. americans are spending habits of $8 trillion. that is a trillion in wages and compensation. something like $1.50 trillion in benefits. that is in today's economy, looking back even a year when the economy was arguably in the worst situation. i did want to say, for the record, that employers are trying to do the best they can for the employee is, and that is a story that often gets lost on labor day. i also want to mention that the surveys repeatedly show a relatively high level of satisfaction some 87.5% of those surveyed expressed satisfaction, between

high satisfaction and fairly high level of satisfaction with their jobs. that is down from 89.4%. a rate of around 87% is worth noting. a survey came in with about 86% of very satisfied or moderately satisfied about their job. that belies some of the claims by many that employers are cutting corners -- cutting corners without reason. a quote from the recent survey on health care -- nearly nine in 10 of those with employer coverage -- those are the lucky ones with employer coverage, say their overall experience has been positive, including 42% who

rate them very positive. just one in tend says their experience has been negative. this is a recent survey and goes to the fact that employers are trying to be creative and providing health care to employees, not simply raising premiums and cutting benefits. later, you will hear over the next couple of days that we need to change the rules of the road even though they have been there since the 1940's. we need to change the rules of the road because the rate of unionization has fallen. the greater problem is no longer the employees of upton sinclair's the jungles, but decent men and women trying to choose their employees well. that is why most choose not to join a union or feel one is

necessary. obviously, the federal government stepped in with provisions that did not exist in the past. if you have insomnia late at night, feel free to read this package. there are many other ones, but i had my staff see how many pages were in the code of federal regulations. it comes up to 1910 pages. i hope you would say that is quite a few. you think it's not the money, this was one page dealing with

the proposed health care legislation on administrative appeals. going through that, i did breeze through it. it is complicated stuff. this is one page out of 1900 that we have to deal with that the chamber. many say i don't understand it, so i'm afraid of what the future may hold. there is a common theme in these regulations. i'm sure i would have a disagreement with regards to the posting regulations. the one common theme of these regulations is none of them helped job growth except lawyers and consultants. in this environment, what is

going on -- the white house says one thing, but the people below that are pumping out regulations that create uncertainty and cost a lot of money. i can tell you the department of labour and other agencies typically underestimates the cost of these regulations and leave out -- i know how the game works -- daily val little things that are important. one regulation says you must train your employees and we estimate it will take half an hour. it's usually more like two hours. obviously half hour of time as a cost impact for any employer concerned about any level of productivity at all. in a fiduciary regulation, the pension benefit of doubt

multiple areas such as iras and small pension plans which would have to comply with new regulations and assume we cannot figure out, so it is the zero. under the posting regulation, which i will talk about a little bit, it covers nearly every employer in america. except for those hit with the immunization campaign. i cannot come back and say this is what the costs are. but typically these agencies underestimate the cost, and that is normally the course of business. but in this economy, it is particularly troublesome. we will be going through those as we comment on those regulations, but i want to bring

it to your attention. i think is -- it indicates the arrogance of these agencies as they pump out these new initiatives. the national labor relations board has been in the press lately. there is a letter in your packet that goes through the paces can -- the cases pending at the board. the infamous boeing case is not pending at the board. to prevent the board from going forward with a remedy which would require the company to close down the company and charleston and send it to the state of washington, the dam has broken over there and we will see a lot of new cases coming out. i think the letter to the chairman paints a good mistake of not just the three or four cases the press focuses on, but what is really going on at the

agency over there. what you see at the press is typical of many other things that seem to be directed at one thing which is to make it easy to organize and make it tough for employers to talk about their side about why unionization may be bad, often at the case of employee free choice. i do want to talk about what is a sacred cow. the equal opportunity employment commission. here is an agency below the radar screen, yet we have seen their and i talk about agency arrogance where they have gone after employers and taken to a new level where it is sue first and ask questions later. some have taken them to court and they have had to pay fees.

these are situations where the underlying cause of action is extremely frivolous. this is real money coming out of taxpayers' pockets. it is taken away from legitimate cases that they could be pursuing. we can talk about the regulations, but this is where it often gets lost and you could have the best laws in the world, but if there is an agency abusing them, that can be just as at as a bad law. those cost employers real time and money which is taken away from their ability to create jobs. that's just a few cases. there are employers bludgeoned in the settlement. we see similar things that the

federal compliance program. immigration, with regard to tourism. marty is right. this is the time to come to the united states and spend money but what we are seeing is a lot of tourism, to france and england, particularly from brazil and china, because it is increasingly hard to get to the united states, increasingly hard, particularly that you are we do support a new law that will likely hit the house floor next month. it's a controversial position for the chamber and it is a new

mandate on our employers. we think it is time for a new system and we see that as a down payment for other kinds of emigration reforms. with health care, what is done is done. he see a decline in support. more people know about it, the less they like it. it is unfortunate that we are in a situation that we are. we're working on several improvements, particularly

they have, and some areas, the administration has worked with us. in other areas, they have been less than friendly. health care is one of the ongoing issues we will have to deal with. it's in the courts. it's in the regulatory regime. we will continue to deal with it. we have testified on it many times. our predictions, when we testified three years ago, have turned out to be true. that is, it will result in job loss and less coverage for employees as some employers drop their plans and move their employees into exchanges. it is unfortunate, i the president did not more honestly talk about the deal to begin with. this is not about saving costs. it's about covering more people. that is the deal on the table. it's not about saving costs. the legislation was never about controlling costs. i think there's a little bit of -- it is a lot of the land and

we are dealing with it as best we can. i'm not going to talk about pensions. i could. it is 11:00. >> hi. catherine lewis. i'm here for "fortune" and i wanted to ask you -- the question of job creation, when you look at the state of the economy, gdp's only bright spot is often the profits of private companies. as much as $1 trillion is on the sidelines waiting to be invested, waiting to create jobs. why isn't that money being spent by companies to invest in the future or to create jobs? >> as i said during my presentation, companies do not

invest and hire people just because they have cash on hand. they hire people because they can put those people to work producing a product, good, or service that they can sell at a profit. that's what they do. right now, the economy is not presenting that opportunity. there's no exigency in the market right now. businesses respond to competition. if somebody were taking their market, invading their market share, selling products to their customers, taking those customers away, they would be responding very aggressively. that is not happening. if you really want to get businesses to spend that money, give them a reason to spend it, not a part-time subsidy that says, "hire a personnel and we will give you a break for six months on their salary." that business has to weigh the following equation. cam that business to generate

revenue -- can that person generate revenue through the life of the employment, not just the six months, that warrants the salary we pay them? if the answer is no or we are not sure, then you do not hire them. that's really what's holding it back. as soon as businesses start to see the market working and the economy working, then they will want to step in and step in quickly to get ahead of the game. it's only going to take that spark. it's not like you have to finance the whole process. the money is there to finance the expansion. what we need is the spark. it is difficult. that's the least that economists know about the economy, it occurs at the turning 0.3 is always a chicken and egg -- it occurs at a turning point. it is always a chicken and egg

thing. with as much uncertainty as we're having now in the economy, it's much more the latter than the former. everybody talks about uncertainty. a lot of people say, "businesses are always operating in a certain environments." that is true. i liken it to one of my favorite sports and that is standing at the craps table. when you look at the dice, you do not know what is coming up. i do not know what is coming up. you know what the rules of the game are. you know what the odds are. people will stand up there and that into adverse odds again and again and again and again because they know the odds and they know the game. if you took the same game and said, "ok, before every role of

the dice, i'm going to cover up one of the spots," now what is the betting going to be? you would find a whole lot less people willing to play that game than the game that we all know and either love or despise, as the case may be, on any given night. that's what's happened to the uncertainty in this economy. because of the rule changes, businesses and not only have to deal with the vagaries in the economy, they have to deal with the vagaries in the rules of the game. that adds a level of uncertainty that many are incapable or unwilling to take on. when you see that, you can see that there are compound levels of uncertainty. what we're facing now is a very, very high level of compounding nine dealing with that uncertainty -- compounding in dealing with that uncertainty. >> going into an election year,

do you think it will take until next november until there's a clear certain path forward? do you have a scenario where there could be some of that certainty for businesses to start to hire before the next 14 months? >> i am not a big fan of campaign speeches and i do not believe most of them. they are more for entertainment value than anything else. i think that as you see the campaign for and you see the platform is being discussed, you may get a feeling that some of the longer run uncertainty is changing. as you see the various candidates getting narrowed down and the odds on the outcome been posted -- outcome been posted more often, you may see some changes. in all likelihood, it will take some time.

>> thank you. >> veronica smith. how does the chamber view the infrastructure bank? what is the chamber's view on this. >> infrastructure bank is an interesting concept, and if structured appropriately, could work quite well. the questions are, what is the exact structure? what is the funding? there's that old commercial that you cannot fool mother nature. you have an economy that's not fooled easily either. robbing peter to pay paul to somehow provide a better bang

for your buck -- most times, it does not work. when you look at the infrastructure bank, the concept is great. public-private partnerships that pyramid private money with public money to get a bigger pie -- that makes sense, as well. it will depend on how it is structured, what the rules are, what types of limitations there are, how much, and what kind of a return of crews to the bank versus the private sector? it's almost impossible to say. conceptually, it is fine. the devil is always in the detail. >> [inaudible] any particular plans with the white house? >> not on the infrastructure bank.

>> josh with "politico." how do you see the political environment shaping the outcomes you talked about today? how do you see it moving on the [inaudible] >> labor issues? >> regulatory issues. you talked about trade. the whole host, the whole basket. tourism, you name it. can you hear me better? >> we can hear you. >> if you focus on the micro, on the national labor relations board, the well has been poisoned to such a degree that no candidate could pass -- no

candidate this administration would offer up with us during the senate in terms of an additional point to the national labor relations board. i do think that is indicative of a very -- i guess, more partisan situation on capitol hill then i saw when i was there for 10 years. we are working on some solutions in the appropriations bill on a lot of these regulatory issues. i do think that in the area of regulatory relief, you will see some bipartisan support for bills that will adopt some of the ideas the president has put in his executive orders. there is a bipartisan recognition that there are too many regulations coming out of this administration, and we need to slow things down. the nlrb's traditional issues

has become overly part of this. i think there will be bipartisan solutions, at least to provide temporary relief to the employment community. tourism is a tough one. it is wrapped up in national security. i think some people on the hill -- is tough for us to quantify what exactly the problem is that the state department in terms of delays. we have our studies, but a lot of people think we're going to sacrifice national security. we cannot do both. we have left a lot of money on the table. there's a lot of tours and going to other countries. it is something congress needs to address. >> jim from "barrons."

do you think the fed will discontinue paying interest on these idle reserves? would that be a good thing or a non-event? >> this computer is locked up or i would show you a slight. the excess reserve positions of the commercial banks -- reserves that do not have to be held to back up to demand deposits, they normally run about $2 billion. as the said engaged in its activities to liquefy the system, they have risen. the fed engineered that. the law changed and they were allowed to pay interest on

deposits held at the fed. by adjusting the interest they pay on the deposits versus what they charge that the borrowing window, you can encourage or discourage the holding of that type of asset. they very much encouraged the assets. they encouraged the banks to hold these things as idle reserves. it gives the banks more liquidity. when the world is falling apart around you, liquidity is king. that's what they wanted the system to hold. at the same time, it provides a profit stream, which goes into retained earnings and bolsters capital over time. i think that was as much of the intent of qe1, qe2, and everything else. it was quite successful. going forward, the fed can do a couple of things. they can unwind their portfolio

and at the same time play with their rates to get the banks to essentially just -- to expunge the excess reserve position. in other words, they turned around and pay the money back to the fed. the bounce sheet of the fed would shrink and the excess reserve position would shrink, theoretically. i believe, at some point, the fed will try to do that. why? that will not have a big negative impact on the economy. the fed is not going to reduce the money supply, and reduce the liquidity, of the economy. they will reduce the liquidity of the banking system. problem is that has never been done before. in one of my trips to las vegas, i was dragged away from my favorite craps tables to see one of those performances with a swing through the air in the dark. it was amazing precision. you never get to see that crashed that nascar fans like

myself are always waiting to see. everybody goes happy at the end -- goes home happy at the end. the fed has the same sort of process. they have the same intricacy in unwinding the reserve position. they have not had the practice. the people that put on the shows have had practice. they will have to do this one without practice. i'd think they have very good people and very smart people. i think they understand the delicacy of the problem they face. i think it will be a little bit of a trial and error. it has not started yet. i think bernanke said in his presentation after the last fomc meeting -- we are going to keep these rates low for a long time. he did not really speak to unwinding the portfolio.

i think we will begin to seek them doing that a low but sooner than 2013, which was the -- do that a little bit sooner than 2013, which was the rate target. they will wait to start until they see a little bit more growth. nobody wants to start this kind of delicate surgery when the patient is in such poor state of overall health. you wait until the economy picks up a little bit. i would expect maybe in a year from now, we will start to see them working on this process. in the meantime, i am not expecting to see qe3 for the simple reason that if i am at all right as to why they did qe2, there's no reason for qe3. qe2 did not impact the economy.

it did not impact the money supply's. the money supply shows none of the sharp increases during that entire fed process that you would have expected, if it was running through the normal type of transmission mechanism where base goes up, money supply goes up, expenditures, and the economy go up. that's the kind of classical approach to monetary policy. that was not evident. did they really not notice that their stuff was not having a big impact, or was it having an impact on what they cared about, which was underpinning the banking system, which was vitally important to the economy, but does not necessarily result in gdp growth. >> thank you. leslie from mcclatchy newspapers. can you talk about what you

would like to see out of the president's jobs package next week? you mentioned the much maligned stimulus package might not have been as bad as it was perceived. does that mean the chamber would support some kind of stimulus spending in this jobs package? >> we did support the original stimulus package. we thought the original description of 40% tax cuts and 60% spending on infrastructure was the right mix. that's not what we saw. it does appear, and we've always felt, that the stimulus package had a positive impact. it was not a panacea. it was a positive impact. and the stated at the depths of the downturn as it was, we believe it was the right thing to do. we believe it would have had a bigger impact had it been done better. would we support another one at this time? the fiscal situation has changed. the economic situation has changed. at the time that was instituted, we were in a freefall. we were headed down.

as we saw from the revised data -- heading down a lot further and a lot faster than we originally thought. in that environment, that was the right call. we are now looking at an economy that is sputtering. it's not gaining momentum, but is not in a recession. it is not falling into a deeper recession. while the chances of a recession are higher, the probabilities are higher than they have been in the past six or eight months, they are not 50/50. might be one in three, one in four. given that backdrop and given our fiscal problems, i do not think you could justify the type of fiscal stimulus the way that we did in the prior case.

looking forward, i think that if you are going to look to the fiscal area, the place to do it is in tax reform. complete tax restructuring. put in a tax code that has the proper incentives, that does not penalize savings, that does not penalize investments, that encourages expansion and irene, capital appreciation, and the like. a tax code like that could still raise the same amount or more money -- revenue. do it in a way that does not have the negative impact on the economy that an income taxation -- one that we are not competitive with the rest of the world -- does to an economy. you can get the same amount or more money in a way that has a much less negative impact on the economy than the way we do it.

>> turning back specifically to the labour market and the situation of 14 million employed americans who are beginning to feel desperate, it's my impression that the bonds of power -- and the balance of power, employers had the upper hand. do you agree with that assessment that workers are, at this point in our economic cycle, less able to negotiate? do you see that changing, or is it part of a trend in our broader labor market? >> i will answer the first question and like the trend situation go to randy. in terms of the current market, yes. you are absolutely correct in a very clinical way. when you have significant excess supply and 9.1% unemployment qualifies as

significant excess supply, the provider of the labor has less negotiating power than the commander of the labor. we are starting to see the skill match-up running short. we have anecdotal evidence that people would hire 25 people if they could find the right skill set. they cannot find that skill set, in part because the labour mobility has been impacted by the bad housing market. where someone might have moved from chicago to poughkeepsie to take on a technical manufacturing position, they cannot afford to do that because they're under water in their current home. you are seeing in the labour

market mobility being negatively impacted by the housing market. in many ways, the skill mismatch is shifting the advantage back to the provider of the labor, to the individual who can move and thus have the skill set. in general, and excess supply situation with certain pockets exhibiting a short supply of specific types of labor. >> yeah, the only generality that can be made -- for those people who have a high school degree or less, they tend to be more expandable pin because they're very low-skilled. surveys will show that the unemployment rate fall dramatically. we are experiencing reports that in manufacturing, they cannot find people with the skills they need.

on september 28, we will be having a conference here led by mayor bloomberg to focus on that issue. it's not limited to computer sciences. for example, we have a company that cannot find skilled welders. they do not fall within the programs. it is hard to make generalizations about the state of the economy. it is a continuing problem, which will increase, as the economy does get better. one reason the chamber is actively involved in domestic education issues, but also immigration.

>> i have a question for marty. how much of the economy do you think the debt ceiling deliberations -- some people have pointed to that as to why consumer confidence was down. do you think it caused much harm to the economy? going forward, and do you think -- house important is it for this joint committee to come up with a solution from an economic standpoint? >> i think it had a big impact on consumer confidence. we have not seen the full impact down the road. we got a credit downgrading from one agency only, because of the impasse. that was a kind of political

downgrading of the market blew off. they said it was politics. if you're going to sit there and be offended, as it were, by our political system and the way we bicker and argue and take everything to the last minute, then, yes, this process was really offensive to you. the markets understand that. while it is not pretty, it's come to be a process we all know and love. everybody expected it to come down to the 11th hour. it did come down to the 11th hour. one ratings company says that means we are politically dysfunctional. i think we have always been politically dysfunctional to a point, but we are getting pretty good at the political this functionality over two hundred years. the next question, where do we go from here?

can we continue to act that way and even more so and not have it have real the fax? no, at some point, you have to show how the task can get done. the task that was assigned to find $1.5 trillion in spending cuts is not insurmountable. the numbers that have been discussed in this whole process encompass that aspect. the problem is that we need even more than that and we all know it. do i think it's possible for this group to get together and that if this group does not get together there will be significant ramifications? yes, i think there are. if they do get together and get $1.5 trillion, there will be immediate criticism that they did not get more and that more is needed. that criticism, while somewhat untimely, is correct. they do need more. we have suggested they go beyond the directive and that

they also look at fundamental tax reforms. we think there are ways to raise revenue. there are a variety of process these. there are permitting issues and things like that. also, through a more efficient tax code that would expand the base and provide for a more efficient collection, and, therefore, a higher amount of taxes without having any more negative impact. we have said we think you should do both. they have got to get the $1.5 trillion. if they do not get that, you will see other companies. moody's already alluded to the fact that they will be watching the process carefully. i think there could be more fundamental ramifications, if they do not get the $1.5 trillion. >> thank you so much for coming. have a good afternoon. [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> next on c-span, will hear more about job creation and the u.s. economy at the afl-cio's annual labor day briefing. after that, california congressmen that committee member will be holding a town hall meeting with constituents. at 8:00, the justice department holding a briefing on the proposed at&t/t-mobile merger and why it filed a lawsuit to block the merger. finally, president obama calls on congress to pass extensions to the transportation bill and the legislation reauthorize in the faa. here is what is ahead on the c- span2 -- a female marine corps officer of's combat experience in iraq. at 9:00, the parallel universes

and the plots of the cosmos. at 10:15, david brooks and his new book "the social animal." that is all on the booktv primetime. >> machiavelli s -- machiavelli has become an adjective. i doubt many people would like to be described as a machiavellian. not too many people would call themselves machiavellian. >> his name is synonymous with cynical scheming and the selfish pursuit of power. sunday night, the argument that machiavelli's theories may have been a response to the corruption are around him. that's at 8:00. >> president obama is likely next week to make a joint session speech before congress about jobs. whether it will be wednesday or

thursday or some other date is to be determined. it started this morning with the president requesting from the speaker and senate leader a joint session on wednesday, september 7th. house speaker john boehner replied, asking the president to give his speech on jobs on thursday, september 8th. no word yet on whether a date has been agreed to. also earlier today, the afl-cio president gave remarks on jobs, outlining their plan for enhancing job growth. this press conference runs about one hour.

>> has labour day approaches, it is all too rarely that we honor the people who actually make this country go. instead of hearing me make long remarks, i want to ask you to listen to some of the stories of the people i am honored to represent, along with my fellow officers. i would like to now introduce a working american member from minnesota -- >> i live in maple grove, minn.. i'm a member of working america and i am currently unemployed. i have been employed previously as a retail manager and business manager. every company i have worked with, we have pretty close to quadruple sales and cut costs.

i have a reputation for that, however, last year, i was a consultant with a startup company. we were profitable and our first year and a contract was for years and it was time to the me on a business plan to get them moving forward to be profitable and we did it. when the contract was up, i thought would go back into being employed. i have never had difficulty getting a job before. for the last five months, have been putting resumes in everywhere. any response i get back, which are few, say they have had little hundreds of people applying. i'm unemployed and i have never been in a situation like this before. what i would like to see is our politicians, to be sure they are encouraging our companies to keep jobs here so people like me can be employed and support our families.

also, if our politicians would stop telling us what their colleagues are not doing and start telling us what they are doing to our -- to move our country forward. thank you. >> by the way -- and -- >> good afternoon. i am a conservative and republican. i was in the united states navy. i'm a communications worker. i do not support what the republican party is doing today to diminished labor unions with right to work initiatives. those are not the issues i've vote when i vote as a conservative republican. we have had labor unions

diminished. [audio difficulties at] unions fight to keep wages at a fair level and benefits in tact for families. my family benefits from low labor unions do. my family directly lives on the money and benefits brought about by collective bargaining and i do not agree with any position that tries to diminish collective bargaining or the power of labor unions. that is why i am here today. >> thank you. i would like to introduce our secretary of treasury. >> it is very clear that people are not paying attention to the impact of this economic crisis and its effect on young workers. one year ago, we met in this

very room and talked about how dire the situation was then. yet today very little has changed. young people in this country are still struggling and the lack of attention elected officials have given to this widespread problem is am excusable. we hear a lot about unemployment rates in this country generally, but those numbers are even more dismal for young people. the number -- the unemployment rate for high-school graduates under the age of 25 was 22.5% in 2010. compared to 12% in 2007. partner that with the increasing cost of tuition for higher education and the resulting debt young people are suffering under, and what options do they have? the strength of this country has always been that anyone could access the american dream and if

you work hard enough, you can achieve it. that is not the case today. supposedly, our elected officials focus on deficit reduction was partly out of concern for the future of america's youth. we heard a lot about that. but how does cutting funds to public services and programs provide public safety net to protect america's's youth? how did a benefit young people? the number one thing that will help young people is devoting our nation's smartest minds and best resources to creating jobs and making sure young people have access to those jobs, rather than spending time and energy and cutting programs. we should be focused on creating the new economic engine that will help our economy thrive in years to come. without investment in job

creation, young people will suffer in the future as a result of stunted opportunities in the present. the long-term repercussions will be devastating, not only to our young people, but to our entire country. this is neither just north intelligent two suicide as eight generations development is impacted by the mistakes of previous generations sort cited as. the good news is the next generation is not just going to sit back while opportunities are squandered away. young people are making a difference all across this country, across the globe, from egypt to wisconsin, to ohio and arizona and anywhere in between where workers and students are being treated unjustly. it is no wonder with unemployed manhattan jobs being scarce, the growing debt, young people are

mobilizing for social and economic justice. there are countless examples of activism. we hear about the everyday and we are so proud of what we have been seeing. what exciting example coming up is the second annual afl-cio next young workers some debt, which began -- which begins september 29th in minneapolis. hundreds of young workers, activists and leaders from all over the country will take part in a creative, dynamic summit designed by young workers for young workers. the federation and our affiliates are excited by the aggressive, creative efforts we are undertaking to empower this next generation of activists. there is no question that this effort will benefit not only the young workers who need it, but

all workers in this country. >> now we have a bus driver from ohio. >> good afternoon. good afternoon. everybody calls me b.j.. i'm from columbus ohio and i may very proud bus driver. i've been a bus driver for 32 years now. i've been watching the governor and i have not seen him create any jobs in ohio. he wants to get rid of the unions, he wants to take away our rights. the he even now has a bill, 153, which is a voter i.d. bill which takes the rights away from black people, the middle-class, and the unfortunate ones. he also took our money from the public schools to do vouchers, telling us this is going to help the budget.

when you take money from the public schools, this does not help the budget. all we want to do is work. he is attacking our police, fire department, our teachers and the common worker person. he wants to take all our rights away. we just want to work. we want to raise our families. we are not trying to be rich. we want to feed our families, close our family, and educate our family. what our children go to college, we want them to be able to come back to our community and make a living and work in their community. we pay into our pension and our money that we get goes back into our community. that is what we want. we want to be able to have a decent job and work. >> thank you. i would like to ask the afl

executive vice president to say a few words. >> thank you. last friday in this room, as we reflected on dr. martin luther king and the march on washington 48 years ago, we were reminded that dr. king who spoke about jobs and freedom that that message is as relevant today to us because quite frankly we are in a crisis in this country with 25 million people unemployed and underemployed. then you think about the percentages and you think about 9.1% of our people overall not working. you break it down for communities of color, african- americans with 16% unemployment. as i said, that message continues to resonate because people need freedom to work. but there is another freedom

people must have in this country. they must have the freedom to vote. what we see across the country in so many states is a disenfranchisement attempt to disenfranchise so many with these so-called voter i.d. laws which are so called -- which are boater suppression laws. it is a new poll tax, if you will. in order for people to fight for good jobs, they have to be able to vote to elect those who will support an economic agenda that works for all and insure the american dream. we know a little bit about poll tax. i know about it personally. in 1958 or 1959, when i asked my mother to buy me a new pair of shoes, she said she could not do it because she had to pay her poll tax. as an adult, she did pay her poll tax until 1965. the voting should not have been

that hard for my mother and it should not be so hard for the millions who will be impacted by these laws today. when we talk about those numbers, we are talking about 20 million americans who do not have state-issued ids because it costs. it's so shocking to see that this push in 34 states, and this legislation has been introduced by republicans. they have introduced voter i.d. laws under the guise of preventing voter fraud. these laws disenfranchise voters rather than stopping fraud. there is a will or no fraud to stop. even the bush administration department of justice uncovered only 86 instances of improper voting across the entire country.

yet their right to vote of about 21 million people is in danger because of a lack of state- issued aideed. it should not have to be that hard. but it has to be emphasized. there is a certain community that will be disenfranchised -- people of color, young people, and the poor working class. this is not acceptable. so the afl-cio, along with community partners, civil-rights advocates and voting rights advocates will continue to fight. we will not be silenced when it comes to putting america back to work. we will never be silenced when it comes to ensuring that everyone in this country has the right to vote. >> thank you. finally, a member of cwa.

>> good afternoon. >> i work for at&t. i've worked there 11 years. i am a vice president for local 5300 and i am very active in organizing and mobilization. i'm active for many reasons. for my daughter who is 10 years old, and for the future of our kids. the right to work is something they want to demolish unions, takeaway fair wages and it is not deserving and i will continue to fight the fight until i cannot do it anymore. >> thank you. thanks to you and the others foretelling such powerful stories. to my fellow officers for their steadfast leadership and tremendous energy. these stories from across the country are only a few of the stories that too many people

inside the beltway or people who lived in gated communities never here. making sure people hear these stories is one of our core purposes. working people have a powerful voice when we band together. and now more than ever, working people need to have a voice politically. to paraphrase bill clinton, there is nothing wrong with america that cannot be solved by holding our politicians and corporate executives accountable. we got here sh because our politicians experimented with an extreme economic theory. deregulation of nearly every limitation on the whims of the elite. these unleashed elites were supposed to generate wealth that would trickle-down to working men and women. that theory failed. millions live daily with the

consequences. 25 million americans are either out of work or working part- time when they want to work full-time. this is a moment were working people will judge all of our leaders. will they propose solutions that are on the scale necessary to address the the job crisis and that america has right now? we need to return to the america that i remember, and that millions of us hope for. with each generation, more and more people's voices matter. we what purpose and progress. the economic mess is the result of politics.

it means the solution must be political as well. our politics must be flipped right side up to work again for working families. we must give the working people that i share this stage with and the millions more that we represent a new independent voice in our politics. that is what the afl-cio intends to do. only together can we reinvigorate our democracy. that is why unions of the afl- cio are pooling our resources and developing your around mobilization capacity of our own. independent of parties and candidates and fuelled by the power that comes from unity. we will listen, and we will talk to all working people. not just those with the benefit of a union contract create the

problems and solutions belonged to all of us. as we declare our political independence this labor day, we are announcing our independent advocacy arm. this will help build the power of america is silent majority, the middle class, and poor, who are struggling to just get by. it will not directly fund political campaigns. nor will its matched the endless flow of cash from corporations. but it will be an effort by and for working people. communicating beyond our membership and striving to ensure that all the work -- all who work have a strong voice in the political process. what do we want to accomplish? first and foremost, we need to

put america back to work. we cannot let the cramped politics of washington prevent us from realizing that our great nation can and must return to full employment. the afl-cio has developed a jobs plan that is serious and reflects the scale of the crisis that we face. with an area of bipartisan consensus. in area out where everybody agrees that precious little action has taken place. that would be investment in our infrastructure. with construction workers idle, and our schools crumbling, now is the time to rebuild our schools. in fact, i just got back from the white house. the chamber of commerce and i stood side by side with president obama to call for

investment, large investment in infrastructure. we also need to remind u.s. manufacturing and stopped exporting jobs overseas. we need to put people to work doing work that needs to be done it. targeted work needs to be provided in communities of color, african-american and latino communities where the unemployment rate is two and three times as high as the national average. we can and we must provide the funds to end state and local government layoffs. we must help fill the massive shortfall of consumer demand by extending unemployment benefits and keeping homeowners in their homes. quite frankly, we must reform

wall street so that main street can create jobs. we must also recognize that our joblessness has hit all communities the terrible force, african-american and latino communities have been hit especially hard. in the world's richest country, the rates of unemployment among people of color art and outrage. it really -- are an outrage. it should preoccupy it all politicians regardless of race or party. in this land of plenty, one out of five children now live in poverty. in african-american communities, that is three times as high. in the latino communities, that is three times as high. that is why our agenda is both ambitious and essential. we take seriously the job of

making sure that jobs are good jobs. expanding the right to bargain for a better living standard and helping more working people gain a voice with new aggressive tactics that fit the 21st century. the country is changing, and our approach to organizing is changing as well. together with our community affiliate's, working america, we go door-to-door to communities across the country with 3 million members and the recruitment model that works anywhere, working america that is engaging union and nonunion working people on a massive scale. working america members are going deeper. those members are becoming leaders and building activist networks. we are working with groups such as the taxi workers alliance, that are doing some very exciting organizing among

workers who are refusing to let blocks -- the law from stopping them from coming together. more than any time in my memory, we are working hard to build a movement. the voice of workers has never needed more amplification that it does right now. we are moving forward to make sure that the voice is heard clearly across the entire country. at this time, i would like to wish you a happy labor day. all of us are happy to answer any questions that you may have. can i have your name?

>> [inaudible] [inaudible] >> i do not think that microphone is working. >> all right. experts on both sides of the aisle agree that the current fiscal situation is unsustainable. i believe i heard you call for a lot more federal spending. is that responsible at this time? with record levels of debt and deficit? >> first of all, i am tempted to ask you to come with me and look at the real figures. the united states does not have a short-term debt crisis it is a short-term jobs crisis.

if you look anywhere else in the world. let's look at it this way. the cbo does to him and said of the left the bush tax cut expire -- the cbo and just came out and said that if the bush tax cuts expired -- if you put workers back to work so they are contributing, the dead goes away. it is an investment in america. -- the debt to go away. it is an investment in america. you do not pay for the house this year, you pay for it over 30 years. it is an investment in your future. you send your kids to school and you do not pay for the schools because most people can afford to pay for a whole year of schooling. you borrow. why do you do that? because you are investing in the future. investing in job creation is the best investment this country can

have. putting people back to work will help solve that problem to the extent that it exists. >> ok, next question. >> i want to ask, what are you planning to do the legislation, as well as issues in ohio? >> you will see the same action on us on 194. that we did -- you will see us working in coalition with

progressive partners to get the necessary signatures to put that on a citizen's ballot so that the citizens can vote on that. >> september 29 is the date that we have to submit the signatures. just as the citizens in ohio gathered those 1.3 signatures for the citizens of the tote, people are working diligently to get the necessary 231,000 signatures that are needed to qualify for a citizens' veto. they only needed 231,000 and they turned in 1.3. they will have the same kind of diligence. >> [inaudible] >> typically, you need --

political outreach is focused on the ground game, knocking on doors. is this and ushering in of a new era for unions and their political advocacy? >> it is going to allow us to do several things. it will allow west -- it will allow us to have your around advocacy. in the past, six or eight we intend to keep that structure in place your around. we will build on that between election cycles. that will allow us to move seamlessly. in addition to that, our program in the past was geared toward talking to our members. we will now expand out and talk to all workers, which we will do. we will be building those

partnerships and talking to workers beyond our membership. educating them, mobilizing them, and getting them out to vote. >> [inaudible] >> no, we do not. >> you have been very clear in your opposition to the free- trade agreement. you talked about the importance of not exporting jobs. with the current atmosphere in congress right now, are you hopeful, do you expect that maybe they will not be able to pass the free-trade agreement? given all of the acrimonious atmosphere now. what do think will happen? >> we intend to oppose those trade bills that we think are bad. we think the caribbean bill is bad because it will cost us -- the caribbean -- korean bill is

bad because it will cost us jobs. we do not need to be going in the opposite direction. it also has a very low domestic content requirement. the europeans have a 55% domestic content requirement before i can be considered one of their own. this deal only has a 35% domestic content. that need korea could produce 35% of a car, somebody else could produce 65% of the car. that is not a smart deal. columbia deal -- the colombia deal is something different. we are told that the mexican government -- the colombian government has suspended its union protection program. one of the hallmarks that

signifies the change of the government and their desire to protect workers. they are now suspended that. that does not bode well. i ask this question of might co -- my ceo friends. would51 -- if 51 ceo's have been assassinated last year, would there be a clamor for a trade bill would columbia -- with colombia. we will continue to fight that. the workers on both sides of the border also opposed to those trade agreement because they

know that you're not going to be good for workers on either side. until we get a trade regime that really is fair to american workers and helps us to export products, not jobs, we will oppose that regime. >> [inaudible] i understand your opposition. i was wondering, with the poisonous atmosphere in congress, are you hopeful that they will not be able to get this done? >> first of all, the republicans do not want to add taa to its. every trains workers who lose their jobs because of trade. they do not even want to add that into it. it makes our job all little easier. no one is going to support those trade agreements without taa adjustments. even many republicans.

i think we have a real shot added. the fact that the government has not been able to stem the intentional violence against trade unionists should bring most people to their senses and hopefully they will vote against that bill as well. >> can you tell us some of the things that you are asking the labor department to do? to help stimulate job creation and to help insure workers were currently employed targeting the wages they're supposed to get? >> we are asking them to enforce laws and protect workers. that is whether it is health and safety laws in the work places,

and we are asking her to step up enforcement of the favorite -- fair labor standards act. people should be paid the right rate. sometimes they get reclassified. we are asking her to look into classifications. we're asking her to do everything to make sure that workers get the full pay they are entitled to. quite frankly, she has responded admirably. she has enforced better than anybody in the last decade. she has done a terrific job. we are very supportive and thankful for what she does to protect workers. >> at this point, i would like to go to the telephone. operators, you can give us a number from the fund. >> -- phone.

>> with the democratic majority [unintelligible] >> we are having trouble hearing. can you start again? >> with the democratic majority handed down from 3 to 1, 2 to 1, how satisfied with you -- how satisfied are you about what they have done with their cases this year? which cases do you want to see resolved? >> i think they have done a good job under the circumstances. you will recall that under the bush administration for the last three or four years, they were not functioning. it is exactly what the senator

says he wants to do now. there were thousands of cases that got backlogged. they had to resolve those backlogs. they have worked steadily to go through that backlog and they have done a good job. and then they did some routine enforcement. look, the law says that when you threaten a worker, when a worker does collective action, you can not threatened, punish, or retaliate. boeing openly says, we are retaliating against them for doing activity. it has been a violent -- a violation of the law for 50 years. they face a tremendous backlash by everybody out there. the republicans are trying to intimidate them. trying to get them for making decisions. and they have investigations, and they have subpoenas, and they do everything they can to prevent them from doing what it is intended to do.

that is protect the rights of working people in this country. we are all working men and why men. i think they have done a good job. -- we are all working men and women. i think they have done a good job. we know the intentions of the republican party. if you only have two people on the boards, the supreme court has said they cannot make a decision even if they both agree on that decision. we will do everything we can to prevent that from happening. i think president obama and the secretary are both committed to making sure that the rights of workers are protected and we have a board that can function. and remain independent, as it was intended. >> thank you. >> i know you just came from the

white house. do you feel that the president has made good on the campaign promises that he made in 2008 to organized labor? will they be able to support him next year? >> to the extent that he has been able to, it has not been a one-way street or a walk in the park. i think he has delivered on some things. i think he has not delivered on others. we continue to push him on the things that are good for working people. the thing we continue to push on his job creation. i think he is going to do everything he can to create jobs from the scale that we need them. we will see if there is any kind of bipartisanship. >> [inaudible] -- there haved been some suggestions that it was an effort to find -- is that the case at all? what is your answer to that?

>> we have always participated in elections down the ballots. we will continue to do that. it is to allow us to talk to workers beyond remembers. so that we can reach out to workers everywhere and bring them into the fold. enable us to be a more independent. it will allow us to build a structure that is beholden to working people 365 days a year. it will be beholden only to working people. to our friends, it will give us greater ability to help them. to our acquaintance, we will do to them what to they did to us. we will tell them we love them and wish them good luck. >> thank you. >> hello.

you agree with the chamber of commerce on the concept of an infrastructure bank. i am wondering how close you have gotten to tom donahue on that issue and if you have agreed what the not and bolts of an infrastructure bank should look like. >> i will not speak for tom, but we are pretty much in agreement that an infrastructure bank is a good thing. it can help out if it is properly funded. he agrees with us that infrastructure is woeful in this country and we have to address it. it causes us as a nation to be less competitive and it causes individuals additional costs. the society of american engineers estimated that it could cost individuals a couple of trillion dollars over the next couple of decades is our roads, bridges, highways, and school starts to crumble. we use about 2.4% of our gdp on infrastructure.

that is less than we used in the 1950's and 1960's. europe does about 5% of their gdp on and the structure. china is doing about 9%. he and i understand the consequences of that. clobber you postpone doing the infrastructure, -- the longer you postpone doing the and the structure, the less competitive you are. right now, you have low interest rates and a lot of people that need work. it is insane not to be putting them together to fix a problem that the country needs fixing and can make us more competitive in the world. in addition to that, we have joined with the business and a couple of others to put together a fund from our pension funds to be able to leverage. the clinton global initiative, for instance. one of the first place is people do the retrofitting is right

here in this building. we have had an audit done to see how we can become far more energy efficient. hopefully, we will make this headquarters the example of what people can do. it can pay for itself by the savings that it generates. it pays for itself and becomes a tremendous investment and the future. it will draw down on the cost of energy and it will create work for people the need to work so they can contribute to society. >> but go ahead and do another question from the -- let's go ahead and do another question from the phone. >> you mentioned you were going to declare a political independent labor day. does that go beyond the super pak? does it have more practical implications for your political efforts in the 2012 cycle?

>> i do not know what you mean by practical implications other than the thought that the allowance for the first time to move from electoral politics to advocacy to accountability. it will allow us to talk to all working people and get them involved in the process and give all working people union and nonunion alike a greater voice in the process. working america will be a real part of that process. we will be expanding them. they will be talking to more workers at the doorstep of put what we can do to create jobs in an economy that really does not work for anybody. the practical aspect of it is that it makes us more effective and it gives the workers a larger voice and a broader boys. >> thank you. -- and a broader and voice. >> thank you. >> regarding -- they have been

fueled by a five and six and seven-dollar -- a seven-figure dollar donations. are you expecting to raise the dollars in another form and fashion? >> we're going to use it to be able to talk beyond our members and a number of different forums. we are also -- it will enable all of us to come together. it will give us a broader base. >> do you expect it to raise large salary donations? >> we will take them wherever they come from. workers will donate. there will be smaller amounts. they will get their voices heard. >> thank you. >> looking back at last year's

labor day, in the past 12 months, what has been the most significant events or changes for american workers, both union and nonunion, public or private sector? >> you would have to look at the unprecedented attacks on state and federal workers. from the overreaching of a new class of governors and state legislature. and the attacks in wisconsin, ohio. people act like this was a spontaneous thing. it really was not spontaneous at all. the american legislative exchange council had a meeting of 2000 state legislators, passed out hundreds of pieces of model legislation, whether it was taking away rights,

increasing the amount that people pay for health care or pensions. people like scott walker took advantage of that. it turned a surplus into a deficit so the big jump on the bandwagon. the ultimate goal was to eliminate the vote of 10% of the people that voted in the previous election. that is what you see. you take wisconsin. the voter ideologue, we have to do this because of fraud. -- the voter i.d. law, we have to do this because of fraud. look at what it does. 78% of african-american males between the ages of 18 and 24 gets disenfranchised because of that law. 25% of the elderly, the seniors did disenfranchised because of

the law. 55% of latino women get disenfranchised because of that law. what does that law due to create jobs? i want you to think back to the state legislature and give me one instance where those attacks created jobs. those people were sent to office because they said they would create jobs. that is the most important thing they can do. for the workers, aboard the local school system, for everything else. that was probably one of the most shocking things. the response was just wonderful. we have been drawn to have a debate on collective bargaining for 20 years. we have not been able to do it. scott walker, the best mobilize a we have seen for a while, gave us that opportunity.

we may presentiment but an award for being the greatcoat mobilize their of the year. people responded -- the best mobilize their of the year. >> people from all walks of life and all political backgrounds came together and said, this is outrageous this is overreaching. this is outrageous, we did not vote for this. we had a recall election. a lot of you out there smirked with the recall election. i have to tell you why we were so heartened by it. in 2008, barack obama one in wisconsin by 14 points. those six senate districts, that was an equal margin. they were the only six districts that we could recall.

it was that like we picked those six. they were the only six because of the way the law as written. in those six districts, we took a 49% of the vote. if i were a republican, if i were scott walker and i looked at my six best performing districts, i might not be too heartened by that. in fact, i might look at the other side and see them smiling. that is why i am smiling. that was a heartening thing. to see workers come out, independent business people come out. it brought us a lot closer together. they tried their darndest to make this wedge between public workers and private-sector workers. you can see that the which does not exist. -- wedge does not exist. let me conclude with one thing.

the most disheartening thing that happened during that year was people coming forward, in leadership positions, and saying, those workers and wisconsin had a pension. they have health care. and you do not have it. let's take it away from them. that was never the american way. america always looked at those who did not have and said, how do we help them? how do we get that for them? not looking at those who do have and say, let's take it away. that is unamerican. the people that say that, they have given up on america. we have not given up on america. the workers in this country have not given up on america. the vast majority of people

called there have not given up on america. we resent those who say that the best years for america is behind desperate that we cannot give our citizens a good job. that we cannot give our citizens health care. that we cannot give them a secure retirement. that we have to scale back the american dream in the richest nation on the face of europe. we refuse to accept that. >> [inaudible] just to follow up, what is your scenario for creating those jobs? what is at stake for workers? >> what is at stake is the future of the country. and whether we will have a country that continues to bifurcate. or you have rich and poor, but note middle-class. -- where do have rich or poor,

but no middle-class. whether we will have a bright future or a dim future. whether the sun is rising or the sun is setting. that is what is in front of us. that is what is at stake in this election. what was the first part of the question? >> [inaudible] we will pass out our job creation program. it covers a lot of things. infrastructure, not just the surface transportation act, but faa, the clean water act, increasing manufacturing. that would include the tax code. that would include trade law. that would include a number of other things. targeted job creation and communities of particularly high unemployment levels. aid to state and local governments of the can stop the layoffs.

there are four drivers of the economy. consumer spending is the biggest. as long as workers' wages are stagnant or falling, consumer spending will not drive us out of the doldrums. the second is business investment. without demand, with all workers been able to buy, we will not see that. the third is nets exports and our country has not seen that exports in many a decade because of portrait laws. and poor enforcement of trade laws. and the last as government spending. we talk about aid to state and local government, here is what is happening. we have some spending by the federal government and we had extraordinary contraction from the state and local government. they were negating the good that the federal spending was doing by contracting. if we continue to let that

happen, more people will be laid off. we will give you the program, it is about six points. it also includes wall street reform. so they cannot continue to do the things that got us into the mass. they can actually start lending again. small business needs money and they cannot get it because the banks are not lending. one other thing i just want to add because it affects so many people, we really do have to correct and fix the mortgage crisis. that would put a tremendous amount of money back into our economy. and allow that consumer spending to actually -- the last thing on the list is the extension of unemployment benefits. if you take two or three or 4 billion people and you cut off all of their money and they stop spending, all of a sudden, a consumer demand falls. the economy contracts and it is

bad for all of us. >> ok. i think we have time for one more question. >> how significantly do you think the initiative mr. obama can pass through congress will improve the economy by the 2012 election? if it does not -- if they do not go far enough, are you concerned that the voters will be more skeptical of stimulative measures? >> could you repeat the last part of the question? >> are you concerned about voters grown skeptical of stimulative measures? >> look, the stimulus package is absolutely you worked. it has created 3 million jobs.

it created more jobs in a year and a half during a recession than george bush creighton -- the 8 years he was president. people are cynical, people are anxious, people are nervous and a one action. i think they see who is stalling. when mitch mcconnell says his main mission in life is to make sure that the president fails. people understand that, they are not dumb, they understand that this guy will do anything to stop the president from succeeding, even if it hurts the american people. you have to question the motivation behind it. is politics that much more important than the country? that is what they are saying. politics is more important than the country and every citizen in it. i refuse to believe that. i think it be took a survey of

the people up here, everyone of us would say that the country really ought to come first. that is why workers have lost their voice. because of policies and political brinksmanship. it takes us to the brink of political disaster rather than coming together to solve the problems. they're fed up with that. they are fed up with everybody that is involved. they will check and see who is pushing for jobs right now. they will see its main purpose and focus is jobs. i think they will support that person or persons. those that go through the motions, they will be able to see through that. they will be able to talent very quickly -- they will be able to tell us that very quickly. it is going to be more difficult to educate and motivate and mobilize people. that is a reality. but we will do what we have to do to make sure that people that

support working people get the full support of the american labor movement'. >> i think we are out of time. thank you very much, everyone. >> no clapping? [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> here is a look at our schedule on c-span. xavier becerra hold a town hall meeting. later, the justice department told a briefing on the proposed at&t-t-mobile merger. and why the department filed a lawsuit to block it. president obama called on congress to pass the extension of the transportation bill and

legislation that reauthorize is the faa. after that, the chamber of commerce president talks about u.s. unemployment. >> he is a partisan guy who wants to unite people. all the problems of the era, you could get from this guy. and why we could not collect them is the same reason we went to war. they could not be resolved. >> he had the misfortune of running against the great military hero dwight eisenhower. i do not really think there was that our allies stephenson could have won. he paved the way for franklin roosevelt. >> there 14 people in this series, many of them i guarantee of yours may never have heard of. all of them they will find

interesting more fascinating and surprising. >> history professor and presidential historian talk about the 14 men who ran for president and lost. friday at 80 -- friday at 8:00 p.m.. it is a preview for the contenders. >> thursday morning, on "washington journal," chris shays and charles tiefer. then lewis morris discuss his efforts being made by the government to combat medicare fraud.

your e-mails, phone calls, and treats. "washington journal" is live at 7:00. next up, xavier becerra holding a town hall meeting in los angeles. this town hall meeting from earlier this week as an hour and 15 minutes. >> everyone has had a chance to sign and and hopefully get a a pastry and some coffee. i hope. why don't i do this? as people are walking and, i want to save as much time as possible for folks to ask questions. why don't i go through some of

the mechanical stuff i usually go through. many of you have been to my town halls before. you'll be bored by it. it is always good for those who are new to hear it and those to they have seen or heard before to be reminded. i like to give this information out. i am not always hear and it helps for you to know my staff members and to know the process and the way this works. ok? can i ask someone to grab my jacket? ok. we begin by thanking our host, those to make it possible for us to be here. i think it is a treat to be here at this particular school. it is a cluster of schools. this is where the ambassador hotel used to be. it is now a landmark as a result -- it has been here for a

long time. bobby kennedy was assassinated at the ambassador hotel. it is great that some of the kids have the opportunity to learn some history. her of -- we want to say to the thank you so much for letting us use this school and this facility. [applause] i always try to make sure -- after we leave, she has to make sure this facility is ready for school. that means that folks are going to be working after we are done cleaning up. to all of the facility managers and staff, we said thank you very much for being available after hours to be able to clean

this room and have it ready for the kids tomorrow. i also tried to introduce my staff because they are the first point of contact most of the time. hopefully, you can start the process of seeking my assistance or my services as quickly as possible. let me go down the list. i want to begin by mentioning might field staff. she may be outside. she is one of my field deputies. brenda vargas is to my right, to your left. she is working with vespa she is finishing up her master's degree -- she is working with us as she is finishing up her master's degree.

you see a lot more about these days. my district director is outside. she will be walking in. we still have a lot of folks outside. deal greenberg is outside. she is my field and constituent outreach supervisor. greg -- to my right, a deputy press secretary and also in charge of my website. michael nelson is my case work supervisor and by a scheduler. michael is very important if you have a particular issue we need to address. amy lopez is one of might and turns. she is a student at the university of pennsylvania. she is here with us and you have

to really applaud for amy because she is working for free. [applause] daniel ortiz is our translator. let me introduce to use some of the folks over here from los angeles to police department. lapd has always been gracious to attend these forums that i do. if you have a question that relates to public safety, i am a member of congress and died deal -- and i deal with federal issues. if you have a question about safety in your neighborhood, drug dealing going on, i would not answer it as well as someone from the lapd. let me introduce to you the folks that are here.

sergeant? we have our senior lead officer chong.far right, james joh sometimes we have representatives from some of the other elected offices. if you ask a question that relates to the federal government, i am the guy that should be answering that. it is a city or county or a state issue, sometimes others can answer more directly. that is in their jurisdiction. thank you for being here. if you have any state issues, hopefully, he is available to answer them for us. i typically then proceed now to give you a quick glimpse of what is going on in washington, d.c.

we only have an hour. what i would like to do is really just reduce the amount of time i take and give you a sense of what is going on in d.c.'s so i can leave as much time as possible for questions. as we move into this session, let's try to get as much done. let's hear from as many of you as possible. we do not have enough time to address all the questions that might cost -- that he might have. we will run out of time. what we typically do is to ask -- is to write your name down on a piece of paper. i will randomly draw names. we will take those questions. as much time as we have, hopefully, we will get through as many of these as possible. i guarantee you that we will not get through all of these this evening. perhaps the reason you are here

is because you may have heard that i was recently appointed to serve on this deficit reductions committee, the super committee, because of the 535 members of congress. 12 of us have been appointed, to this committee -- appointed on to this committee, which has a short life span. we are tasked with trying to achieve deficit savings of $1.20 trillion. it is open to us to explore every avenue, try to come up with ways to reduce the deficit. it is a tough task with a short amount of time. 12 last -- 12 of us have been charged with that responsibility. i hope you have a lot of good ideas and comments you would like to share.

i hope to have opportunities as we move forward to talk to folks as often as possible about this particular assignment. i consider it a privilege. i did as much congratulations as condolence, so it works both ways. in the number of things we can talk about. we're going to go straight to questions. by the way, we have cameras. c-span requested an opportunity to be here. they have been gracious to try to accommodate the way i typically do these. we're going to allow c-span to film. this is national cable station so we will be broadcast

nationally. they are a public service station. we will try to go through as many questions as possible. i will draw them randomly. i will try to answer each question as succinctly as i can. i also ask you on behalf of everybody who is here to respect everybody, to try to ask your question as succinctly as you can. limit yourself to one question, please. i love it when you applause, i hate it when you boot. we will do neither and we will spend all that time taking more questions or comments. when i call your name, but i will draw about four names.

in the order that your name is drawn, please make sure you raise your hand. what we will ask you to do is go to the -- are we going to have folks on the outside of the aisle? inside. if you hear your name, raise your hand and walked to the center of the aisle. we will have a staffer with a microphone. that is -- that we everybody can hear it for comment. yet to hear your name, right away, just politely make your way to the center of the aisle. i'm going to call for names. this but, you are ready to go. -- in this way, you are ready to go. hopefully, in an orderly fashion, we will get through as much of this as possible. i will go right to it. ok.

stephanie taylor, are you here? i will call out three other names. patricia buenos? where are you? it will move faster. eric ares? and then -- is it carol lichens?

those are our four. why don't you begin, stephanie? thank you for coming. >> thank you for the opportunity. my name is stephanie taylor and i am representing thousands of members of the green la coliseum. we're here to speak to you about the land-water conservation fund. we already know that you support it. we really need someone to make sure that the fund does not get decimated and devastated. it is a very small percentage of the federal budget. it is a very bipartisan issue. it need not be used to correct the budget deficit. it is very important, it saves and protect federal and state parks. thank you.

>> stephanie, thank you very much. you know that i am a strong supporter of the program. i have been tasked with finding $1.20 trillion in savings. i believe that the 12 of us will be given this assignment, i do not believe we have the right to walk into this negotiation with preconditions. protecting any special interest or making special interest pledges that i will protect whatever i think is very important. i also think that nothing is a sacred cow and everything should be considered. even things i have fought for all of my life. having said that, i believe i have a right to fight for things i believe then, to try to come up with a mix that is good for america. i have to be ready to put, whether it is conservation funds or whether it is a program for seniors or a program for

children or something for companies or corporations, i have to be willing to put that on the table. take a look at my record. you know where i stand on these issues. you have a sense of what i will be fighting for. i cannot guarantee what will happen. it has to be part of the negotiation. hopefully, everybody goes into the negotiation putting their i hope the work of the 12 members are all public and transparent. thank you. who did i say was next? it will be patricia. i am going to draw out what other name before patricia begins. ann. come on down. >> thank you for having this town hall meeting.

i am very happy to be here. politicians talk about shared sacrifice. the people in our community have done the sacrifice already. what do you plan to do on the deficit committee on making sure the taxation it really goes to the wealthy and not the working poor? in addition to that, i want to know your stance on the free- trade of columbia panama, we run the risk of losing jobs in california. interdistrict a loan, it is 5247. i left at intermission with your staff. >> i love when you, with data. --i love when you come with data. i want to make it clear. i will not stand here and guaranteed that i will not let them touch -- you fill in the blank. let me give you a quick example. i and the ranking democrat in

the house of representatives when it comes to social security. i and the highest-ranking democrat. i do not believe social security should be on the table for cuts. why? because of social security -- please. tbd favor. why? because the social security in its 70 + years of life has never contributed one penny to these deficits that we have in every year or the debt. not one single cent in debt is due to social security. in fact, social security today has a surplus of over 200 trillion dollars. some people are saying, we should take money out of social security, raise the retirement age, all sorts of ideas to help with deficits. i do not think that is there. i have to hope that i can argue well enough and windy day in

that debate that everyone would agree with me that of the 12 of us, we should not go after social security benefits to solve this deficit and debt crisis. i cannot tell you that because i have a socials -- i have a strong belief of social security that i would close the door. i would be doing a disservice to all the americans in this country who believe the 12 of us have a sincere obligation to try to find common ground. if i see you cannot touch social security and somebody else says you cannot touch medicare or taxes for the rich or money for schools -- i think we have to be prepared to deal with what ever the majority in this committee comes up with. look at my voting record, he will see where i stand. i do not have a right to close the door on things that are my sacred cows. on the trade deals, it is time

in this country where our biggest export was not a american jobs. our biggest import was not will. we have to come up with a trade policy that recognizes that we must grow jobs in america. in fact, i will tell you right now that my belief is the biggest deficit in my country today is a jobs deficit. you put 15 billion americans to work and that they are paying taxes. they are paying taxes, the treasury has revenue. if the treasury has more revenue, the deficits go down. it is tough to imagine the government will balance their budget is 15 million americans are out of work and when they get home they have a hard time determining how to balance

theirs. we have to have a trade policy that generates jobs in america. not one that just opened supporters and we have to move businesses abroad. those trade agreements, while they are making progress, i think there is issues with some of them. we have to make sure that if we are going to open our doors to columbia, columbia is treating not just its capital properly, but is treating its people properly and not making it difficult for workers in colombia to be able to have rights. in colombia today, you are as likely to be assassinated for being a worker tried to help people organize as you are if you are a narco traffickers. there are some real issues there. we have to get these right. next was erick. before you go, let me pick in

other name. richard spicer. are you here? come downtho the center aisle. >> a good evening. i am a lifelong resident of your district. i appreciate the opportunities for conversation and your sincere effort to get the opinions and thoughts of your residence. i will push back a little bit because i know you have been put charged with a great task. i just want to make it clear to you and it to your staff that when you say things like special interests and sacred cows, i understand that. but the residents who are struggling are not sacred cows or special interests. they are everyday people who live off of social security, medicaid, and food stamps. the you understand that we are not sacred cows that the way

other people are, we're trying to live our lives. please do not see us as another special interest or sacred cow. if that is not clear enough, we are having an event in los angeles to try to portray that livelihood that we are living on september 22 at city hall. in by somebody from your staff to come here some more stories of folks who are struggling and why we need you as a leader, somebody we do respect, to take that to the table as well and make that a message. >> i appreciate your point. let me go right to it. let me say this. do me a favor. i can see that the cameraman behind you is trying to figure out how to fill a around your heads. why do we not all get to decide so they have a clear shot. and remember to smile. you are right, but caution.

what i consider a special interest -- somebody else might say, no. that is not a special interests. let me give you an example. how many here own a home? all of us who own a home, we have a special interests. every time it is time to file our taxes, we get to do something that people who do not own a home get to do. we get to write off the interest on our mortgage. if you grant, you get no such tax break. we also get a tax break because we pay property taxes on the home. we get to write down how much we have made and how much we will pay to the government because of the property taxes we pay on that home. somebody who rents, they do not get to do that. they are helping to pay the property taxes and mortgage on

the property owned by the person who gets to write off expenses. our homeowners special interests? my point to eric is this. what you may think of as just the people, someone might say, are you talking about the people getting medicare? are you talking about people getting homeowners' mortgage deduction? tell me what you mean. that is why the best way to approach this, i believe, is to say, "i will not come in protecting anything or anyone. but i will fight like the dickens for those things i believe in." i do not think i have to be coy about what i believe in. i have been in congress for 19 years. you can see what i believe in. that is why i say to folks, it is pretty transparent what i will fight for. i just have to believe that i have done more training and prep

and someone else. at the end of the day i will prevail in convincing my colleagues at something like social security should not be cut so we can pay for deficits. but thank you for the question. next person, we have carol. francis. c.g.r rodriguez. are you here? go ahead and make your way down there. we will go with stephen smith. are you here? right over here. go right ahead. >> i think special interests most people think of as the people who are making, you know, the billionaires, the

millionaires and people who cause the economic crisis. i really appreciate the whole idea of you going into the committee -- the super committee without a set agenda and willing to be flexible and try to persuade. but that only works of both sides to it. when the republicans begin by saying -- >> to me a favor. i want to make sure everybody has a chance to hear what is being said. i do not what somebody walking away misunderstanding what is being said. the more you applaud, the more i am going to have to say please hold, stopped for a second. at some point, somebody is going to feel like, you clapped. i can do. before you know it, it will escalate. let us focus on the q and a on the commentary.

>> what the republicans have said, we will make sure that nobody who believes in raising taxes on anybody, on the top 10% or the top 1% or anything that are going to be on the committee. if they already have that preconceived and you come in as saying -- it is only the democrats who want to be flexible and republican said, no, we will go with this agenda. we know that we need to cut the war in libya and iraq and afghanistan. quit funding at israel for no matter what it does. we need to do these things. >> let me go ahead -- i need to keep going. i get your point. i am not stupid. i am not going to walk in

saying, i have no preconditions. and by the way, i see you have 30 of them. let us continue to play in the sandbox. when i say i believe we should walk in with no preconditions making no special interest pledges that i sign on the dotted line i will not do this or i will do that, i am that if we saying th want to be serious and honest with all of our constituents, i cannot have in my back pocket this "get out of jail free"pass for one constituency. everybody is going to look for those passes. i have to believe that if i walked and earnestly sank to my colleagues, "you just heard what

i said about social security," but it is on the table. before we leave it on the table to find savings, prove to me why. i believe i can win that argument. but i have to test that theory. that is why i think it is important for this to be a transparent process. social security has never contributed a dime to these deficits or the national debt. if somebody votes to keep it on, i want to see -- to me, social security is one of the greatest inventions america has ever given us. i understand your point. you may still have issues with my position. if i walk in sang, so when so, i know you have always taken this position and you will never do this and now you are on this committee. because i know you have always

taken a particular position, i will take a particular position. this will break a part. i do not think failure is an option for us on this. if we do not do something, the 12th of us, the consequence is there will be an automatic trigger for the same amount of cuts. that is like having it all guillotine come down and decide where the cuts will be. it is better to have 12 americans who at least profess to wanting to do the best for their country come up with a solution and it just take a guillotine with our eyes closed and say, we need to top off all this money and let it come down. that is not the way you legislate. i do not believe. i understand your point. please understand my predicament in trying to get this done. i hear what you are saying. do me a favor.

we cannot proceed if anyone wants to interject. please, sir. we will just ask that you all try to cooperate. please be respectful. as i said, it will escalate. this is what i ask. please respect your neighbors who have taken the time to come. please respect the rules. please respected the law. this is a public forum. if you break up this form and make it impossible for us to continue, you are committing a misdemeanor. we would ask that everybody respect your neighbors if nothing else. at least respect your neighbors who have taken the time to be here.

they just announced that have no intention of ever operating a museum. cable not let the southwest museum name be used again. they are ready to give the property to the city of los angeles, not the collection at the buildings and the land. do we have any options? >> anne, we have discussed this many times. never to a resolution. i do not know the answer to your question. it is not an issue that i deal with on a day to day basis in

washington. this is a local issue having to deal with an important site over in the northeast area of l.a. that has been closed for many years. they have control of the site and the collection. it is the very precious collection of native american artifacts, one of the best collections in the united states. the concern of many local residents is what will happen to what is a treasure in the community? a museum in an area not to void of a lot of treasures and historic sites and opportunities for people who want to come into the community. as i said as always, i understand the passion. it is a treasure we want to continue. at the same time, they will say

it was a museum that was on the verge of closing, its attendance was very low. it was having financial difficulty. somebody had to come in and where it would close permanently. it is a city issue. i know city council members to have jurisdiction over the issue have been talking quite a bit a about it. i know the mayor has been involved as well. suffice to say this -- i agree with the residence who want to keep the museum there. i do not know if i agree with the residents who say we must keep it there at all costs. somebody has to bear those costs. somehow you have to be able to prove to those who will run the museum and own at that they can bear the cost. museums are very expensive to operate. if you have to keep everything in our climate condition, and you have to make sure you have

security. that is what makes it tough. i wish i could give you a better response, and the last time we spoke about this was a couple of years, i do not know what has transpired since then. i have not dealt with that at the federal level. i am always welcome to work with you to make sure that that site has every opportunity to remain the southwest museum. thank you. ok. who was next? i think richard, you are next. then we have c.g. and stephen and one more. judy. you will be next -- fourth. >> thank you very much for having this forum. in your role on the committee, i would appreciate if you would share some of your ideas about how to make it work in the

manner you have suggested -- either conduct, transparency, perhaps ways in which the members of the committee could share and education on some of these complicated subject matters, and to do with any matter that keeps everything on the table including revenue reform, increases as well as shared cuts across the board -- not across the board. smart choices on ways to make cuts. >> i think you're going to the heart of this without asking me to comment on something. let me let you probe my brain a little bit more, which i think you have a right to. i am voting for you. you gave me that privilege. first, i said it earlier. i believe it has to be a transparent process. if not, it is too easy to gain the system.

wink wink, not not, you come out with something like the smoke of the vatican north dakota try to figure out why was he chose an for the vote. transparency -- as open as possible. i think that is crucial. secondly, i think we have to have an initial opportunity to talk about how we are going to -- what can be put on the table? what is really in the next? what i think is extremely critical -- i do not know if all of my colleagues would agree. the whodunit? what happened? just the facts. how did we go from 2001 when we had the largest federal budget surplus in our history and we were being told by the fiscal

referee for these things, the cfo, that we would have budget surpluses so large that over the next 10 years we would likely see budget surpluses totaling 5.6 trillion dollars. surpluses. so much so that we were going to be able to wipe out all of our national debt within that 10 years and have extra. we would be free and clear of any debt. that is what the congressional budget office was telling us. that is the most neutral referee that we use to determine costs, revenue, those kinds of things. in fact, we would use them for this committee. all of a sudden, 10 years later, we went from that projection of record surpluses to now, record deficits. a turnaround of 12.7 trillion dollars in 10 years.

$12.7 trillion. go home, right out the number $ 12 trillion. breakdown. you are probably going back to before the caveman days in time. 12 trillion is an astronomical sum. what happened in 10 years? we all watched. i believe we have to answer the "whodunit" question. otherwise, we are going to say chop this year, change medicare here, change taxes here. what caused us to get into this mess? now, we have a general sense of what did, but we need to probe further. the biggest contributor, i do not say this but the

congressional budget office's numbers, the biggest man-made contributor -- the bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 which over the next 10 years will cost us over four trillion dollars. in the first 10 years, the cost about $three trillion. second largest contributor, likely, the wars and iraq and afghanistan. why? we have never paid a single cent of the cost of the two boards. it is all borrowed money. over $one trillion dollars and growing. we never paid for that. you could start to add up these sounds and see where we went awry. if nobody says, we should do something about those bush tax cuts, which went mostly to very wealthy folks. nebraska there are some

millionaires in this room. your tax break for this year was probably a about $120,000. if you are somebody making the average income of $45,000, you probably got enough of a tax break to give you to tanks of gas. we need to figure out what caused us to get there. once we do that, we can target better what we do to come up with 1.5 trillion dollars in savings. if we blindly say, we have to cut the schools because we have no choice. i do not know any child who spent any of the money in iraq or afghanistan. i know no child who got that tax break. i think we have to go and figure out the sources, the drivers of the deficits. that way you can answer every american plainly what we have to do to get this right. the bottom line, my bottom line

what we do, will it create a job or kill a job? i will not be any -- very favorable if it is going to kill a job. i believe the quickest way we get america back on track is to put america back to work. there are too many americans who are not working and paying their taxes and feeling good a outworking. maybe not great, could it not paying taxes. long answer, i apologize. i have to keep them briefer. but as go to the next one. >> i want to thank you for your support of educational programs that you provided in the past. can you share ideas as to how

you can promote those kinds of programs, protect those programs? i am very concerned that it is going to be on the chopping block and it will be a blind cut. >> what i love about these sessions is, you all tell me through your passion with you care about the most. invariably, it is something very important to the family and neighborhood. in this case, the program to help kids, a lot of children who are mostly disadvantage and modest income families, it helps them make sure they catch up so they do not fall further behind and to drag some of their peers with them because the teacher has to teach to everyone. the program has been very successful getting a lot of these kids a lot closer to where we want to see them. can i guarantee that something like trio would be cut? nope.

i cannot guarantee that. have i been a supporter? i have been more than a supporter. when i served on the education committee, i was one of the principal advocates for gear up and trio. i have fought to expand those programs because of the work they have done. i guarantee we get a lot of those resources for gear up and trio here because we have a lot of kids who come from modern income -- modest income families and they are trying to survive. it is tough. you can talk to any principal in the unified los angeles school district and they will tell you how gut-wrenching it is to send out pink slips every spring and summer to teachers because they have to be sure they can meet their budget come september and hope they can pull back some of those pink slips by the time school will start. not a way to educate kids. that is the way things have gone. it is tough. we have to figure out where the

sacrifice will come. as i said before, if you can find me a gear up kid who told us to go to war and i iraq border got $120,000 tax break, i am willing to talk to that kid and say there is something we have to do about that. thank you. let me give you two other names. next is too deep. after judy, we will have been. ben, are you here? go ahead and get in line over there. after that will be donald. we will not have that march more time. richard, are you here? we may only get to these last four depending on how quickly they are. and i am sorry, steven is next

and then judy. by the way, i hope you do not mind, steven, we are friends because we ran against each other when you're a go for congress. he was my worthy opponent last year for congress. >> we actually had a very interesting debate. >> we did. "i would like to make a comment on education since it is brought up. what is happening in los angeles is a tragedy. what i am looking at numbers that we on the have 50% of our students graduating high school and in nebraska los angeles arkansas congressional district respect -- especially the hispanic community is running 30%, the fact that that is not front page headlines is very upsetting to me. i am very upset about that. you would not have your job on that tour person committee if congress, the senate, and the president had not failed putting together a budget. that is very sad.

i hope we can be successful in that. i would like to comment in terms of taxation as well. if we were to take that $250,000 a year wage earner and above and take 100% of their income, my understanding is that would only cover about six months' worth of our current budget. the numbers are huge. just a huge in terms of how far we are behind. that is very disturbing to me. the question or comment i have for you, you have a remarkable act -- opportunity right now. i hope you take advantage of this. that is to say, there are some areas where there are common ground. we know where of there will not be. you know republicans will be a little hard-nosed about taxing. we always see it as being wasted. there are areas in terms of savings, major tax reform that

we can deal with. i just want to encourage you to let go of some of the things and start to build piece by piece and find areas of commonality that we all have. >> i agree with pretty much everything you say about the part of 250 and above -- the amount to collect and revenues. it is much more than what you have indicated. otherwise, i think are absolutely right on education. that goes to the point of gear up. it is so important for our kids to have a chance to prosper. i say that because i in the first and my family to get a college degree. my wife and i, who also has a college degree, she is a doctor. her father and mother were carried little and education. we made it more in one year than my parents probably made in 20 years. nobody can ever take away my college education. i don't need to be a member of congress to be happy.

i am a very proud that because i got myself educated, i had a chance to run and had a chance to serve. we need to make sure others have that opportunity. there is so much talent in this country. some people are saying, our best days are behind us. i do not believe that for a second. there is no country that has the vitality that we have. this diversity has helped us so much because there is always somebody coming in who can talk about the really tough story and life, but all of a sudden in america, they are making it. it reinvigorate you to see that folks believe in this country. what a shame if you cannot give to a kid a chance to show their parents that they can just do some phenomenal things. my dad would tell me stories when as a young man he would

walk on a street and he would see a sign outside a window that said no dogs or mexicans allowed. he could not go into a restaurant. guess what? my dad has met the president of the united states. only in america would a guy who could not walk to the doors of a restaurant get his kid a stanford education and introduce him to the president of the united states. our best days of -- our best days are ahead of us. we just have to believe it. let us focus on giving everyone the opportunity. if you do not want the opportunity, which should not be helping you. if you are willing to work hard, that is what we ought to be about. these decisions i have been privileged to be cast to make, i understand that i was given something that so many kids did not have. i also know that it was hard work, parents went through to give me this chance. shame on me out if i fail in

this committee, share on -- shame on me if i fill my parents to give me the chance to be on this committee. go right ahead. judy, you are next. and and and and donald. >> i am a mother of two boys who are going to the charter school across the street. we have been at the mercy of charter school lotteries for a lot of years. i will do a quick laundry list so please bear with me. republican colleagues that signed the allegiance to go with norquist instead of the constitution of the bill of rights should be shamed at every moment. it is a shame to swear allegiance to some guy in a piece of paper. the waste they are talking about is over 750 bases all over the world. the military telling our young men without an education to go over 100 places around the world

where they can serve. we need to get out of iraq and afghanistan immediately. we should not be advertising to see the world. where are the hundred bases? how would we feel if all of these other countries have military bases here? then we are paying these people $500 to have privatized the military. a bodyguard for a congressman fit -- visiting over there on are getting budget why are we not paying our own military people that? where are we wasting on contractors -- the good old but military industrial complex that eisenhower talked about. i am sorry, i am getting emotional. >> wind down. >> my friends and belgium and work for the eu to solve the

issues of poverty. she had six months off, her kids in childhood care, they have all these things in europe without any more taxes than we pay here. something is really wrong. something is basically really wrong. spending all of this money on military and privatizing it should all be going to our schools, our children, our roads, and infrastructure. sorry i went on. >> thank you very much. i hear again the passion and i appreciated very much. i will say one thing. first, i have seen a number of families who have lost their sons and daughters, sons and spouses over a number of years. you give me this right to vote for you. i take it very seriously --

especially when it comes to the military. at some point, i may put your son or your daughter in harm's way. when i had to go visit a mother or a wife and provide them with a flag of the united states has a token of appreciation for their husbands or sons of service, it is tough. what more do you say to somebody who has given their all? i do not want to look back and say, i could have done more to make sure that soldier was better trained or equipped. i never want to have that kind of regret. i think we have an obligation -- and by the way, i am a very progressive democrat. i think we have an obligation to make sure somebody that puts on the uniform, the give them the utmost to make sure they can do their work. their work is as precious as it

comes. they are defending us. however, i do not think that means that the pentagon has license with my vote to spend $32,000 for a refrigerator. that does not give the pentagon the right to say, well, you cannot audit us to say how the pentagon keeps our books because we are too big and of audible. pentagon, we could not audit them, any firm could go in and give an idea of how dod spend their money because they are in such a shambles. they do too much importance stuff to not have their books in order. the more we get them in order, the more, i think, they will make sure those contract overruns into the hundreds of billions of dollars do not occur. as i said, i am not interested

in cutting a program that makes sure our soldiers are the best equipped and prepared to fight with whatever they need. by god, i am not interested in telling them they need a $32,000 refrigerator to help fight this country. that is what we have to go after. you make some very good points, but again, without telling you i'm going to go after this or that or protected this or that, there are areas where we can make some changes and find savings without having to go into the bone of what america cares about. letting the public sees so that the public knows why we did what we do. i have no doubt -- americans, i have no idea why. maybe it is the sense we can always do what can we go for the underdog, americans believe we can get this done. we just have to prove it. let it be open so that at the end of the day we come out with

a product. kasich, i know how we got this because i watched this. i can see the record. thank you for your comment. please do not stop having that passion. a lot of folks talk about the bases. >> when i heard you were on the super committee, i was very grateful and if very relieved. whenever i checked your votes, you are always voting what is at my heart. i am very proud to say you are my congressman. >> thank you. >> i will be a little specific into details, i do not know if this fits your radar, you know i care very deeply about arts and the endowment of arts. we have been operating on $161 million this year. the administration proposed $146 million. there were several motions to

eliminate the endowment which you opposed and were joined by moderate republicans and all the democrats to defeat the elimination of the endowment and to defeat the defunding of the endowment. i am very grateful for that. we are going to need a champion in that committee. i know you are not making any promises, but the interior subcommittee approved a hundred $35 million. there was some very strong language in the appropriation to support core programs of the endowment. we were hoping it would go to the senate and and reconciliation be boosted up. i do not know if there will be any reconciliation anymore or if you guys are doing that. that is one of my questions. if you are doing it, and there will not be a reconciliation with the senate, i would implore you to look inside and consider being our champion on that committee and at least

supporting some sense of language with the preservation of core endowment programs with sufficient funding. you know the arts creates jobs, it inspires people, it enriches people's lives, and supports education. all of the things that make it worthwhile of being the american are supported through the arts and the endowment. >> thank you. again, my record will speak for itself on those issues about the arts. i will to say for those who may not know, i think the arts are important not because of the adults and the talents that the show. i think the arts are important because of our children. i think the arts give our kids to express themselves in ways that too often we do not give them a chance. financially, they do not have a lot of resources so they are of limited in what they can do, or perhaps there are of limited in their capacities because they

never had an opportunity to open their minds and learn. to me, the arts are a very fine way for a child to really explore the mind. that is where you find the talents. all of us can do one plus one. it is the kid who can take it and it turned one plus one into something we've never what have thought about. the creativity that i think creates patents and copyrights that make us the country we are today. the country that builds google and microsoft's of america. the more we give kids a chance to explore -- especially in ways that are affordable -- i think the more we will create an america that is strong because these kids will have used their mind from an early age. to me, it is very distressing when you hear that a school says, we have to teach the core curriculum.

arts, music, pe, we have to sacrifice those things. it is hard to say to them, how dare you. do we want them to sacrifice mad and science? know. but those are the decisions we are making. those are the options we are being is given. teach a kid math or let them also the music. to me, that is the wrong set of values that you have to give up that intellectual capacity a child would have if he or she had an opportunity to play that instrument or to do that art. because we want them to learn math or science or english or geography. i went to public schools when i was growing up. in fourth grade when we had a chance to get an instrument, i was in line. the parents could not buy one for may. i ended up a little late so i

got a mellophone. there are some people who know what a mellophone is. i wanted a trumpet but i got a mellophone. it is a smaller french horn. can you imagine a fourth great kid having to carry a french home -- a french horn every day? but then i got my trumpet. it was not my normal appearance but the schools. i played in a band. i got some great opportunities and got to meet some girls. it was a great opportunity to feel good about myself and have some esteem. my art is terrible, so i had to be able to play music. every kid should have that opportunity. then, when you talk about the arts, is indispensable. should we sacrifice some other core curriculum and our schools? no. but we should not be talking about sacrificing size to get our or sacrificing our to get science.

that is where i think america has gone wrong when those are the options. the option to me is do we need that base in the foreign country or do we need the parts? to many debates, ok good. but do we have to spend more on the military than the 18 largest powers behind us combined? no, i'm sorry. i do not need responses. let us move on. reconciliation. this super committee will drive much what is going on with the budget because it sets up the parameters of what we do over the next 10 years. that will give us the parameters. to some degree this law that created a super committee at christie's the automatic trigger is if a super committee does not come up with a solution will drive the budgets for the next 10 years and will see what kind of appropriation the arts will get. yes. so donald and then richard.

that will close up. you have all been very patient. >> my is very simple. there is a program that is not being covered by the mainstream media. this is a program called the world global settlements. it has already funded in the tune of $47 trillion. that includes $10 trolling to refund the treasury to issue an asset backed currency to replace our fiat currency that has put us in debt. i have not heard anything about this in the news. it has been reported that this is being blocked by the present administration. this particular program would solve most of the ills that your committee has been tasked to take care of. i am curious to know why it is being blocked. why is it being kept under the radar when it is already funded?

>> donald, you're going to have to send me information on that. i cannot answer any of those questions because i do not know enough of what you're talking about to give you a straight answer. give me -- do me a favor. give us a citation or if you have anything with it, leave it with me. then we will have that conversation. if there is a solution that can be addressed or arrived at with the information and programs you're talking about. you keep have raised something that i cannot respond to well. world of global settlement. you can always look at up. you are free to give us whatever information you have. deborah is right next to you. actually, do not talk to her because she has a microphone. brenda, liz, somebody will make sure they are talking to donald before he leaves. thank you. guess what, richard, you get to close us all. they get a good one.

>> thank you for the opportunity, and it do not hate me for loving you. here it comes. >> you need to come to all of my town halls. >> sir, my questions are geared towards jobs and the financial situations were we are at right now. i have two career, and i have been without a job for 1.9 months. when it comes to jobs, politicians, talk is easy. remember, you do not bite the hand that feeds you. when it comes to jobs, it is easy to say, "we need to create the jobs." but the companies that actually treat the jobs, they took it away from us and take it to the east.

how going to basic binary logic can you create, i do not know, when hundred 50,000-200,000 jobs in california? you require these huge corporations, which by the way, all the time they keep on merging. when they merged these huge corporations, jobs need to be let go because of the double jobs that they get. on the other hand, as of today after 2.5 years with the debacle on wall street, as today nobody has been sent to jail because of the crimes they committed with our money. that money that saved them came from the taxpayers. they are printing money, printing machines can only go so far. thank you. >> richard, you hit it out of the park. let me see if i can try to catch it.

first, i think you are absolutely right. it is easy for this guy who has a job to talk about how we need to create jobs. let me give you some ideas about how the federal government can help america -- most of the private sector, create good jobs. there is a program here and los angeles called the 3010 transportation program were the transportation agency is trying to use the money we all voted for -- we have taxed ourselves to these initiatives, to create a fund of money here in the county of los angeles to help us build transportation infrastructure. the city of los angeles has said to the federal government, we are going to build these things. typically, you help pay for part of this. what if we do this? what if we tell you, federal government, we will dedicate a

larger portion of the money we have already taxed ourselves onto this particular project which you would typically support to a matching grants, you give us that money up front quickly. that way we can accelerate the completion of those transportation programs whether it is freeways, mass-transit. essentially, we leverage the money that we have committed to produce through our own taxes locally to guarantee the federal government that we will come through with the money so that the federal government will have the confidence to give us more money up front. instead of giving us -- i am making up numbers -- $10 billion over 10 years, they will give this $10 billion in year one. we can then start moving on all of these projects right away. we have a ton of projects here locally that we can get moving on. nobody needs to be told an los

angeles that we need to improve the ability for mobility. it is a great idea. we are essentially saying, you want confidence that we will come through. if you give us more money up front than you would give us but no more than you would give us over the long term, we will pomp and the money to show you how we are going to make this happen. $15 billion investment by the federal government -- which is a ton of money -- i am talking $1.5 trillion treaty know what 15 billion can give us? about 1 million american jobs. that transportation project cannot be done from somebody in another country. you have to build that road here. you have to put up the real system here. the federal government is going to give any help, you are doing it up front early. 2, there is a program some have

proposed a called fast. fix america's schools today. this is a great group, but it also just opened. there are a lot of schools to it that are not looking like this. kids are having to learn with kids who are here and in a lot nicer schools. we are going to fix the schools at some point. at some point they will lead to the roof, then they will go in and fix the roof. why wait until the water starts damaging the roof more? if you know the roof is old and you will have to replace it, why not replace it now? there are a whole lot of construction workers in l.a. and america who are out of work. you know what you get out of it? to get to feel better about going to school because they are going to school and a nice place instead of waiting until all the rain is a shining down on that because the bridge is leaking. that would also create good at paying it jobs for americans.

he said to often american corporations are sending jobs abroad -- they are. by the way, the majority of americans who are put to work are not put to work by large corporations. three out of every four jobs are created by small businessmen and women. just sit -- just a you know, they are treated by small businessmen and women. not the big guys. in the whole scheme of things, out of the hundred 60 million americans that are working, most of them are working for small firms. to your point, today if a corporation in a america decides to open a factory abroad or open 8 from abroad or a particular business abroad and therefore says i do not need you working here anymore and jane or joe, i will let you go, many of those

firms are getting tax breaks for having treated the job somewhere else. why do we not get rid of the tax break that a company is getting to send a job overseas and instead give companies to say, it is tough. i am not sure to do. if your federal government is willing to partner with me and you say you will give me a little bit of a tax break for treating a job in america, let us do it. instead of giving tax breaks to companies that send jobs abroad, but this tell those companies will induce a in america, we will help you out a bit. it will cost us money because it is a tax break and coming out of our pocket, i would rather give an incentive to a company to create a job here and be giving a tax break to a company sending a job overseas. there are ways we can do this, and i hope was this committee will explore and be smart,

reduced deficit by trading more jobs so america will feel proud that they are working and will not feel bad that they have to do their volunteer part and pay taxes. richard, it was a great question. things have to be done. i appreciate you all have come. i have an important tax -- a task in front of me. ' please feel free to look at my website, please feel free to communicate with me. share your thoughts like the gentleman donald who mentioned this program. i will look into that. please feel free to share your thoughts. we have t - three months to try to get something done. i hope you will participate with me. you are my constituents. i owe you the opportunity to speak to me and give you my thoughts. and for you to receive my feedback. i hope we stay in touch. thank you for being so corporative and courteous. i look forward to speaking with you a.