action from the u.k. to brazil to india to germany to japan, they took it t bo the streets. you got to love facebook. right? i hav friends in tokyo who were posting mad pictures of people going into the streets and protesting outside of mcdonald's. so what is the significance of going global? and what do you think will be the outcome of fast food workers connecting globally? what will be the outcome? what do you think is going to happen? >> let me just say, i had the opportunity to actually meet workers from other countries. i don't know if you all know, but workers in denmark are

making -- at mcdonald's, guess how much they are making. can anybody guess? throw a number out there. you all know. faceb facebook. the power of facebook.oo so denmark is making $21 an hour at mcdonald's and also have a union. so pretty much what this -- [ applause ] yeah. so by us going global is showine that the workers in america are sick and tired of being sick and tired and the workers on the oe other side of the world is liket what the world is going on? how do you have these workers working for this amount of money and don't, you know, give them o no type of benefits, don't give us nothing? no so the workers on the other side of the world are concerned.ed. they want -- it's only right for

them to stand up and help us win this victory. because all of us is in it together. this right here by global shows the corporations that we are not giving up and we areatio going keep getting bigger and bigger.r it's only been two. years and wo are global.ba what's next?eded everybody just needs to shut itt down. we got to shut it down. pretty much that's what's going to prove that we're not going ta be stopped until we get what wev deserve and what we demand. [ applause ] >> basically, the struggle -- this is a global movement. the whole of the labor movements because labor has to be l. international because capital is international.

i mean, if capital can move from one country to another, labor has to also have, like, solidarity from one country to another.o [ applause ] because, you know, in unity, that's where our strength is as a united movement. if we all just want to challenge the system just individually and just, like, try to individuallym negotiate our employment contracts, i mean, good luck with that. i mean, it's the only way it's possible is if we act united and on a global scale. g the inevitable outcome of this global movement is workers taking control of things. i mean, this is about workers demanding more rights and inevitably it has to lead to wo workers, you know, getting to a point where they -- not just that they -- we have more rights

but that they can't be taken back because they are nobody bes else's to take back. they are our rights.o [ applause ] i mean, that's why -- the fight for 15 is important, but it also has to be for a union. because if we get 15, i mean, ho tomorrow they can take that away without a union. bge [ applause ] we can't have them take it away. we have to earn it. >> united we stand. separate we fall. it was actually kind of interesting to know that we're the super country. we're america. we're the country everyone wante to come to for freedom. but australia and denmark are t paying their workers more moneya this is america. where does that happen at? how does that work out? i think the people of these tht other countries have been w

standing up withi us because th know what it is to make a livable wage. they know what it is to not have to worry and not have to th struggle. they know what itey iso to have union. it's great we can a have them a stand with workers would don't w have that. once again, it's kind of strange that these workers who is living in the other countries that areo making moreth money don't have e same privileges and resources pv but they are standing up againsg the same company that's over here and telling them, if you tn could do it overg there, why aren't you doing it in the usa? that's very powerful and strong. to have them 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 that's going to be in the history booke and kids are going to be reading on.y [ applause ] >> i guess two things came to d. mind. one was reallyon the power of

social media in helping to fuel the narrative and to win people over. and as an incredible organizing tool. couple people you'v have already mentionede that people are posting their photos to facebook or to twitter. in the midst, in real time, you know, during this strike. so that helps -- just helps, yo know, first of allfi get the whe issue on the large media as well in terms of network and all of that. but it also, you know -- it expands people's horizons and minds. and then also then there's the delegations meet and you find out about how workers are beings treated in other countries. it's interesting too that this g

global kind of organizing and an reaching outd is happening in a lot of different sectors as d it well. the steel workers and mexican steel workers, there's these international sol didarity thin going on.port getting support from south african workers.so so this kind of thing is nt andi incredibly important and it expands minds. now, is it at a point where we're going to be able to tip the balance of forces? y no. but it's getting there. you know, there'sit going to be lot of things people have to confront like, you know, ideas of war -- you know, this whole a

idea of americas being number in the world or whatever. so it's a lot of things get involved into it. that's it. [ applause ] >> thank you. we in our country we have a long history of a lack of racial , re equity, a real racial division. tell us what you think the impact of the fight for 15, the support for walmart workers is having on racial unity both -- o >> i think the campaigns addrese both the issues of race -- i bo think that that's very important right now in the 21st century to really have campaigns that n th connect people on a global igns basis. ifle you look around the world,t

there arehe people of color who are making minimum wages. there are people of color are working in -- across our communities fighting together on these issues because the central issue is wages, dignity, an respect. those issues cross racial linesp brings people together from all across the country and all across the world. if you look at the fight for 15 campaign and the our walmart e campaign, the predominant amounr of those workers are workers of color.s they are trying to support theit families. but there areere quite a few o

whites who are also living in those same conditions. it has unified them against one common enemy. that is big capital, regardless of walmart or amazon or yum products or disney or whomever.t it has brought people together.i we all understand i think one g, important thing that this is a f global fight. we a we are fighting against global l capital. as african-americans, as whites, as asians, as women, as gays wee all are fighting this fight together.in and i think that that's one ne unifying factor.actor. you see that all over the world. you see our brothers and sisters in brazil standing up against global capital who is destroyin their communities for these games. so this is going on all around . the world.ne had

as someone mentioned about social media and how social socl media has brought us all ther, together and in real time we can tell our stories.ly that's what's really important. if we look at the issues of race and class and we fight these issues together against our common enemy, i think we need to know who our common enemy is. [ applause ] >> thank you. okay. last question.it's s whato is the response by the d. labor movement to this rising us of low-wage workers? what significance does it have for the future of the labor e movement? >> most people in the labor movement who have been in it before -- i didn't know what a labor movement was. has looked at the fast food workers like, this is what's his

next in i the labor movement. m this is what's going to get -- t didn't hear -- this is what's going to get a lot of the old people up off their butts and moving . [ applause ] i also know that, like she said, people have been trying to nize organize fast food for a while.e so for it finally to be happening and have changes kno coming and cities eventually getting 15, we still want that union. don't forget about it.it it's something that the labor movement is like, is this a new style of organizing? is this a new avenue or a new group of people we need to tap into? i think the outcome is that everyone can be organized, no matter who you are or who you work for. everyone can be organized. everyone should have a union. seeing fast food workers, this is the group of people that they say are just young -- young and dumb and don't have i agree.

many of us have degrees. to see them finally standing up against mcdonald's, we're talking about mcdonald's that's in all these different countries, have ads on tv, all this different stuff to get people and buy their food, taco bell, these are bill brands, billion-dollar companies, to be standing up against them is like -- young people doing this? it's possible. i think this is like the turning point possibly in the labor force. hopefully -- so. [ applause ] >> i probably shouldn't say anything. that's almost 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. [ applause ] which was -- in this room, it was lost with the red skirt

anti-communist witch hunts with inauguration of business unionism. business unionism isn't just a practice. it's an ideology. right? so i'm going to be a little negative for a minute. those of you who know me, i've been in the labor movement for a long time. i mean, our members are infected by that ideology still. it's not easy. this provides an opportunity to -- all the things -- we now have an opportunity to fight racism in every single union because they have to recognize this fight. this fight is like -- it's expressing something very important. secondly, by example. something you said, there's a union in minnesota, someone i know said in his local people aren't very militant said, well, if they can do that, why don't we march on the -- they discovered militants they never

had. by example, it's making people think differently. i actually -- finally, it actually is -- i think it's engaged the 1%, 99% thing in a concrete way that expresses class. i think people understand it. it's taken it out of that abstract expression, which is great, into a very concrete fight. and i think that it has put class on the agenda. it's fantastic. [ applause ] >> thank you. ma now, my grandma always told me 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 are all going to get a last word. what i'm going to ask -- we will start with you. 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. maybe this might be good. when i started this campaign, at first i was excited but maybe a few weeks later i stopped answering my organizer phone calls. but i'm going to give you a story why. some people might be like, wow, i understand. when i was very excited about what was going on, i went back to my family because i really didn't know what a union was. i always heard about it. i heard some of my friends who was in construction or in nursing, they were like, you know, you get benefits, more money, sick days. okay. that sounds good. i got to find me with a job with a union.

nice. whatever. i till didnstill didn't know th background what it means and how much power a union has. so i went back to my grandmother. you know, grandma, you know. my grandmother raised me. so you know, i went to grandma and was telling her about this. you know, changing stuff in the workplace. she's like -- i was like, you know, what you think about fast food having a union? my grandmother told me no, don't do it. don't do it. 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 -- wait. you are in a union. i don't get it. so i was confused. but that's grandma. whatever grandma say, i'm going to do. okay. i ain't going to mess with the money.

but then something was just like, no, this is too good to not just -- easily walk away and not really get move information. so i went to my aunt who works for verizon. she has a union. my aunt was like, unions are all the way to go. do it. you got to do it. you must fight. i believe you 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. i don't care. i'm going to try. if i get fired, i get fired. at least i know i tried. [ applause ] that's something that i know i didn't get to tell you guys. i hope you liked the story. and one thing i would tell you

guys to leave here tonight and 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 struggles that i have tried to help out with. the thing is, my mom, she's very -- actually, very conservative. because i live in texas, and it's a thing there. the thing is though, with my

mom, in a weird way even though she's very republican, she watches fox news all the time -- >> she's going to see this on tv. >> hi, mom. [ applause ] any how, in a weird way, she really is what inspired me to get involved with this, because for all my childhood, i've always watched my mom come home from work and she would always be so beaten down about how tough it is working where she does. she's a secretary. and she would come home telling me how -- she would be venting about how her boss just treats her like a machine and expects so much from her. she gets so less and less money every year. 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 the most backwards reactionary kind of people, at the end of the day, they are still going through the same struggle, the working class struggle as everybody else. they might not realize it, but whenever they hear

usually just tends to agree with it. she's like really -- she's a conservative tea party kind of person otherwise. when i talk about, don't you think people should be able to make some of these decisions and not have something make it for them? she's like, all these people -- i doubt my mom is that different than any of these other people. these people will agree with this idea because -- it's not just a matter of opinion. it's a matter of the reality of the world we live in is that we need a world where people have control over their own lives. [ applause ] it doesn't matter how backwards they are. anybody can understand that. [ applause ] >> these fights have put race, class and inequality as a part of the national international narrative. 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 kfc or domino's or jimmy john's or a local warehouse, that if they organize, they come together, they can win. 20 years ago, there was this decline in the power of unions. now we see that power rising again in the 21st century through these fights. we need to continue that. [ applause ] >> personal thing. i'm from buffalo, new york, not minnesota. anybody from buffalo? no? i'm so disappointed. oh, well. okay. well i am. all right. completely different direction. 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.

as you can tell from work day minnesota, i've been -- i think broadly about media. i know you are talking about the people's world and what to do with it. i'm involved in a project called work site network, a tv labor news project. it hasn't happened yet. we're hoping to make it happen. imagine labor news on netflix except not really. right? so it will be a menu driven thing available on any device that can get to the internet. there will be a menu of programming. probably the flagship thing will be work site network news, a half hour news thing. things will be broken up for social media purposes into small segments. we intend to have it in place where we will house labor documentaries, which there are a

lot being made and so on. i won't take any more time. it's not happening yet. i'm happy you said awesome trying to get this off the ground and kind of sounding it out. we're trying to get money out of unions. we had some big meetings in washington, d.c. about this. i hope some day i will be -- you will see it. there you have it. [ applause ] >> something about me is i love to see beyonce. if there's -- join me. something serious. 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 strong i would say myself is, if that makes sense. it even taught me things that i never knew such as what a union is. i come from a family who no family members in a union. i'm probably the first to even know what a union is in my family and to know what a union can do for your family, what a union can do for your community and what it can do for your neighborhood is really not only taught me that this campaign has taught a lot people other people, especially a lot of colored people, a lot of colored people can finally say that they stood up for something. they stood up for themselves. they didn't get walked over. they know what a union is. i do appreciate this campaign, because it's teaching us also. it's not just having us go out and stand up for ourself, it's teaching us to teach to the next person. that's something that i

appreciate from it. [ applause ] >> something about myself is that i love to swim. that's one thing. 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 and what we heard tonight is -- it moves. it moves people. that's kind of the format we try to provide at people's world, to create and have that space for people to tell their stories. and to 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. 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 the stories but with an eye of pulling more people into the good fight. >> thank you. [ applause ] so are we ready for more unity, more organizing, more justice? are we ready?

[ applause ] remember, justice is just showing love in public. so you can show a little love and can be a part of the fight to save jobs 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? >> freaky fast. >> use the first number. the second is not quite fast. freaky fast, make the call. i want to say that we want the viewers who are watching this on the live stream to go to peoplesworld.org. read about the struggles. share it with your friends and

family. for the viewers of the live stream, will return tomorrow morning at 9:00 a.m. we are 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 ]

tonight on c-span3, the interview with james linder. it's part of our special series on universities in the big 10. that's followed by a discussion on minority students trying to go to colleges. that starts at 8:00 eastern. i'm tom reed. i approved this message.

>> martha's extreme agenda is hurting us. robertson opposed refitting our power plant with natural gas. when she didn't get her way, her supporters sued to shut it down. they are willing to sacrifice our jobs, our community, raise our taxes and utility bills because of their ideas on global warming. that's exactly why martha robertson's extreme liberal agenda is wrong for us. >> there are those who put country first, put communities first. tom reed put himself first by voting for $200,000 in tax breaks for wealthy people like himself. then tom reed voted to raise middle class taxes on us by $2,000. martha robertson will fight to cut middle class taxes and protect our jobs from outsourcing. it's time to put these people first again. >> i'm martha robertson and i

approved this message. >> i'm tom reed. >> we know martha robertson is an extreme liberal who supported obamacare, higher taxes and nancy pelosi. her votes to double property taxes and spend it on pay raises and $110,000 desk for herself tell the same story. whether we take her word or her votes for it, the story remains the same. martha robertson is an extreme liberal who is too radical for us. >> tom reed is attacking martha robertson with false ads. the aarp says tom reed's plan removes the medicare guarantee. it's a fact. reed voted to raise the retirement age for social security. another fact. why? to pay for reed's votes to give tax breaks to millionaires like himself. that's a sad fact. >> i'm martha robertson. i approved this message. i will protect america's promise of retirement with dignity. that's a fact. >> recent polling has listed this race as republican favored.

see the debate live at 7:00 p.m. eastern. we welcome your thought on this debate and the iowa 4th race. share your reaction via twitter. be part of c-span's campaign 2014 coverage. follow us on twitter and like us on facebook. to get debate schedules, video clips of key moments, debate previews from our politics team. c-span is bringing you over 100 debates and you can share your reactions. the battle for control of congress, stay in touch and engage by following us on

twitter, at c-span and liking us on facebook. now, portions of a conference hosted by the group the campaign for america's future. you will hear from the co-director robert borosage on what he calls the new populism. this is about a half an hour. [ applause ] >> how are you doing? we're coming at you today with lots of stuff. this is the beginnings of a big movement. so it's time to get our knowledge down and our energy up.

i'm really delighted to greet you, the movers and shakers, the citizen activists, the people who help build this movement that we are now dubbing the new populus. why do we call it the populism? i want to step back here a little bit and provide a context. the princeton dictionary defines populism as a political doctrine that supports the rights and powers of the common people in their struggle with the privileged elite. supports the common people in their struggle with the privileged elite. that's not a bad definition for princeton. the new populism is founded as keith has told us on the undeniable reat of today's america, that too few people control too much power and too much money and they use that

control to rig the rules, to protect their privileges. the question is, the challenge of populism is whether the common people can in their struggle take back the democracy from that privileged elite. the simple reality is this economy does not work for working people. economists measure this stuff. they will 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 globalization. it is rather a set of policies, decades of deregulation, of top-end tax cuts as frank talked of, of soaring ceo pay, of the assault on workers and unions, of conservative myths, of market fundamentalism that has led to this age of gilded-age extreme. what's emerging as congressman ellison said is the beginning of a plutocracy. it does what they always do, uses their power to consolidate their gains. what's interesting about america, that's promising about this moment is americans historically do not easily abid. from the beginning of the

republ 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 this the name came out of kansas at the end of the 19th century. t people 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. they railed against government. they saw that a government handed the lands to the railroads, they protected and coddled the monopolies, they cracked the heads of workers

that were trying to organize. they made one fundamental understanding that the tea partiers today don't get. they realized they couldn't cut government's powers because if they did that, then the monopolies and trusts and banks 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 leese who said it was time to raise less corn and more hell. they realized r ed protest wasn enough. they had to come up with new

policies that would transform the rules of the game so that it could work for working people and for small farmers and for small business. that movement as a party, the people's party, lasted only a few years. but it set an agenda that set the progressive agaenda for ove 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, the attempt to extent democracy, direct election of senators, taking on big money and politics. there's 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 history on which the new populism stands. now, you hear conservatives say, this is about envy. you got all these rich people. people envy them. it's not about envy. americans actually don't care if rich people get really rich. they like it. they think maybe they got a shot at it. this is about justice. it's about opportunity. it's about making sure that the game is not so rigged that the doors are shut for anyone else to get into it. so that the economy doesn't work for the majority. it only works for the few. 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 gathering

republican presidential nominees as he decides who he will pick. we see millionaires paying lower taxes than their chauffeurs. we see multinationals stashing profits and paying lower taxes than mom and pop businesses. it is as hotel magnet leona said, taxes are for little people. we see ceo salaries -- they have released a study showing that ceos -- 40% in the top 25 companies with the biggest incomes over the last years have pocketed multimillion dollar bonuses even though for 40% their companies were 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 folks who blew up the economy and got bailed out. now they are back. they are pretending to be masters of the universe. they reopened the financial casino. 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 against us. yes, mobilized people have to take on organized money. the politics and the agenda of our time has to change.

keith 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 wallow in by taxing and ensuring that the rich and corporations pay their fair share of taxes. but redistribution isn't enough. we have to change the rules of the economy. we have to expand shared security. we have to make work pay, empowering workers, lifting the floor, patching the roof, putting a lid on ceo extreme. we have to curb wall street speculation and make banking boring. we have to balance trade and more all of this is essential to a deal. you will 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 populus majority that lays out a simple fact. on issue after issue after issue vast majority of americans are with us. citizens united, big money in 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 told you. they are ready. curb wall street, goldman sachs says they do god's work. if you ask americans, they think it's much the devil's workshop.

protect social security and medicare, even majorities of tea partiers agree with that. so this populism, it has a popular grounding. it's grounding in where people's attitudes are already in a sense before the politics has even begun. and we don't have to invent it. it's happening now. it's already stirring. it's occupied in 160 cities putting inequality at the center of our political debate it's exploited low-wage workers, protesting fast food restaurants across the country. it's a coalition that's coming together to oppose fast track and the transpacific trade accord. it's the moral monday protest that you will hear about from reverend barber who have challenged the assault on voting rights and on the vulnerable in north carolina and 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 frack their land. you can see it in the culture. we now have a pope who condemns the modern idolotry. you can see it on the best seller lift. 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 danielle steele? something is moving here. [ applause ] and forceful leaders are emerging. you will hear from some of them today. an extraordinary champion of working people out of ohio.

elizabeth warren. across the country, mayors are being elected led by new york's mayor 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 ] what's interesting to me is we are much stronger than people think. the entire base of the obama majority, the risings american electoral, people of color, single women, millennials, they have faired the worst in this economy. 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

>>. >> and our entire system is really designed to clog change; not facilitate it. but as cay said, when people start to speak, politicians start to listen. we've only just begun to build. we are in a 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 day voting 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 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. 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 afhcio, president richard trumpka,

secretary treasurer and executive vice president. they would have been here with you today, but they're all in berlin at the international trade union congress. this happens once every four years. and they're talking about these same issues with workers from all over the world, from brazil, norway, south africa, egypt, every country you can think of. it's very exciting. this is a dialogue. about being the majority and using the power of the majority to do the right thing for folks in all of our countries. as was said this morning, new populism is about ordinary people taking back the reigns 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 hand-to-hand battle. not just with corporate advocates, but too often with my own government, democrats and republicans, about what trade policy should be. where the goals of trade policy are. is the whole point to have more trade volume? or is it to use the u.s. engainme engagement in the global economy to figure out how we can use the dynamism of global trade and investment to protect the environment. it's a very different way. we need to -- we need to turn the whole con at the present time of how we think about trade policy and globalization upside down. because the people who are in charge of this policy have done a crappy job.

[ applause ] i'm so happy to be here today. jerry bernstein h fwill follow and all the people before talking about fair tax policies where everyone here is laying the ground work. good jobs, full employment, strong 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 schachange fix reform. i don't care if it's about labor law reform or tax change or health care 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 that gives all the power to multinational corporations and none of the power to working people.

our government, right now, is in the mid e midst of negotiating what we call the megatreaties. the transpacific partnership in latin america, the transalantic trade and investment parter in ship, both of these treaties, together, if completed. koer more than two-thirds of global gdp. these are e normally important and, yet, too few of you know what's on the table right now because these treatties are not done in a transparent way. stake holders citizens, workers, environmentalists aren't given the information they need, congress isn't being given the information it needs to take steps 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 we had in the late '90s and early 2000s in which congress gives the power to us to come back in an up or down vote in an accelerated timetable. they need fast track because these deals are unpopular and because these deals reach into what we consider the domestic fabric, the sovereign, democratic decision-making process, whether it's regulatory coherence or labor laws or good jobs or the ability to stimulate our own economy using tax dollars to buy american-made products. each of those things are at risk because of the specific provisions that are 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. they think they're doing the right thing. but the truth is they think they're getting on auto-pilot. they have a conception of a good trade greemt -- they call it a gold standard trading agreement. and they keep on reply k llicai that over and over again. and because the united states is so powerful, because our economy is so attractive, we have the ability, in too many cases, to win those battles at the negotiated tables. so the important thing is the voices of people like you and the pressure on our administration and on congress to do the right deals. but the good news is the elements for change are in place. you heard how american people do want good trade policies. they don't want 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 out sourcing of our good jobs. they want balanced trade. and they know that good jobs. our antibiotic to build good jobs. to recover from the recession that was supposed to be over five years ago. we haven't been able to recover from that recession. one of the reasons is because the economy continues to grow and our huge trade deaf sit, when american consumers go to the store to buy stuff, they're too aump buying stuff that's made elsewhere. so instead of having the virtual cycle, people have money in their pockets and 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 if our

multim-milliion dollar corporations are happy, and their antibiotic bility to make about taking jobs offshore where the environment is protected and to pay low wages there and then to bring the consumer goods back. that's why we run these enormous trade deficits. so balanced trade is crucial to what should be at the center of our goals. but you know what? our government doesn't even talk about balanced trade. they act as though it doesn't exist. it's not even a goal that is set. so we need to make sure -- so balanced trade, it isn't to say we want -- trade isn't bad. trade is not inherently bad. of course we're going to trade. we live in a global economy. of course we should import and export. of course investment is going to cross borders. but what are the rules?

what are the rules that govern that where we import stuff and 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 lelement that's n place is an intellectual shift. when i started doing work on nafta in the very early 1990s, and it was very ice lated, i have to say. i was a nobody at the economic policy stut and 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 it distinctly because it was a bad moment. reporter saying to me do you think you know better than every living nobel prize economist? the answer was yes. [ applause ]

not because i was a better economist, because i wasn't. i simply read the nafta. i stopped at the word free trade. i debated at yale and he actually said i don't really know anything about this, i don't know anything about mexico, i don't know anything about nafta. i do see the words free trade, i'm an economist, therefore i'm for it. but the good news is that this debate has come pretty far since then. we are seeing a different place. even paul samuelson, a few years ago, weighed in to say wait a minute. if trade and investment is used to move good jobs overseas, it's not always going to be best. now we have people who were also weighing in to say if you look at the greemts and the investment protections and the imbans fbalance, we need to mak

a difference. so that's the good news. politically speaking in congress, we have some great champions, nancy pelossi and harry reid have done a great job in putting the stops, the breaks, on fast track for now. but they're going to need a lot of support as we go forward. and the people like cheri brown, elizabe lilizabeth warren and k ellison have been tremendous champions for fair trade. but too many democrats want to keep getti inting the campaign contributions from big business, they want to stay respectable in that cocktail party circuit and hope that their base doesn't notice. but our job is to notice. even more important are the republicans in congress.

the republican base agrees with us. we need a different kind of trade policy. the problem is the republicans in congress pay no price year after year for these trade deals. our joob, turn up the heat, put those corporate half, free trade voters votes on the doorstep. they're republicans. make sure that they pay a price when they take that vote at the behest of their corporate leaders. finally, the last is the obama administration. it's already clear, at least for the transpacific parter in ship, which is almost done, that too many elements of past trade deals. one of the key issues, i mentioned this before, is really important. is the investment provigszs. we have been using these trade

provisions to protect corporate right ins a way that is unprecedented. we have given corporations, multi-national corporations, 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. 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 moe wrap up quickly, but even the kato institute, the right wing, libertarian trade group, even kato said -- and it was a really interesting economic analysis. you should look it up on their web siet. that these agreements are essentially a way for the government to subsidize risk of

those corporations to engage in out sourcing. our government is going to step in and say don't worry, we're going to let you go to an international tribunal and you're going to have extra protections in that tribunal. so if you're worried about the risk about sourcing, let us take that risk off of 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. we shoumd be putting good jobs, workers' rights, environmental protection agency. and the rest of the rights should be at the bottom of that list. thank you very much. i look forward to serving with you. [ applause ]

in some ways, approve and in some ways, i don't approve. like most questions that we deal with as policymakers, there aren't simple answers. yes or no. >> well, let me put it this way. you have said that you're the

candidate for the citizens of new hampshire. scott brown often says, i don't need to tell you, that you vote with president obama 99% of the time. because obama's approval ratings are at an all-time low in new hampshire right now, 38-40%, how does your voting record sort of jive with serving the citizens of new hampshire. >> you know, i work for new hampshire. and scott brown talks a lot about one survey and 99% of the time that i voted with the president. but the numbers i'm proudest of are the 359 -- 259 people who are now working with the berlin prison because i was able to get the prison open after it sat empty for two years. it's the 1200 people who were being foreclosed on in their homes who our office worked with to keep in their homes. it's the 129,000 veter rans who can now get care close to home because of the legislation that we got into the veteran's reform bill.

what we need is a senator who's going to work for new hampshire. who's going to make sure that we address the concerns we hear from our constituents, who's going to be hearing from democrats, republicans, independents, anybody in washington who can help us get the job done for this state. >> she just described me. i was the most bipartisan senator in the united states senate. every survey that's come out has senator shahine being one of the most partisan. she has voted with the president over 99% of the time. it means she likes the deciding vote for obama care. she did vote for us to keep our doctors, our care facilities, the people we've trusted and loves. as a result, costs are going up. care and coverages are going down. she's also voted to put in place a system where we have more and

more gridlock with by voting with her party. >> the senate race is listed in some polls as a toss-up and could determine control of the u.s. senate. see it tomorrow night at 8:00 eastern on our companion network, c-span. >> be part of the c-span's 2014 k campaign coverage. debate previews from our poli c politipoliti politics scene and you can sbantly share with what the candidates are saying. stay in touch and engaged by following us on twitter and liking us on facebook. >> with live coverage, we show

you the most revant and congressional hearings on public affairs events. and then on weekends, c-span3 is home to unique series of america visiting battlefields and key events, american articfacts and sites. history bookshelf, with the best-known american history writers. the presidency looking at the policies and legacies of our nation's commander in chief. lectures in history and our new series, real america featuring artic article carchival government. >> michigan congressman john dingell reflected on his nearly

60 years in congress during a speech in june at the national press club. >> good afternoon, and welcome. i'm an adjunct professor 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 web site at press.org. i'd like to welcome you our speaker. our head table includes guests of our speaker as well as working journalists who are club members. if you hear applause in our audience, i note that general members of our public are attending and it's not necessarily lack of journalistic activity. i'd also like toe welcome c-span and public radio audiences. you can follow on twitter using hash tag mpclunch. now, it's time to produce our head table guests. i'd like each of you to substantial doubt briefly as your name is announced from your right, aaron kessler, automotive writer, the new york times.

marissaschultz. christine markos, staff reporter for the hill. former head of the house of representative, office of legislative console and guests of the speaker. managing editor, washington post. richard fransen, former house committee and commerce committee console who handled environmental matters. and skipping over our speaker for a moment, the washington bureau chief of the buffalo news and a past mpc president. canswelo who handled sec and

financial matters as a guest of the speaker. david shepherdson, laura lipvan, congressional reporter for bloomberg news and cq road call heard on the hill, cull um niss. when our guest today take his seat representing michigan in the u.s. house, it was the same year the first mcdonalds opens and coca-cola was first sol in cans in addition to boltles. gas cost 23 cents a gallon and you could buy a car from the motor city for only $1900. john dingell took officer and 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 his 29th full term. dingell, when he was only 29, succeeded his father in the congressional district. his district is thehearted of the big three autocountry. he's hoping that the dingell dynasty continues with his wife debbie, an autoindustry heir being elected in november to succeed him. dingell spebt a decade and a half as the chairman of the house committee and then dingell is known for his quick temper and questions to witnesses that people magazine called sbim dating. he earned the nickname the truck for his 6'3" stature and for his

style wielding the gavel. he's offered laws on clean air endangered species and health experience, including shephe shepherding through the affordable care act. dingell has a reputation as an ally of the autoindustry and its main union that has fought in atempts to strengthen regulations for cars. he's watched congress since he was a child: and his father's knee as serving in the house page in the 19d 40s. he's here today to speak to us about when congress worked. please give a warm welcome to congressman dingell for his seventh appearance since march

7th, 1975. [ applause ] [[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[ [[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[ [[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[ [[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[ [[ [[[[[[ well,[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[ well,[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[ [[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[ [[[[[[[[[[[[[[[ president, thank you for such a kindness and gracious welcome. i hope by the time we finish, 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[[[[[[p particularly pleased

that my colleague, jim marion is here today. [ applause ] >> stand up, jim, we are very prud of you. [ applause ] 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 recognize so many of my dear friends and former members of my staff who are here today. and i ask all of you that have ever worked on the people of southeast michigan or with me on the energy and commerce committee, will you please stand and be recognized. [ applause ]

there is a strange thing about the association with my staff. i have picked not only the most extraordinarily able, they're also some of the most finest and loyal people who ever drew a breath. i am proud of you all and grateful that you would be here today and grateful, indeed, that 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 a institution -- rather to a major city of international proporgszs. 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 reigner used to get very much ticked off when people would ask how many presidents he had served under. and at the privilege of casting some 25,000 votes, i served alongside of more than 2400 colleagues and i've sat in the chamber of the house of r 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 to protect the environment and to 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 the lovely deborah and i sit and talk about these things. we looked to see and we had 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 legislati legislation and earned bipartisan support to move the nation further. for its business was done with hard fighting, but, also, with

go goodwill and mutual respected. i want to make it clear that i did not do these things by myself. no man and no woman could. we did them with people who are interested in seeing this nation grow than seeing it falter. people who are willing to 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 me chee colleagues of the very definition of the word congress. it means a 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, houf, 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 product. perhaps that is 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 amend. s.

it 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 i said, "it took me 13 hours to get a bill that both sides agreed to on the floor. but 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 jim moran, can testify to the difficulty of the

process of compromise of getting legislation with goodwill. one of the interesting things about the congress r kolgs is congress is the change. it is unfortunate that this is so. 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 served on one committee where i found that the number of members in the subcommittees, exceeded the numbers of 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 responsibleties and changes. other forces are making things go badly. the supreme court decision in citizen's 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 of these 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 noet that there are still more god awful cases that are almost certain to do more harm. new e any laymen reading the decision will surely know that 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 groups to spend an unlimited amount of unidentified money has enabled certain individuals to swing any and all electio elections, whether they are congression congressional, federal, local, state or whether they're 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, our -- these people, having goals which are in liechb e line with the general public, history shows that there is a very selfish gain that's going on, and that our government has largely been put up for sale. we've also had many in congress to shrink the local 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 more than 300 million americans. and these 300 million americans are living in one of the most dangerous times in american history. many of my republican colleagues find they must sign a 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 his darkest pledge and similar litmus tests, these quantities are only made worse by redistrict iing where a simir

event has occurred before. we've seen 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. and for achieving one particular set of views. as redistricting creates more and more safe seats, we see members focused only on winning prime mares. not about the push lick interest and not about real discussion of

the concerns that members have or that citizens have. the pledges are signed. and they attempt to become the ettiological image to facilitate their wishes. now, there is also no incentive to stick one's neck out and to compromise. and it should be noted on many that both sides can only run further on the fierce ly narrow and partisan hinges. this does not help our democracy.

i said before that i would be scared to bring up the ten commandments for a vote in congress because i'm not sure they would pass. and i'm almost certain that they would have a vast number of amendments laid upon them. unfortunately, i still am compelled to stand oond on the validity of that concern. we also know that congress has begun running policies and legislative priorities out of the speaker's office. the congress was built over a long period of time, to achieve particular goals by seeing to it that every member and that every body in the chamber and that

everybody outside the chamber represented by people in the chamber would have a right to be heard. and to have a right to see to it that the congress fungszed in a way that heard and attended to the fears and the hopes and the dreams and the concerns of every americans. >> and so beginning back with gingrich and delay -- that's a funny word, isn't it? delay? we came up with the idea of allowing one man to run the congress of the united states. so now we have seen a clear effort by both republicans and by their democratic successors and now the republicans again,

who ultimately usurp the committee process. when i started, this were only a handful of members on each committee. and for each of my members on each subcommittee, and the interesting thing was some of the most complex problems would be dealt with in the committee. they would run everybody out of the room, remove their coats and one of my colleagues used to say fight like hell for however long it took. the result was that we had committees that knew and understood legislation. they could explain it and defend it.

if each member gets five minutes, multiplay that out and see how much opportunity there is for real and intelligent discussion of the important i shall shoes of the day. and at any time there was an important meeting, each member they know gets only mitts and maybe seconds to address their interests or ask their questions. i repeat, what do you think the chances are for intelligent debate of important national concerns. 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 wfr they even know where the restrooms are. they land in washington on a monday or 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 sbintelligen discussion of the legislative business. we hear from the members i'm against this and i'm against that. do we ever hear much of what they're for. but more importantly, what are they willing to make a compromise on? compromise is an honorable word. and i am going to try to continue pushing that view

during my remaining time in congress. so we ought to ask these new m members, what are you for? what are you going to compromise on? and what are you going to try to achieve to see if we come up with a program in government that gives us a resolution of the difficult controversies and difficult national kwes of the day. now, i'm sad to leave the congress. i love the congress. and i'm delighted that my lovely wife is running for the congress because she's smarter, decent and certainly much prettier than i am. i am concerned that my sadness is mediated by the poison atmosphere that we see in american politics today. so while i'm troubled 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 willingness to live up to the word that 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. the sooner that the congress realizes this and that american sit zcitizens realize this and begin impressing this view on their candidates, the better the situation is going to get.

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

where people understand that their congress should not be traded. or should not be traded on the commodity exchanges. the congress belongs to us all. and it's something that 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. interestingly enough, those men and women were not people who had prestigious education. they were rather people who understood 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 american people dick

tat dicktate that which must be done. i am proud to be a part of the body and i intend to keep this nation and all of my college 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 your ability to communicate thoughts, including the wonderful computers. and thank you for your leadership and 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 being an american to have more good things, more money, but more freedom, pind e 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.

[ applause ] >> thank you, again, congressman dingell, for being with us today. for delivering your speech and for following the tradition of a question and answer session. the first question is what has changed in congress the most since you first visited capitol hill when 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 sub committees. and the harsh fact that noble trusts the committee. we used to have an entity which was called a tuesday through thursday which you belieclub. and this was the crowd that s w showed up on 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 the more partisan days gone by, what would make that happen? >> well, two things. one, some kind of a national event which force d the members

aened the leadership to do that. roosevelt, a war, something hike 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. >> do democrats deserve any of the blame for the partisan divide in congress? >> of course. everybody deserves it. democrats, deserve it.

repub hi cans deserve it. but, you know, if you look around, you will find that the news media, the public at large, the scitizenry in general all have their faults in this and their reason for feeling guilty about this. look and see what the president's state of people is on tv. and you will observe one thing. that it is usually time d to fal after and instead of soupuper b or something like that. now, i'm not going to tell you the super bowl is not important or not good to 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 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.

that was tough. 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. i said, no, gross is a good and 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. i said you don't know me from fox and i don't know you, but we've got to work together. and we've got to trust each other and we did. one we solved in 48 hours, one in 18. probably the worst mistake i made as a a chairman because da damned if i didn't find they took jurisdictions away from the congress committee, which we had done and nobody knew we had done anything, but there are a lot of instances like that. and to know how important the human relationship is in the

congress. if you have that, you have almost everything. if you don't, you have nothing. >> one of the remarks 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 finance disclosures, making your 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. >> 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've lived in the same house in virginia for 30 years, almost 40 years. we've made money -- houses and and the average american uses his sense, can do something like that, too. >> over the course of the past 58 years. >> about the same. it is kind of interesting now. used to be a guy on the