that much. as they learn from the war, he came to mean a whole lot more. >> do you have contemporaneous nose so reflections were letters i do the constitutional convention are previously balbis back edge? >> they do. the congressmen were debating this ferociously. washington himself was trying to determine, okay, i have all these powers now. which ones should i use? which one should i not use? it was an experiment in america really was a great experiment from the start. ..

can they talk funny in boston then? >> not yet. >> anyhow. [laughter] washington said, you know, wait a minute. i'm not the greatest gentleman in the world. i have the people trapped in one town. they try to get out and can't get out. why don't we get them and end the war? you might ruin the town, no. you want to ruin boston? they beat the yankees today which i'm upset about. you had to remind me of that.

[laughter] but in the book, logan has one couple of things that i think are very dramatic. one, the research he had me go around in circles researching some of that stuff. very true. he had -- george washington was 22 years at the time. he was with the british national guard and a surveyor, and the french were going to the lands and they would survey parcel of lands so many miles this way or that way. put a camp in the middle and say this is ours. the british decided we'll do the same. they get ahold of washington who is a surveyor and military person. they sent him with a group of surveyors and builders do what the french were doing. he wasn't out too long when he ran to a group of ibd yab.

the head indian wasn't known as a chief. i don't remember the chiefs, the head indian said, i'll help you out. i know, the french, they are not happy with you people being out here. we know the land. we have good parcel of land you would like to have. we'll help you keep the french away. washington 22 years old needs all the help he can get. the indians go off in front of them down the trail and come back and said, there's a group of french soldiers out looking for you. and they're on the way down. they'll be here in the morning. unbeknownst to washington, the head indian, in this particular group, his father was killed by the french colonel the local colonel . >> the french that hate his

father -- [inaudible] found no evidence of . >> he tells washington they're coming down here. and washington sets up a trap. an ambush and kims 46 -- kills 46 of them. later on, the king of england said that a young man in the colony started the french and indian war. the french didn't take too kindly to it happening. but when the they killed 26 french surveyors, workers, sold injure, whatever diplomatic party. and the head indian brings the cornel, who killed his father. chops off the top of his head, reaches to the skull and brings out the brain. and says to his father, up in heaven, i avenge you father.

george washington -- i think that would disturb me a little bit if it happened. george washington just stood there and wasn't much he could do. when he reported back to england as far as what went on, he said, we ran to some french military. the local indian help us subdue them. and the words he used was thrill of the bullets flying through the air and gave thrill to my heart. that was his interpretation during the battle. >> it impacted his approach. so originally when he was at twos ton he was listening to every word of the war counsel that the congress said appointed for him. actually it was filled with novices that knew little about war. yet washington felt obligated to

listen to every word they said. i came to boston. he listened to them during an attack. kay -- came to new york and didn't want to withdrawal early enough. he listens. once he becomes dictator, congress says you keep listening to that war counsel, go ahead and stop. so as the war concludes it's how to happened in the beginning of the war. the middle and the enhe feels any longer he became more confident to the ability of each. to dictate what the military was going to do. and he knew that one commander and one person in charge. in order defend the nation. >> you use the word dictator. assuming powers that congress --

[inaudible] so describe it as a military dictatorerer us is a political dictator. as it went back to the roman republican when since given the powers in the roman senate really just disband and took full control. the americans, they love the classic. and they knew all about this. but they had their own twist on it. and their twist was that we give you as dictator all military power over defeating the enemy. it came to political power, they felt retained at all. so washington was unique among revolutionary general in that he never declared marshall law. he -- whenever it came to a matter of american citizens,

american property, he made sure to defer to the congress or the state authorities. so in the -- and the defined way of being of control over the military and tactful divisions he was dictator. when it came to a host of other political decisions that were being made, he was very careful to not infringe upon congress. >> other questions? yes, sir. thank you. i would like to follow up a little bit on the an dry smith example. my understanding is an dry was tried as a spy where as smith is tried for treason. would it dick date legal procedures with regards to citizenship for either of them. >> it's true. they are both involved in the

same conspiracy. they are both involved in the same plot. and washington, his knee jerk reaction was to have him hanged as well. but when it came down it, he wasn't as swayed by that as he was by the nationality and -- that's who originally vowed to be loyallests. they were americans and had rights. we are going have to potentially live after them after they win the war and trying to win the heart and miebdz of the american people. that was more the defining factor. because when it came for washington he was not looking at distinguishing in that way as you are. he was more looking -- these two men were in can hoots. they worked together and almost sold west point.

more domestic law than congress law. it was try bid court-martial. washington was making a bigger move in the an dry case. >> he was. going to the unauthorized tribunal. >> there was two resolution in the book. the first, against foreign enemy acting as spies. and then there was another resolution that directed americans that were procolluding with -- precluding with the enemy. both said we're going try them by the court marble. they set up for the court march the due process protections, for example, the size of the board

various -- the not right to counsel. there are safe guards in there to make it a fair trial. [inaudible] charge each individual. >> i think the question is what are the specific charges against andre and smith respectively? >> it was both for both of them it was for working to betray west point. they originally had ten charges against smith and they narrow it down to one. very general you were working with the enemy to betray west point. and for andre, it was similar. it was you were working with benedict arnold to betray west point and you're doing so in

deguise. >> followup on that. or whatever -- [inaudible] [laughter] >> i'm british but i promise i'm not a spy. i believe -- [inaudible] >> check him. >> welcome. [laughter] >> all right. my question is -- when we talk about war during the revolutionary period, you see things like a lot of maltreatment of prisoner, acceptability, and things like -- [inaudible] or things like that. but we're not in that paradigm anymore. we've had convention try to stop things -- [inaudible]

nawrnl how does it affect washington as president for military commissions and problems like that? >> that's an excellent point. washington did x and dismowld x today. instead, you know, i take the more humble approach where, you know, washington meant to be the american commander. i think it's important for us to look at the american history basically it's important for anyone who believes believes in democracy to do so. you know in the preamble of the constitution it doesn't say congress to form a more perfect union or the president. it was the constitution formed by we the people.

see what we the people fought when we were enacting article ii section ii. and, you know, back to today sure a lot has changed. for instance, you were mentioning how torture was often used for reprisal and sort of switch from that to a more individualized system of justice . the same time this history is important starting point for the investigations, and some people -- there's, you know, big debate about originnism and how much weight you should give it. it's important precisely because major players believe so. for example, look at the washington, d.c., the heller division which the supreme court, both sides of the supreme

court, are using these historical arguments to decide the cases. so it's originalism is alive and well, as we know. it's important to look at the history as at least a starting point as we discuss the issues. >> let me follow up on that, though. tell me if this is one of the lessons you can draw from your account. because i think one of the punch line of the book is the concept of the republican understanding of the commander in chief clause, and a major change circumstance is that we have the serious international commitments that are formally entered in to conventions. had had a republican understanding of the job.

which required him to be very attentive to the commitment that were made by the nation. now in 1770s were not in a position to make a lot of international commitment. but question. we didn't have a lot of statute on the book. we a lot of resolution. would you not say that one of the lessons of washington's experience is that the commander in chief has a constitutional obligation to take seriously the commitment that the nation has made in conventions like the geneva convention. i might add the convention against torture. not to mention, statute of the congress' past making torture a crime and so on and so forth. >> absolutely. i think that the washington was very eager to catapult us to the realm of nations.

it was important we were acting as a good citizens. he sort of saw the united states -- shining democracy and creating the republican that would the higher principal. i think it's important for the commander in chief to be looking at the commitment that we make. >> others? more questions? [inaudible] [laughter] [inaudible] >> the former wants to make a speech. i spent many summers in canada canoeing and singing "oh canada "which is a beautiful anthem.

i made it a point in junior high school of studying the history of canada and why i have that little fact stuck up there. thank you. >> okay. [inaudible] there was a young lady of the evening they called her. she was going back and forth from boston to the american side, the american lines. and it was discovered -- the reason going back so quickly and so often. she was spying carrying letters from the british to the american contact they had and the army. washington's army. they caught her through some trickery they did. but she would not tell them who the american person was that she had her contact with. she refused to tell them and a number of accounts it said --

this is all it said. that washington and some of his staff spent the night with her and in the morning she devolinged who the person was. >> at length brought to a confession. she was proof against every thing we tried for the length she was brought to the a confusion. and -- confessions and it brings up good point how washington saw torture as something that we should rise above. and he wanted to get past the barbaric war of the past and raise our level of conduct. then as the, you know, the revolution wears on, he starts realizing -- he says i'm morally opposed to torture. i'm more morally opposed to not saving american lives. and that's when these instances

start arising when it comes down is i'm i need to do this to save american lives. that was a different story. >> i think thely briers is telling us bring it to a close. >> i'm not happy. >> the districter of zero dark thirty will dot movie version of this book. [applause] [applause] booktv in prime time continues tomorrow night with books about the american work force. at 8:00 p.m. the the author of "devil at our doorstep ." "people's pension." and whole foods ceo discusses his book "conscious capitalism" friday night here on c-span2.

tonight on c-span2, a discussion about worker pensions. then booktv and prime time. with author chris derose and the book "congressman lincoln "followed by the author of "ike and dick" about the political relationship between dwight eisenhower and richard nixon. the number of people filing for unemployment benefits fell last week to the lowest level in five years. at the same time, americans are leaving the work force in large numbers. on our next "washington journal," we'll talk with "the wall street journal" reporter. then reporter and author hendrix smith joins us. the most recent book "who stole the american dream." and later a discussion on the cost of child care. our guests are linda of the u.s. bureau and barbara of the institute for women's policy research. we'll take your call, e-mail,

and tweets. washington journal each morning at 7:00 eastern on c span. this year c-span student cam video competition had entry from 35,000 on a theme of message to the president. we talk with the winners. >> my dad's friend was featured in the video. actually unemployed going through the process of unemployment at the time. i thought he would be a good subject to follow. so i kind of yeah. i followed his life. >> at time i had an introduction to law course. i was learning there was a double standard for those under 18 and those over. i was sort of in to children's rights, if you will. and i realized we don't have a say in the creation of the debt but we're going have to pay it off. >> at first, we when had originally picked our topic . >> which was what?

>> infrastructure and the growing need for public transportation in the country. so -- weren't very -- how can i say excited about the topic. but after i had explained it to them, they kind of caught on. and while researching, they decided we should high speed rail as one of the segment as well. it was very important to the topic and our country as well. >> more from the top three student camera winners at saturday morning 10:00 a.m. on c-span. a forum on private pension hosted by bloomberg government. head of the pension benefit guarantee corporation predicted that congress will pass a bill on the next couple of years that would provide more flexibility and security for private retirement benefit plan. advocating changes to help

pensions regulated. it's an hour and a half. >> good morning. i'm don. the head of bloomberg government. thank you for joining us today and thank you for our sponsors for starting the conversation on pension reform. we launched be to two years ago we had the aspiration of creating one stop shop for data, tool, news and analysis to help government affairs and sales professionals make better, faster discussions. part that have aspiration is convening conversation on the important issue that face our nation today. particularly, at the intersection of business and government. today together with the quality construction alliance, we will discuss the implications of performing multiemployer pension plans. there are many challenges facing pension reform. i'm sure we'll touch on more than a few of them over the next hour and a half. before we kick off the program, moderated by the director of

research, bob. bob hoover is going to say a few words. bob, is the vice president of north american construction over the last several decades he's held leadership post in so. largest contracting firms in the country. he serves as management co-chair of the national maintenance agreement policy committee. and today he is representing the quality construction alliance. please join me in welcoming bob. [applause] on behalf of the five associations that comprise the quality construction alliance, i would like to welcome you here today for this very important media event. i want to begin by expressing

the sincere gratitude to bloomberg. it's an impressive facility and energy e fresh sei one. as well as the -- as well, it's a perfect camp how 20th how green construction method can be utilized in a modern, cost effective manner. we are here today to discuss multiemployer pension reform, a subject critical to every employer in the room. all of whom work in the construction sector. to give you a frame of reference, construction industry plans account for 54% of all multiemployer plans, and 37% of participates overall nearly 3.9 million participates. it's headquartered in cannons berg, pennsylvania. we are one of the premier industrial construction and maintenance firms in the united

states. the employs thousand of highly skilled trades men and women each year and contributes to a wide variety of multiemployer pension plans annually. in 2012 alone, our company contributed to over fifty funds. my company is considered very large. the vast majority of construction industry foirm firms around the country employ fewer than fifty workers. but like every employer in this room, regardless of size multiemployer plans are a critical part of our efforts to recruit and retain multiemployer

plans allow construction employers to adapt to a fluctuating work force for to project to project. and many years workers moved on and off the -- we were able to provide them pension benefit that guarantee a reliable and stable income after they retired. and the younger generation that is just getting started. the plans that the workers depend on. multiemployer plans are pension reform is critical to my company and every other small, medium,

and large company in the industry. the five associations that make up the qca, all support the reform proposal about to hear today. ..

in which employers are forced to essentially ensure the stock market performance, a dubious process to say the least, especially in an era when returns are volatile in the bowl. we are not looking for a bailout. by the pbgc or any other government taxpayer dollars. burgess looking for additional flexibility in tools that allow trustees and the bargaining parties to handle this issue on their own. we believe by working together, labor and management can continue to provide instructions

workers with an attractive benefit package. by doing so, which are the united states construction industry has the highest quality and safest workforce in the world. thank you and i'd like to turn it over to her moderator. [applause] >> thank you very much. welcome to this conversation but are distinguished guest today, josh gotbaum. i'm sure many of you know that. you may not also know josh has had a distinguished career in government and business. he served in three administrations. he was at the defense department, all in the also the treasury department.

he had nine that have been good friends for 35 years away both were in the carter administration. sit with your permission going to drop the formalities. i'm not going to: director josh because he and i are good friends that feel so awkward to say other than josh. but that doesn't mean i'm not going to ask the hard questions. after the session is over, we have a panel of distinguished experts. they'll ask questions of the panel and reporters in the room last panelist question after we have the session. the final thing i want to say that many of you may not know. one of our lunches that we hold periodically i asked josh, was he going to do it is next job? he says i don't know, which is probably his answer all 35 years. he never knows where it's going

next. in the private sector, for example, he's been trusty for a bankrupt airline invited out of bankruptcy. he started in 9/11 commission and help start that and so forth and basically says his criteria for john says he wants to run some enough extent. that characterizes his current position. he's done an outstanding job as your pbc. he told me he is going to go perform the next day or two days and his group is called the augmented eight. so if you run out of questions i'm going to ask them to sing for. >> .out of questions. >> i have lots of questions to ask and will service the obvious question, and everybody in the

room knows a defined benefit plans have been important in the united states with her multiemployer for at least the last 30 years. how significant has been declined and analysis affected your agency? >> i think this is one of the most fundamental and important questions that this is not just retirement, but faces our nation because over the last couple of generations, the good news is people are living longer, healthier lives. the bad news is the quality of retirement plans has declined. one form of that decline is a portion of the working population that has a pension that doesn't require them to become an actuary and guess how long they're going to live in doesn't require them to be an

investment manager and figure out the right way to invest money or pick investment managers. in other words, traditional pensions. the private sector population that has such a pension is down to 20%. one way to look at it is that 20%, when you add the folks of the public sector retirees, covers 75 million americans and their families. if you ask me, is a worthwhile trying to work to preserve a form of retirement security that is better for people to provide lifetime income, my aunt there was of course it is and is returning to expand it. in order to do that, you have to look and asked the question why. that turns out to be pretty simple. the primary reason is provided

my statement come to employees is expensive and unfortunately in the public sector, when employer wants to keep the pension, but wants to lower cost they can return to employees and senate want to keep the pension, but i need you to share the cost and that is what happened in many, many public jurisdictions. in the private sector, it turns out because of a glitch in the law, you can't do that because in the air, employer contributions to defined as a pension plan are not tax-deferred. one issue we have is if they private sector employer wants to cut costs to provide a pension program, essentially the only way we arrange for them to do it is to switch out of plan into

401(k) defined contribution plans. that makes no sense to me. it's also the case that we have imposed higher standards of disclosure of legal liability, et cetera on those who offer traditional pensions. some of those employers are voting with their feet. my view of this is a need to think about what we can do. what is the effect on agencies like mine? obviously reduces our customer base and focuses on making sure we can do everything possible to preserve customers, which is why efforts like the one you hear about this afternoon for something we pay a lot of attention to. >> independently of the recommendations, i want to ask you what if anything the government should do and you basically have artifact once thing, the inequity tax

treatment. is that one of the things he would do is fix that? is going to cost the treasury money. so when you do? >> first of all, i'm not sure that's true. that's only one thing that needs to be rethought. right now it's not as if in lawyers aren't under competitive pressures. they are. when employers are under competitive pressures they do respond in a few acts. my point is if we are not thoughtful in the way we regulate, if we are not up on the way we design the we can force and players out of systems that serve employees better intersystems to serve employees buswell and that's one example. so the challenge for us and this is a real challenge because pensions are complicated. so it means the congress of the

united states needs to have both the time and ability to work through complexity and that's not something easy for them to do. but what we can see us from time to time the congress says i want to do they say may come forward and work with everybody. they think through come handle complexity and on a bipartisan basis to make reforms. i think that's what we need to continue to do. if we are more thoughtful and evenhanded about how we regulate retirement security, if we are more thoughtful and evenhanded about tax treatment and incentives, the employers and employees can work out perfectly naturally better, more cost-effective ways to pay for retirement.

>> have you been up on the hill advocating? >> the short answer is yes. one of the facts of life is the pension legislation has this complicated and has to be bipartisan, happens only from time to time. the last major piece of pension legislation was enacted in 2006. the fact is, and i'm very encouraged by this. the congress has served notice that over the course of the next couple years, they do want to take up and rethink these issues. they want to consider what can be done to enhance retirement security in a responsible way. that process is beginning. it is beginning to be hearings, discussions, and better. it's not a quick process. not an easy process, but i'm encouraged it is happening and the result will be more

flexibility and more options for the range of situations that employers and employees face. >> says speaking to one of those options are variations of your agency got a lot of attention last year when he set up to american airlines, when they try to terminate their pension plan as part of bankruptcy. what did you do in a thread to run the pension plan? >> the first thing pbgc did, which is the first thing pbgc always tries to do this reserve the pension plan and see whether the pension plan is affordable and tried to work with the company and other constituencies to see if something can be worked out to preserve the plan because it's always better if a company can afford to keep his pension obligations to retirees and if they get passed on to somebody else or retirees directly.

what we did as a missile bankruptcy on the first day that we can afford her pension plans. the people at the pbgc are among the best business i can see anyway unvested government. they sharpened pencils and came power and said the pensions are expensive, but it looks like the business can afford them. it looks like american airlines can afford to restructure without terminating pension plans. so we went to the company. we went to the creditors, the union and the looks to us like you could successfully restructure without terminating her pension plan. by the way, if you terminate the pension plan, it becomes the largest creditor. the company $10 million creditor. so we would end up being the largest shareholder. so if you don't want the u.s. government even largest shareholder, maybe it's worth

trying to not terminate the pension plan. we work at the company, other government agencies, unions, creditors and they are able successfully to reorganize without terminating the pension plan. there are other circumstances. there is an aircraft manufacturer, which used to be hocker beechcraft. >> i grew up two miles from each aircraft. they, like american airlines got into trouble, filed for bankruptcy announced they were going to have to terminate all through pension plans. we went to bed that, do you really have to do this? they sharpened their pencils and showed the various ways to restructure, but they said we do not think we can afford to keep pension plans.

so we worked with the union they are and we said, you folks have a choice. it's clear you're going to negotiate changes in order to preserve the company, but you have a choice as to whether you terminate their pension plan or save the company in other ways. so they said we would like to keep the pension plan. so they negotiated an agreement with the company under which they preserved the hourly plan to which covered 40% of the employees. we then went to the company and said there is a problem. the problem is even if we take on the two remaining plants, there's some pension benefits without pay because physically have a limit to the amount of pension recovery. we worked with the company as part of the bankruptcy, part of

your organization to set aside a pool of money so those salaried employees through the pbgc wouldn't cover their whole pension would be called the dead by the sign. so it's our job. obviously we need to be a safety net, but it's our job to preserve plants and preserve retirement security. one of the nice things if they get to steal credit from a talented group of public servants who understand enough about business to figure out when you stop asking for the impossible and start dealing with what is real. >> were going to switch topics now because the panel we have after this the focus of the employer plans. can you tell us how the pbgc is involved in multiemployer plants? >> the pbgc is very involved in multiemployer plants. not only is pbgc a safety net

multiemployer plants fail, the pbgc has the ability to bless and allow alternate forms of withdrawal liability to be put in place to preserve plan. the pension benefit guarantee corporation has developed multiemployer plan for a very, very long time. we are, again my colleagues, the remarkably talented public servants that they are are very knowledgeable about actual economics and the range of economics. we just turned out, along with the labor department treasury department a couple of reports on the multiemployer system and in order to set a base. some of the most important points are not as this is a

complicated situation. these are very, very useful forms of retirement security. multiemployer pension plans provide lifetime income. they enable small businesses to offer a real pension without having to have an h.r. department and hired dozens of lawyers. so there's a real benefit from having multiemployer plants. they are, in my view, like other plan. like other pension plans they did well in the 90s and suffered the last 10 years. but that's not just are multiemployer pants. single-employer pants, public hands. the 90s are better than the last decade. the complication is because the structure of multiemployer plants is more complicated, the responses they have to make when times are bad are themselves

more complicated and that's why we need to think through, how do we allow the flexibility that plants need in order to continue to serve retirees, continue to protect employees and continue to enable players to stay in business? >> is that a lot of publicity about these plants and some of the publicity is good. from your vantage point, how that is the situation or how good is that? half-full, half-empty, where are we? >> one of the things one learns to when one comes in to the world of pension is that they are complicated. unfortunately, this is the case for a couple of bad apples convince people volt barrel is

bad. so we ensure all multiemployer lands. the pbgc insurer nationwide. there's about 1500 plan, but 1350 of them are what you would call at even operating plan. we ensure all of them. the majority of plan and the majority of 10 million people and programs we ensure our plans that are in that are in green zone and rok. even the rest are in that we ain't can't recover over time. it's going to take longer extraordinary measures, but they can recover over time. so i are concerned as we don't want the fact that a minority of plans by genuinely in trouble.

minority plans generally have to restructure our end up on the pbgc. we don't want that taints all the other plants everyone in the audience is a participant. from my dave, we need to think this through, but we have to put in place a regime that not only deals with the minority they need to be restructured, but alas the preservation with retirement security that is affordable, that enables employers to offer a pension without having to hire dozens of lawyers. it's important to recognize both and make sure they will act, think about it and to make sure we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. >> do you think there has to be

congressional fix for the minority talk about? or is it something they can do under their own under your guidance? >> we don't have detailed information on every one of the 1350 plants covering the 10 million people, but we are convinced that there is a minority of plans. from numbers, out of the 1350 maybe less, maybe more, but something less than 10% of the participants. but unless they can get additional authorities are going to run out of tiny and are going to end up in the hands of the

pbgc safety net. let me be clear. if that happens i want the pbgc to provide this safety net. that's why separate discussion is how do you reform finances said the safety net as they are when we need it. but it is clear that there is a minority of plan that absent changes will run out of money. but we need to do, however, is find ways to enable them to restructure the don't taint the whole form and convince employers in the saudi and, i can't do this anymore. so we need to always be mindful there is a real issue that needs to be dealt with, but that there are ways to solve the problem that might make retirement security worse.

>> we have to defer the larger discussion of the pbgc to a later time. you can all see why he is mr. fix it, he's so fabulous that your job. i want to thank you and josh for showing up. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> said now is her panel discussion. again, you have the bios. they are sitting on the border from the introduction i have come as i've got to make sure it got everything right. so we are going to start immediately to my left. everyone in this room knows randy defrehn.

i think we have some feedback, which will be able to move. he has 35 years of experience working with this issue and you're going to hear from him directly in a moment talking about some of this recommend patients he's been working on with a lot of other distinguished people. our second person we have here is kerry franklin -- cary franklin. alternatively a brief summary of cary. cary is an actuary and consultant at verizon services. he's been working in this area for over 30 years. i guess there's a common theme here. we are all in the business 30 years plus. by the way, all seem to be pension. so we have a lot of personal issues and i'm sure many of you doing the audience.

sub three has been a frequent speaker and the technicalities of pension plan some archive you can show up and talk to us. next is another person i've had the pleasure to know for 20 plus years. earl pomeroy went to north dakota and before that was insurance commissioner and head of the national association of insurance commissioners and to my knowledge has been the only member of congress as those who served this president of the naic. so he knows insurance. he knows congress and now a senior counsel at alston & bird here in atlanta. finally we have learned time. marvin has been with other law schools in the past in alabama and university. he is one of the leading academic experts in this area and were glad to have you here, norman. so we are going to start with

randy. randy has many of you know has been working with a group of management and labor are over a couple of years. so he's going to describe to us the impossible task. he's got multiemployer spirit he's got multi-labor unions and they'll recognize they have a major challenge, which is to preserve the soundness of multiemployer plans for now into its not eternity, a long time. he's been working with this group quietly for two years and he has been the chairman of a commission that is expand this problem and come up with recommendations about what to do. i thought we would kick this off by asking randy to talk about this very complicated process. they are the complicated for five times.

describe that and give this highlights the recommendations. >> certainly. thanks, bob for the opportunity to talk about the important work. as he directly said -- >> and everybody here is my? >> not working? >> now is working. >> no one has ever accused me of not seeking out. josh is a good job in setting the stage for the situation we were trying to address. we had as a community, the multiemployer plan earlier very proud day for the construction industry is bob hoover pointed out, more than half the plan are in the construction industry, but a third of the participants beyond those two industries,

multiemployer plans are pervasive throughout the economy. my guess is you're part of a multi-lawyer plan if you're a member of the entertainment industry. >> were not part of the industry. >> you can go on and on and what our process was this to take a look at the current situation of the plan. josh mentioned the last piece of legislation was in 2006 but the pension protection act. at the end of 2014, the multiemployer funding rules will expire. so there's a natural process to go back and revisit our experience under that law, which proposes new targets to improve the status of these plans. so that was a natural for you to try to find out what kind of

recommendations were there towards modifications to the law in light of recent experience. so as i was going on, between 2006 with the laws passed in the end of 2008, with a very significant event. plans leading up to 2000 had been so overfed in, about 75% had to increase benefits to protect adaptability of contributions, has started to recover the first economic contraction in the early part of the century. by 2007, 90% funded on an actuarial or market base and then came to the snake, which hitched the plans in a way that obviously those of us with 401(k) was seen it much faster. defined benefit plans use recognition of some of those

losses. .. we contacted the unions that rely primarily on multiemployer plans for their retirement security, and their employer counterparts, other large employers part of this process and active on the political side , we reached back to some

plans and created this commission, called the retirement security review commission, because these are a creation of the clicktive d collective bargaining process, and they have to agree on reforms to get enacted so we expect, as you say, about 18 months in active discussion. we had 42 organizations that were involved on a monthly basis, a couple days a month, full time, and the -- it was quite an interesting process. there will times whenever the opinions were pretty strong on both sides of the table, but what you might not understand us the positions taken from one side were what you would expect from the other. i'm very proud of the way this process progressed. i think the people who were in the room approached it from not an adversarial position put a problem, solving position, and

the results, the recommendations you see reflect that. they broadly fall into three categories. preservation, which deal with the kinds of technical corrections that ooh be recommended to congress, based on the experiences of the protection act. the secondes remediation. remediation being the recognition of the minority plans that josh discussed that it will be heading for insolvency for a variety of reasons. how to address those to minimize the effect on participants. and then, third, innovations. there are new plan designs that could be implemented that would allow these plans to provide the kinds of long-term retirement security for workers into the future. >> one followup. in these three categories -- we could spend the whole day talking about each category. i'm interested in the

innovation. give me some examples of innovative products. they're crosses? >> to some extent. one of the things we were looking at and one of the things that got reinforced when we went through the process is that people thinking in terms of the benefit or contribution. it's focused on two primary objectives to make sure workers have a regular retirement income and reduce the liability from employers,. defined benefits and defined contributions have advantages and disadvantages, and as a result, in looking forward, we're trying to address the shortcomings of the deafened defined in benefit system with

the responsibility on the employers but not shifting the entire liability on to the participants. as a result, there are -- a couple things the commission came up with. one is a broad recommendation -- not working? try this one. okay. how is that? okay. >> one is that the lobby reevoke toured -- encourages planned innovation to meet the needs of this industries. >> the law would have to be changed. >> there are some innovative structures that are currently permissible, and have been adopted by some plans. the commission came up with two disstink recommendations for modificationsment but they were very clear in saying these are not considered to be all-inclusive but illustrative. the first is a variable defined

benefit plan which has a -- which is currently a db plan under current law and would follow the current rules, including minimum funding requirements, but it's structured in a way that provides minimum benefit, calculated at lower interest rate assumption, and then the investment performance above 1% or so above the assumed rate of return as a buffer, could then be shared with participants and a higher benefit. but because it is variable, in years when you have poor experience, that could also be more. so that's one form. the second category is something that we call a target benefit. but it's patterned loosely after some of the models that exist elsewhere in the world. part of the commission's experience and process, was to reach out to other systems in

other countries that have multiemployer plans, jointly managed between labor and management, but don't use withdrawal liability as a means prove preserving their plan. we talked with representative 0 the canadian, swiss, finish nitch and dutch, and with the exception of quebec can none of them use that mechanism for funding their plan. so the new model would require contributions at a higher rate than what our plans are used to. we would project those contributions to come in at 120% of the project actuarial costs, but it would be a plan that would limit the employers' liability to that contribution. just as a defined contribution plan would. this model is one that would be -- could be considered by groups, primarily groups that are to the point where, for a

variety of reasons, specific to an industry or specific employers, that the current defined benefit model is no longer acceptable, and this new model is a much better alternative than the current defined contribution system. there are couple of reasons for that. one, that the -- and this who is the code would have to be changed. presently the defined contributions system requires the individual accounts. the new model looks just like your current defined benefit plan. the benefits are pooled. a pool of annuities. benefits paid in an annuity form. there is no individual account. there are no events which would lead to leakage from the system. no loans no hardship distributions, just operationally just like the current db system. but the contributions are -- the limit of the employers' exposure and that puts additional

pressures on the trustees to manage the plan assets in a way that reduces the liability or the exposure of the participant to the kinds of market volatility we have seen in the past few years. it would require early intervention if the plan drops below the 120% funding you bet from halve your minimum contributions pegged to that level, and we would -- rather than get into the details of that, we simply say that this model allows greater flexibility to deal with the market variations. not dissimilar to things proposed in other public forums, including senator harken's proposal. that's the general direction we're headed. >> okay. let me switch and ask you, earl, i think one of the questions i was going to ask earl was how

important -- we're going to stipulate they're all important so we won't worry about that. josh made an excellent statement about that. but you just heard josh talk about how good or bad the situation is. you share his view? roughly 100 out of 1300? give your thoughts on the so-called remediation part of the problem as opposed to all the plans are healthy. >> what i thought we heard was so important from josh was the pbgc director affirming the importance of defined benefit plans and what this assured income stream in retirement means to those who are the by-riz. -- the beneficiaries. i was in congress during a peered of successive directors that viewed their job as simply looking after the fund like they were running a little insurance company.

and i think congress has failed to see pensions in the context o, what do americans need to live securely in retirement? without question, this shift of defined benefit plan, to defined contribution plan, the responsibility and risk all on the employer, the responsibility and risk all on the employee, has been dramatic, and they're going to be tens of millions of baby-boomers experiencing less of a quality of life, less economic security in retirement, as a result of this shift. and congress has just is watching it happen right under their nose. well, mccmp, the coalition of employers, organized labor, with a stake in multiply employers, taking that approach, saying we got lay it all on the employees, that's not the way to fashion the best policy.

this is another thing congress could take some lessons about. they had different views at the table and they try to come up with a consensus around two guiding principles. first, there will be a plan that at the end of the day provides support to workers in retirement. really important, critical. on the other hand, changes are needed. described by randy but the upshot is we're going to rebalance risk, because risk leaves it all on the employer in the fashion we have today is not working, will not work in the future, and something that utterly doesn't work for employers, utterly doesn't work for employees or beneficiariesment we have seen this in the rest of the defined benefit world, programs frozen, terminated. moved on. we would have been much better for congress to call a time-out. let's get together on what needs to be rebalanced so we can make

this work. that's what this commission did. so i think the innovation that will be allowed will be -- the goal is to have new entrants into the system, employers not providing something to their workers that give cash the in retirement. they want to provide the plans and have a risk level for the employer that is manageable so they can do it. on the other hand, you mentioned the portion of i'll call them terminally ill man. we can do a couple of things. denial. let things go on and they'll end up in the pc and benefit level wells collapse and we hope congress comes up with funding. i view that is a unacceptable risk for the workers. we know those guarantees are insufficient, and we know there's a political question to what extent congress will fund

up the pbgc guarantee. so, if there's something that can be dub, -- can be done, that allows for an earlier intervention for purposes of benefit preservation, we should look at that. a feature of the plan in response to the marketplace, and -- up to 10% or less. when you can get in earlier, and basically to put things on a stable path going forward. that's superior by any measure to the pbgc guerin. >> so just continuing with this, as former member of congress, when is congress going to adopt essentially the plan that randy is talking about. >> i'm surprisingly optimistic. when i was in congress it miss my goal be the most knowledgeable pension guy there

that was low bar. [laughter] >> there wasn't a lot of sustained interest in kind of mastering the details to get the public policy right. i seeing something different. senator harken is sharing the health committee in his last term in the congress, made this a priority on the house side. chairman john cline has spent an extraordinary amount. very done constructive time trying to get his hands around this. was in a ways and means group session, not par it pacing -- participating participate a member, but pat teaberry hours weeding into the employer plans. this is an all-time record. but it does reflect congress knows something needs to be done. they have a better sense, as

baby-boomers are expressing their anxiety to the districts about how these 401ks are falling short. they're looking for ways that you can come up with something that preserves this guaranteed cash flow in retirement feature. and i'm seeing an interest in congress, and we have just the product because this is a consensus product. it's not a union product. it's not an employer product. this not a i win you lose product. this is a win-win product for people working through a problem, and came up with something solutions. >> one of the reasons congress, at least in your view, has chance of doing something is because this plan doesn't entail anyway money? any taxpayer money? >> when i was there liked it an awful lot. we don't have a budget for federal. this is self-help. and done so in a way that is balanced self-help package.

i think that's -- they're central elements. >> kelly, let me turn to you. you're an actuary. and you heard this discussion, and i'm sure you're familiar with the kind of -- the legislative reforms you're talking about. is that enough? is that all we have to do is just have congress somehow change a bunch of rules and then everything is fixed? or is something more required to ensure solvency of the plan. >> i think beyond the legislative proposals proposalsi agree with everything in the proposal. good solutions. but i think it's important for plans to do what they can do themselves independent of the regulations. there are a number of plans that got through the 2008 crisis unscathed. can everybody hear me? what did we learn from 2008? i've seen a number of plans that were -- despite the fact they were 30% behind where they expected to be at the end of

2008, they still did not need to make any changes. they did not need to reduce benefits. they did not need to increase contribution. how did they do it? they managed to have a certain prudent management that allowed them to build cushions in the funding that basically saved for a rainy day, and planned for adverse experience. now, it was difficult, as randy talk about the fact that the runup in the market at the end of the '90s created a need for many plans to increase benefits because the deductibility results for employer plans were much lower than for single more plans. yet some plans managed to address that and have that prudent management. so i think it's important for labor management trustees who are overseeing the plans, where possible to develop policies that basically are staying ahead of the loss. at it important -- josh talked about the important of the safety net.

that's what this proposal does. provides an excellent safety net. but for the vast majority of plans, then 95% of the plans that will be okay, there's things they can do to control their own destiny, and i think it's important they do that. >> well, i want to ask you a question. actually two questions. you can take enemy either -- take them in either order. what do you think the impact of these reforms will be on retirees, actual people. and the second part, is this going to require any increase in contributions? -- excuse me -- in premiums paid to the pbgc as part of the fix? >> taking the second question first. the real question isn't -- the real question is whether congress will increase premiums and from where i sit there are two serious problems with the way premiums are set right now. i think it's $12 and -- you

compare that to single employer plans where it's, i think, $42, with a variable premium that can go up to an additional $400. so put participants -- $12 is a bargain, and it's a bargain that is creating problems for the pbgc, and a problem that is also related to the very low guarantee levels for multiemployer plans, which is much, much, much smaller than those for single employer plans. pbgc ran numbers and found that if the premium were increased to $120, by 2012 there would be no deficit in the multiemployer plan program. that's a big increase in percentage, but it's not a big premium if you're thinking about what it would be purchasing, which is preserving the safety net. and there are probably some innovative things that could be done through the tax code.

might also be able -- although i haven't thought about is in the great detail until about 15 seconds ago, you might actually be able to ask participants share in the premium costs, paying them directly so we won't have a crisis for some small businesses that can't afford dramatic increase in premiums. along with that, if premiums were increased, we might also be able to increase the guarantee somewhat, which i think would -- 11,000 something is not a whole lot of money to live on, which, even with social security. i want to also -- the first question i want to preface my remarks by saying i think the commission's recommendations are really important, very thoughtful report. the organizations that i talk to, that deal with retirees, are concerned it about aspects of

it, the tools that the deeply troubled plans would have would permit immediate reduction of retiree benefits, to no less than 110% of the guarantee level. under current law, if you're retired now, you get paid your benefits unless the plan actually runs out of money, and one of our concerns with the commission's proposal is that there's proposals -- talk about the problems with vulnerable populations, but the reductions in benefits are left to the trustees. in most plans, not all plans, the trustees -- the trustees all have a legal duty to act in behalf of all participants, but structurally, it's a way trustees are appointed, raises the question of whether the

primary goal is going to be to try and harm the retires little as possible, and the pbgc, under the proposal, does have the authority to review and pass judgment on what the trustees in particular plans recommend in terms of benefit cuts. but the pgc's role is limited. it's basically did the trustee abuse their discretion? is through compelling evidence they based their discretion? and the one thing we would like to say that some people that i generally work with, would like to say in these recommendations, is some clear voice for the retirees that is independent of the trustees. so, that's a concern. >> just as a followup. the unions in the coalition, agreed to this, so they must have felt they were comfortable enough with the retiree --

>> there are two things. one is that the unions -- some unions have retirees who participate in elections. many, many don't. the unions also legally bargain for employees, not retirees, and so there's some concern that the unions will -- it's not that we have bad people who want to hurt retirees, but i think that's a lot of union leadership is going to be more concerned with -- and rightly sew, that's their job -- with their current members, their active employees, and also the health over the employees that employ them. and -- so this is -- >> you want to weigh in on this? >> there's one overriding goal of this plan, and that's benefits preservation. not reduction. benefits preservation.

if our plan, we have to rework some things in order to preserve benefits well above the pbgc guarantee, and substantial improvement over the pbgc guarantees is the bottom line on when one of these would even be undertaken. i think that as the process goes forward, this is the commission report that is now being drafted into bill language. so, got all kinds of time to make certain that we're attending to the vulnerable population issue, but let's not have that part of the discussion overwhelm all the other discussions. first of all. 90% relates to -- we're talking about substantial improvement over pbgc guarantees subject to protection for vulnerable population. so in the context of the overall product, this is a kind of thing that can stop this dead in its tracks in congress. something bad might happen.

i don't know what to do. i'll do nothing. well, doing nothing is this worst course to do when you have plans heading irretrievably into the pbgc, and the pbgc is inadequately funded. that's the worse thing you can do to these vulnerable populations and everybody else. so we have a balanced proposal that advances substantially the gel of preserving retirement security and retirement so that 10.4 million that are relating to this plan, an awful substantial part of the population that we need to be concerned with, and i think in addition to that, this con sinuses -- consensus approach shows you can balance risk and deal with conflicting concerns and come up with a path forward that represents common sense middle ground. stopping dead in its tracks. that would be really unfortunate

when we have this level of input in a measured middle ground response. >> let's talk about this. obviously stirring up a hornet's nest on the issue. as you're responding to this, i wasn't to put one more issue on the table. do you think raising premiums has to be part of the deal? >> i think it probably does. to some extent that's necessary. but to follow on with what both norm and earl were talk about -- a quick war story. this is a plan we were brought in to help 12 years ago. the plan was headed for inkole veins si, construction industry plan. that plan would have been able to merge with a larger healthy plan, according to the healthy plan, if the weak plan was able to cut their benefits to everyone by 25%. so everyone would get 75%. they'd merge into the healthy

plan and that would be fine. we melt with the pbgc back in 2001, and they'd said there's nothing to be done elmed so the pbg how much it would cost them. nothing could be done. the plan went insolvent. and the pbgc is paying the benefits. i is this had been in place back then there would have been some benefit reduction but not less than halve the reduction of what actually happened. >> randy wants to say something and then back to you. >> i just wanted to clarify a few things. i think norman's reading of the commission is perhaps a little misleading. early mentioned, we're trying to -- carefully evaluate the current status of the pbgc

safety net, and their own numbers indicated they were operating in a pretty significant deficit. 1.8 billion and assets, 7 billion in liabilities. those numbers can be extrapolated and even made larger by some of the other machines that aren't contained in their projection bus it's out the window for budgetary purposes. the bottom line is that the pbgc is headed for problems they have those assets. when they assets are gone, the gao has recently give an estimate that the current benefits guarantee can be less than 10% of what the statutory guarantee would provide. they provided an example of a person with 35 years of service, who is currently receiving thousand, the plan were to become involume sent, that person would have his benefit reduced to $1,251. but if -- once the pbgc becomes

insolvent because their only income flow would be from current premiums, the monthly amount would drop the less than 125 tuesday a month -- $125 a month. granted the guarantees in the systems are different. that was intentionally in the single employer system, the pbgc is the insurer of first resort. if a company fails there's no one else to pick up the liabilities. but in industries like construction, where there are employers who are created for the purpose of building a building. you have a joint venture. that employer makes contributions and then it's gone. it's understood that there are employers who come and go in the system. as employers go, the remaining employers pick up the liabilities. so, the pbgc is the insurer of last resort. to give you an indication of the difference between the two systems, in 1980, when the

multiemployer guarantee system was set up there were hundred multiemployer plans covering eight million people. now there's 1450 on their books that cover 10.4 million people. you would think that, wow, 700 of the planned failed. actually, only 63 plans have if received government assistance from that system, because there's been an enormous amount of merger activity during those years, where plans that weren't as strong were available to be brought into plans that were stronger. that's another feature of our proposal. we believe there are some additional pools that could be given to help that process as well. but the fundamental problem, and the thing i want -- i wanted to correct something that norm said. the benefit reductions that are being contemplated here -- and earl said it contradictory. at it benefit preservation. if a plan is headed for

insolvency, the ones that go to the pbgc and those fantastic numbers i just cite would be the result. why not, instead of requiring the plans to spend all their assets down on the current participants, and then having nothing going forward, why not allow the trustees, who know that is happening, where all reasonable measures have been taken to ensure that the plan can survive but still projected to be insolvent, why not allow them to have access to the tools they're mandated to impose when they get to inkole veins si if that plan can, a., russ ben -- reduce ben fits to preserve solvency, 5%, that's all they can take. b., would preserve the benefits above what the pbgc would prompted 110% number is in the because it would allow a broader net of plans to potentially take advantage of this process. and, c, it would allow that plan to be preserved for future

generations, keeping the people in this audience, the employers, from having to be hit with withdrawal liability in the event of a mass withdrawal. the last thing is for every one of the plans to be preserved and remain solvent, it's less risk to the taxpayer and the pbgc. so this is win-win-win-win, and each of the con state opportunity stakeholder groups would benefit from the enactment of the proposal laid out here. >> you get a chance to respond. >> it's not win-win-win if you're the retiree in a plan that has 20-year horizon until insolvency and your benefits are cut from 3,000 to 1,000. that's win-win-lose. i'm not opposed to cutting benefits. we have a desperate situation. we had a phone call just yesterday from somebody in a

teamster plan, and he read about the commission, and he said, i was told that i was safe, that i would be paid the -- the plan wouldn't run out of money before i die and i would continue getting my benefits. now, the problem isn't that we might have to cut retiree benefits. i think everybody has to share in the pain. but there are many plans that are going to continue -- that are covered by the report that are going to continue for 15 or 20 years under current law if current law is left alone, and retirees will be okay in that situation. one of the constant themes in pension law and pension management, the last 100 years, has been, when there's a problem, the first person you protect is the retirees, and that is clear in the allocation scheme in pbgc, clear if you look at plans going back to the late 19th century, or early 20th century, which made

provisions for retirees to be paid their benefits before anybody else. and our concern -- the commission was made up of unions, employer groups, it spoke to experts, but it wasn't part of the commission, pension rights benefit wasn't part 0 the commission, and our concern is protecting retirees in the process. we're providing better protection for retirees in the process. the commission has lot office as spareses about protecting vulnerable population but was aread the recommendations, what the trustees will be asked to does make determinations there are multiple factors the trustees can consider. i teach law students. i don't think any of my law student was have a problem drifting a report that had almost any conceivable affect on retirees as being the only way

out, and then pbgc is not permitted to change those recommendations unless it finds clear and compelling evidence they abused their discretion. what i think would make the commission report -- the commission's recommendations for more palatable to retiree groups if they felt they had an independence voice in the process to at least get people focused on their particular issues. and there is a difference. plans can run out of money in five years, retirees should be grateful to the commission's reporting from their individual perspective -- economic perspective, because they do better. but when these plans are not projected to be insolvent for 15 or 20 years, the person who is paying the moats, if you -- paying the most, are the retirees, and that is our view. >> well, you can take that and

then i'll open it up for questions. >> a different perspective. retiree res were represented on the commission by those that represent both active and retired workeres, and we want to -- we don't want to have something where those retirement -- 100% protected, but the 35-year-old trying to make his payments, paying an extraordinary at of contribution that he knows will have benefit collapse down to the pbgc level. you can put it on the calendar when this well happen. we don't do anything for that guy and we hold the other guy 1 been percent. that makes no sense. in the commission they found ways to allocate risk in acceptable ways. we are completely committed to making sure the ultimate language drafted gives 100% assurance for vulnerable

populations. congress is going to require that and we want to think about moving forward a plan that did anything else. >> i have another question. i'm excited about this issue. but i'm not going to monopolize the discussion until you don't ask any questions. we have mics available. the only thing i ask of you is when you stand -- stand up, say who you are, and sort of who you represent, or if you're not representing anybody, you're on your own. we have a question back there. >> i'm john turner, the policy center. i have not read the proposal, but it sounds like that the -- it's like an alternative proposal would be that the -- the problem exists that part of the adjustment would be that employee tax detickettible

contributions would be allowed, and -- deductible contributions would be aloud. so the employer contributions are capped and they have no further liability, but if an adjustment immediates to be made, that employee tax deductible contributions could be part of the adjustment. i think that's not part of the proposal. can you explain what you think about adding that? >> that really isn't part of our proposal. you have to think about the process here. what the bargaining parties do is they negotiate a wage package. the package includes all forms of compensation, including contributions to the benefit plans, pension and health benefit plans. so if you think about it from that standpoint, while these moyer contribution cozy and these moyers are on he hook if you don't meet your men funding requirements, this is part of the package employers would receive in their pocket if it

were not been contributed to one of the benefitlines. so, in seeps, what we have here is an employee funded program, so what we're talking about -- here's pretax contributions from the employee. but they employee looks at i as, this is all my mow going in there the employers have a different view. i'm not disagreeing with that. when you talk about aemploying employees to make additional contribution on a pretax basis that isn't part of what was being considered here. >> question over here. >> hi name is mike tripp, i'm mca from colorado -- >> little louder. >> i'm with the mta group from colorado. the thing i've looked at with multiprior plans is -- i'm in the plumbing and heating industry, and i look at it from

the standpoint that this is a spiraling deal, because of the unfund it liability situation, we cannot get any new contractors to sign agrandmas. i think that's the -- agreements. that's everybody has forgotten, anybody who has a liability of four or five, ten million dollars, who would ever sign an agreement? i think that's part of this situation that i got to commend you guys for doing what you're doing. we're not going to get anybody to sign agreements with those kind of liabilities, and it's just a spiral that goes down. >> anybody else? >> you got to fund. more participants in the fund, the healthier the pension. you got nobody joining, you got an unhealthy situation. so we have to rielle locate risks to get people to sign up.

risk allayed for the employer but lower risk for the employee because you have a healthier fund. >> okay. questions? >> richard from california. i represent mechanical contractors. i'd like to go back to the last comment norm made about the pension fund being projected to last 15 to 20 years rather than making an adjust on today reside retirees, and rely on the credentials of the panel to explain and clarify to me how that difference is from congress' approach to social security, because we all know social security isn't going to go broke until 2035, so they don't do anything until at it too late. if we were to make a -- i'll use the actuary's example -- if we were to make 5% adjustment today, we don't run out of money for 60 years, but because we know we're not going to run out for 20 years, we don't take any action. doesn't it make more sense to make 5% adjustment today than a

40% adjustment in 15 years or 60% adjustment in 20 years? >> i want to make clear, and maybe i haven't -- i've been more subtle than i should. we're not asking -- i'm not saying that retirees should be held harmless. thick retiree benefits have too be cut the these really deeply troubled plans. no question about that. and in some cases, in order for theline to be saved, -- for the plan to be saved retieree benefits have to be cut substantially. what we are concerned about is that the process by which those decisions are made, where we are talking about public low kidding somebody's benefits by 50 or 60%, or 70%, that's a process considering the pain to those people who are out of the labor market, who don't have other options now, versus other types of pain, and the pain being minimized to the extent

possible. we're not saying there shouldn't be pain. when if say we, i'm talking about the organization that i give advice to, pension rights center. but we've heard from retirees who very concerned about this, we think pain should be shared. you make the hard decision thoughts, you can make the plans healthy again, and in some cases we think the pain is going to be just -- all the way down to 110% of pbgc guarantees. but we do think that the current report makes it too easy to not consider whether there are other alternatives available that might allow somewhat smaller cuts in benefits. >> i think -- social security subcommittee, this -- the way that this proposal might die in congress is showing that there's something very important to be said for coming together and

trying to mediate the differences of approaches and that has not been the case with congress. you're absolutely right. the earlier attention to a long-term solvency issue, driven by the actuarial signs, this earlier the intervention, the more measured the change to fix it. but you have -- if look at the recent -- the president bush proposal wasn't a consent proposal. that was a partisan one view proposal rejected with the side. the politicked of social security have been so extraordinarily white hot that the parties have not been able to leave the politics at the door, sit at the table, and work to a solution. what happened with the excision? employers, organized labor, sit at a table for 18 months and come up with a proposal which

balances risk in very measured ways, and that's why i think this proposal could be a guide to congress in terms of, you got to work together to get these things solved. >> i think also it's important to keep in mind a lot of that's severely troubled plans -- it's not true in every case but there's a strong correlation that plans with relatively rich benefits, high benefits, plans that spend everything they had on maximizing the benefits, are the ones that are heading for the most trouble. not true in every case but to many to large extent. so, really what we're looking at in these cases is bringing the benefit level back to the appropriate level where they should have been, frankly, to again have a prudent policy to be able to stabilize and sustain the plan. so, it's important, and i agree with what earl said. it's so important, as actuaries we're looking ahead as much as possible. we can't predict the future but

we can understand the sensitivity, if we get this return instead of that return, what might happen done to road, and the sooner you take action to correct these plans, the less painful the solution is and the easier to fix the plans. >> time for one more question. am i right? or do we still have time for more than that? we have more time? good. -- okay, one more. all right. i do what i'm told. we have a question over here. >> i think what we'll have to do, the people that can't get their questions answered will have to talk to the panelists afterwords. go ahead. >> i'm jim esther brooke with the -- welcome with the mca a great deal. randy, -- as we look at the construction industry plan, most of them mature, and one of the issues that arises is the

investment return. that seems in many respect to be the biggest driver on the performance of the plans currently. can you go into a little more detail how the commission plans this hybrid plans will alleviate the problem width trying to hit the actuarial assumed rate of return, which may go to address the ability to continue to pay benefits to retirees. >> a great question and unfortunately not a lot of time to answer. >> let me give you the quick answer, and the turn it over to randy. i think on these hybrid plans going forward, the idea is you're not going to take as much risk with the investments to fun the benefit accruals in the future. that's going to create some stability, so we avoid the volatility of contributions we have seen in the past. it doesn't necessarily take care or the fact we have these legacy

liables, unfunded liabilities existed to date that we still need to fund and probably still need to try to get the 7 or 8%, which i actually believe is achievable in the long material. i think too often people take short term viewed of investment horizons and we're still looking at 30-plus year horizons. i think over time, the idea is to take in of the risk out of these plans, by going to one of these alternatives, beginning to have a less risky investment policy, that gradually over time will stabilize the system. >> randy, you get the last word. >> i just like to echo terry's comment about the long-term sustainability would be using current assumed rates of return. this is a focus of the commission, should you reduce the current rates of return to a risk-free rate, which i don't think exists given what the fed is doing.

every group we asked -- we went outside the normal cast of characters to bring in other pension policy people, economists, we talked to people other -- in other systems and the of the biggest investment houses in the country, and everyone said at least 7%. 7 to 9% with one exception who said up to 7, but as long-term number, 7 to 9% is sustainable, and again, if you have to look at this over a generation. we're not looking at it in terms of what you have seen over the last ten years, but over the long period of time, those numbers appear to be sustainable from experts who are far more expert on this area than i am. thank you. >> quick followup on that. it's interesting that even with 2008, if you look at plan performance of the last 20 years, even with that negative 22%, the typical plan has averaged more than 8%, and if you look at going back -- looked at the studies going back 90 years and rolling 20 and 30-year

periods and for a balanced fund in almost every 30-year period, the plan exceeded 8%. so, i think people, again, need to think long-term. we tend to have short-term views of a long-term problem and that's important. >> for the media who are here, you can ask questions of the panelists after the sessiones over, and panelists will converge over in that corner so you'll be able to ask questions. the second thing want to say, as an american citizen, not as a bloomberg employee what strikes me about your plan and your effort is, why can't congress do this? and then, secondly -- i mean, in other words, get behind closed doors, meet for 18 months and actually hammer out solutions to problems, and more to the point, why can't states and localities who are fighting viciously

over -- this is a model for par tis nation our country, and i want to thank the panelists. >> coming up next, books about presidents before they became president. we discuss abraham lincoln as a member of congress in the book "comeman lincoln."

>> reagan, i think, massively made mistakes on defense. the defense budget was not just a waste of money in those eight years. it's what created the war machine that was used to create so much havoc in the world and create so much anger and problems throughout the world that were totally unnecessary, that made us an imperial huberous power. that was a negative. but he did stand up for limiting the state. the government. big government, the state, is not the solution to every problem. in fact it can weigh dune -- weigh down the private question, and the idea of entrepreneur,

the idea of technological change, that the idea that people should make their own decisions without a big nanny in washington, he stood for those things, and that puts the plus in his column and the negatives -- of course fiscally he losted. he needed to stand up for closing more of the deficit. ronald reagan spent a lifetime before 1980 as greatest discourage of -- opponent of deficit spending there ever was, and he left a legacy of massive deficits which permitted his followers to say, reagan proved deficits don't matter. that was a historical error of enormous proportion. >> more with david stockman, sunday at 8:00. >> in his book, kingman lincoln,

chris deross talks about president lincoln's terms in the house of representative. he talked about the book in tempe, arizona, this is an hour. [applause] >> good evening, everyone. thank you so much for being here tonight. you're looking for real food, that later in the moving this is the reading for cockman lincoln, the making of america's greatest president. thanks so much to c-span for hosting authors like me and legislate us talk about our -- talk about what we do, and thank you for changing hands. this is the second event we have done here in just over a year, having local book stores lick this, such a treasure. i love spending time here, and no one is allowed to leave until every copy of the book is sold. so, thank you all for being here tonight. so, once again, the book "congressman lincoln: the

making of america's greatest president. " at the end of the day was abraham lincoln, who made the decision to pursue thesight, d the south to engage enemy in a civil war in order to preserve the union? lincoln resolved the slavery issue that took the states men back to the first minute of the founding. and this story, why congressman lincoln? there are 16,000 books written about abraham lincoln. so if you good to ford theater in washington, dc, which is the final scene of this extraordinary story, you will see half that number piled high to the ceiling. and when i say books about lincoln i don't mean books about mary todd or the several war general. i mean about him. but, yet, books about his time in congress, one of three political jobs he ever held. the only other job he ever had in the federal government, besides president, when you talk about books about lincoln in congress, there have only been

three written ask this is the third and the last one was written before i was born. so this is the missing piece of the palestine until the lincoln -- the missing piece of the puzzle in the lincoln story. we know about his hard-scrabble upbringing, he north american the legislature, his career in the courthouses of illinois, riding the eighth circuit, handling a variety of cases casd controversies as a frontier lawyer, and we're very familiar with the lincoln story as president. right? the author of the emancipation proke cam make, wrote the gettysburg address. and led the nation during america's most tragic war. so, this is the missing piece of the lincoln puzzle. the first thing i want to talk about is the amibition of abraham lincoln.

we like to associate -- somebody who wants to go into politics, we think that ills as a negative thing today, and so as a result, we tend to try to focus on lincoln as being somebody who was above politics, above the cut and thrust, above the muck and the dirty campaigning, the negative campaigns. all these thing wes associate and dislike about our modern political system. the truth is we can't make those criticisms without leveling them at abraham lincoln. the first chapter is called "the most ambitious man in the world" a quote been abraham lincoln from this law partner. abraham lincoln from the earliest time in his life, his family members would attest, he was also hungry to be somebody. once he got in trouble from his older sister, and she said behaving like that, what do you expect to be when you grow up? he told her, president of the united states. as president, lincoln said there was never a time in my life

where i didn't believe i would some day bay president of the united states. so this is one who was very determined to work hard to make michigan of him and to have his life be one we would be talking about so many years later. so lincoln's amibition. where does that take him? he serves in the illinois house of representatives. 1843, he makes his first bid for congress. he writes a friend of his and say, if you hear anyone say that mr. lincoln does not wish to go to congress, i wish you as a good friend of mind to tell him the i he is very much mistaken. the truth is i would like to go very much. has two major obstacles. one is edward baker, a friends of his. one of his son0s is named after baker. the other one is a gentleman by the name of john harden. both men have similar qualifications to lincoln. all about the same age, all three lawyers, and they're all three member s or former member old the illinois legislature.

so, lincoln's first -- his first hurdle is the county convention. his home county and edward bakers home county are going to nominate delegates to a district-wide congressional meeting. if you been an at by-who is in illinois is this your only chance to move up. you wouldn't get chose for the u.s. senate. if we were an up wardly mobile whig in 1843 in illinois, this was your shot. and so, lincoln helped outmaneuver baker at the convection unfortunately it didn't go as he planned. he throws in the towel around noon. at least one of the newspapers reported if lincoln hung in there until nightfall, his reporters would show up later in the day, maybe outnumber baker supporters.

lincoln ends up as pledge delegate to district-wide convention, pledged to edward baker, his opponent. he said it was similar to the guy caught out of a relationship, get his girlfriend stolen from him and then is asked to stand up in the wedding...

who gets a turn after that? abraham lincoln. they have to bide time until 1846. turnabout is third play. he's not going to take shots. they agree on the issues. everyone who works in politics knows when you're in a political primary, the toughest fight, the most aggressive site are people of their own party because there's no way to differentiate yourself. lincoln stays away from other negative can gain. it works. he decides not to run again. lincoln in 1846 is the unanimous choice of the whig convention and he has to go up against a democrat, a guy by the name of

peter cartwright is a methodist preacher, but not any preacher you seen before. he's a guy whose heart is tempered by those in the rep. a story about him getting put up in a new york hotel. so we used a hatchet to blaze a trail in the walls to get back to his room. so this is a link in us to up against spirit think it is actually very successful. he has the biggest majority the district. weaker than hardin's maturity and baker's maturity. now instead a year and a half so he can to news to go to court, try these cases can handle cases and tend to the affairs of his family. the last case that he handles before he heads to washington is the master and slave cave you think about this. it's incredibly important when we see lincoln after he leaves

congress. so i slaveowner from the techie was chasing a slave in the illinois chorus, tried to bring him back to kentucky. the kid and his entire is exposed to slavery. is born in kentucky and said that releasers of the sites in kentucky. he grows up to 7500 people. though unconfirmed at the cumberland road, basically america's first highway. lincoln did see people shackled on their way to wherever they were going. he could see slavery of close. something like it was very familiar with. lincoln goes down to new orleans as a riverboat captain and sees the slave market in north america in new orleans and brutality toward slavery. he also recognizes there are laws in place and believes the settlement had a case here so he

represented mr. madsen. he would never see something like this after he leaves congress, so i'll talk about what happened soon. so december 1847, abraham lincoln as a member of the congress. one of the most interesting things as he was there with them. the most famous number is actually john quincy adams the former president. the only former president to serve the people's house. this is so fascinating because it's the link between lincoln and the founding fathers. the short time they have to spend with one another. this is the link to an lincoln and the founding fathers. you can imagine the conversations they might've had. like i was so fascinated by washington with the founding generation in the revolutionary war that got behind the declaration of independence and started the new government. we can imagine what questions

lincoln might have had for john quincy adams. john quincy adams shortly into his tenure as a member of congress status on the house floor probably right front of abraham lincoln. i start as a prologue talking about that because it's a good analogy. linkage generation, the one that's going to fight the civil war is the first generation that is another benefit of the count full. so while these people and experience running the government, compromising on serious issues and keeping the team together are left to settle questions on around here lincolns have now that john quincy adams, but alexander stephens. stevens logo on the to service the vice president of the confederacy. how many people as seeing a link classics it's an excellent essay

appeared in lincoln is in negotiations at the end and talks to the commissioners should the confederacy, one is alexander stephens who are as close as two people could be in the day before political parties are regional in america appeared they both hurt in the presidential campaign together. lincoln served as jefferson davis. jefferson davis in the u.s. senate. lincoln's vice president from hannibal hamlin a senator in lincoln's second vice president who replaced him come andrew johnson was a member of the house of abraham lincoln. so many people who later become critical of the civil war and important to lincoln's rise to the president sees were out there in the 30th congress. before any of them can imagine what roles they play later in

history. so what are the major issues for making good to congress? there's nothing bigger than the mexican-american war. they're trying to figure out what is the endgame in mexico? something we can ever imagine and it prolonged war without ideas of how we're going to wrap it up. without a something like it and his colleagues in the 30th congress had to confirm. for lincoln's part, he was content to let the matter that i until the war was resolved. president james k. polk was determined to treat and even silence his acquiescence, support for the war. lincoln couldn't be solid anymore. lincoln addresses a number of congress do something that will be known as the resolution speech. it almost cost him his political career. after his speech was finished, people thought that was it for abraham lincoln.

that got these people who served one term at peace and people already talk about abraham lincoln running for reelection as soon as we get there. the right solution speech no one is talking about abraham lincoln in congress anymore. it's pretty clear he won't run again. every part of this resolution wants to talk about the spot where blood was for shad and the mexican-american war. so you can picture this country lawyer. now it's got a courtroom that the marble house of representatives, which is a statuary hall for those of you who've ever been to the capital. this is the meeting place for the house of lincoln as a member of congress and of course you can see where his desk was on the house floor. lincoln gave his speech from that spot, talking about where

was that the mexican war began was this american territory, mexican territory? illinois has been one of the most gung ho states. there is a preacher at a political meeting who prays for an end of the war and nearly cut plan should have to stop showing up in front of this group. there were some that they almost took out a preacher over what they perceived to be negative comment on the war. imagine how it's received in lincoln makes a speech. a lot of things come out of the mexican-american war. has set america on a collision course. one thing that came out of the water was zachary taylor. zachary taylor is very unlikely hero in america. somebody who's never voted. a rare career military man and now the american military standing amy was never very big. but even this battle after

battle at the top of the list is the battle buena vista. after his great success, president polk decides to take most of his regular troops, sent them an winfield scott to veracruz to make an amphibious landing in american history up to that point. he makes a decision that they're going to destroy taylor's office. welcome to zachary taylor ends up winning the battle maybe four to one. in the process, john hardin, former congressman, the one who tousled with lincoln in 1846 congressional race company he died. one of the famous writing about history and so fascinated by these seemingly small things that make great as happened on the world stage. in this case of john hardin had led, come back to mexico or back

to illinois to figure out the mexican-american war, there's little chance lincoln would've emerged has had the new republican party when it was founded. also very little chance he would've been the nominee for senate twice in the illinois republican party. so we'll never know because harden died in the final minutes at the battle of buena vista. the zachary taylor is talked about as a presidential candidate. lincoln, along with alexander stephens from the future vice president of the confederacy are among the first seven reporters of zachary taylor in the house of representatives. why the reluctance to embrace the war hero? after a 30 feet? simple. we don't know anything about where he stands. trans event party against expansion of slavery.

whig party opposed to the mexican-american war. zachary taylor is a general who led that war. you can imagine there's some of that is to embrace this guy. lincoln, the sky who was placed on a pedestal of everyday politics have you tried running on principle long enough. let us try winning. [laughter] so they call themselves the young indians. lincoln and the young indians find a rally of support for zachary taylor. of course there's another alternative. there is henry clay making a final date for the presidency. former secretary of date, founder of the weight party. the guy who embodied ideals. abraham lincoln said henry clay was a statesman if this is the man i thought my entire adult life. he does clay come out when in

the lincoln doesn't have any special knowledge, he knows taylor can win or lose the choice is not between a perfect wake. and a whig hematocrit sat and if nothing else will show the government and help build up the whig party. given the first presidential race in lynn henry harrison dies after 30 days. they hadn't given a lot of thought of who the vice president in the. the vice president is basically a democrat who gets kicked out of the whig party and are not able to win presidentially. they're only able to the presidency for about 30 days. this is the debate here in politics. this person is closer to our police. this person can win. this is something political

party struggle with hundreds of second party system in the 1840s. what are the other major issues think it has to deal with? surely before the mexican-american war, polk runs for the presidency and went on a six nationalist platform, americans are destined to go and grow in one of the things he declares he's going to do its work and at this point is administered jointly with the united kingdom. poke backs out of the treaty. remember 54, 40, the famous slogan clerks that was the line of latitude they would stick to. i was almost to alaska. so there's a springer territory of oregon. anytime the united states acquires territory, we have a

problem. the fragile peace that keeps the union together is the missouri compromise. during the presidency of james monroe, mr. reapply to come in as a slave state and this would have sentiment also translate states in three states. so they come up with a plan out of the hole louisiana territory. were going to draw a line. slavery permitted below the line, but not above this line. the story can come in as a slave state. and can come in as a free state in the fragile peace keep the union together. now america has new territory started with oregon. like it has colic stick to their guns and fight back and forth over how it's going to be constituted. one of the principles is the wilmot proviso. sounds kind of a stir as the potus political issue in the united states. any new territory acquired by the united states will not have slavery. so lincoln and his colleagues

are able to bring proviso language in the organization of the oregon territory. that is the climactic issue and like its first term as a member of congress. he's really getting a seat under him, given a major address on the mexican-american war. you see lincoln standing up for the taxpayers but an attempt by special interest to force congress to give him a contract the postmaster general is a link to them, something i thought was pretty fascinating. while lincoln is a member of congress coming to the senate place nicknamed abolition house. based on the people who live there, joshua jennings, chief among them is not a name you hear about in school or americans are familiar with. it's unfortunate because joshua giddens is the premier in the united states in the end up in the same boarding house and has a profound affect on lincoln's

thinking. there's nothing you can do in congress to fix it. joshua giddings will begin an evolution in abraham lincoln's police on slavery. so what if they can do with the recess first congress? abraham lincoln decides he's going to go all in for zachary taylor. so that goes on a campaign swing through the state of massachusetts on behalf of zachary taylor. he was there to speak to the most elite groups. remember, illinois associated up in a western state or friend to save is very much that way when abraham lincoln was fair. the first time in american history, the most refined, intelligent groups in the country. they will speak on behalf of zachary taylor.

louis katz isn't going to win massachusetts unless a third party candidate by the name of martin van buren running on the new free soil ticket, which was created to oppose zachary taylor mostly by former antislavery whig will try to convince them it's a great thing, but martin van buren can't win. zachary taylor can win. so you need to make sure we vote for zachary taylor to keep lewis back out of the white house. a centrist in his goes to the convention that nominated zachary taylor. first trip to philadelphia go to independence hall is. abraham lincoln didn't want to say things we have tourists have done. the recess where he says to mount vernon as a tourist and he

goes and pays george washington and his son a tourist say, sue is the custodian of the crowd. just like many of us have. they made a lot of the future people find it an important. everyone can remember had. this is the first meeting and exchange the first letter congressman lincoln. so it's fascinating to read about that. after the convention, thank goodness during massachusetts at the family. every member of congress can tell you when they get elected to congress, they've got all this contrary advice. take your family with you. it would be good to have your family in washington d.c.

give your family at home. you don't want them dealing with anything associated with congress. depending which you have could be contrary advice. they did both. first, nearing the children go with them and believe they're getting it in the winter meetings as a is a member of congress. kerry also had expectations frustrated away at. she might've been the most ambitious woman in the world. mary todd lincoln same number of a child or couldn't participate in a particular process. if she'd been born in a different generation she would have. but when she asked who should look for. who married, included stephen

douglas every time they're up against each other. they go back to kentucky for the second half of the first session. afterwards they join him to congress distinctive massachusetts on behalf of zachary taylor. lincoln meets another man for the first time who of course goes to a place called fremont temple, a church in boston. the speaker in front of him, the gentleman at the name of william siewert, who of course goes onto the 1860 republican nomination for president and goes on to serve as secretary of state. he gives a speech about slavery. that went like two hotel rooms afterwards and he said i've been thinking about your speech and

i've got to say, we need to start doing more about the slavery issue. we might actually need to take some action. one more extra lincoln doesn't this break is the first and only president to patch into a when lincoln and his family had back from massachusetts, he stops in albany and paste it visit to the vice presidential nomination, who of course will be president when general taylor dies. they are taking this steamer to the great lakes to get back home to chicago. she sees is stranded boat overboard in trying to get all of these underneath the boat out for a fan art. wouldn't it be great if you could have fees that filled up

and boosted over these barriers? he spent a lot of the recess of his tools, trying to create to the patent office. just at this time this congress is wrapping up, he'll be the first and only. in the winter of 1849, zachary taylor has been elected president. you cannot understand lincoln is thinking about the movie of lincoln and wonder why lincoln is so dedicated to slavery and act the expense of a prolonged civil war, most are familiar with this time in the career and the 30th congress to to and comes up with a bill to abolish slavery in the district of columbia. first legislation introduced to

limit slavery and ensure congress can tell the southern states they can't have slavery, but they can govern the district of columbia. lincoln introduces a carefully crafted though. lincoln is not interested in symbolic victories. he is trying to get a bill passed delicate sign that the president. tickets rounded on by both sides. the antislavery people don't like it, proslavery don't like it. the lincoln had the opportunity as president of the united states to sign a similar bill in the district of columbia, just took more time. add formative experiences of slavery. so congress handles all the claims. 18 to 50 f.

so there's the claim san antonio put chacko annas multilink or sky raw and ends up as a slave and a length back to the u.s. government during the seminal war. at the end of the seminal war, he's allowed to leave and basically escape. so is looking for money from the federal government. abraham lincoln i'm convinced and the life or death recognizes rate to compensate the family. instead now, lincoln is thinking both against the family of antonio pacheco. what are some of the other things? the event to happen during the time of congress. here's the boarding house, they can serve meals every day. one of the waiters as it? slave who was working off his freedom.

he was a married man. we don't know his name. he was $60 away from getting that. he was kidnapped at gunpoint in front of his wife told to slavery new orleans. we don't know what happened to them. we demoed his fate at the hands of the army. we don't know if don't know if he died in slavery. we just don't know what happened to them. imagine he's serving you food possible times a day. a song about his life and how excited he is to be freed when they talk to his wife and she's in a panic trying to get you to help find him because he's kidnapped at gunpoint. how could you not start to appreciate you all for it is? not an academic connection necessarily, but some thing that needs to be stopped. the lincoln is a member of the first congress to do with the fiscal cliff. we live in a time of fiscal cliff, that feeling standouts, threatened government shut down.

lincoln on the 30th congress were actually the first. what happened? a major appropriations bill at the end of the second session of congress. the whig train to increase the pay is zachary taylor. nothing too controversial. a passage and the same goes to the senate. a gentleman by the name of pauper prince said of wisconsin attaches the writer to that though, prohibiting slavery. allowing president pope to organize the new territory we've acquired from mexico at the conclusion of the mexican-american war. to organize the way he sees fit. what does that mean? president polk believe we should extend the compromise line to the pacific ocean. so where we are right now would've been slave territory. all the fighting is over in

about rice and whether or not we allow slavery in these areas. so lincoln every single time is against a superb ration though so long as madman is attached. in order to prevent being up and up to slavery. the house goes back and forth with the senate and tries to change it by prohibiting slavery and leaving it in aqs. this important appropriations bill this half the government will shut down. when they compiled a special session of congress or the civil war, he couldn't give congress july 4th at the new congress will be sworn in for another year and a half. nobody's going to get there before the summer time. you literally would have diplomats leaving every u.s. embassy. lincoln is willing to accept

this rather than open new existing savories. anyone who accuses lincoln is being johnny-come-lately and using slavery for political reasons. lincoln could not have a set to shut down the u.s. government, especially in illinois. he would have done this unless it proceeded from convictions of his heart. so lincoln goes with the first fiscal cliff. 4:00 in the morning as the fight over whether the congress is so congress. some senators say no. it's march 4th. today is the last day of our term. were not senators anymore. fortunately a majority member of the congress didn't agree with that interpretation. the bill goes to president hope in science that is his last duty in office. so monday because it fell on a saturday, they were sworn in on monday. a great inaugural ball.

lincoln that was a fantastic party planner. he plans to party to raise money for the washington monument. the city have been to the washington monument no abraham lincoln raise money to get started, but is there for the laying of the cornerstone in july 4, 1848. so lincoln also is on the planning committee for zachary taylor's ball. those of you familiar with the mattress up in washington d.c. that this temporary structure is one of the biggest parties ever had washington up to that point and they cannot do very and, maybe three in the morning finds his cloak okay, but he can't find his path. they didn't have a well-organized hatchet. lincoln ends up walking home in the cold. one of his friends never forgot the story decades later. we'll never forget the man walking into judiciary square that point authors later all

these festivities were going to be for him. anybody probably wouldn't be the patsy was going to take in a slave. so the book concludes with lincoln attempting to get a job is zachary taylor's administration. were talking a lot about meteors hitting the earth. at this time, as the talk of a meteor, destroying the earth among the blank of friends is certain it's going to happen. he's trying very hard to get this job. the commission on the general land office and he fails. it's a good thing he fails, right-click sees in washington d.c. a bureaucrat. it's not going to the forefront of the party or the nominee for senate. probably never becomes president. at the time he was quite depressed and went back to his hotel room and laid in bed for

an hour, couldn't move. he thought it was the end of his career. as we all know, history something better in store for mr. lincoln on the boat, but he ends up leaving washington. one term congressman his future very much in doubt headed back towards the state of illinois almost as if nothing had happened. one more interesting thing he does, lincoln becomes the first future president to argue a supreme court case. hopefully some of you also think this is interesting. it's not exciting case. but the statute of limitations case cited in about 30 cases, most recently in the 1990s. they don't even realize who the famous lawyer was hard to get the very first time. so this is it. this is where lincoln learned an awful lot about politics and came an awful long way as a politician to someone am the issue of slavery. 12 years later it's only the six

areas watching president polk is a member of the house that has going for her money becomes president. or watching zachary taylor put together an administration. in both cases he considers them an example of what not to do. so glad to take questions from you guys. thank you so much for your attention tonight. [applause] >> in your book you talk about how abraham lincoln was a great storyteller. can you share with us one of your favorite stories to larger abraham lincoln in your research? >> outcome has a great storyteller. he was so funny and he could entertain about any crowd of people. he always had a story for every occasion. another places like m.i.t. hangout in congress during this long boring speeches and recesses was the post office. a room adjacent to the florida

house of representatives or people could kick back and gossett and talk about each other behind their back. lincoln starts going around christmas time in 1847. he eventually works at the courage to start telling stories themselves. one of the first stories he told that people always remember his lincoln was a cap and in the lma militia during the blackout war. your cheap lockout coming across the mississippi river. they are terrified was going to happen to them. they quickly put together this militia. they can consider it an honor greater than anything he had done his congressional campaign, greater than anything i've done before. so lincoln talks about guiding troops across the prairie. he's trying to figure out the command to set them through the narrow entrance of the fence.

he can't come up with it. it's got all these men a high game. this is a trust them to meet them into battle. so he gets to the fence and he says this company for two minutes laura sambol on the other side of the fence. [laughter] has a story somebody remembered decades later when abraham lincoln -- after he became famous, people started writing stories and trying to remember what they could about this man, many of some believed an extraordinary person destined for big things while before it was obvious to others. other questions from people? been that the dred scott decision. president lincoln's time and that's his opinion of it? >> the dred scott decision he was supposed to. a number of positions you can

take about what we do at the american territory and how slavery fits into that. one position would be you could take slavery in the territory. congress does have the power to ban slavery in the missouri compromise was unconstitutional. that's what the supreme court finds in dred scott. he believes the matter but were not expanded slavery. he has dozens and dozens of opportunity. he always does so. you have president polk's plan to extend the compromise line to the pacific air james buchanan who is polk secretary of state will address issues. he is at the same mind. james buchanan -- truscott comes down a couple days after he's sworn in and he thinks it's a good thing. he thinks it could enforce presidency.

seven states will secede from the union. james buchanan says the supreme court decided therefore nobody will be upset about this. no one will even question this. the opposite is true. so dred scott is one of those things that fuels the republican party in the north. they feel and paved the way for abraham lincoln to become president of the united states. it helps pave the way for the civil war and his presidency. more questions? >> to think and get a bill passed after he left congress? >> in a number of bills passed. the conventional wisdom is abraham lincoln is a mediocre congressmen. every history i've read, they can't pass up a chance to say he's mediocre. i completely disagree.

he was an excellent congressmen. this isn't the most exciting thing, but lincoln is one of the driving forces for training on the office though. five days a week briquette pretty much forever with a. but at that time, you know, the limited mail route dictated where you've lived, where you could do business and mccain created -- he was one of the people in the post office is, which was the major committee he was a member of. he's able to craft this bill runs into a number of procedural setbacks, but ultimately gets assigned by the president, opening up the rows for people to live and do business partially respond to vote for lincoln. his handwriting is all over it, so it's interesting to see members of the other states

talking about what would this take to get your vote? so we see in the movies and the congress. he also worked on bills that compensate people in the district to put the federal government does spend money. doing case for, the federal government. lincoln would go get your passport if you're one of his constituents. he does the secretary of state for your passport. smaller country, smaller government that then. members of congress are good home record in washington. he thinks very few people are both. lincoln is somebody who is good at home in good washington. lincoln is one of these people, which is roundly considered a speech today. at the time i believe is very influential come apart as a movement by the trans-seven

party to stop the mexican-american war. with lincoln voting in favor, they're able to adopt a resolution say the warm sun comes to schlitt begun by the president of the united states. lincolnesque colleagues help stop the war. it's a very well-known story. pork sends nicholas to mexico city to go negotiate. pulp decides they take too long and not the whole country and mexico basically. a lot of people in this all mexico movement. we know at least he wants all of the western united states, but he is looking at annexing all mexico. so they're trying to tap the brakes before you can keep this war going forever. so polk requires his replacement who never comes.

winfield scott comes back to veracruz, so we stuck there. after a while he decides he will negotiate the war after a and he does. the treaty gets sent back to president polk. he's in a rage. in fact, polk refuses to compensate the expenses that took taylor administration to compensate expenses. dave cowpoke corner. he publicly says these terms and gets everything he for initially before he changes his mind and tries to get the whole thing. so they are very committed very successful. so lincoln is all over the post of the gets the legislation passed to benefit people and he's a player on these issues of

war and peace that dominates the 30th congress. >> you have shared some pretty cool carrot or so at the last couple of years. how do you interact with these guys? what is your process for finding the next turn in your narrative? >> is great fun to research. i started this by saying, how do you add value to lincoln's story? even that was only the third time he has so many biographies. have you how do you excite the lincoln story? said people who are not independently famous in many cases no one has ever looked at the papers. one example. one of his housemates appellation house, his papers are in harrisburg, pennsylvania.

i called the curator they are a necessity and questions. anyone more familiar didn't seem to know anything about it. see if it's worth the trip to harrisburg. in the 30 years i've been here, noah's flood at these. looking at one of lincoln's housemates papers that no one is basically ever looked at since they were received by the museum. it took me about 13 states. someone asked me if i took out of office he stayed to look at all 30 members of the congress. last night the answer is no. i decided to leave up out the hawaii delegation and hope they didn't write anything too revelatory. so i'll sit in these libraries and have my mac book open a word file for nose at all read the letters and in many cases nobody microfilmed them because that's

the worst part of my job. save it to the senator said when i see something interesting, i shut it down and not worry cotter from them put this all into a word file. when it's finished, i print them all out for now across affiche buta uses somewhere in the manuscript. he stared at the foundation. i found out the lincoln correspondence from 1843 to 1846 and still use those as the foundation. i put them in chronological order and i think that's the easiest way to understand stories. everything else is the diary at joshua giddings, congressional growth, the newspaper that ran transcriptions of congress. the house journal august and to

chronology. when that's done come you turn it into a book instead of the series of historical data points. hopefully it been successful in doing that. it's been a fun process. at first i didn't know what i was doing with the first book. i didn't know what i was getting myself into. the second book i had a good process and looking forward to doing similar processes with their book. >> i'm under the understanding taken was one of of the poet buries are john quincy adams. the relationship that they have? >> that's out there in a big way. i've seen that in so many places. the truth is decided pallbearer. he's not a committee created to oversee the funeral arrangements , so that the member from every seat on the committee. lincoln gets back because he's a whig from illinois. the colin lodestar of illinois. they find out quickly is still a

politicians in the room. so they create a set committee and hammers out the finer details on lincoln is not on the subcommittee. a lot of speculation is filled up with the two of them at a party to the mayor of washington's house, where quincy adams was sitting in a chase by the door, greeting everyone who came in. i also know another story. the hampton roads conference at the end of the lincoln movie with negotiating the civil war. as the story of alexander stephen reminded because they had seen each other since congress together. remember the time the illinois delegation is having a fight over how to pronounce the name of illinois? but there's illinois, television, people disagree. the former secretary of state and some of the nice things of

congress you can mediate your petty dispute. before we had isos for these things. how you pronounce state of illinois? judging by you guys, illinois. serena lincoln would've been there for that most likely. lincoln was very good about finding mentors, finding people and a lot of people in politics. again's father was raised in farm work as well. someone who taught himself how to read. so he knew if he was ever going to be the man he wanted to be a life, he was a two-time mentors and people who would aid him. i can imagine a better person than john quincy adam's. visitors who describe seeing them there and being in awe because he was this farmer

president with such high stature for president washington, madison, monroe who had himself been president. there's no question that could would've thought them out. i try to make the best guess as i can. neither of them ever recorded it. [inaudible] >> yeah, absolutely. john quincy adams was a huge abolitionists. someone who fought the gag rule for many years in congress and could've inspired him him in that regard. very much so. >> he briefly mentioned lincoln's father just now. anything you can share about think his relationship with his dad as adults more so than his children? >> we don't know exactly what happened. i can tell you in the can is racing washington at the end of the book trying to get us a point made from zachary taylor. so he does go out of his way to

do that, maybe that jeopardizes a chance of getting major appointments and the president. later in the final hours and he ultimately did die, lincoln that i don't think anything good can come of me being there. use your imagination. i could with someone who is renowned for his integrity. someone renowned for having a forgiving nature and never held grudges. you can only imagine what i'd be a case that would've sat thinking against him to the point where he doesn't even show up the second time, the time he actually passes away. i think it's one of the reasons. he says i have two things against lincoln. i don't like the way he treated his father. he was too indulgent of the children. i'm convinced one of the reasons lincoln was so indulgent is because he wanted his children

to be happy no matter what. they are living in d.c., they drove the house crazy. i'm not going to quote them verbatim because c-span is a friendly channel, but if i can skip into the background bathroom in a hat you think it was hilarious. [laughter] >> it's very well known but if you did as president and buddy thought of presidential power. but today think of presidential power in the legislative ranch? >> such an interesting question because he gets accused of power, trampling on the constitution as president. what they lincoln is mindful of how mars from coke to talk about this extensively in the book because i wanted to note that police since he took away. he signed not only was pulled over. but he is congress as. one of the things lincoln prefer

to do would be solicitous of congress to keep them in the loop and make them feel as though they're part of the decision-making process when he made the decision for them. it works when he becomes president and issues a call in a certain amount of money to fund the civil war. congress increases the number of troops and the perp ration and one of the things again was mindful of. i'm convinced it's one of the reasons he decided to rent for president of poe could not make a public pronouncement about any generals without fighting. winfield scott can zachary taylor at one point he tries to replace both of them at the democratic general to run for president. lincoln tries to politicize it in a different way. because first reappointment thereof democrats, representing some important constituencies. either an import ethnic group in the country.

a lot of them are elected officials, people who had constituencies. when you use congress -- venue this congress, the war is over. lincoln knew he could restore the union, but not with a hand tied behind his back. for those reasons, lincoln is mindful of what he sees happening was a member of congress. he's very successful in avoiding polk's problem. >> he wrote in the book lincoln was very depressed and not happy about his marriage. does that relationship could better oresteia was unhappy with their? >> it was always a difficult relationship. one attempt he did break it off. it's not like picking up a summer day at today. if you got all the way where was broken off for whatever reason, a woman is physically damaged

goods. you damage your prospects for marriage and made her very unhappy. lincoln is one of the nicest come the sweetest people i meet someone so unhappy. when he decided he would marry her, he was again ready at his best friends house. he comes up and says where are you going? linking goes to i suppose. [laughter] so they no lincoln spent a lot of time, more than 82. he spent a lot of time courthouse to courthouse. if they could do it. not lincoln. he said in a a subtle seat up by himself and sit there on the weekends in a preferred guy. i know he loved her very much,

but the relationship gave them great problems. from the site of time. if you want to learn more, i encourage you to go to lincoln for congress.com. we've created a website. i basically use all of his own words. you think and the world wide web to communicate with voters, you think this is what it would look like.

>> my dad's friend, jeff puget is actually unemployed and go into the process of unemployment. i thought he would he a good subject to follow. so i kind of followed his life. >> at the time i had an introduction to law course and was learning there was a double standard for those under 18 and those over. so i was sorted into children's rights if he will. and i realize we don't have a say in the creation of the attack, but we have to pay it off. >> a first for me which i picked a topic, our infrastructure and the growing needs for public

transportation in this country. so though new orleans and austin weren't very -- how can i say it, excited about the topic. after i explain it to them, they kind of caught on. while researching, noll and decided we should add hayseed rails one of the segment because that is very important to the topic in our country as well. >> in his new book, "ike and dick", author jeffrey frank discusses the alliance between president eisenhower and his vice president, richard nixon. mr. frank spoke recently in los angeles. [applause] >> welcome to all of you and insomniacs throughout the united

states. it is my pleasure to introduce, jeff frank. jeff frank is an accomplished writer. those of you who buy the book today will be blasting reading the prose. just spent 13 years at the "washington post." i'm not sure that's where you learn how to write well, but were you there and how to get story. by the end he was one of the outlooks and then he went to "the new yorker," say senior editor there for nearly 13 years. that is a place to learn to write well and help others write well. besides writing nonfiction, jeff has written for works of fiction. this is someone who understands the importance of narrative any good story. he brought those talents, for some reason, to the relationship between eisenhower and nixon.

what can i ask of you, jeff, why did she choose that particular marriage? >> acus of us a great story. it began with two people who really didn't always show there. one was an american hero, a five-star general. the man who is given credit for leading the allies to victory, 62 euros and a 39 euros and kenny congressman. eisenhower ran with nixon, but didn't even choose him as vice president. he wasn't aware of this presidential candidate gets to choose the president. he was later what happened the night extend was chosen. i have my biases that are six or seven people on the list and nixon was on the list. they had a strange relation ship that went on and on. it became closer and what nixon

causes wilderness seer and around 1966, eisenhower's grandson, david, that was seven miles away they completely were crazy about each other. if you're later when they were 20, they were married. and they became one f and they became one family in november 1968, the thanksgiving together. julie nixon's firstborn was an eisenhower and i thought that was a great story. >> the topic of tonight's discussion is rethinking nixon. this experience of writing about the relationship of cause you to rethink it. >> i'm not sure that i really thought of it because even though i do have an epilogue,

which josaphat camps after. i only deal for two months of the nixon presidency. that sort of covers this story from their first meeting north of san francisco and ended with staff in 1969. >> one cent at the man did you get?