because all of it -- all of us are in it together. so this one about global show the corporations that we not giving up and we going to keep getting bigger and bigger. and it's only been two years and we are already global. what's next? and everybody just need to shut it down. just got to shut it down. so pretty much that's what we prove, that we not going to stop until we get what we deserve and what we demand. so. [ applause ] >> well, basically, the struggle, there is a global movement, like the whole labor movement, because i mean, labor has to be international because capital is international. and, i mean, if capital can move from one country to another, labor has to also have, like, solidarity from one country to another. [ inaudible ] because, you know,

in unity, that's where our strength is, as a united movement. if we all just, like, want to challenge the system just individually and just, like, individually negotiate our employment contract, good luck with that. it is the only way possible, on a united and global scale. and on the outcome of this global movement, is workers, like, taking control of things. and this is about workers demanding more rights and inevitably it has to lead to workers, you know, getting to a point where they can -- not just that, you know, we have more rights but they can't be taken back because there is nobody else's to take back. they're our rights. and --

[ applause ] i mean, that's why, i mean, the fight for 15 is important, but it also has to be for a union, because if we get 15, i mean, tomorrow they can take that away without a union. >> right. and wo -- so we just can't have them take it away. [ applause ]. >> united we stand, separate we fall. it was actually kind of interesting to know that we're the super country. we're america, tweer country everyone wants to come to for this freedom, but australia and denmark are paying their workers more money. this is america. where does that happen at? how does that work out? i definitely think that people of these other countries have been standing up with us because they know what it is to make a living wage. they know what it is to not have to worry and not have to struggle. they know what it is to have a

union. it is great to have them in solidarity and to be standing with worker who is don't have that. once again it's kind of strange that these worker who is's living in these other countries is making more money, don't have the same privileges and resouses, but they're standing up against the same company that's over here and telling them if you can do it over here, why aren't you doing it in the usa? that's very powerful. that's very strong. and to have our back another country to be standing with america, to be standing with low wage workers in america, i mean, this is definitely something in the history books and kids are going to be reading on. [ applause ] >> well, i guess two things came to mind. one was really the power of social media in helping to fuel the narrative and to win people over.

and as an incredible organizing tool, because here, as a couple people have already mentioned, people are posting their photos to facebook and twitter in the midst in realtime, you know, during this strike. and so that, you know, helps first of all get the whole issue on the large media as well in terms of, you know, network and all of that. and but it also, you know, then it just expands people's horizons and minds and also then there's, you know, the delegations, and you find out about how workers are being treated in other countries. but it's interesting, too, that this global kind of organizing and reaching out is happening in a lot of different sectors as well. you know, the steelworkers,

mexican steelworkers, you know, there's these -- there's these international solidarity campaigns going on. the nissan workers in the south, in mississippi, getting support from the south african workers for their organizing campaign. you know, so this kind of thing is, you know, incredibly important, and it expands minds. now, is it at a point where, you know, we're going to be able to, you know, tip the balance of forces? no, but it's getting there, and, you know, there's going to be a lot of things people have to confront like, you know, like ideas of, you know, war and peace and, you know, and being number -- you know, this -- ideas of america being number one in the world or whatever. sil

a lot of things get involved into it. that's it. >> elce? thank you, terrie. >> in our country we have a long history of a lack of racial equity, a real racial equity gap and racial divisions. tell us what you think the impact of the fight for 15, support for wal-mart workers is having on racial unity both in the labor movement as well as in our communities. >> i think these campaigns address both the issues of race and class and gender. that's very important right now in the 21st century. to really have campaigns that connect people on a global basis. if you look around the world, you know, there are people of color who are making minimum wages. there are people of color who are working in dehumanizing situations.

there are people of color who are standing up with others across our communities fighting together on these issues because the central issue is wages, dignity, respect. and those issues cross racial lines. it brings people together from all across the country and all across the world. and if you look at the fight for 15 campaign and the our walmart campaign, the dominant amount of those workers are workers of color. those workers are also women who are heads of household trying to support their families. but there are quite a few of whites who are also living in those same conditions. and these campaigns have brought

all of these groups together and unified them against one common enemy and that enemy is big capital regardless of its wal-mart, amazon or young products or disney or whom ever. it has brought people together. we all understand i think one important thing, that this is a global fight and we are fighting against global capital. and as like african-americans, as whites, as asians, as women, as gays, we all are fighting this fight together. and i think that that's one unifying factor. and you see that all over the world. you see our brothers and sisters in brazil, standing up against global capital, who is destroying their communities for these gains. so this is going on all around the world. and as someone had mentioned about social media and how social media brought us all together and in realtime we can tell our stories, and i think

that's what's really important. and if we look at the issues of race and class and we fight these issues together against our common enemy, and i think we need to know who our common enemy is. >> thank you. okay. last question. it's so rasheen and howard. what is the response to the labor movement of this rising up of low-wage workers a and what significance does it have for the future of the labor movement? >> most people in the labor movement who have been in it before, who knew what the labor movement was, have been with the fast-food workers, like this is what is next in labor movement. this is what will get and this is what will get a lot of the old people up off their butts

and moving. >> i also know that, like she said, people have been trying to organize fast-food for a while. so for it finally to be happening and finally to have changes coming and, you know, cities eventually getting 15, we still want that union so don't forget about it. it's something that labor movements are like, hmmm, is this a new style of organized or is this the new avenue or new group of people we need to be tapping into? i think the outcome is that everyone can be organized. it don't matter who you are or who you work for. everyone can be organized. everyone should have a union, and that it's -- seeing fast-food workers, this is the group of people that they say, you know, are just young and young and dumb and don't have a degree. many of us have degrees, but to see them finally standing up against mcdonald's, we're talking about mickie ds that's in all these different country, have ads on tv and, you know,

all this different crazy stuff to get people to come in and buy their food. taco bell. these are big brands. these are billion-dollar company, and to be standing up against them is, like, young people doing this? it's possible. so i think this is like the turning point possibly in the labor force, hopefully. so. [ applause ]. >> i probably shouldn't say anything. that's what i was going to say. i guess -- i was trying this one out. i don't usually talk in this language, but i think it's actually done nothing less than reignite the moral authority of the labor movement in the united states, at least, which was -- i mean, in this room there was the red scare, the anti-communist witch-hunts, with the inauguration of business unionism. and business unionism isn't just a practice. it's an ideology, right? so i'm going to be a little

negative far minute. i mean, those of you who know me, i've been in the labor movement far long time, but, i mean, our members are infected by that ideology still. it's not easy. this provides an opportunity to -- all the things you're -- we now have an opportunity to fight racism in every single union because they have to recognize this fight. this fight is like, you know, it's expressing, you know, something very important and, you know, and secondly by example. you know, something you said. there's a union in minnesota with someone i know who said in his local people aren't very militant said, well, if they can do, that why don't we march on the boss? you know? and they suddenly discovered some militancy they never had, right? so by example it's reignite -- it's making people think differently, right? so i -- and finally it actually is -- i think it's engaged the

1%/99% thing in a very concrete way that expresses class, and i think people understand it, you know, and it's taken it out of that abstract expression, which is great, into a very concrete fight. and i think it's put class on the agenda and it's fantastic. so. >> thank you, howard. [ applause ] now, my grandma always told me that you never get the last word. she was talking about family fighting, fighting with your spouse, but not at the people's world working for a living new challenge panel. they're all going to get a last word. so what i'm going to ask, we'll start with you, naquasia. tell us something we don't know about you. tell us something you think you want us to do when we leave here tonight. >> something that you don't know

about me. oh, maybe this might be good. when i started this campaign at first i was excited but maybe a few weeks later i started answering my organizer phone calls. but i'm going to give you a little story why, and then -- so people might be like, oh, wow, i understand. i was very excited about what was going on, i went back to my family because i really didn't know what a union but, like. i always heard about it. i heard some of my friends who was, like, in construction or in nursing, they was just like, you know, they yao get benefit, more money, sick days. i'm, like, okay, that sounds good. i got to find me a job with a union. nice. but whatever. i still didn't know the whole background of what it actually means and how much power, you know, a union has. so, like, i went back to my grandmother, you know, grandma,

you know, that's grandma. my grandmother raised me at a certain point. she raised me. so, you know, i went to grandma, i was, like, telling her about this, like, you know, changing stuff in the workplace. and she's, like -- and i was, like, you know, what you think about fast food having a union? you know what my grandmother told me? no, don't do it. don't do it, like you might lose your job. i don't think you should be doing this. you want to know where my grandmother worked at? the u.s. post office. so she was just so -- but i'm, like, wait, you're in a union. i don't get it. so i was a little confused but at the same time that's grandma. whatever grandma say i'm going to do. okay, grandma, we ain't going to mess with the money. but then something was just, like, no, this sounds too good to not just like -- just to walk easily -- just walk away and not really get more information. soy went to my -- i went to my

aunt, who works for verizon, and there she has a union. and my aunt was, like, what, union all the way to -- do it, you got to do it, you must fight. i believe i do deserve a union. i'm, like, now i'm just all messed up. i'm just, like, what? then something just clicked in me, like, you know what, somebody got to break the ice. i'm going to try here. i've been at kfc forever. if i get fired i get fired. at least i know i tried. so that was -- [ applause ] -- that was my -- so that's something that i know i didn't get to tell you guys. i hope you like that story. and what was the other -- oh, and one thing hi, you know, tell you guys to leave here tonight is just keep supporting us. keep supporting all of us. it's not just about low-wage workers. it's about your city, your community, your state, and your

country. so it's like whatever it is that's out there, just keep fighting because without you guys, i don't think i would have kept fighting, so, like, just keep supporting everybody. [ applause ]. >> i also have family members that aren't 100% supportive of, like, struggles that i've tried to help out with. and, like, the thing is my mom, she's very actually very conservative and -- because i live in texas and it's, like, a thing there. and -- you know? and the thing is, though, with my mom, like, she -- in a weird way even though she's, like, very republican, she watch fox news all the time -- >> this is on tv, you know.

>> hi, mom. [ applause ] anyhow, in a weird way it's, like, she really is what inspired me to get involved with this because, like, are for all my childhood, like, i've always watched my mom, like, come home from work and she would always just be so, like, beaten down about how tough it is working where she -- she's a secretary. and she'd always come home, like, telling me, like, how -- like she'd just be venting about her boss, like, just treats her like a machine and expects so much from her and she gets less and less money every year. and it's just the thing is that i hope everybody else could also understand from that is even though there are people that disagree and have differences and can be even, like, the most backwards, reactionary kind of

people, at the end of the day they're still going through the same struggle, like the working-class struggle as anybody else. and they might not, like, realize it, but whenever they hear, like, the ideas of working people having, like, power over their own lives and having control of the situation, even if they're still trapped in this backwards mentality, it really has the power to, like, bring out some support. because i talk to my mom about it. like, if i don't, like -- if i put, like, a communist label on it then she she's going to, like, lash out about it. but if i talk like in general terms about, like, people having control over the workplace and being able to vote on, like, policy in the workplace, like she usually just tend to agree with it. and she's, like, really, like -- like i said, she's like a conservative tea party kind of person otherwise, but whenever i talk about don't you think, like, people should be able to,

like, make some of these decisions and, you know, not have somebody make it for them, and she's, like, all these people -- i really doubt my mom is that different than any of these other people. and these people will agree with this idea because it's not just a opinion. tights reality of the world we live in is that we need a world where people have control over their own lives. it doesn't matter how backwards they are. anybody can understand that. >> well, you know, these fight s have put race, class, and inequality as a part of the national, international narrative, and i think that's very, very important. now what we need to do is have some real concrete victories so people can see that wherever they are, whether it's at kfc or domino's, jimmy john's, or at a

local warehouse, that they organize, they come together, they can win. 20 years ago, you know what, there was this decline in the power of unions, and now we see that power rising again in the 21st century through these fights. so we need to continue that. >> okay. personal thing. i'm from buffalo, new york, not from minnesota. anybody here from buffalo? >> buffalo, come on! >> i'm so disappointed. okay. well, i am. i'm going to give a pitch for a project i'm involved in because i can't top any of that stuff. i'm a media person and as you can tell from workday minnesota and so on i can think broadly about media, and i know you're talking about people's world and so on and what to do with it and so on, i guess, it sounded like.

i'm involved in a project called work site network, which was an over-the-top labor tv news project that hasn't happened yet but we're hoping to make it happen. so imagine labor news on netflix except not really, you know. right? so it will be menu driven thing, you know, available universally on any device. they can get to internet. there will be a, you know, menu of programming and probably the flagship thing will be work site network news, a half-hour news thing, but with we're not dumb, things will be broking up for social media for purposes with smaug segments. but we intend to have it in a place where we'll house labor documentaries, which there still are a lot to be made and so on. i don't want to take any more time. but it's not happened yet, but i'm happy you said us. i'm just trying to get this off

the ground and kind of sounding it out. you know, we're trying to get money out of unions. we had some pretty big meetings so far in washington, d.c., about this and with other stuff. soy hope someday you'll see it. so there you have it. [ applause ]. >> something about me. i love beyonce, so if there's karaoke around here let me know. and join me also. something serious, though. most people from st. louis in the back of the room wouldn't know this, but this campaign has really changed me and made me into a real leader. this campaign has gave me more of power to stand up for myself. i don't think if the fight for 15 never came around, of course i still would have been involved but i don't know how strong i

would say myself is, if that makes sense. it even taught me things i didn't know. i have no union members in my family. i'm probably the first my family to know what a union is, what it can do for your family, for your community, for your neighborhood. it's really not only taught me, but this campaign has taught a lot of other people, especially a lot of colored people, a lot of colored people can finally say they done stood up for something, they stood up for themselves, that they didn't just get walked over, and they know what a union is. so i really do just appreciate this campaign because it's teaching us also. it's not just having us go out and stand up for myself. it's also teaching us to teach the next person, and that's something i definitely appreciate from it. [ applause ].

>> well, something about myself is that i love to swim. so that's one thing. and not only that, but i compete in swimming, so there you go. at this ripe old age. i just think that the power of stories achbld what we heard tonight, it moves. it moves people. and that's kind of the format we try to provide at people's world, so create and have that space for people to tell their stories and do it with an eye of winning more people over to the fight, because, like your grandmother or like -- like my family or like our neighbors may not be familiar with unions. it's a small percentage in our country that's organized.

but i think once you start scratching that surface, which i think stories help to do, people start to move. and that's what we try to do at people's world, win people over to fighting for racial equality. win people over to fighting for gender equality. so that's what we try to do, tell the story, but with an eye of broadening and reaching out and pulling more people into the -- into the good fight. >> thank you. [ applause ] so, are we ready for more unity, more organizing, more justice? are we ready? [ cheers ] so, remember, justice, as dr. cornell west has said, jus sis is just showing love in public. so you can show a little love

and can be part of the fight to save rasheen's job and make a call tonight. you can make a call tonight or during the weekend. will people start handing these out? we want you to call the manager at jimmy john's. what's the slogan for sorry to say that you will not be joining us at a reception to

honor our panel down at the inner circle on the first floor. good night. [ applause ].

you can see it live from the cato institute in just half an hour on c-span. and then at 5:00 eastern, undersecretary of state for political affairs wendy sherman talks about nuclear negotiations with iran. you can see that today on c-span. tonight on c-span3, washington journal's interview with university of nebraska-lincoln interim president james linder, part of our special series on universities in the big ten conference. that's followed by a discussion on challenges facing minority students trying to go to college and a series of discussions on campus sexual assault hosted by missouri democratic senator claire mccaskill. that all starts at 8:00 p.m. eastern. this weekend on the c-span networks, friday night hshgs starting at 8:00 eastern on c-span, our campaign 2014 debate coverage continues in primetime.

on saturday night at 10:00, the women of color empowerment conference. sunday tel avivening at 8:00 on q&a, rory kennedy on her latest film "last days in vietnam." friday night at 8:00 on c-span2, michio kaku on the latest advances in brain science. saturday morning beginning at 11:00 eastern on book-tv. live coverage of the texas book festival in austin. sunday, our coverage of the texas book festival continues live starting at noon. friday night at 8:00 on american history tv on c-span3, the union army and abraham lincoln's 1864 re-election. and saturday night at 8:00 on lectures in history, the modernization of businesses and households in the 20th century and its impact on society. and sunday afternoon at 4:00 on real america, ronald reagan's 1964 "a time for choosing" speech. find our television schedule at c-span.org and let us know what you think about the programs you're watching. call us at 202-626-3400, e-mail

us at comments@c-span.org, or send us a tweet @c-sp @c-span #comments. like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. now portions of a conference hosted by the group the campaign for mesh's future. you'll hear from co-director robert borosage on what he calls the new populism which focuses on economic issues. he's followed by thee ya lee of the afl-cio who talks about free trade deals. this is about a half an hour. [ applause ]. so how you doing? >> good! >> we're coming at you today with lots of stuff, but this is the beginnings of a big movement. and so it's time to get our

knowledge down and our energy up. i'm really delighted to greet you, the movers and sherrick, the citizen activists, the people who helped built this movement that we are dubbing the new populism. why do we call it populism? i'm going to step back here a little bit and provide a contest. the princeton dictionary defin s s populism as a political doctrine that supports the rights and powersov of the comm people in their struggle with the privileged elite. that's not a bad definition for princeton. [ laughter ] the new populism is founded as ellison has told us, on the undeniable reality of today's america, that too few people

control too much power and too much money and they use that control to protect their privileges. and the question is, the challenge of populism is whether the common people can, in their struggle, take back the democracy from that privileged elite. now, the simple reality is this economy does not work for working people. economists measure this stuff. they'll tell you that for 70% of americans there's been wage stagnation through the entirety of this century. 70% of americans are going nowhere. in the last years coming out of a great recession, the top 1% captured 95% of the income gains of the entire society. 1%, 95% of the income gains.

this thing is askew. it's not an accident. it's not an act of nature. it's not due to technology or to globalization. it is rather a set of policies, decades of deregulation, of top-end tax cuts, as frank talked about, of ceo pay, of the assault on workers and union, of conservative myths of market fundamentalism, has led to this age of gilded age extreme. and what's emerging as congressman allison said, is the beginnings of a plutocracy, and a plutocracy that does what plutocrats always do -- uses their power to consolidate their gains. now, what's interesting about america, what's promising about this moment is americans historically do not easily abide entrenched aristocracies.

from the beginnings of the republic, from the founders, there has been a suspicion of anything that would keep the opportunity from being widely shared. it was jefferson who warned that we had to crush, his verb, the moneyed corporate aristocracy that he thought was being formed at the time. the movement that gave populism its name came out of the west, kansas, at the end of the 19th century. it was formed by small farmers and by worker, by day laborer, by sharecropper who is came together against all the odds to take on the biggest trusts, the railroads, the distant banks, that were making it impossible for them to survive. now, they railed against government. they saw that the government

protected and coddled the monopolies, they cracked the heads of workers that were trying to organize, but they made one fundamental understanding that the tea partyers today don't get. they realized they couldn't simply dismantle government and cut its powers because if they did that then the monopolies and the banks and the trusts would have a freer hand to gouge them and their neighbors. they had to do something far harder. they had to make government not an arm of the privileged but an ally of the people. so that meant they had to figure out how to mobilize people to take on what roosevelt later called organized money. it was mary elizabeth lease, the great populist orator, who said it was time to raise less corn and more hell. but they realized protest wasn't

enough. they had to come up with new ideas weather policies weather an agenda that would transform the rules of the game so that it could work for working people and for small farmers and for small business. now, that populist movement as a party, the people's party, lasted only a few years. but it set an agenda that set the progressive agenda for over 75 years. the minimum wage, the eight-hour day, the right to organize, the progressive income tax, the crackdown with antitrust on monopolies, the assault on corporate subsidies and croney capitalism, the attempt to extend democracy, direct election of senators, the initiative and the referendum, taking on big money and politics. there is a direct line from the platform of the 1892 omaha meeting of the people's party to

the progressive movement to teddy roosevelt to fdr and the economic bill of rights and to lyndon johnson's great society, which we celebrate the 50th anniversary of this week. this is the legacy and the history on which the new pop populism stands. now, you hear conservatives say this is about envy, right? got all these rich people. people are envious. it's not about envy. americans actually don't care if rich people get really rich. they sort of like it. they think maybe they have a shot at it. this is about justice. it's about opportunity. it's about making sure that the game's not so rigged that the doors are shut for anyone else to get into so that the economy doesn't work for the majority, it only works for few. and what we understand now, what's so blatant now and what people are coming to understand is that this game, in fact, is

fixed and the deck, in fact, is stacked. we see billionaires like sheldon anderson gathering republican presidential nominees and treating them sort of like toy plastic soldiers that he can toy with as he decides who he's going to pick as his champion. as frank said, we see millionaires paying lower taxes than their chauffeurs. we see multinationals stashing profits abroad and paying lower taxes than mom and bobbys. it is, as hotel magnet leona hemsley said famously years ago, taxes are for little people. and we see ceos ceos -- the institute for policy studies has just released a study showing 40% of ceos in the top 25 companies with the biggest incomes over the last few years have pocketed

multimillion-dollar bonuses even though for 40% of them their companies were either busted for violating the law, they were booted because they were failures and still got the bonuses, and yet this process of ceo pay soaring and worker pay declining continues. we see the wall street bankers. these are the folk who is blew up the economy with their excesses and got bailed out. and now they're back, pretending to be masters of the universe again, they've reopened the financial casino and they seem to be clear that they are immune from any prosecution for what the fbi called an epidemic of fraud that they profited from. jail, after all, is for little people. so what does it take to take this all on? it gets to be forbidding when you think about the power arranged against us. yes, mobilized people have to take on organized money.

and the politics and the agenda of our time has to change. keith ellison laid out some of the agenda of the progressive caucus budget. the idea that you can pay for the investments we need to solve the public squalor that we now wallow in by taxing and ensuring that the rich and corporations pay their fair share of taxes. but redistribution isn't enough. we've got to change the rules of the economy. we have to expand shared security, not cut it back. we have to make work pay, empowering workers, lifting the floor, patching the roof, putting a lid on ceo extremes. we have to curb wall street's speculation and make banking boring again. we have to balance trade and more. all of this is essential to a deal. you're going to hear a lot about this agenda today. but these ideas have to be central to organizing a popular movement that has the scope to

be able to actually make a difference. now, as frank said, what's interesting is the american people get it. we are releasing a report today on the populist majority. it's on our website, populistmajority.org, that lays out a simple fact -- on issue after issue after issue vast majorities of american are with us. citizens united, big money and politics, four out of five americans want it repealed. three out of four republicans. minimum wage, overwhelming majorities. you care about free trade or fair trade, americans overwhelmingly want fair trade. you want -- you care about fair taxes on the rich as frank just told you, they are ready. curb wall street, goldman sachs's lloyd blankfein says

goldman sachs does god's work. but if you ask americans they think it's much more the devil's worksh workshop. protect social security and medicare, even majorities of tea partyers agree with that. so this populism is not -- it has a popular grounding. it is grounded in where people's at todays are already in a sense before the politics has even begun. and we don't have to invent it. it's here. it's happening now. it's already stirring. it's occupy in 160 cities putting inequality at the center of our political debate. it's exploited low-wage workers as keith talked about, protesting fast-food restaurants across the country. it's a left/right congressional coalition that's coming together to pose fast track and the trans-pacific trade accord. tights moral monday protest that you'll hear about from reverend barber who have challenged the assault on voting rights on the

vulnerable in north carolina and now are spreading to georgia and to south carolina. it's a feisty citizens organization that is opposing the big oil companies as they try to take over the rights to frac their land. you can see it in the culture. we now have a pope who condemns, quote, the modern i dole tri of money, quote, and condemns those who believe, quote, in the tyranny of unfettered capital. you can see it on the bestseller lists. can you imagine an obscure french economist writing a 685-page book about income inequality and having it soar to the top of the list right next to daniel steele's steamy new novel? something is moving here. [ applause ] and forceful leaders are merging. you're going to hear from some

of them today. elizabeth warren, bernie sanders. you've heard from keith ellison. across the country mayors, populist mayors are being elected led by new york's mayor bill de blasio, who ran in new york talking about a tale of two cities and demanding the right to raise taxes on the rich to pay for universal pre-k for every child. [ applause ] and what's interesting to me is we are much stronger than people think. the entire base of the obama majority, the rising america electorate, people of color, single women, the millennials, they have fared the worst in this economy. and more and more they are demanding changes so that it works for them. it is not an accident that senators have adopted elizabeth

warren's call to raise taxes on millionaires to be able to renegotiate the debts of students that have graduated so that they can pay at least closer to an affordable interest rate. at the organized base of the party, from unions to community activists, they are ready. so the question for us is not something we have to invent, not something that we have to create. it's simply we've got to start to organize. so today we'll report on that majority. you'll hear leaders from this moveme movement. they'll talk about the fundamental reforms that have to be taken. and we'll start down this road. we'll have an election, conservatives say democrats will be discouraged.

this has only started. this is not about one election, one leader. this is going to take a long time and we're going to have to keep building. it will take muckraking and organizing and teaching and protests and new ideas and new allies. it will face fierce resistance. it's against the odds. the wealthy and the powerful spend lavishly to defend their privileges. and our entire system really is designed to clog change not facilitate it. but has keith said, when people speak, politics actually start to listen, and we've only just begun to build. and mistakes are truly fundamental. we are in an historic project, and the question is whether the democracy, in fact, can reclaim the country from an emerging and entrenched elite. this is a project worth devoting energy, ideas, lives to.

it's one we have to start, and let's get on it. thank you. [ applause ]. good morning, everybody. >> good morning. >> it's wonderful to be here today with all of you, talking about the enormous challenges that we face to get our broken, lopsided, unequal economy back on track but also, and maybe more important, to share the energy, the momentum, the intellectual vigor, and the potential of this moment right now that we are living in, because i think we do have the potential, we do have the potential to turn this into a turning point for our country and for workers all around the world.

i bring to you greetings and apologies from the three officers of the afl-cio, president richard trumpka, secretary treasurer liz shuler and executive vice president tafari degray. they would have been here with you today but they're all in berlin at the international union federation congress. this happens only every four years. and they're talking about these same issues with worker leaders from all over the world, from brazil and south africa, from norway, germany, israeliia, southern california, egypt, and every country you can think of. iszoite's very exciting. this is a dialogue about taking back the reins, about populism, about being in the majority and using the power of the majority to do the right thing for folks in all of our countries. as robert borosage said this morning, new populism is about ordinary people taking about the reins and about how too few people control too much money and power and they use that

control to rig the rules and extend that power. when we talk about trade policy in the united states, this really resonates. i've been in washington for more than 20 years now working on trade issues and doing not just with corporate advocates, but too often with my own government, both democrats and republicans, around what trade policy should be. what the goals of trade policy are. is the whole point to have more trade agreements, lower trade barriers, more trade volume? or is it to use the u.s. engagement in the global economy to create good jobs, to protect workers' rights here and in other countries. to figure out how to use the dynamism. it's a different way. we need to -- we need to turn the whole concept of how we think about trade policy and globalization upsidedown. because the people who are in

charge of this policy have done a crappy job. i'm so happy to be here today. jared bernstein who will follow me and all the folks that will come before talking about fair tax policies. where everyone today is laying the groundwork for what a healthy domestic economy looks like. good jobs, full employment, strong unions, raising wages, fair taxes. but the truth is, we cannot build a strong domestic economy here in the united states. in the year 2014. if we don't change fix reform the way we engage in the global economy. i don't care if it's labor law reform, tax policy, climate change or health care or consumer protections or clean water. we can't get that done if we choose -- if we allow our leaders to embed ourselves in the global economy in a way that gives all the power to

multinational corporations, and none of the power to working people. our government right now is in the midst of negotiating what we call the megatreaties. the partnership with 12 countries in asia and latin america and the oceana, the transatlantic investment trade partnership with the european union. both of these if completed more than 2/3 of global gdp. these are important, weighty treati treaties. and yet, too few of you know what's on the table right now because these treaties are not done in a transparent way. stake holders, citizens, workers, environmentalists, consumer advocates aren't in the room, they aren't being given the information they need. congress isn't being given the information they need to make judgments about each step of the way. what our government is willing to put on the table to clinch a deal.

and that's where the whole fast track process, which i know you probably remember from some of the past battles that we've had in the late '90s and early 2000s which is the process by which congress gives the executive branch authority to negotiate these agreements and to bring them back to congress for an up or down vote. no amendments. and an accelerated timetable. and they need fast track because these deals were unpopular. and because these deals reach deep into, what we consider the domestic fabric, the domestic decision making, sovereign democratic decision making process, whether it's regulatory coherence or labor laws or good jobs or our ability to stimulate our own economy through using our tax dollars to buy american made products. each of those things are at risk. because of the specific provisions negotiated by our government. we should be at the table.

these deals are too big and too important to leave to the trade bureaucrats. those folks, a lot of them are very well-meaning people. i think they think they're doing the right thing, but the truth is they get on auto pilot. they have a conception of what a good trade agreement. they call it a gold standard trade agreement looks like. it's what they've done before. what was in nafta. and they keep on replicating that over and over again. and because the united states is so powerful. because our economy is so attractive to so many different trading partners, we have the ability in too many cases to win those battles at the negotiating table. so the important thing is, the voices of people like you and the pressure on our administration and on congress to do the right thing in these trade deals. but the good news is, the elements for change are in place. you heard salinda lake talk about how american people do want good trade policies. they don't want an undemocratic fast track process to ram

unpopular trade deals down our throat. they don't want trade and tax policies to be used to reward and encourage and accelerate outsourcing of our good jobs. they want balanced trade. and they know that good jobs and the ability to build good jobs to recover from the recession that was supposed to be over about five years ago. we haven't been able to recover from that recession. the economy begins to grow our huge trade deficit sucks away the vigor and the momentum from that economy. because instead, when american consumers go to the store to buy stuff, they're too often buying stuff that's made elsewhere. and so instead of having the virtuous cycle where the economy begins to recover, people have money in their pockets, spend that money, that causes factories to hire more people. people have more money in their pockets. that's a healthy economy. we have broken that cycle with our trade policies because we have assumed that if our multinational corporations are happy, if they're making money

and their ability to make money isn't about producing stuff on american soil. their ability to make money is about taking the jobs offshore where there's a less regulated environment, where workers don't have the right to organization a union, where the environment isn't protected, and to pay low wages there and then bring the consumer goods back. and that's why we run these trade deficits. balanced trade is crucial to what should be at the center of our goals. but you know what, our government doesn't talk about balanced trade. they act as though it doesn't exist. trade isn't bad. trade is not inherently bad. it's 2014. we live in a global economy. import and export. of course investment is going to cross borders. but what are the rules that govern that? and can we have a reciprocal

trading relationship instead of a lopsided trading relationship where we import stuff and we export good jobs? we can do better. and we need to do better, and the american people are ready for us to do a better job. the second element that's in place is an intellectual shift. when i started doing the work on nafta, more than 20 years ago in the early 1990s, it was very isolating, i have to say. i was a little nobody economist at the economic policy institute, and at some point, i remember there was this big petition signed by hundreds of economists including every living nobel prize winner. and they all said nafta was great. and i remember distinctly. reporters saying to me on the phone, do you think you know better than every living nobel prize economist? the answer was, yes.

not because i was a better economist, because i wasn't, but because i actually read the nafta. i didn't stop at the two words in the middle, free trade. which is what i debated one of the winning nobel prize winning economists. i debated him at yale. and he said, i don't know anything about this, but i do see the words free trade and i'm an economist and therefore i'm for it. but the good news is that this debate has come pretty far since then. and we are seeing a shift. we're really thoughtful, major, respectful economists are coming to a different place. even paul samuelson. a few years ago some of you remember weighed in to say, wait a minute, you know, if trade is really used, trade and investment is used to move good jobs overseas, it's not always going to be best. and now we have people like joe stiglets, paul krugman and jeff sachs who are saying if you look

at investment protections and the imbalance for investors and workers, there are some real concerns here. and we need to think about it again. so that's the good news is that we are ready. politically speaking, in congress, we have some great champions. nancy pelosi and harry reid have done a great job in putting the stops, the brakes on fasttrack for now. but they're going to need a lot of support. and the people like chery brown, elizabeth warren, keith ellison have been tremendous champions for fair trade. but too many democrats, too many wishy washy democrats, they want to keep getting the campaign contributions from big business. they want the elite media. they want to stay respectable in the cocktail party circuit. and they hope their base doesn't notice. but our job is to notice. but even more important is the republicans in congress. as said and many polls have

shown, the republican base agrees with us. we need a different kind of trade policy. and maybe even more so. but the problem is that the republicans in congress pay no price for their robotic votes year after year after year for these corporate dominated trade deals. so our job, turn up the heat. put those corporate hack free trade votes on the doorstep of the republicans. so make sure they pay a price when they take that vote at the behest of their corporate leaders. but and finally, the last is the obama administration is barrelling ahead with some of these deeply problematic mega treaties. and these treaties are still being negotiated. they're not done yet. it's clear, at least for the transpacific partnership which is almost done that too many elements are warmed over tired versions of past trade deals. one of the key issues, and i mentioned this before, it's important, the investment

provisions. we have been using these trade agreements since nafta to protect corporate rights in a way that is unprecedented. we haven't given corporations, multinational corporations foreign investors the right to sue governments. to sue our government and to sue other governments over regulations. whether it's for environment or public safety or labor law that they don't like. that cut into their expected profits. those are the investment chapters we have written, and we continue to write and we continue to enter into. and there's no need for it. let me wrap up quickly. but even the kato institute. weighed in recently and said, we should just ditch these investment provisions from our trade deals. they're free traders. they want the trade deals to go through. and it was interesting economic analysis. you should look it up on the

website. these agreements are essentially a way for the government to subsidize risk averse corporations to engage in outsourcing. so if -- if corporations are frayed, it's too risky to move production to another country because they might not have good protections there, the courts might be unjust or the government might not -- our government is going to step in and say don't worry, we're going to let you go to an extra national tribunal. and you're going to have extra protections in that tribunal. so if you're worried about the risk of outsourcing, let us take that risk off your plate. that's not right. that's not the job of the u.s. government, that's not the job of our trade policy. our trade policy should be putting good jobs, workers rights, environmental protections and consumer safety first and investor rights at the very bottom of that list. thank you so much for your attention. i look forward to the rest. >> coming up today on c-span 2,

a former israeli intelligence officer will discuss israeli national security and talk about instability in syria and iraq, and give us the latest on isis and what his country and the u.s. can do to influence events in that region. it's live from the wilson center starting at 1:00 p.m. eastern. and then at 4:15, secretary of defense, chuck hagel will brief reporters with the south korean defense minister. talking about increasing tensions between north and south korea as well as the ebola outbreak. that's all today on our companion network, c-span 2. washington journal's interview with james lindiner. it's part of our special series on universities in the big ten conference. that's followed by a discussion on challenges facing minority students trying to go to college. that all starts at 8:00 p.m. eastern.

michigan congressman john dingell reflected on his nearly 60 years in congress during a speech in june at the national press club. he came to congress in 1955 after winning a special election to fill the vacancy caused by the death of his father. congressman dingell is the longest serving member in history and only one of two remaining world war ii veterans. congressman dingell will retire at the end of this term. >> good afternoon. and welcome. my name is myron, an adjunct professor at the school of media and public affairs, former international bureau chief for the "associated press" and the 107th president of the national press club. the national press club is the world's leading professional organization for journalists committed to our profession's

future through our programming with events such as this while fostering a free press worldwide. for more information about the press club, please visit our website at press.org. on behalf of our members worldwide, i'd like to welcome our speaker, and those of you attending today's event. guests of our speaker as well as working journalists who are club members. and so if you hear applause in our audience, i note that members of the general public are attending and it's not necessarily lack of journalistic objectivity. i'd also like to welcome our c-span and public radio audiences. you can follow the action on twitter using the #npclunch. after our guest's speech concludes, we'll have a question and answer period. i'll ask as many questions as time permits. it's time to introduce our head table guests. i'd like each of you to stand briefly as your name is announced.

aaron kessler, "new york times." marisa schultz, washington correspondent for the detroit news. christina marcos, staff reporter for the hill. pope barrow, former head of the house of representatives office of legislative counsel and guest of the speaker. kevin merida, managing editor, "washington post." >> richard franson, who handled environmental matters and guests of our speaker. and skipping over our speaker for a moment, jerry, the washington bureau chief of the buffalo news, chairman of the npc speaker's committee and a past npc president. angela king, a blomeberg news white house correspondent, the 2013 national press club president, and the member of the speaker's committee who organized today's luncheons. angela, thank you very much.

consuela washington. and a guest of the speaker. david shepardson, detroit news, washington correspondent. laura litvan, congressional reporter for bloomberg news. and cq roll call heard on the hill columnist. when our guest today took his seat representing michigan in the u.s. house, it was the same year the first mcdonald's opened and coca-cola was first sold in cans in addition to bottles. gas costs 23 cents a gallon and you could buy a car from the motor city for only $1,900. john dingell took office in 1955 during president eisenhower's administration. he served alongside 11 presidents and is not only the

longest service member of the house now, he's the longest serving member ever. he announced in february that he'll retire at the end of -- at the end of his 29th full term. dingell when he was only 29 succeeded his father in the congressional district. his district is the heart of the big 3 auto country. he's hoping to be -- he's hoping that the dingell dynasty continues with his wife debbie. dingell spent a decade and a half as a chairman of the house energy and commerce committee and then was its ranking democrat until henry waxman ousted him in 2008. dingell is known for his quick temper and questions of witnesses that "people" magazine

called intimidate iing. he earned the nickname the truck. endangered species and health insurance, including shepherding through the affordable care act. in spite of passing the endangered species act, dingell has a reputation as an ally of the auto industry and its main union that has led him to fight attempts to strengthen environmental regulations for cars. he's watched congress since he was a child. at his father's knee and serving as a house page in the 1940s. we invited him here to the press club to give a farewell speech. but mr. dingell said, he's not done working or governing yet. so he's here today to speak to us about when congress worked. please help me give a warm national press club welcome to

congressman john dingell for his seventh appearance at national press club luncheon since march 7th, 1975. >> thank you. thank you, my friend. >> well, thank you for your gracious introduction. and thank you all my dear friends for your kindness in such a gracious and gentle welcome. i hope when this is finished that you will feel the same way. i want to thank the press club for inviting me and for allowing me to bring so many of my friends here today.

i am particularly pleased that my colleague jim miran is here today. stand up, jim, we are very proud of you. it has been a particular honor and privilege for me to serve with you. and he has been a role model for any and all. i also want to welcome and to recognize so many of my dear friends and former members of my staff who are here today. and i ask that all of you whoever worked on behalf of the people of southeast michigan or with me on the energy and commerce committee. will you please stand and be recognized?

there is a strange thing about my association with my staff. i've picked not only the most extraordinarily able but also some of the finest and most loyal people whoever drew a breath. i am proud of you all, and i am grateful that you would be here today. and grateful, indeed, you would be my friends. it is true. i've served in the house for nearly 60 years. and i've seen many things good and bad and much change. i've had the privilege of watching washington change from a little town in the woods to an institution rather to a major city of -- of international

proportions. and i have had the privilege of serving with not under and not for 11 presidents from eisenhower to obama. and i would observe that sam rayburn used to get very much touched off when people would ask how many presidents he had served under. i've had the privilege of casting some 25,000 votes. i've served alongside more than 2,400 colleagues. and i've sat in the chamber of the house of representatives to witness some 51 state of the union speeches from all of the 11 presidents with whom i've served. in my service, i have been able to author and to pass landmark legislation that helped protect

the environment, ensure civil rights for all and help our middle class to grow and prosper. and i'm proud of what i have been able to do. i was thinking as i made my mind up whether i was going to run -- as to whether i should stay and serve. and when the lovely deborah and i sit to talk about these things, we like to see. and we have completed those things, which my dad set out to do when he was here. and we've also been able to move forward to complete all of the goals, which i had when i started out here. i want to make it clear, this is not to brag about my accomplishments. it's simply to show that there was a time when congress could and did work. and when congress passed major legislation and earned bipartisan support to move the

nation forward. where its business was done with hard fighting, but also with good will and mutual respect. i want to make it clear, i did not do these things by myself. no man and no woman could. we did them with colleagues who were more interested in seeing this nation grow than seeing it falter. people who are willing and able to put partisan labels on the shelf instead work for greater and common good were the hallmark of those congresses. in those days, that was how it was. in these days, i often remind my colleagues of the very definition of the word congress. it means coming together. it means a body which has come together. and it is a part of the historic

understandings that this country had when we had a congress which worked. sadly, however, it has not been doing much coming together lately. and i imagine that you have observed this also. this is not a congress that is working. but it could be. and frankly, it should be. last year, we saw some 57 bills signed into law by the president. that's 57 total. we created as many laws as there are varieties of heinz's famous products. perhaps that's the way we should name that congress. but do not get me wrong, getting things done does take time.

i remember years ago, i brought up a set of bipartisan clean air amendments. passed the house with a vote of 401 to 21. just 13 hours of work took the house to complete this effort. folks came up to me afterwards and said, dingell, how in the name of common sense did you manage to pass that bill in just 13 hours? i looked at them and said, it took me 13 hours to get a bill that both sides agreed to on the floor. it took me 13 years to do the work that made that possible. that tells you how hard legislation is to do. and my former staff here, most of you news men and women and my

good friend can testify to the difficulty of the process of compromise of getting legislation with good will. one of the interesting things about the congress is the change. it's become in too many instances a money chase. it has become in too many instances an instance where it is the goal of members to have the name of a committee on their letter head, which draws and attracts attention and support politically. it is unfortunate, indeed, that this is so. because the congress is an important national trust. it is something where we have a duty to the people to do what is necessary in the broad public interest.

and regrettably, it is the case that we do not see that occurring on many instances in the congress. the committees are too large and should be shrunk. the subcommittees are too large. i serve on one committee or served on one committee where i found that the number of members in the subcommittees exceeded the number of members on the full committee when i went on there. and it could go on and on as to how it has gotten so big as to be incapable of carrying out its responsibilities and its functions. other forces are making things go badly. the supreme court decision in the citizens united case has allowed unlimited anonymous or

dark money to flow into our political system. we have a court that has taken the most literal approach to so many of these important decisions, that the consequences are beginning to have a very serious effect on not only democracy but the trust of people in their government. and i regret to note that there are still more god awful cases rattling around or at the supreme court that are almost certain to do more harm. any layman reading the citizens united decision will assume that surely this was in no way written by a group of intelligent individuals. or people even remotely aware of

what's going on in our current political structure. the decision flies in the face of so much of what our representative government was founded upon. allowing people and corporate interest groups and others to spend an unlimited amount of unidentified money has enabled certain individuals to swing any and all elections whether they are congressional, federal, local, state. or whether their votes about the creation of some kind of local entity or resolution of local question. and that's why we've seen the rise of the superpacs.

and people are now dipping their hot hands into every kind of election. and state ballot initiatives. and anything under the sun that will help them to get what it is they want. unfortunately and rarely are these people having goals which are in line with those of the general public. history well shows that there is a very selfish game that's going on. and that our government has largely been put up for sale. we've also had many in congress that wish to do nothing more than shrink the size and the scope of the federal government. and this without taking into account the families, the

veterans, active duty military, the countless others who rely on this government and on our nation. and these people forget that there are even more than 300 million americans, and that those 300 million americans and more are living in one of the most dangerous times in american history. many of my republican colleagues now find that they must sign a grover norquist pledge when they run for congress. saying that they will carry out his goal to shrink government down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub. these are his words. these are not my words. and so, with this norquist pledge and similar litmus tests, these quandaries are only made worse by redistricting where a

similar event has occurred before to enable legislatures to be owned by these same special interests. we say state legislators draw our congressional lines with little interest in fair representation. with small concern about protecting regional boundaries. or about any blink of consideration for any part of the voting rights act, which is, again, under attack. they operate simply in the interest and the making of majorities for one political party. and for achieving one particular set of views. as redistricting creates more and more safe seats, we see members focus only on winning

primaries. not about the public interest, and not about real discussion of the concerns that members have or citizens have. the pledges are signed. and they attempt to become the ideological image of what their primary electorate sees their political party is or should be with a work product that equals their goals and facilitates their wishes. now, there's also no incentive to stick one's neck out and to compromise. it should be noted that many on both sides can only run further on the fiercely narrow and partisan fringes. a simple analysis will tell us

that this does not help our democracy. i've said before a vast number of amendments laying upon them. i'm compelled to stand on the validity of that concern. the congress was built over a long period of time. to achieve particular goals.

that everybody outside the chamber represented by people in the chamber would have a right to be heard. to the fears and hopes and dreams and concerns of every americans. by allowing one man or one entity to run the congress of the united states. and so now, we have seen a clear effort by both republicans and by their democratic successors

and now the republicans again to ultimately usurp the committee process. when i started, there are only a handful of members on each committee and 3 to 9 members on each subcommittee. 3 to 9. and it'll be interesting thing was some of the most complex and difficult questions would be dealt with in the committee. where members would come together, they would first hear the testimony, then ran everybody out of the room, removed their coats, and one of my colleagues used to say, fight like hell for however long it took. the result was that we result -- that we had committees that knew and understood legislation.

today, there are committees with nearly 100 members on them. if each member gets five minutes, multiply that out and see how much opportunity there is for real and intelligent discussi discussion. minutes and seconds to address their interests or ask their questions. i repeat, what do you think the chances are for intelligent debate of important national questions and important national concerns? now, one of the other things, we see new members who come in, and

they head right to the floor to make some of those great big wonderful speeches before they even know where the restrooms are. they landed in washington on a monday or maybe a tuesday. and their first question is, what time is the first plane on which they can return home. again, how is this going to facilitate a significant national debate or intelligent discussion of the legislative business? we hear from the members, i'm against this, and i'm against that. do we ever hear much about what they're for? but more importantly, the question is what are they willing to make a compromise on? because compromise is an honorable word. and i am going to try to

continue pushing that view during my remaining time in the congress. and so, we ought to ask these new members, what are you for? what are you going to compromise on? and what are you going to try to achieve? to see to it that we come up with a program in government that gives us a resolution of the difficult controversies and difficult national questions of the day. now, i'm sad to leave the congress. i love the congress. and i'm delighted that the lovely deborah, my wife, is running for the congress. because i think she's smarter and decent and much prettier than i am. i will observe that my s sadness -- by the poisonous atmosphere we see in american politics today. so while i'm troubled by the many hurdles this congress faces

in refocusing its efforts on the important matters at hand, i'm comforted to know that they can only improve. so when the dictionary defines the word congress as a coming together, it also defines the very way we can emerge from this current mess. first and foremost, it will take a congress willing to put aside petty differences and live up to the definition of the word. its compromise is not a dirty word, and it is not an evil thing. conciliation is not a bad idea. cooperation is not an unspeakable act. this sooner that congress realizes this and that american citizens realize this and that they begin impressing this view on their candidates, the better the situation is going to get.

so then the congress could begin to focus. its work more on the public interest. but it also is going to take an american people who are willing to -- and interested in seeing to it that the congress works. it also is going to begin to require a control on expenditures of money. first race i ran, i spent $19,000, i thought, good god, what an awful number. i later had the fight of, up to that time was my life, $35,000. more recently a serious fight with an incumbent colleague. and i had to spend in that race, $3 million. she spent $6 million. so there are some needed changes

where people understand that their congress is not something that should be traded or should not be traded on the commodity exchanges. the congress is something which belongs to us all. and it's something which has been achieved only at great bloodshed, great loss of life, great suffering, huge hard work and the wisdom of men and women far smarter than any that we see running around now. and interestingly enough, those men and women were not people who had prestigious education. they were, rather people who understand by hard study of the wisdom of persons earlier in the history of this world.

so what we need to do is to have the amican people dictate that which must be done. i am proud that i have been able to be a part of the body. and truly a child of the institution. i intend to keep this nation and all my colleagues in my thoughts and prayers. and i have to say more often in my prayers than in my thoughts. in any event, thank you for what you do. thank you for the great power in which you wield with your pen and your typewriter and your ability to communicate thoughts, including the wonderful computers. and thank you for your leadership in what you are doing. because we desperately need good

thinking people. and people who are determined to see to it that this oldest institution of its kind in the world continues to be the greatest gift of all. you know, when i go to bed at night and when i get up in the morning, i thank the good lord for the gift which he has given to me. making me a citizen of the united states some 87 or shortly 88 years. and the opportunity to be an american having more real good things and more money, but more freedom, independence and opportunity than any person in the world before. so, thank you. and god bless us all. but more importantly, god bless

the united states of america. thank you. >> thank you, again, congressman dingell, for being with us today, for delivering your speech, and for following through the tradition of a question and answer session. and the first question is, what has changed in congress the most since you first visited capitol hill while your father was a member of the house from 1933 to 1955? >> well, obviously, the quote

reforms. which have opened the place up. and in point of fact, which have denied us the ability to really talk about the concerns which we have. second of all, the size of the committee. third of all, the unworkability. fourth of all, the lack of capacity of the members to carry out their function because of the size of the committees, the size of the subcommittees, and the harsh fact that nobody trusts the committee. we used to have an entity which was called the tuesday through thursday club. and this was the crowd which showed up one tuesday and got the hell out of washington on thursday. it's not the way the government should run.

government should be a full-time business where we seek to serve the nation and see to it that its business is well conducted. this is not washington and the congress is not a place where everybody comes to have a good time. this is a place where the most important of the nation's business is supposed to be addressed. there are other things that i could mention to you, which i'm sure you all would recognize in which any or all of you could come forward with your own wise and necessary additions to my comments. >> do you ever see congress returning to a more bipartisan ways of days gone by? what would make that happen? >> well, two things. one, some kind of a national

event, which forced the members and the leadership to do that. a war, something like that. but beyond that, there are other things that could do that. one would be some kind of a national calamity. or, perhaps, something else which would be almost unique. and that would be a wiping out of almost the entire membership by seeing to it that the voters threw us all the hell out of washington and installed their own people in our place. there are other things, but that would be a fair summary of some of the things that might be helpful. >> do democrats deserve any of

the blame for the partisan divide in congress? >> of course. everybody deserves. democrats deserve it, republicans deserve it. but you know if you look around, you will find that the news media, the public at large, the citizenry in general all have their faults in this and their reason for feeling guilty about this. look and see what the listenership of the president's state of the union message is on tv. and you'll observe one thing. that it is usually timed to fall after. and instead of super bowl or something like that -- i'm not going to tell you the super bowl's not important and not

good to watch or listen to or not exciting. but i am going to tell you that from the standpoint of the nation's well being, it's not important. and so, what we have to do is to get the american people to say, you know, we want you to do something. and when you have a town meeting, have them get up, okay, what are you going to do about compromising this matter into something where the citizenry can accept it? one of the strengths i had as committee chairman was i always would see to it that i got the left and the right to compromise together on legislation. the end result was, we passed enormously difficult legislation

after oft times huge fights. but we passed it, and passed it with very large votes. that's still doable. but, again, it requires leadership. and, again, it requires people be elected to lead in the congress. >> you had some less than kind things to say about the supreme court. i think that's -- >> i thought they were quite kind, as a matter of fact. as a matter of fact, i thought they were not only deserved but right, but truthfully, if they had listened, perhaps even a bit helpful. >> and following on, what do you think motivated their citizens united decision? >> money. and the fact that almost the entire court was selected on the

basis of ideology and not legal training or anything. i probably shouldn't say anymore. so far, i have been overly kind. the supreme court, i think, probably staying in that particular mode remains for the day. >> what has been the lowest point in your congressional career? >> oh, boy. i saw my world come down around my ears. when i had to get a divorce. get the custody of the kids. and raise four kids alone. thank god i was able to do it through the help of a sister who was going to find the lord

waiting for her in heaven. and i was able to do that in a way which made my kids solid, successful citizens. and at that time, we were having a huge battle over energy and energy prices. something we regularly do on the hill. but something which where the administration was putting out a publication entitled, quote, shove it to dingell. and so i was in the midst of this dog fight about whether they were going to shove it to dingell or whether or not i was going to survive. and by a narrow margin i did, and a number of people here were there to help me through the difficult days.

>> and carrying on, what's been the biggest highlight of your time in congress? >> you know, i'd answer this way. every day is a blessing. and when i get up in the morning, always look down and see there's little green on your foot. i say, thank you, lord. but, more importantly, the highlights, the single one i remember was obamacare or the wonderful bill that we got through that took of health care for all our people. something my dad wanted. it was something we finally did. there were a lot of other bills

we did, too, that were important. the legislative standpoint, that i think was probably the one thing that was most important. >> why does congress need members like you who stay for many years as part of the institution? >> learn the business. a lot of people think you walk through that door and all of a sudden you're an expert. not. a lot of people that never learn where their office is or anything. got a lot of people who, frankly, never learn how to get along or don't know the names of their colleagues. or aren't able to compromise because congress is essentially and necessarily compromise. it's getting along with your

colleagues. it's knowing what it is they need and what they want. what they've got to have. years ago, i got a little guy by the name of gross from iowa. everybody says, god, dingell, that's awful. gross is a good a decent man. and if i can get a reasonable relationship with him and a reasonable friendship, we're going to run the committee. and we're going to run it well. and we ran a subcommittee. but we wrote more conservation legislation there than we've done ever since. it was a tremendous period. i got another guy -- and today, god rest his soul, he's gone. i still think warmly of him. another guy was bud brown of ohio. bud, a lot of people said, oh,

he's got a terrible sense of humor. yeah, but he's a wonderful, wonderful guy. if you got underneath that, you'd find what a wonderful fella there was down there. and brown reported to me one day. he says, you know, dingell, he says, my wife is filing for divorce. and she is going to name you as a correspondent. spending more time together, you and i, than we are -- than he was with his wife. brown would catch hell from his right wing crack pots, and i would have a few crack pots of my own. and we had -- we had to get along and get things done. we contrive to do it. and we did it because we had

trust. and we had friendship. and i solved a bunch of rail strikes because i had trust in friendship and got the secretaries of transportation. secretaries of transportation up. i said, you don't know me from adam and i don't know you. but i said, we got to work together. our words got to be good. we got to trust each other. and we did. one of the strikes we solved in 48 hours and the other we solved in 18. probably the worst mistake i ever made as a chairman because, damned if i didn't find that they took jurisdiction of railroads away from the committee because we had done -- nobody had known we had done anything. there are a lot of instances like that. to know how important the human

relationship is between members in the congress. if you have that, you have almost everything. if you don't, you've got nothing. >> one of the criticisms made of politics in the united states is that it is corrupted by money. during your six decades in the house, you have amassed a net worth of between 2.8 and $7.6 million, according to an analysis of personal financial disclosures, making you the 71st richest member in the chamber. how do you account for that wealth? and did a lifetime in washington help you get rich if that is a true portrayal? >> well, first of all, i ain't rich. second of all, i live very frugally. third of all, i am very careful

about how i spend money, as is deborah. we have learned elived in the in virginia for better than 30 years, almost 40 years. we made money trading houses. and the average american, if he does use his good sense, can do something like that, too. >> how have relations between the press, the members of congress changed over the course of the past 58 years? >> they're about the same. [ laughter ] it is kind of interesting now.

there used to be a guy on the committee, i could always tell when the media was going to be there because he would show up. and that was always a tip that things were pretty important that day. the business of the house has been a little bit corrupted, not a lot, but a little because it's interesting to note -- it's interesting to note that that money -- or rather, that relationship with the media is one which generally scares the members of the house. it also is a situation where if you watch the members -- and do

this on c-span or something like that. and watch. he is not talking to his colleagues. he has his eye on that television up there. and if you look, you will find instead of an intelligent debate, all of a sudden you got a guy who is making a big speech because of television, which is quite different than it would be were he to make his speech to somebody with whom he was having a real discussion of important issues. just to return to one point.

i've done pretty well because i learned something, and that is how one can take and use the compound interest rule to benefit himself. and one of the reasons you know that is that i have to report it. so you can be pretty sure that it's fairly truthful, and it does, very frankly, keep me and the system sort of honest. >> now on to some questions about the issues. at the start of every congress, you have always introduced a bill establishing a national healthcare system. we don't have that. but we do have obamacare. how is obamacare working, in your estimation? >> well, it's a little bit like

asking how is this child going to do in his presidential race, as that child, boy or girl, does it his or her race for the presidency. i happen to think very well. this is the biggest single undertaking of this kind ever done by this nation. social security was something like maybe 50 million. this is more like 350 million. and it is not done by people who are working with their government. it's done by people who are

working with insurance companies. and so all of these things have got to be done by everybody pitching in and cooperating. we didn't get a nickle's worth of represent from the republicans. they sul beinged. so their complaint is that they weren't hurt, that we didn't invite them. but they wouldn't come. so i don't have any questions about the fact it is doing about as well, given the circumstances, as it could. but going a little further than that, if you look, first of all, almost every american is covered. second of all, the long-standing complaints of the american citizens about how they were treated have been largely addressed.

citizens are able now to know that they're not going to cancel their policy when they go into the operating room on the gurney. they are also going to know that there's not going to be any pre-existed conditions barred. the number of recipients is almost 100%. we had a young fellow in the office paying $360-something in insurance. guess what? he went out into the market. they said, you can't have this. it's not going to do the good for you that he wants. we will give you the same policy for $160. he said, wow. so then he went into the market and they looked at him and they said, this is costing you too much for your wage and we

will -- he winds up paying $68 a month, same policy. haven't heard a word of squawk from him. [ laughter ] although, you hear it from the republicans yelling their heads off that it ain't working. and insurance companies -- if insurance companies are not satisfied, they are all of a sudden finding that they have to pay to -- if they exceed the cap of 80 or 85%, depending on the size of the facility. they got a return. a lot of people got that. you aren't hearing the republicans complain about that. i guess they are busy with other more important things. >> speaking of republicans, republicans point to the irs scandal, the v.a. scandal and iraq and say that president

obama is incompetent. how do you think he compares to other presidents you have served with? >> he didn't get us into the iraq war, did he? and he wasn't involved in watergate. and he has run a pretty honest administration. so let's take first the v.a. one of the reasons that v.a. is -- the problem is that he has to take care of 100 million vets, and he's got to see to it that he not only takes care of them but that he sees to it that they get the care that they are supposed to. and that's against the skinflint congress that had