was born with little more than a good name. but it was experienced the great opportunity and freedom of this country. but i've never believed that the cause of conservatism is embodied by one individual. our party, and the conservative

philosophy transcends any one individual. it's a movement of ideas that are greater than any one of us, and will live long past any of us in our lives. as a former air force pilot, i don't get confused. i know we can't lose track of the ultimate objective in carrying out our mission. and that objective is not only to defeat president obama, but to replace him with a conservative leader who will bring about real change. our country is hurting, make no mistake about that. 13 million people out of work. 50 million of our citizens on food stamps. $15 trillion national debt, and growing. we need bold, conservative leadership that would take on

the entrenched interests and give the american people their country back. i've always believed the mission is greater than the man. as i contemplate the future of this campaign, i've come to the conclusion that there is no viable path forward for me in the 2012 campaign. therefore, today i am suspending my campaign and endorsing newt gingrich for president of the united states. i believe newt is a conservative visionary who can transform our country. we've had our differences, which campaigns will inevitably have, and newt is not perfect, but who among us is? the fact is, there is forgiveness for those who seek god. and i believe in the power of redemption, for it is a central tenet of my christian faith.

i have no question that newt gingrich has the heart of a conservative reformer, the ability to rally and captivate the conservative movement, the courage to tell those washington interests to take a hike, if that's what's in the best interest of our country. as a texan, i am -- i've never shied away from a fight, particularly when i consider the cause to be righteousness. but as someone who's always admired a great, if not the greatest texas governor, sam houston, i it's time to make a strategic retreat. so i will leave the trail, return home to texas, wind down my 2012 campaign, and i will do so with pride. knowing i gave fully of myself because worthy of this country. as i head home, i do so with the

love of my life, by my side, a woman who makes every day good when she is there by me. that's my wife, anita. honey, thank you for all you have done. she has been an incredible patriot. during this process. also want to thank my son, griffin, and his beautiful wife, meredith. city, was not here with us today, but the fact is with a good wife, with three loving children, and a loving god who is in my life, things are going to be good no matter what i do. i'm proud of the policies we put forward to the american people, and i believe that we provided the right path forward for our party and our nation.

overhaul washington, providing i think the roadmap for that, proclaiming the tenth amendment, and all the good news of allowing the states to be more competitive in the local governments, creating energy and energy security, energy jobs and energy security, cutting spending, eliminating the unnecessary federal agencies, cutting taxes to that flat and simple 20%. and i'll continue to fight for the conservative reforms, because the future of our country is at stake. and the road we are traveling today, president obama road, is a very dangerous one. i want to thank some wonderful individuals who i have come to know and admire, and who stood by my side in this state. kate dawson, thank you, brother.

for all the work that you've done and the loyal, just being the loyal supporter that you have been. a strong and a good man in the united states congress, mick mulvaney, ambassador wilkins. i talked to all of them this morning, and i just want to thank my supporters, the men and women have come across the country to be here in south carolina that were in new hampshire and iowa. god bless you for loving your country, or, you know, for volunteering in being here, in making a difference. in particular i want to say thanks to governor jindal, who has just been a fabulous spokesperson. steve forbes who, as i know him more, i admire him greatly of what a fight as patriotic american and governor sam brownback. senator jim men off, can this woman candace miller, sam

graves, congress and sam graves, all disk raid americans who we have come to have such great respect for and reflect their love of country. and i want to see a real special thanks to three distinguished veterans who have joined me on the trail. medal of honor recipient mike thorn. mike spent the last two days with us as we travel across south carolina, navy cross recipient marcus littrell, thank you, brother. i appreciate you coming and being with us today. and my christian brother who is up in greenville and has traveled so many miles with me, young marine captain dan moran. they truly represent what is best about america. give so much of themselves, and

they have been uplifting for me as a citizen, as the commander-in-chief of texas forces. and again, they are truly my heroes. you know, i began this race with a sense of calling. i felt lead into the arena to fight for the future of this country, and i feel no different today than they did then, knowing a calling never guarantees a particular outcome, but the journey that tests one's faith and one character. so now the journey leads me back to texas, neither discouraged nor disenchanted, but instead of rewarded highly by the experience, and resolute to remain in the arena and in the service of my country. our country needs bold leadership, and real transformation.

our country deserves that. we must rise to the occasion and elect a conservative champion to put our nation back on the right track. and this i note, i'm not done fighting for the cause of conservatism. as a matter fact, i have just begun to fight. god bless you. god bless this great country of america. thank you for coming out and being with us today. [applause] >> rick perry announcing that he is dropping out of the race for president this afternoon. actually, this morning he is making that announcement. we do have more road to the white house coverage right now on our companion network, sees that the republican presidential candidate ron paul is holding a

campaign event. is at the college of charleston. again you can see that live now on c-span. i will republican party officials confirmed earlier today that the republican president a candidate rick santorum edged out mitt romney by 34 votes in the final result of the iowa caucuses. former senator santorum is making two appearances today. later, he is at the southern republican leadership conference. they're holding their meeting. he will be joined by rnc chair and form president attended herman cain among others. that's live on c-span starting at 2 p.m. eastern. also tomorrow former senator santorum will be with us on "washington journal." we'll get his response to the news from charleston, south carolina, beginning at 7:45 a.m. eastern live on c-span. >> live now to the national press club here in washington. a bipartisan group is holding a briefing on its plans to try to double the number of women elected to the u.s. house and

senate. this began just a short time a ago. >> 53% of them are women of color. and leah is one of them. later used to be a health care worker. what mattered were the rates of obesity in her community, the fact there were health care disparities. she felt strongly that what her committee needed was a grocery store. there hadn't been a grocery store within the city limits in 15 years, although there were plenty of fast food joints. and she began going to the city council talking about how important it was to get a grocery store in this town. we heard about leah because she's making a really big ruckus about this grocery store. and we suggested, like we do, and like many of our colleagues do, that she should run. and, of course, her first response was no. that's always a woman's first

response. but we took her to a process, and a long story short, she became at 20 of the youngest person to ever sit on that city council. she became the only african-american woman to ever sit on that city council. and most importantly, she broke ground on a single lot within two years. because we tapped into what matters to her. extremely important. she is young and hungry actually just was reelected. but make no mistake, she is on her way to the u.s. congress, and as part of our strategy and that's part of what we are trying to do. it is pretty daunting to tap into what matters to half of the population as one demographic, but, of course, we know what matters to me might not matter to you, or to you or do you. so the white house is very focused on narrowing our slice of the demographic of women. we focus on women who are 21 to

about 35 years of age, and we are very excited to partners like my friends at running stock or also focus on building the pipeline and focusing on younger women. but that's an important part of the process. and it's one strategy and one step in what we do will make an impact in the long term. my dad was a very interesting person. he is from watts, one of 13 kids. but he's a perfectionist at doing new things and manifesting new reality. he used to always tell me, tiffany, if you want something that you have never had before, you're going to have to do something that you have never done before in order to get it. and that really informed my leadership. it's what really inspires me to be on the leadership team, and really inspired me to participate in the vision that swanee and that kerry have so aptly presented for all of us

because i think it's a new approach. i think it's a different approach, and i think they can potentially create a new outcome for all of us and the entire planet, so thank you very much for having me here. >> thank you, tiffany. next we're going to talk to tara to talk a little bit about some of the republican efforts to increase representation of women within the republican party. i think it's a well-known fact that there are more women representatives within the democratic party than the republican party. so we have a special amount of work to do in this regard to catch up. tara, you want to talk a little bit about that? >> sure. it's a great pleasure and honor to be part of such a wonderful task such as this, being a woman and being involved with politics so long, it's always interesting to see other people who look like you doing what you want to do. that doesn't necessary happen so much in the republican party for minorities and women. and that shouldn't be because

our values are very much shared amongst the republican party, but why is it that women feel as though they don't want to run? why is the and always know, i don't think so. i can't do it, our the white male power structure in the republican party is something that is a deterrent. but i think those things are starting to fall by the wayside because if you see that you may not have the numbers but we do want quality women, and we should always want that. we should always want quality, the best people to run for office. and you know, i think in the three east. we need to be empowered, entrepreneur and excellent. and when i say i criminal, we need to see ourselves as we are the product and our principles are our commodities. when we have organizations like this that encourage women to use those things and the entrepreneurial in their principles running for office,

then that becomes something that empowers them and then we'll get to that point, we need to carry ourselves to excellence, something my mother taught me very, very, very young. always carry yourself with excellence because no one will ever second guess your qualifications are why you should be there. and it's also a great example for other women. as a conservative, you know, sometimes it's not always easy being in the voice clip it and it existed i would be the first one to say that come it exists. ..

they can do it. often times it seems we have other careers or other avenues of teachers, nurses. no, we deserve to have a seat at that table just like everybody else and it starts with organizations like this and allow entry schools and encouraging little girls who ran for student government. it started in fourth grade with geraldine ferraro and the base. that was started for me because nobody was going to tell me i couldn't do it. so i think for us whether you are conservative or democrat to write perspectives on how to

govern or what our priorities may be about what we do share is the desire what better place to do that than in public service. there are different ways to do it but i come from the great state of new jersey, very proud of that we're we've had a female governor. we have the longest serving i think female in congress in northern new jersey so i grew up seeing a woman in congress and i said that's going to be me one day to be a part of those watching the progression not being a college student to work on the hill to work in politics on several levels i find it to be an honor and privilege to be in the position to encourage other women to do is it, let them know they can and be a part of the leadership team with other women regardless of the

party politics i consider that to be an honor and privilege. someone once told me that aspired to be equal to black beady commends position i don't show about that but to inspire for equality is great and we hope to do that in public service. >> thank you, tara. you need to give that speech more often. next we are going to speak with debbie walsh, the director of the brokers university's center for women in politics. she's also part of the 2010 project and she is our expert on statistics and backgrounds for the environment that women will be encountering. so i think that debbie's perspective is invaluable to us and helps sort fact from fiction and to chase down some of the

things we think may exist of their but we are not sure and she our resident expert so please bring us up to date. >> some very early numbers because we are early in this cycle. we can't even really get out of all i know yet. the cycle is early. the center for american women and politics has been around for 40 years, so we have that long view conducting research and monitoring trends for the women's participation in politics but he's aware for the need to connect that research to action and we need to be part of the leadership team and i think them for bringing us together and it's been a terrific price so far. we've been working with mary and stacy maysan who was with the

women count on the 2012 project for about two years now and that is one example of how we try to turn research into action. i also see from the women's campaign school is here a lot of folks have talked about that and one of things that need to happen if the they are confident and ready to go and train their ready to run programs which we will hear about in a bit i love that you have largesse your congresswoman and we are now in new jersey. we currently have zero women and our congressional delegation. marge is a great example of what we've been talking about in terms of women making a difference the woman most passionate about was family and medical leave. for very personal reasons, and

she fought for that and fought for that for many years and the very first bill that bill clinton signed into law when he became president was the family medical leave act and there was bill clinton a democratic president standing there to the republican congresswoman. that is an example of why we are all here talking about. i get to do this kind of long view in what's happening right now and it comes to numbers. i want to reiterate a little of somewhat foot mary has said in terms of putting this into some kind of context. back in 1984 when geraldine ferraro was on the ticket as the first woman as a vice presidential nominee of either party it was the year of the woman and lots of tromping and that didn't work out and then we had 1992 when we saw record numbers of women getting elected to congress and as mary said

from six to ten and we were celebrating ten per cent which seems a little sad we were celebrating 10% but to see them elected to congress is quite significant and ever since then every election cycle and all of my friends who were sitting in this room who've been following women and politics will say every year they get the call is this going to be the next year of the women will we see some kind of monumental growth? and i want to say that in 2012 in some early numbers we are seeing some signs and the work we've been doing on the project the 2012 holds that potential. i can't memorize all of these numbers for you and get them right, so we are still asking will this be that cycle.

in the u.s. senate right now we have 32 women who were either declared or have said they are going to run. the women to be turning for the senate in any cycle is 36 and the primary. we are not there yet but we have a record number of income and women running for reelection so there is a little record in there. i want to just take you back to cycles ago so you can see the board this fits into perspective. in 2008 of about this time in the process we had 11 women running for the united states senate and in 2010, we had 29 women. so we are ahead of where we were. at the u.s. house right now we have 202 women who are currently saying the reader interested in running or considering they are out there pretty publicly that they are going to run. the record to beat is about 2010 at the end of the day we have

222. at this time in 2010 early in the cycle we had 183 women, so we are up from 2010 and back in 2008 we had 158 women running, so we are up in the house and in the senate. the number right now is 202 who are saying they are going to run the only declared we have the deadlines in four states. so these are early numbers but i want to drill down just a little bit because one of the reasons that we saw the kind of change that we saw in 1992 is because it was the year of the woman and of the opening seat. we had a tremendous number of open seats but the key was women ran for them. we had women running for those open seats we had 39 women in the general election running for

open seats in the house that is by far the greatest number we ever had or ever have had since and we know that open seats are the seats of opportunity. that is what much of the 2012 project is based on how many open seats are out there and those are seeds of opportunity. it payoff in 1992. we want to see what's happened in 2012. so what i want to tell you is that right now of those women who are saying that they are running for congress, for the house, 56 of them are running for open seats in in 36 districts with open seats. 56 women running for open seats. in 2010 at this point, we had 28 women running for open seats in 12 districts with open seats. in 2008 only 21 women running for open seat districts. that number is significant.

it's early. there is more to come. everyday we get these little alerts about a new member of congress who is retiring so there are possibilities but i want to leave you with a fault that there is a potential in 2012 if we can get women to run for these open seats to see significant change and we are already seeing it now in these early numbers. women run in the same portions in the same proportions as men in comparable races. the trick is getting women to run. >> fantastic. the meat of the discussion. that's wonderful. next we are going to talk to sam benet the head of the women's campaign fund, and she also has been spearheading one of our groups first collaboration and

it is fighting one of the most important battles we have to fight in order to remove the obstacles that still prevent women from participating fully in politics. >> thank you very much for being here and what i regard as a historical day and we have a couple of the partners in the room i would like to introduce and i want to make a shout out to the network for being here. we have the public share of the women's political caucus, think you for being here. we have catherine, did i say it right that time, i worked on that. a wonderful initiative run out of philadelphia was a congresswoman and a vision 2020 so thank you for all of your work with that. we have jessica from running store which is a wonderful job of encouraging young women to run giving them financial support and we have a legend in the wrote some of you may not know she's a legend karen more hauser is one of the earlier leaders for the organization i will never get that right, but she's a legend and connected to so many of the people and we

have in a few minutes coming ana. there she is. we have to stand up so we can see you. there she is. thank you, alma for being here. i'm honored to come at the end of this very important day and before i do that i realize i have my political director from the women's campaign thank you so much for being here. i find ones that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. 87 the the world with a first backslide in the number of women in the office in 30 years we of all of these organizations are here to acknowledge an important factor despite the fact the organizations have been working tirelessly to select women it

hasn't been enough. something has to change. working alone, nibbling at the corners of this vast societal problem of women's political underrepresentation in the nation doesn't work. it will never solve this problem. but working together there's absolutely nothing we can't accomplish together. now, i'm honored to lead the oldest organization financially supporting women who run for office, millions of dollars to women running at all levels from both parties at the earliest stages when the support is needed most and there are not many on the hill that didn't get their first check from us. when i first came to the fund and came in d.c. i just ran for congress and it was clear to me when i ran for congress of the organization's or not working together to help elect women so

i started meeting one by one with all of the different leaders and i finally recognized one of them had the best rolodex. was murray, the white house founder project and that rolodex came from someplace, but? i said you've got the best rolodex. you need to find someone that none of us can say no to to get us started to gather because only together we fix this problem and the rest is history because she turned to the income parable -- and compare double. >> we were in a cab going to an even. the was longline so we went to get a drink. >> what i'm particularly proud of and is a very important point to become a political party wasn't something that somebody woke up and said i'm going to do this.

political parody grew out of laws owls women leaders' knowing we had to do something different and turning as a national leader and asking for help and we are lucky she said that. we're very lucky she said yes. can we give her a round of applause. [applause] hispanic political parody as women fought together in 1948 for the right to vote, we fight today to end women's political underrepresentation in this country. alone nothing changes. but today working together everything changes, and today is that day. women's political parody is not an issue of fairness it is an issue of grave national economic consequence and an issue of global competitiveness.

women vote, portales, legislate, govern differently than men. the difference is essentials. the difference is what is missing in our nation. and i know. the escape sexual abuse i was sucked into a very low form of white slavery. as a young woman, single mother with mike three-year-old out my seat i woke up in the night and there was a man at the foot of my bed. the sexual violence lightning struck again. as a woman running for mayor of the third largest city in my state i went to my first and lost by 42 votes. i went to the first debate and the moderator asked me this question. just what are your measurements? yes, ma'am. when i ran for u.s. congress where i learned more votes than

anyone for my party has ever before, i woke up every day day after day with a color photo of me on the newspaper with this quote from the internet that is so egregious i can't even share it with you here. happening to one woman? these things happen to all women. why? the absence of women elected leadership has allowed the culture to metastasize in this nation that its antiwoman, and i girl and deadly to the long-term economic prospect of the nation. bring to 87 the lows treacly connected to being ranked 40th in the world and the caliber of health care delivered to our citizens despite us having the finest universities, the finest hospitals and specialists in the world. ringed 87 the world of connected to the unbroken line to being ranked 18th in the world and dropping and the caliber of education delivered to our

children despite having the finest universities in the world more women will usher in a new era of long-term growth, prosperity and global competitiveness. a look dramatically more women who will create the new normal of a culture or sexual violence and sexism along your is tolerated. today is that day. we must have women running for each of the 515,000 elective offices in this country. research shows women aren't running because they're terrified of the media is going to do and that impact on their families. and both of us went through that when we ran for office. she is lieutenant governor and he is the congressman. today what i need from you is the first project to come out of political parody naim the change dedicated to fighting the media

and sexism that keeps women from running and is detrimental to the races when they run. please report those incidents to nameofchanges.org and join us in fighting media sexism. research shows that when women who run the run equal to them in the the problem is they are not running. so today please nominate every single talented woman that you know and every woman in this room, please nominate yourself that sheshouldrun.org. we've triggered thousand women and growing why? to move the numbers mary needs to get women running we need women to begin the process of thinking about running in order for tiffany to have the women she needs to train and we need women if thinking of running. and for emily and at the national organization of women and running start and all of our sister organizations and the majority, they must have women

beginning the process of thinking of running. so we need your help to do that. nominate every talented woman that you know that she d pecos b 8, please, today. now, remember today's the day. i'm honored to be with my leaders in this historic endeavor unprecedented in our nation's history. in 1948 and seneca falls, today 163 days later it is political parody. thank you all of you for being here today. we think all of you. thank you. >> thank you, sam. sam's organization name of change has been very groundbreaking. when i talk to female candidates, it made a difference. and the idea that from one side of the political spectrum or the

other, candidates and their campaign managers and parties are people who simply observe in the media this kind of discrimination can report those abuses and respond and ask for a boycott or write letters to the producers or the publishers of the ascending media and this is incredibly important because one of the most difficult obstacles for women to enter politics is that year of the sexes some and they may or may not encounter in the media. and in the future we simply hope that will not be part of the calculation that we have to go through. >> we have research and in the research is that we keep coming back. the research says that the general wisdom is if somebody makes a sexual statement about you in a race you don't magnify it, don't repeat it, say nothing about it. just it will go away.

the research says you come back hitting hard to actually go up in the polls. and that is counter to every bit of training that we have given fugate >> the pollsters that did the research for us, part of the leadership team looked at the research and said i've been telling when in the wrong thing for 30 years. really the bottom line, the thing the blue our mind about the research was twofold. number one everyone assumed that it didn't matter. i had no less than geraldine ferraro, god bless that woman saying don't worry about it, sticks and stones will break your bones. like geraldine the research says something different. the research shows sexism even mild focused on here and make up, hillary clinton. it's just else carry and i went through. 100% correct and what women need to do and national women's political caucus and the

organization of women all of us need to say no, not a good and if the woman stands up and says that a sexist she regains the lost votes and get a vote at the end because the voters think her opponent was behind it. so thank you for that come swanee. we've had our 200 million hit on the web site. while we are mentioning some of the concrete examples of the collaboration is that we've been participating in as political parity commodores is first and foremost. we also have something called the women's appointments project that reached out to the governor's or people who are running for governor in the states across the country last year, and we focused on seven states where we got in some cases pledges from both sides of the ogle saying that if they were to run the race they the .50% of their highest appointment positions as women. this is something that governor

romney indicted in massachusetts when we were running for office. it's fairly easy to do with the infrastructure is in place to provide the names of interested qualified women to fill the slots so that it is an easy process. we reached out across the country. i have to say the person who did it best in the country is right here with us today tracie in connecticut. she is now the model i believe for this approach around the nation, and we hope to replicate that and by other states to follow that and to inspire and pressure governors to participate in this because nothing is simpler than to elevate women to the appointed post where they are qualified and we know there's plenty of qualified women out there to fill the post. so we have a few minutes left for questions, and i know we have some questions coming off the internet.

>> judy woodruff of the pbs newshour. one of the things that certainly has marked this congress is the grid lock and on one issue after another it seems while there's been some cooperation, clearly there's also been a lot of disagreement on one issue after another. could one or two of you just speak about the difference you think it would make to have more women, what issues could a change in the conversive more women are elective on an issue for example the debt ceiling. how do you see women in congress making a difference? >> we were talking a little about process and now i will let others talk about specific issues. when i was in office as the lieutenant governor in massachusetts, i found that was very easy to get legislation passed if you could reach out across the aisle and ignore the fact that perhaps you had an ideological differences on every other issue than the one issue that you agree on, and people are different. you will find many different

concerns on both sides of the aisle. so if you are willing to reach out and get to know people and their interest and view them as people, not as the opponent, you are very likely to be able to find someone on the other side of the aisle who shares your concern about a particular thing to do so here we are trying to model the behavior to show you that while probably the members of our leadership team disagree on just about everything except for one thing which is they are all concerned that there are not more women participating in the highest levels of government, and we are trying and to come together across that one issue we and we are hoping part of that learning process can be that these kinds collaborations' can occur with dignity and respect and also that the women who come up to this process will see this and will be more open to collaboration across the aisle. i will let others talk to the specific topics

>> research shows that women are far more likely to reach across the dial. perfect example in the u.s. senate with olympia snowe and susan collins and the health care bill. i think that is proving. if you have a lot more women in the senate and the congress, you wouldn't have these gridlock situation and particularly around certain issues we might see a lot more. >> a couple things. one, we do know the motivation is different. when women run they often run to solve a problem or they run because they are prompted to advance an issue. that in and of itself suggests a different approach to why they, are there. so we know, and sam is right, but i think the recent famous collaboration between susan collins and kingston jalabert and in the seine at -- senate

watching the grid lock you said is they give it to us and they are coming out of the monthly senate dinner they give it to us we can get it done and go home. so i think there's an expectation. it's almost a challenge to the women and i think they say we know how to do this. we know how to set the other stuff aside. some of it comes from motivation but a lot of it comes in our state legislatures because in the 2012 project that we are focused on state legislators in congress and the women in the state legislature's they will tell you they go out in the hall, they grab somebody from the other party and say let's fix this. they are purposeful and in a different way, and it has to do with substance and just getting the job done. and it's funny because it comes in part from women's multitasking. it's not the only thing they have to do. they've got to get it done and get on with the