and particularly foreign coverage in terms of saving and investment to get used to be that developing countries would borrow for development and then they would borrow from us and they would invest about and we will export to them think they would grow. and into a lot of problems a lot of problems with that stretch and sometimes investment didn't pay off and/or debt crises and stuff. about 10 years ago after the crisis countries will it made a dramatic change in the strategy. what you see now these countries don't borrow for department on skill as they did before. the specs on scale as they did before. ..

for this year absolutely but that's micro volatility that's probably not going to persist. >> or change everything. >> not really. on the demographic one policy we might see in september is a debate and discussion about whether that aging population has led to and you want to get

that because there's less turnover, people learn their jobs longer and so the rate is that level of the labor market and it might be because of the demographics in part and therefore you might have more slack than you thought and we might see that in the economic projections in september because of import demographic issues. >> and a statistic that it used to be we have to think more about the labor force participation especially as it interacts in a deep recession that we've had. are some of the folks that left the labor market retiring early because they lost their job and didn't see prospects come if the

economy is more healthy do they come back and work for a while? those are important questions. so think about these and deal with them adequately. they are definitely all being discussed and you can see it even in the speeches of the members. they might get to see the difficult issues about interactions between long-term changes in our economy and ones that may be precipitated by the financial crisis that will go away. >> please join me in thanking the panel. [applause] if you can take them and put

them in the recycling we would appreciate it. thank you very much. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> some campaign 2016 news. donald trump is meeting with the national committee chair in new york city and the trump towers. the 2016 presidential candidates and a loyalty pledge yesterday and said that they agree to not run as a third-party candidate.

the adviser said on the washington journal that mr. trump got what he wants, fair treatment by the republican party and is likely to sign the pledge tomorrow. you will see the comments on c-span.org video library. also donald trump will be holding a news briefing this afternoon at 2 p.m. eastern. also from the hill house education committee chair john klein announced he will retire at the end of this congress. after much thought and deliberation i've decided not to seek reelection next year. this comes as the committee is trying to advance the rewrite of the no child left behind law. jake jake johnson talks up the safety of the passenger rail system and he will be joined by the administrator peter and the police chief polly hanson will be talking to the media in washington, d.c. union station and then i three eastern more

coverage with a discussion on military challenges for the u.s. and britain. the minister of state taking a penny more and we will explain questions at the atlantic council in washington and again that is at 3 p.m. eastern. and while congress continues in its august break this week we are continuing to show you booktv programs that we normally only show on the weekend. tonight it's books about u.s. history with the author brad schwartz wrote broadcast wisteria.

we are alive from the 15th annual national book festival from the nation's capital. near the end of september we are in new york for the brooklyn book festival celebrates tenth year. in early october, the southern festival of books in nashville. the weekend after that we are live from austin and the texas book festival and near the end of the month we will be covering to look festivals on the same weekend from the nation's heartland of the wisconsin book festival in madison. followed by the national book awards from new york city and at the end of november we are live from the 18th year in a row from florida for the miami book fair international trade affects a few of the fairs and festivals this fall on c-span2 book tv.

the archbishop of washington, d.c. now talks about pope francis statement that he should have the ability to insult women who have an abortion. the cardinal added this doesn't change the pro-life stance. his comments came during the science series in washington, d.c. and it is about an hour. >> this is the first visit in the group and in fact. this is in hosting the event the guests have been a religious leader. the last session was a breakfast 20 years ago with the dalai lama which our friends actually attended. so, welcome. the cardinal was born and received graduate degrees from the catholic university of america. and a doctorate in theology from the university of st. thomas. he was ordained in the priesthood in 1996 and ordained

as a bishop in 1986 by pope john ii. the guests served in a variety of key positions including the auxiliary bishop in seattle and then the bishop of pittsburgh for 18 years before being appointed archbishop of washington in 2006. he was elevated to cardinal in 2010 and in 2013 participated in the conclave that elected pope francis. that is the biographical portion of the program and now on the mechanical details. as always we are on the record. please no blogging or reading or filing of any kind while the breakfast is under way to give us time to actually listen to what the guest says. to help you curb that relentless urge we will e-mail several pictures to all of the reporters here as soon as the breakfast and as the attendees know if he would like to ask a question

please do the traditional thing and send me a nonthreatening signal and i will happily call on one and all. we are going to start a offering their guests the opportunity to make opening comments and then we will move to questions around the table. he tells me that it will be about ten minutes of remarks and then we will go to questions. with that, thank you for doing this and we are honored to have you here to read the floor is yours. >> thank you not only for the very gracious introduction but for the welcome invitation to be here. i'm truly complemented by the invitation. i would like to say just a few words about pope francis. some of the remarks i'm going to make them out of questions i get asked all the time with regularity from the people who are part of the house.

one of the questions that is a very significant one is what is it like, what is the pope like is he the way that he appears and i have to say that my experience with pope francis is the person you see where the person in the window on sunday. from ie experience it is the same person on the cross on the coffee table across from him. when he receives in the quarters in the living room, he's not sitting at his desk were across come he is sitting on his chair across the coffee table where he usually has some interesting

things that he wants to comment on. so i have found that this smiling forthright caring person that we see on television we see in the papers and we see in social media is the very person that you encounter when you meet with him. there's also the question about his popularity. one of the reasons i believe he is so immensely popular is because he offers in an appealing way the message of his office. to consider seriously any relationship with god and he does not he does it in such an inviting way. so many people have said to me

what they find so endearing is the way that he takes the greatest challenge for the great human challenge of having a living and working relationship with god. he takes that and makes it something that we can feel comfortable with. we feel invited. not all that long ago, i was waiting at the carousel for my bags to come up at the airport and a woman came across the area and said to me we were on the same flight. she said you mind if we chat while we are waiting for the bags to come out and she said you know, i think you might describe me as fallen away.

she said i want you to know that i started going back to church. pope francis made me feel like i was welcome all over again. this is the part that i remember why i told the story. she said when i listened to him, i realized that it's not all my fault. i am not the only one having problems and i thought - and i said to her you know what i'm saying is what st. paul says that there is a struggle going on each time between what we would like to be and what we often are and that we are doing and this contrast is something

that we have to continually look at. she said she found such an inviting personality who understood that we are not all perfect, but we have a place at the table. so i said to her the next time you introduce yourself, why don't you say. there's another element that speaks to the immense popularity he's able to touch people across all religious lines. he's not just focused on the members.

and i find this reflected in conversations with people all the time. a little while ago i went to visit the hospital. i went to visit one of my priests who was in the hospital. and as i was coming in through the revolving door, there was a woman coming out and she stopped and waited and when i went through the door she said. she said to me you know, i just love the pope. i think that he is doing such a great job. so we chatted for a few minutes but when i came back out after visiting the priest, the security man at the hospital

entrance said to me, i have taken my cell phone out to call the secretary and she said i'm glad we have a chance to talk while we are waiting for your car to come because you need to know coming and then he identified the search that he belongs to and he said this pope is doing a great job. i find it's not unusual to hear this type of response from people. i have a very jewish rabbi friend who reminded me one day that i need to be very careful that i'm taking good care of our pope. i think that he has this ability to reach across all kind of lines and touch people on something that is fundamental

come absolutely basic and that is our humanity and our desire to live together in harmony and peace respecting one another's faith convictions and respecting one another's identities. his impact i find particularly strong among young adults because that is a category, that is a demographic that is usually identified as having drifted away from or not particularly interested in faith issues and yet i'm finding the largest number of people who are once again in the life of the church and a demographic beyond the adults and i will give you just a couple of examples.

when i visit the campus ministry program in the campuses around washington metropolitan area, the number of young people at those meetings has increased dramatically and they have very good questions. this is seeking and searching. they don't come with baggage. they don't come with a lot of negativity. they come simply looking and they are saying to me you know, this pope is for real and you would probably highlight this as authenticity. they are seeing it in their

findings something extremely authentic and real. they would say he walks the walk. i think that we would say he simply reflects in a credible way in his life. with the college-age young man. i asked them about their impression of this police it's very much along those same lines. one of the young man said to me he sounds like a.

it's like the way that i would envision jesus. and somehow that is his ability. it's all kinds of stereotypes and all kinds of baggage and all types of lenses and actually reach people in a way that is seen as real and credible and authentic. i'm going to be with great interpellation exercising my role as timekeeper and say we've done about ten minutes of open - if you can summarize at the end because i have a lot of folks - i would just conclude because we do have to leave this open as part of the reason why we are

here. we have to recognize what we think that he hopes to achieve. i'm not going to try to answer that now because that might be one of the questions that comes up. having said that i will follow the direction of the chair. i'm going to conclude and open up to questions. >> i'm going to do the ceremonial question and then go to my colleagues to start, michael from the dallas news and dimitri from the financial times, so i will introduce them again when they come up but just so they know the order, as journalists, our lives changed sometimes dramatically when we

get a new top editor. i wonder how this would change the life of a cardinal. >> well in this case it is changed somewhat dramatically because one of the things pope francis is trying to do is engage what we would call residential issues. bishops did have a diocese to engage them in the work with the roman. the only way that you can do that is to go and be present for meetings. so i find that one of the very real impacts cheese have on my life is increasing the presence of meetings where the holy father is trying to hear the voice of the church around the world and not just the voice.

but there is another element i think that he's made life a little easier because he's the one who seems to be engaging through and so when we are invited into discussions so many people find him credible and inviting. so when you talk to somebody that already exposed to hear that message those would be two areas that i would find that impact me very greatly. >> the catholic church and the united states especially given

the unrest in the middle east do want the church to provide some leadership calling upon the united states that meets this responsibility while germany and so many of the northern european companies have opened their doors and hearts to these souls? >> thank you for raising that issue. as you know, the voice of the church in the united states is usually articulate. it has a voice that we utilize in order to address the public policy issues and for years we have been addressing the need

for some more to deal with the issue of migrants, immigrants and now displaced people in huge numbers because of the violence that we are experiencing most of these people are coming from one particular part of the world. they are coming from the middle east where the violence particularly directed to the minorities and christian communities is around us. i find it. i find it shocking that there is so much silence about it. we are seeing the slaughter of people and there isn't the type of outcry that one would expect to the talk shows and editorials in social media and that's one

element i believe silence is a big factor in the atrocities. >> then there are those that remain silent while it's going on and there's been a history recently of this level of atrocity that has caused waves of people that are john and the mediterranean and fleeing the situation that threatens the very life. people are trying to make their way through train stations to get out of. that's the result of what's happening in the land where they are and there doesn't seem to be

yet that commitment to do something about that and if it means all of us finding touch more absorbent europe and north america to help receive the people that are fleeing for their lives. they've spoken out over and over for a decade on the humane treatment particularly people that come to our country because we all started that way. we all came from somewhere else. but the only country in the world was founded. so we shouldn't be - we should be aware and alert to the needs of people to share all the

promise. >> what remains from the class and maybe what deeper challenges to fight reveals for the american church as a whole. there are residuals to use the wounds. i think what's happening was trying to get different perspectives on the same issue addressed by everybody around the table. and one of the things that has emerged from this is that pope francis has the idea that there

is much more to be gained by all of the parties involved in the ascending to each other and trying to see where there might be differences of perspective. my understanding is the sisters made it very clear they had no doctrinal difficulties and the congregation i understand the conclusion of the study said the issues are essentially evolved is a question of listening and hearing. >> we are going to go from emily wilkins to roll call. >> i wanted to ask the big news from the vatican is the announcement that priests will begin to forgive abortion and the big news or one of the big stories in congress is the discussion about planned parenthood as the videos that have come out where it appears that officials have admitted to

selling fetal tissue. is this a priority for the vatican to address or something the pope wants to address and does the church have a stance on this? >> long-standing position of the catholic church going back all the way to the second century articulated well is the destruction of innocent life in the womb is wrong. it's innocent human life. that's even more heinous when they use is made of the remains of the child that has been destroyed. the church position i think is very clear and it's a position that isn't going to change. human life is a great gift of god. we have all received so many

gifts. but the fundamental gift is the gift of life itself. and we are stewards of it. we really don't have the right to determine who lives and dies when we are dealing with innocent human rights. in fact, the church has undermined recently in the case of someone who isn't innocent the bias should be in favor of life because it is a fundamental gift. he says at the very heart of all the creationist to that creation is to start with recognizing the dignity and value and then he says now we also have to recognize that person has a home

and we need to care for this. but then he goes on to say that development, whatever development is going to take place has to take place with the awareness that it's the human being who needs to be the center of the development and the development has to be sustainable and has to be done in a way that the next generation at the generation after that would be able to enjoy the fruit of this planet. >> into this realm of logistics for hard as the church going to work to get into washington, d.c. for the visit and if you want to make the national parks of people break out in cold sweats told them they are going to bring out of buses and buses of people and then i understand from the speaker in a short video that he invited three and

this is the first one to agree to come visit the congress nevermind speak to it. why have the popes traditionally shunned the legislative branch in the united states? >> let me start with the beginning of the that multifaceted question. [laughter] and the what are we getting by the way of inviting people into preparing to see people. you have to remember as you know the holy father is coming to the united states to visit three cities. philadelphia is the place he's going to be in gauging the huge crowd. we were told in preparation for the visit that the idea of doing the masses wasn't really what the holy father was looking for when he was in washington that is going to take place in philadelphia because they've been preparing for years.

but that hasn't stopped people from asking. this is part of the challenge that we are facing. i don't have to encourage anybody to come to this city were to come to these events. i found that i have far more dear friends than i ever realized i had them for every seat we had to, remember we only have 25,000 seats and for every seat we have, i would say that we have had ten requests for the balancing act is how do you get an equitable distribution of proceeds so that the representation of everybody is there. that's the first challenge and you're right, those that have

the responsibility of security, traffic, traffic control, safety i think are working wonderfully well to try to face the reality that when the pope comes there will be people everywhere that want to see him. our problem is simply the limitation of space. but that is a good problem to have. >> [inaudible] >> i don't know the history of other requests. i do know that this holy father aims to be comfortable taking any form and cody amore platform and he doesn't seem to be molded

by the audience. he takes the message and presents it in the hope that audience will hear his message. so i think when he speaks to congress is going to be delivering a spiritual message and i am pleased that he feels that comfortable speaking to any group not just a religious form. >> as you know in new york they have announced plans to have the pope drive through the central park on either side. is there any such planning under way here in washington? >> we hope that when he is out at the national shrine of the catholic university for the mass that there will be a time to be some part of the root where people will be actually able to see him. we are also hoping that there

will be some time when he is coming or going from the white house that there will be an opportunity for people to see them. that has been altogether finalized yet and part of it is the concern of security announced too far in advance. that is going to be closed off long in advance. but that is a venue that we really don't have. >> washington examiner. >> it is a pretty hot topic in the church and on capitol hill on the marriage decision. so the solicitor general in the case suggested that the government might ask all of the religious institutions to conform to the law. if that happened, what would

they have to give up and how would it address it? >> the issue of religious liberty as you know, it predates that particular issue back basically to the mandate where our objection primarily was the decision of the government to decide for us what constitutes the practice and what constitutes the religious works that are not part of the faith and practice. we banned in precisely because we said that we feel the gospel mandate is as much a part of the religious mandate as is the mandate you shall not kill or bear false witness. and so, that is our argument right now that we really don't think the government should be telling us how we should

practice our faith and historically in the country to practice has been of public. when you think of the great institutions, healthcare, social service, claire eddy - charities. when you think about of these impacts on the life of the country so much of that grew out of their religious faith and these established the first hospitals and orphanages and first social service charities. and we are saying that is invalid today for us as it was all those centuries ago when we were just getting started. so i think part of the concern is going to be religious freedom shouldn't be determined for us by someone else anymore than anybody in the media would want freedom of speech to be determined by some deals.

it would legitimately object to those that would say these are the things that you can address entities are things you can't address because they don't come under the realm of the freedom of speech. it's the same constitutional guarantee for the religious liberties. don't say to us you can't be religious in this area. you can only be religious in your sanctuaries. and that's part of the challenge but isn't that something that we have worked on and through from the beginning of the country, finding the balance between good public order, the law of the land. >> we all write fairly about public policy and i was interested particularly that he will come to washington while he's here in the united states and i would think you for addressing this issue.

coming to washington will address the public policy. how much has been communicated, signaled through your expertise that you've picked up what he will say regarding public policy measures in the united states, one area in particular of which a person like me might expect him to be less knowledgeable than to say something would be climate change given the letter in june in a paris summit in december the any sense what he would say about climate change for other issues such as the treatment of the core in the

u.s.? >> it allows for a conclusion of a very important distinction and i'm very much aware that public policy is a very big part of the interest of everybody around this table. i think what we will be doing is addressing issues. public policy is one way of responding to issues. another way to address issues is to put them in a spiritual dimension to remind us that these are real and valid interests and that they require a response and there has to be a way to deal with this as you pointed out a way to deal with issues of environment and issues of human freedom and issues of life and flourishing of human

life. but it falls to the government to come up with policies and ways of addressing that particularly to the society where the voices will all be heard. but it falls to the church and it falls to the pope. there are some parameters for addressing those issues. he keeps reminding us that the human person is the center of whatever decision you make concerning any public policy and the forging of the human person from conception to natural death in the forging of the person is at the heart of our appreciation of human life and development. also i don't know what he's going to say because i haven't seen the text but he's also going to call us to our own real

history. this country is made up of so many groups and so many institutions into some institutions into so many expressions in the community whether it is religious, community service, fraternities, unions or gatherings of people that work together to solve a problem in their local community. and that's one of the strengths of the country. we are multilayered. we are not monolithic. we are not one state in which decisions are made and carried out by a system of government. the response to human problems reflect the complexity and plurality of the makeup of the country. so i think it is something that

the father should be speaking out of in his history of hours for the challenge of responding. >> that was the big news this week there seems to be a lot of confusion even among what this means. could you explain what the norms have been in the archdiocese of washington in terms of abortion and how will that change and then can you talk about that in the context of where he seems to be presenting a more open merciful church in the areas of abortion, divorce, homosexuality, the hot button topics while still maintaining the fundamental catholic doctrine on those issues.

>> that is the secret to this ministry. he as i said earlier he does the gospel and of at the same time he proclaims the gospel. there is no change in catholic teaching on the value and the work and the sacredness of life and there's certainly there is certainly no change to that life can't be taken even when it's in the womb but what our father is saying is all that said, how do we deal now with someone that has had an abortion and isn't this a response of love, compassion, care backs he keeps reminding us we all need to be in grace of god's mercy. who can say i don't need, i am

perfect? may be mother theresa could have but there are a few others that could say that. when the pope was asked to identify himself he said i'm a sinner. but aren't we all? i think that's what he's trying to say. the year's mercy is a time that all of us should be looking at one another with compassion and forgiveness mindful of god's mercy but it's also shared through us. we prayed to be forgiven as we forgive. and so when it comes to abortion has always been a practice of the church given the particular violence of this action, the distraction of a life and it's

required for absolution of that to remind all of us how serious that is. they required special permission the holy father is saying every priest across the world during this time of mercy should simply have the power to do that without checking with the bishop. >> so this information had to confirm you were - >> we granted the faculty. many places already granted the faculty that power and authority to do that because it should be as readily available as possible but many have already done this. he's just saying why don't we make it universal. >> this is already the process

that will not change anything. the faculty to do this is a part of what our priests are able to do. i think that peace is only as important as the message to be merciful and generous. >> and sean has provided a dalia encouragement to set up this breakfast. >> you are certainly aware of the current ongoing litigation involving the hobby lobby case, the green family that owns hobby lobby said they would close the

company down rather than comply with providing abortion from the employees. [inaudible] if it does indeed go against this charity with the church urged them to follow the promise made and simply close rather than provide abortion inducing drugs? >> the answer is going to depend on what the supreme court eventually rules. and a lot of that will have to wait and see what the court will finally rule. there are indications coming out of that they do make a distinction between those that are for profit and closely held

family institutions and those that are religious and not-for-profit and the accommodation that has been made in the case of one that wasn't made in the case of the other day i think we are just going to have to wait and see and let it pledge its way through all those questions and then we will know what it is that we are answering. >> we will go to michael from the dallas news. >> [inaudible] one group in the conference of bishops determined so differently what has been used particularly the questions that had come up in previous campaigns. i'm just wondering as a cardinal

and a bishop you felt so gently reviewed in the way that the church had made clear the positions that were talked about. is that in a way that you go about your business? >> i felt two things, greatly affirmed by the pope and encouraged. the affirmation was again he keeps saying to us the gospel message is what we need to keep proclaiming and that's what you need to keep doing and doing it. but the positive i also felt was let us emphasize the mercy of god and compassion of god. it is a question of the emphasis

rather than doctrinal expression and i found a very encouraged by the holy father. i certainly felt because when you've been at this a long time, this january i will be 30 years you've had an opportunity to do a lot of teaching and writing and instruction, and i didn't find anything that i would have to change in what i thought. but i also found that it's very encouraging to be told and keep focusing on the mercy. keep focusing on the compassion aspect. >> there was a significant change - if you accept the idea that there was a significant

change in the emphasis is placed before we send this message. >> it depends on - i think it is a matter of shading. there was always compassion and mercy in the teaching of the bishops in the country. but, this time the holy father is highlighting it in his actions in a way that i think people are hearing it much more clearly. the fact that none of the teaching has changed is the only area where there can be the emphasis is on the application of the teaching. we are seeing it here and that's why there is this sense of welcome. people are seeing in him that there is a strong, strong focus and madie all of us in the

church are saying let's see how well we are doing this. >> we are going to go next to the nature he. let me try to get your name. >> it's an irish name. >> from the financial times command the new bureau chief. >> to what extent have the views on climate change, capitalism alienated the conservative part of the catholic flock and what extent has it brought in the liberal members and also i know that he is trying to reach out and go to harlem but he's not going to iowa or the mexican border or kansas. is there a sense that maybe he isn't seeing the whole of the real america? >> let me start with the last part of that. i just watched early this morning because it was sent to me last night the holy father's

video and conversation with three different parts of the country. i think this is the first time that we have a pope that is trying to be present without necessarily being physically present. it is very taxing to have to go all over the world to be with a flock that is spread throughout the world. this is the first time that i have seen a concerted effort to utilize the electronic media to be in different parts of the country. coming to the united states this was my position. you have to stop in washington. and it's i keep saying if you visit the capital in this sense you are visiting the entire country. and then of course he's going to

new york because of the un and then he's going to philadelphia because of the world gathering of families. it would simply be - and we talk about this, it would simply be physically impossible for him to get to all the other places in a country this huge. i have one of the members here not that long ago that marveled that it took five hours to fly from new york to los angeles. i said welcome to the united states come and the pastoral challenge of that is what i think the holy father is stating. your question i think provides us an occasion to reflect on how do you today do that and i think that it can be done

electronically as well as physically. speak to >> that's right. it's going to be in spanish. the significance of that is first of all he grew up with both spanish and italians are he's most comfortable in spanish. but also it's a recognition of how large the population is and it's a specific part of the church they are here in so much of this archdiocese and other parts of the country. and also because he is

canonizing a spanish-speaking thing. and he is coming as the first pope from the new world and the predominant language is spanish. so i think there are lots of elements that would encourage the use of spanish. it wouldn't be solely spanish. he's going to have some things in english and we do intend to have the jumbotron's translation into english for everyone. >> we will go next to barbara from the bbc.

that we really can revert together make it three. that it is possible to work together and working together, we need to care for people who have mean. we also need to welcome the less fortunate and repair all human life. i think he's going to try to

invoke allah was the understanding we have a response ability for each other, also for our common home. what format that will take, i don't know. i don't think it's going to be by proposing public policy, but i think it will be by calling us to understand that each one of us has a responsibility to one another and to our common home and we have to find ways to make that an achievable reality. >> were obviously not going to get to other people citing away and doing the best we can. the new jersey advanced media. >> thanks for coming. when the pope talks to the president, they try to find common ground and basically say

i don't agree with your position on same-sex marriage and find something they agree on and how they can achieve those goals in the other. >> this is one of the reasons why those meetings are always in private. and then, there then, there are the press releases afterwards, the statements. this is what we talk about. so as you do, ask to rely on what comes out at those meetings by way of follow-up. >> two things very quiet good one of them is meeting with the president and the president has a lot of affection for the pope. in terms of messaging, how far can the president go for a lack

of better word capitalized in without seeming like it's going too far. the president went a little too far in praising the pope are capitalizing on his visit. i'm asking about the koran. >> just because we're short on time, let's do one with you. >> years of practice here come the server. >> one of the things that would say if i don't think i would ever be offended by anyone, including the president praising this holy father. your point if i understand correctly is not going to be used and understood as the new spearhead i think that is a fact of life.

almost anything the pope says is interpreted by somebody and whatever the president says, whatever the speaker says, he even by way of thinking the pope is interpreted by people in different ways. maybe that is one of the things the holy father is asking us to try to get a little bit beyond and that is can we find some common ground without having to start immediately with interpreting from the vantage point. >> steve for mcclatchy do you have a 302nd question? >> will he consult the bishop at all before he arrives? >> the answer to the first question, my understanding is he will speak in english.

he will be reading a text because i'm not sure anybody gets that without tax spearhead but i am told he will be speaking in english at that event. [inaudible] >> he has asked for reflections. i am just saying he didn't ask me when he told me he was working on the text. he didn't ask me personally what i thought it should be. but he has solicited from the conference of bishops, whatever that means. >> thank you for coming very much, sir. look forward to your return. at last we will let you eat for

breakfast. >> thank you very, very much. >> thank you to all of you. [inaudible conversations]

>> a hot topic of debate in many states are the laws that require or prevent workers from being required to pay union dues. this is something wisconsin recently passed a right to work law. michigan, my home state to the surprise of many past the right to work law. there's a lot of controversy. so we published research i'll be discussing in a minute.

we also have a state senator in the wisconsin legislature elected in the state assembly and was the author of the wisconsin right to work law and also vincent nuccio for michigan. three of us will be discussing the effective right to work and then the senator will be discussing how it was effective in the two most recent states. on the topic of right to work, this is a popular position nationwide. across all. we've got some from last summer. you can go back to the 1950s and by numbers similar to this. americans believe in free association. where the support the national

rifle association or the sierra club or local, americans believe you've got it right but you shouldn't be forced. you'd be hard-pressed to find many nra members who believe their fellow gun owners ought to be forced even if the nra is defend and second amendment rights. when it comes to unions, while most americans agree with the principle? many union advocates do not and mrs. had effects on public policy despite the fact three quarters of americans believe union dues ought to be voluntary and americans ought not be fired. only half the country, 25 states and local right to work in kentucky. a natural question you ask is why is that. the loss tend to reflect the feelings of the public through their elected representatives. why legislatures in the country

are going along with what constituents are supporting. this is a debate wisconsin had that in may and the legislature voted down. misery they will vote on whether to override the right to work law. some of them like senator or think of voted and say this is a bad idea. it is basically by the economic policy institute. most people don't feel like it's union backed think tank. it is the head of the afl-cio. the economic policy institute has put out a number of studies showing that the shows and the most wage growth was lowest for the past several decades. they are very quick to

acknowledge. you can't just jump to the conclusion. you can't say okay which is our number because you've got different demographics, educational makeups. you have to control for this. these are results where they basically do that. since evidence submitted before congress in congressional testimony and basically before state legislators and testimony i know there's very similar numbers in wisconsin. what they basically shows you can more or less interpret numbers as percentage point changes. they are not exactly back, but for our purposes, close enough. 13% lower wages in right to work

states. demographic and labor market variables like education, age, things like that we expected younger workers make less than older workers for educated workers make more. throw in the third column two different measures of basically living costs and it seems like the unions have made the point time and time again that they claim wages or 3% lower. this cemented legislatures and policymakers have been adversaries of argument. a major reason was that half the country right to work laws. generally we believe in re-association the unions promote higher wages and better working conditions. the socioeconomic status for everyone. therefore what we firmly believe in free association will put an asterisk next to unions.

data sent in isn economist find it very strange conclusion. i went to graduate school for economics, concentration of labor economics. the way the evidence treats union says that they may make a trade labor monopoly. it is a monopoly that controls and try and gain controlled the supply of labor and get everyone in the union and when they do that they control the supply of labor and drive up the price. but it gets passed on to consumers in the higher wages and because consumers pay higher prices, the consumers are worse off nasl goods and services. which it lowers sector and the economic research is conclusive that the overall loss of the

economy are you might have gained some insight of the union but overall worse off. the claim you lower average wages is very dissonance to my ears has labor economists. on top of that, it is not doing the best in recent decades. union membership is done consistently said they don't have that many labor market. how in the world do you get the funding to states with right to work laws generally the states that declining union membership have worse wages. im others have taken a look at this. the next to slide credit booties.com. this is not just a change in union membership since 1979 but the 1970 union membership. lo and behold the states that have the largest drop in union memberships since the 70s are the states that have the slowest

wage compensation growth. that doesn't fit in with the story they are telling. why would states with higher union membership have lower wage growth question turns out they have lower employment growth. in those days they have the highest union to begin with. the simplistic story actually turns out to be more nuanced and less favorable than what the economic policy institute put out. what about a more rigorous analysis? we set out to replicate research. interestingly, surprising that that standard were you share your data with anyone who asks. i couldn't exactly replicate because they weren't willing to share their data code. trying to downplay you may but after initial correspondences i was like we do share your data

and they stopped responding to me. they did use broadly speaking publicly available data so i used the same source and one of the key things to take account of his living. you remember from the map the entire right to work. debate had discussed the right to work in the entire northeast is not. it costs more to live in new york city or boston than it does in shreveport, louisiana or nashville, tennessee. one dollar will buy you more. the chart shows that you're officially. this is the living costs. the lowest living costs are highest in the state with the highest and on either side and see which has a right to work and not right to work. there's only one right to work an honest virginia. the other 24 are below average

and conversely new york, california, massachusetts, hawaii and the states with above average or the state was forced union dues. one finding in today's control for workers skilled in human capital and abilities in any local amenities that might cause people to want to live there. once you account for those things we just move one to one. the average new yorker might have 13% higher wages but they are not getting 13% more goods and services. this turns out to make a major effect on the analysis. what we can do here, i won't ask you to strain your eyes, but the first for collins are replicated with the economic policy and these numbers here i've

converted from 1.2 percentage points so this is straight percentage point answers. more or less they would show their data and publicly available data. close to what they were finding it fairly close. you have to look into the appendix. in their appendix it is revealed the cost of living on the accounts for three quarters of the difference in living costs. it doesn't count or the entire difference in living costs. if wages go up 10% in a state, wages are only 7.5% higher, not 10% that economists have found. included is a control variable. it only explains about three quarters of the statements. normally with differences across time over states, economists will adjust the variables are

the differences in purchasing power and run analysis. usually run analysis on inflation-adjusted dollars rather than same dollars every time. that one change makes the entire result go away. i used the exact same model they use. the only thing i did differently was the just the wages and all of a sudden disappear. the right to work laws with horrible things for workers. you could no more accurate reflection and it goes away. the next two columns between private sector and government. we would expect wages to affect living costs differently in the government unions affect wages

by political allies and getting favorable contracts. the private sector affects wages by using a monopoly strength and power. what we see is nothing. negative by 1%. government wages are about 5% lower. personally would argue that the benefit. and almost all states government employees make more than skilled workers and we shouldn't be received sales taxes on property taxes to provide a higher standard of living for governmental laws. the facts you lower the government wages is a good thing. there's nothing. there's just nothing there. the final specification is a different measure wages of tips and commission and again there's no effect there. obvious argument really evaporate when you take a look under the hood of these studies. what about benefits to work

besides the free association benefits? what we have here is an experiment conducted recently. kentucky has right to work. how is this affected the job situation? this county right here was the first calumny. that's pretty much kentucky. and the next three months, 30 different economic objects representing 3600 jobs were interested. you are scratched up by this because he didn't have right to work. but now we are interested. since then, as of may of this year i've heard from the chamber of commerce that number has gone up to 47 companies representing 5000 potential jobs. bowling green has a total

employment of 50,000 workers. the projects represent 10% increase in overall employment. they did not have right to work. businesses didn't want to do with the strength. there's just one county. maybe it was something to the weather in the water or something. what it shows when you don't account for anything, unemployment rates are half a percentage point lower. when you account for the age and education and other factors, the unemployment rate as a percentage point lower. the economic policy institute did attempt to replicate this chart so i'm assuming they did. what we see from right to work in stories about wages falling is a lot of smoke and mirrors. they are just not fully accounted for living costs but

we do see in it totally and empirically on top of that the free association of benefits. why should i be forced to financially subsidize operations with that, that's a pretty full powerful piece that i will turn the microphone to two speakers who have recently passed rights to work with the experience as they've had. after the speakers have gone will take have gone will take q&a from the audience. >> thank you, james. it's a pleasure to be here at the heritage. we spend a ton of time looking at the research so thank you for doing what you do. thank you for inviting me to a swamp in the middle of summer. but for a run last night and before i stepped out of the door i think i sweated through my

jacket. it is the right to work state has a big deal. it's been a big deal in wisconsin for a long time. i want to take a little bit of time to walk you through a couple of reasons why right to work in wisconsin. i went to walk you through what we ran into with objections because that plays very well into a james is working through with the numbers. really quick i am a policy type of guy. i'm a cpa by trade from a spent eight years in public accounting in the last several with arthur andersen and i've owned a couple of companies. i still have that but i jumped into politics about 2009 and started running for office, with select it in 2011 when governor walker came in. at the scene in wisconsin that

have interesting things over the last several years. right to work is something we actually looked at right away when we came to office back in 2010-20 about them. we are looking at an overall blueprint for how we take wisconsin which if you look at the history of ours day, progressive as we brought into existence state income tax, unemployment insurance, heavy things like that that are very progressive. we got a new crop of citizen legislators who said what we need to do is slowly take away the concept of government is the provider to government is limited. that is the heritage foundation that quarter. so we look at it and write the work was in the recipe for that.

as you know we started out with pac-10 which was essentially right to work for the public sector and we fought that battle and have led the charge in the united states and that was a huge battle for us. but we do have to be done. we don't income tax reform over the last couple of sessions that coming up we saw a right to work as the elephant in the room we have to deal with it. so we started before the session even started, okay, what is our message going to be? what things are we going to encounter? a bunch of stuff james has done what the big driver is again back to over 70% of our budget related to dependency on government versus dependency on the individual. we knew we had to take care of

the issue. here are the things we ran into and this is the interesting part about what these gentlemen do is huge for us because we need numbers. but we have to do this effectively communicate that to get the message across. we have to take the numbers and translated into people and we don't have a ton of time and i would love to stand up in committee and on the floor and gone through this type of thing because the analysis is fascinating. we ran into the same studies. what we have to do is take this and make it real for people. so the first issue we ran into was the opposition came at this from a different tactic. we started by saying this is for workers freedom and this is personal to me because when i was 19 years old i worked for an

electrical contract for and i wasn't aware of right to work for unionization. i took my job, when then, and i went to work in the first paycheck i have deductions and i couldn't figure it out. i went to the payroll per head and said i think there is a mistake here in the payroll person said this is your union dues. that said i didn't have to be in the union and she said you have two options. either take a deduction or find another job because state law says this is the way it's going to be. that is a very unpolitical 19-year-old. it never sat right with me. it always bothered me. when i came into office right to work was on the front of the thing. it's about worker freedom and efficiency to see the first

debate i had on npr and most of us know where they lean, it wasn't with me. that combat me the nsaid you are getting the government involved in employer relationships and that kind of laughed and said i think that dirty in place. if we have a true free-market the employee would have just as much of a right to say i'm not going to have a union in my business as the employees due to unionize. but that doesn't exist in ways that because governments are involved. what it really ended up coming down to is it's really not a struggle with workers. it is the union bosses. that's what our colleagues because guess who funds

campaigns and we had statistics for a lot of debate opponent sitting there ready if they pulled out the card because we hear about the koch brothers and all these foundations that are obviously from the right. we have it laid out how much of their campaign contributions came from the union and i think they found out about it because they never brought that up in the debate. so that was interesting. the workers union is the angle we can not. we used your tix, your statistics. this was an interesting one. to take all these numbers and bring it back to people, here's how we approached it. they brought the argument and sad and non-right to work state,

people make more money. i sitting know what, you're absolutely right. they do. they would sit and look at me. okay good, we agree on some pain. so what i did this i had to bring cost of living adjustment if you start throwing call out the other person's eyes glaze over and they fall asleep. i said have you ever been to chicago? have you been to a starbucks in chicago? have you said that shiite tea then seed nonfat is more expensive there than it is in milwaukee or madison and everyone is like totally i don't even go there. i said you think the average worker in chicago makes for money. they have to. i said at the end of the date you understand you have to have both pieces. you have to look have to look at what the expense of fire. they may have a bigger paycheck,

the right to work states people have a bigger bank account. that is what we kept coming back to. bigger bank account at the end of every year. that is what really helped us in the argument began. we didn't get into the details because we didn't have the time. but again it was very helpful. lots of work for us because workers and to other states to get paid more. it is a study commissioned by the unions from a local professor at a university and he used this as his support. as i read through, he made assumptions on a couple facts. he didn't back up his assumptions by fax. he assumed people would buy into his analysis and a lot of the public, the media was quoting him say they've got a pretty smart guy here quoting all these facts and he thinks this will

drive workers out. he said okay, let look at how many of you have a lawn mower here. what kind of engine is on them lawnmower? briggs & stratton when the union came and won the union vote, they packed it in manufacturing and move to a different state. so they could find a prominent local company that was said here is what happens. this is not good. right to work states gain jobs and then we could bring in statistics that these guys put together for us to show it is not the fact. this professor tried to use this assumption because wages are going down and they were going to hurt the worker. we said no that's not true at all. we showed the wages increased a higher rate and a right to work

state. the other thing we ran into was companies want to move to right to work states because they want to pay people less. so that was interesting. they were saying we all know who they are and what we do. this is one of their standard questions as are your right to work state and plenty of companies move to states who have specifically said we will go here because it's a key component to it. so what we did is we said business is don't go the right to work states because they want to pay less. again statistics to back that up. companies go because there is more flexibility in the work place because workers can be more efficient. we brought that back because the

workers empowered with personal liberty and the ability to make more decisions on their own. that was another interesting argument. that was the last big one so we pulled all the workers called -- workers comp. me being a cpa created a spreadsheet myself and i had a blast doing it but i couldn't show it to my colleagues. we showed the numbers prove out the right to work states have fewer incidents as an accident and i know you reference that in what you said. those were the things we ran into. we always had to bring it back people. we look at democrats always so effective because they take it

to people. we wanted to make sure we did the same thing. the impact on wisconsin is pretty new. we were able to see some immediate things. the day after we passed right to work i got a call from the cfo of a company i know on a conglomeration of companies, 14, 15 companies. he said kris, because you passed right to work, we've been waiting in the wings that we are moving one of our manufacturing companies from minnesota to wisconsin. we want to make sure you knew that so you have evidence that this is a big deal for companies. we had another company signed a right to work bill with governor walker. we are going to look at moving a hundred employees to another state because they were right to work state with more flexibility they are. but keep those employees here is

a look at expanding. a constituent of mine last week said hey, chris. wondering if next week you can come to another ribbon-cutting. this guy when i knocked his store for the first time in 2010, he cheated on me for 45 minutes to an hour about how terrible wisconsin was and how we weren't listening to business owners and i said give it some time. trust me instead of moving operations to kentucky, they have grown in the state of an advantage to ribbon-cutting snow. proof positive that what we are doing is working. interestingly enough i have this week some legislators from missouri coming out to talk about walking us through why you guys did what you did and help us understand so they can make

an informed decision on what to do with the veto. wisconsin business environment is pretty cool too. we've always been ranked in the lower middle tier or the bottom tier can't delay. ceo magazine is 14th in a cool one is manpower. finding a job we are now number four. that is powerful. we don't have a jobs issue anymore in the state of wisconsin. we have a worker issue finding workers, which is a neat transition from four or five years ago when i took office. we don't have a jobs issue anymore. we have a worker issue. that's a different subject. over the last year, this is pretty powerful to because as you know wisconsin is a heavy

manufacturing stayed in southeastern wisconsin which is milwaukee, waukesha is pretty much the milwaukee region. we had the highest growth of any metro area in the united states in the last year. and it's because of things we've been doing and we can definitely attribute that to right to work. that was a piece of the puzzle that is help us. very strong evidence from on the ground people, business is and people getting jobs. the right to work and good for a nation as a whole and it gets back to the individual liberty to choose if they want to associate or not. the rate in wisconsin is also

below the national average. [applause] >> hi, vernuccio at the mackinac center michigan. james and heritage, thank you for the invitation to come speak and for everybody else in the audience you've heard from the economist, the cpa and now you get to hear from the lawyer. i don't know if that's a good or bad thing. lushes do a quick definition of what is the right to work. right to work simply means a union can't get a worker fired for not paying them. doesn't affect collective-bargaining in any other way. workers union still negotiate with their employer for wages, hours, working condition.

they simply can't say you have to pay us or you will lose your job. then they tell you what is going on in michigan. it was michigan's lost decade. we have the highest unemployment in the country. we lost over 860,000 payroll jobs. wages were fallen. between 2001 and 2012, wages and michigan fell $2500 a year. the rest of the country wages went up by almost 3000. we were losing population. essays in michigan turn out the light. some people took that to heart. i moved in 2012 ride as the

units are put in a ballot measure on the november 2012 ballot to amend the constitution and have an effective veto over legislation. they would give government collective bargaining agreements and civics 101 a constitutional amendment. and then you have a piece of legislation which wins the constitutional amendment. so against the backdrop i moved and i was an optimist and i know to be coming back. part of me would find taken this new job. that's a nice scene to be way. it would down by 15 points. they said no. that eventually led to the

conversation on right to work and in december 2012 michigan with the fifth highest union membership rate, or his place at the uaw lot considered a labour stronghold finally gave workers the freedom to choose. the effect was almost immediately. site selection magazine published a significant increase because they are no longer a laminated. we heard about right to work and population growth. its core right to work is about freedom. job creators and workers at state. does it have a right to work

lowered not? they have a business climate with incredibly high taxes. they probably aren't going there. if they have competitive regulatory environment, jobs are tracked it. most won't even look to you have worker freedom or not. so what happened. michigan, unemployment went down by the nation by 10-point since june 2009. we are now up 5.3%. we have a lot to offer. no comment. the next is the right to work state of indiana which had a

six-point drop. in may alone, michigan added 6000 manufacturing jobs. indiana commemorate to work neighbor. i will go ahead and say force unionism. the state of illinois and the right to work state they are losing. i told you i was nervous about right now michigan home values have grown the seventh highest in the country. my home value has skyrocketed.

things are going well in michigan wages. wages are going up. from march 2013 when the right to work law took effect until early 2015, michigan earnings have gone up by five-point or percent. compare that to the national average of 3.7. oklahoma which passed right to work earlier in 2000, before it was $539 since the average pay per week. by the end of 2002 a web map to $551. 2012 that was $801 per week. indiana in 2001, average the religious was $1074 at the end of 2012, average wages for $793.

lowering wages are the right to work for less. the senator was talking about starbucks. i grew up in new york city. do you know how much rent is four and average apartment in new york city? $3400 a month. you can get a shoebox apartment, a studio apartment cost you $2000 a month in new york city. a decent house in alabama with a mortgage on average the right to work is $800 a month. why those workers get paid, the dollar does not merely go as far. james' nemesis api just released their 2015 family budget calculator and they went through

several metropolitan areas and estimated how much a typical family would need to spend on rent, food, the basics. all 10 of their most expensive cities are enforced united states. this is a group same workers aren't making more and right to work states. their own data to show him that calculate it correctly is supposed to cost more. when you factor in the cost of living, workers are making about 4% more. the final thing that happens in right to work state, which makes the unions pause when they hear this is the right to work and make union stronger. right to work means unions can

take their own membership for granted. they can't force them to pay so they have to prove their worth to the membership. they have to compete. competition can make you stronger. last year the state of indiana tied for the number one state of adding new union members. last year they added 50,000 new union members. michigan lost some in the united states beat the right to work states last year in new union members. if you go back a couple years to see it goes back and forth. seven years right to work states outpace not right to work states are forced union state as far as new union members. i can spout numbers out but i don't want you to take my word for it. i want to read you a couple quotes. this is something i never understood that people think right to work towards union.

you don't have to belong if you don't want to. if iphoto and organizing drive i can tell workers if i don't like the arrangement you don't have to belong versus 50% of view all of you have to belong with elected or not. i don't even like the way that sounds. want to know who said that? kerry castille, dua w. current secretary treasurer. in michigan afl-cio president said we don't know what to expect. we can continue to explain to members by membership is of value. same sentiment from the member director of the largest union. share we have and we are

stronger because of it. i would like to say they are taking sentiments to heart. some are and some aren't. first of which was the law was passed in december 2012 but didn't take effect until march march 2013. during that period, unions were able to extend contracts in some cases up to 10 years, a decade they also established when dozens of workers could only exercise the right to work rights during certain times of year. the teachers union is the month of august which has passed. the one that sprang up this year that kind of boggles the mind is we had the teachers union again

use to accept resignations to their general mailbox. in june they put a nondescript disclaimer on the website and said they will no longer be accepting resignations to the mailbox where they had thousands and thousands of resignations historically and were now only accepted to a new mailbox. not coincidentally the mailbox was p.o. box 51 at the local post office which you can make allusions to area 51 all you want. even as the unions try whatever they can to get around the right to work law, we see more jobs in michigan, higher home values, more population growth and i will tell you the attitude is optimistic. we are optimistic about the future and it is due in large part to workers freedom.

thank you very much. [applause] >> we've got some time for questions. someone with a microphone. if you will stand up when you have your question and state your name and affiliation. >> my name is connor wolf at the news foundation. my question is regards to the average is about the right to work states. upon the right to work law to receive wages change in that case compared to where wages were before the right to work law was passed and could this be an controlled worker reports? >> it is the kind of thing the folks on the left and myself on the right basically say we expect to take many years to play itself out. the way you expect it would be on the upside to attracting new

businesses with an upper demand for labor. alabama has four manufacturing plants in pretty good wages precisely because the right to work law. similarly, the union argument is the power units can take that contract but in both cases this is something that will take place over a number of years. i was quite surprised to see the numbers. a very strong response. it is some thing you addicts back to play itself out over a number of years. basically it took indiana and michigan and said let's wait a few years back five years from now they will look back and get the numbers and take a look. it is not something you expect the next month or two month later. do you want to comment on that?

>> i can send you the numbers we ran as far as the michigan earnings growth and offer us that the average group weekly earnings. wisconsin is still pretty new. we are seeing increasing wages and compare that to national averages in michigan is far outpacing the national average for wage growth. they can go back and forth but at the end of the day when you look at it, the tagline of workers will make less after right to work law is passed is simply untrue by looking at the last several right to work states after they passed law. [inaudible] it has been stated or if heard even once here that a lot of large corporations are jerry

luke warm to write to work laws because they'd rather negotiate. >> blue at the last few minutes of the discussion to go live to the white house for today's briefing with josh earnest that has just gotten under way. >> we've been pretty up front about the fact despite that increasing pressure we have not seen the course i'm in reaction from the russians we would like to see. let me repeat what the president said about a year ago when he was talking about a new round of sanctions that the united states and europe was put in place. the president made clear as soon as russia started hollowing through on that commitment they have made and their talks with european leaders that the united states and europe would be prepared to offer sanctions relief but we have not seen russia live up to those

commitments. if anything we've seen russia continued to black slide and not as a source of significant concern by the united states or european partners. it is also a negative impact on the economy. >> another question on the chain is -- does the president plan to discuss what their purpose was with president xi jinping this morning? ..

should do a part as well? >> i just went through some of the ways that we can offer assistance. >> it is the administration feel the u.s. should play a role in the process of deciding how many should go where and that the u.s. should be one of those countries that allows this? >> there are some immigrants from that region of the world that enter the united states. right now this is a humanitarian crisis that is straining and there there's a number of things that we can do to