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 again. have a good night. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> now another of the town hall meetings in the congressional recess. if freshman republican senator from utah talked about the economy and the federal debt. this is an hour and a half.

>> this is an important part of our state. it is probably the most beautiful part of our state. i do not say that everywhere we go. we do have a beautiful state, some of that less than others. we have a lot of people who made this day possible. i want to thank senator overland for introducing me in helping set this up, and all the citizens of the county who have been supportive of this, mayor vincent of fairview, dick taylor, the city manager, bob bingham, the police chief. i want to thank channel 10. i am also grateful to c-span for being here tonight. it is nice of them to join us, could of them to be concerned about utah politics. it is a real pleasure to be here at the peterson dance hall.

it goes back to 1986, the year we became a state. in that year, we went through a transformation. we left the stage of being a territory of the united states, where laws are subject to congress, everything we did, even our territorial legislature. it had to act with the permission of congress and was always subject to a veto by congress. when we became a state, all of a sudden, we were our own sovereign entity. we have our own rights as a sovereign, just like congress has its own rights. the difference between the state power and federal power was spelled out of them. it is still spelled out today in this document. it was not quite as old then. but this fostered the development of the greatest civilization the world has ever known. it tells us where state power comes in and where federal power

comes in. i have a feeling we may talk about some of that tonight. 1896 was an important year. we became a state. in many respects, we are still climbing the benefits of statehood, some of which have yet to be fully realized. i will talk for a few minutes about some of the things we have been dealing with in congress. then we can talk about anything on your mind. the most important thing we will do tonight, and you will see me doing a lot of listening and taking some notes -- i want to know what is of concern to you so that we can know how best to respond in congress and i can serve you well as your u.s. senator. shortly before we left washington, a few weeks ago, when members of congress went back to their home states to get things done, to meet with constituents, we dealt with the debt limit issue. some of you may have heard about

that in the news. we voted to raise the debt limit, to authorize a new amount of money that congress can borrow, to an unprecedented degree, about $2.50 trillion. that is a lot of money. some people here in utah do not make that in a whole year. [laughter] that is the amount of money congress is able to borrow, in addition to the amount it has already borrowed. it has borrowed almost $15 trillion. by the end of the year, our accumulated national debt will be about $15 trillion. we do not use the word trillion in our day to day vocabulary. to put it in perspective, if you divide 15 trillion by 300 million americans, it works out

to $50 -- to $50,000 a head. that includes people who are retired, infants, students, in addition to those who are working and paying taxes. if you measure it according to taxpayers, it could be everywhere -- anywhere to $160,000 per taxpayer. that is a lot of money. at some point, that becomes a problem. i voted against the debt limit increase because i did not think the legislation that authorized it did enough to take care of the underlying problem. it did not do enough to make sure we were not back in the same position a few months from now, or a year or two from now. it did not solve the underlying problem members of congress have. members of congress want to please their constituents. but it will do is approved a lot of spending, sometimes spending a lot more money than congress

has. we have been bringing in about $2.20 trillion a year in tax revenue. we have been spending about $3.70 trillion a year. that difference is all made up for in borrowing. the reason that is such a problem is that at some point we will reach the limit not of our statutory borrowing power, not the limit of what congress says it will allow itself to borrow. we will reach, at some point, the natural limits of our mathematical borrowing power. people will stop lending us money, at least not without charging us much higher interest rates. as that starts to happen, we will accelerate dramatically the rate at which we are moving to the day that has been acknowledged by the white house as something we are likely to hit in the next decade or so, spending a trillion dollars every year just in interest on

national debt. we are spending right now a little over $200 billion in interest. that is a lot of money. a trillion dollars is five times that amount. that is more money than we spend on national defense and a year. it is more than we spend in social security in a year. it is more than we spend on medicare and medicaid combined. the closer we get to that moment, the more we potentially place in jeopardy everything. that money will have to come from somewhere. we will have to make up the difference somewhere. it will end up having to come from every federal program. we cannot borrow more at that moment. if we do that, our interest rates will jump so high we will not be able to borrow any more. we will find ourselves in a worse position. our tax system has proven capable of producing only about 18.5% of the money that moves

through the economy every year. raising taxes might make some difference in the short run. in the long run, it is not point to make a difference and may damage us. we would have to make more severe and chromatic cuts and we would prefer to make. if we start the process now, and put in place the balanced budget amendment that will require congress to put itself on a sustainable course toward balancing its budget, the cuts we will have to make will be more manageable. there will be more compassionate. they will be less likely to have adverse impacts on the most vulnerable members of society. those are some of the reasons why i voted no on the debt limit deal. i believe we should have had a balanced budget amendment. it should have been submitted to the states.

with that introduction, let's open up the floor to questions. i am going to take off my jacket, if nobody expects. it is kind of hot, even here. i kissed the back from being on the -- i just got back from meeting with the county commissioners. a beautiful place. the resources up there are phenomenal. i found it easy to imagine what it might look like with a reservoir there. i appreciate the county commissioners letting me see it. i saw a hand up. do we have a microphone? >> i am a long time libertarian.

in has been a while i have been much in this mess come about. we are currently living in a welfare state, as far as i am concerned. we have five unconstitutional wars going on. i cannot keep track. we apparently had troops on the ground in libya before we said we did. we are involved in all kind of stuff. we have 170 countries we are currently occupying with our military. when are we going to bring these people home, reinforced these borders with our people if we have to, and stop the bleeding of this nation and quit exporting our jobs? because of what obama has done, i would expect you to start the impeachment process on him for what he has done.

that is important. >> thank you. [applause] addressed quite a few issues. let me scribble some of this down as we're talking. i want to start on one of the final points you made that ties a lot of it together. you referred to jobs. a lot of what we deal with in washington, a lot of the most important things we deal with, relate to job creation and job preservation. a lot of the things we do could make the job market worse than it already is. the cannot afford that. we needed to get better as quickly as we possibly can. we made it worse rather than better when we pretend to the federal government that we can take your money, send it to washington, work through our own process, take our cut --

exactly. when we try, it makes it worse. that is a problem. i agree with you there. your comments directed to our presence overseas -- i think part of the natural process that will occur as we move in the direction of a balanced budget will be a waddling down of some of the things we do through our military. people have asked in the past what of the sacred cows, what cannot be cut. people assume because of the political party i am a member of that i would say defense is a sacred cow that cannot be touched under any circumstance. we have to look for efficiency in every corner of government. in order for our system of government to survive, we have to make it more efficient. we cannot afford to be fighting other people's wars. we cannot afford to be fighting a war for which there has never been in military justification expressed, much less a proper

constitutional declaration of war. [applause] >> you say that you are for a balanced budget amendment. don't you think that is dangerous? wouldn't it be better if we just follow the constitution and stop spending money on things for which the federal government has no mandate, and get rid of a lot of things like the fda, the usda, the department of education? you could get rid of a lot of stuff that is not constitutional, and stop foreign aid subsidies -- foreign aid, subsidies to farmers and businesses. we could keep a lot of money in our pockets of that happened. we would be spending a lot less

money. [applause] >> thank you. that is an excellent point. what is your name? but he makes an excellent point here. i do not know how well you could hear in the back. betting makes the point -- why do we need a balanced budget amendment when we have a constitution already and the constitution, if followed, would put congress on a course that would stay focused on the few responsibilities given in the constitution, like weights and measures, regulating trade between the states, trademarks, copyrights and patents, and so forth? you raise a valid point. here is why i nevertheless think we need to amend the constitution. that document, and particularly that part of the document that tells congress its jobs are limited and its responsibility exists within a limited sphere has been so overlooked over

such a prolonged time that we have almost forgotten as a society -- some of us feel passionate about these things. but we have lost sight of it. we have assumed there is no job that is too big or too small for congress to handle. members of congress do not like to balance the budget because it makes them less powerful. it makes it more difficult for them to look constituents in the eye and say that looks like a good project that would benefit a lot of people, and we cannot do it. they do not like to say no. until we restrict their authority to engage in deficit spending, they will not. we know that based on a side track record in which they have dollar by dollar mortgaged the future of our unborn children and grandchildren. they have spent money they do not have and buried our prosperity under a mountain of debt. it is a form of taxation without representation.

the last time i checked, we fought and won that war. we need to win that victory by restricting congress's ability to borrow. [applause] >> mike webster. -- laid webster -- glade webster. can you elaborate on the narrows project? we have been trying to get it here for over 80 years. it makes too much sense. >> i hesitate to answer the question from the same promise you started with. i do not think there is anything i can do to force it through. it is not quite the sort of thing that is amenable to being forced. it is something that is important to the residents of this county, and something the residents have waited pretty

patiently for over the last 80 years, as you mentioned. it is something you waited for even in 1944, when the residents here were ready for that to be completed. but they put that off in order for some work to be done in schofield so that schofield would not fail, which would jeopardize a rail line going through there. as i understand it, the environmental impact statement will be up. we expect a record of decision could be issued by sometime early next year. when that happens, the process will move forward. there may be some litigation. there is nothing i can do to force it through beyond that process. if there is litigation, that will have to work its way to court. we have to have a couple of things happen. the record of decision has to be

issued. litigation, if any -- litigation, if any, will have to be complete. i hope we are able to get that done promptly. we have had an awful lot of litigation. as i understand it, the water rights are not in dispute. they have been settled. they have been deemed to belong to the residents of the county. i am optimistic that this will come to a resolution. a lot of that will depend on how the litigation goes. i will get to people in the back of the room. i just realized. >> i only have six or seven things here. [laughter] the president has agreed that the [unintelligible] he is going to propose a value

added tax. however, he wants it on top of the income tax. is there anything you could do? [unintelligible] can you stop him from doing that? [unintelligible] >> it is not the super committee. this is a top-level administration official. i know who you are talking about. i cannot remember his name at the moment, but i know who you mean. this is a presidential appointee who has been an outspoken advocate of what is referred to as the value added tax. think of that kind of like a sales tax placed on items that you buy in the store, whether as a consumer or as a business, if

you are buying a business in put and adding value to a product before you resell it. you are taxed on it, and a tax is imposed on it before the next person. value-added taxes are common throughout europe. they are frequently placed on top of income taxes. i refer to this sometimes as burning the candle at both ends. they want to get more revenue than they can get through an income tax. they create the illusion that people are taxed less than they actually are. people who are paying income tax are paying a value added tax. the product has gone to several of these cycles where people have had a value added at different stages of the business input cycle. the product might be a lot more

expensive. a lot of the expenses related to government. i oppose that. i think we need to pick a horse and ride it as a country. [applause] what i mean is we either need to stick with an income tax system, which needs to be simplified so it does not occupy tens of thousands of pages. nobody has ever read that thing. if they did, they would probably die. on the other hand, we need to go to a national sales tax model, the fair tax, as they're referred to it. i would forcibly oppose that. i will likely oppose the confirmation of people who are in a position to bring about policy changes like that if they support those. that said, i looked at each nominee on his or her own merits. i have yet to that this nominee, whose name i cannot remember at the moment. i share your concern about a

value added tax. [applause] >> was your hand up back there? we had a hand up. yes? >> senator, thanks for being here. i have three questions. >> you are the mayor? >> a balanced tax -- do you see it coming forward again? the fair tax, you mentioned a little bit about it. but we do not tax 51% of the people in the country. the third thing is immigration. what are we going to do to protect the borders? it is two parts, protecting the borders, but then figuring out what to do with the people who live here. i am more concerned about protecting the borders.

but with a dictation from washington this last week, we are not going to take action on those people who are already here, unless they break some felony law, or something like that. >> i want to make sure i have got all of this. >> spending taxes instead of bill and rising a particular group. >> these are all good questions. first, your question on the cup -- the cut, cap, and balance act -- this is a bill i introduced in the senate a couple of months ago. what it said was we will raise the debt limit to the degree the president has asked, because he is the president. much as some people may or may not want somebody else in there, he is the president. but we will raise it only under

the right conditions, that will address the underlying problem and make sure we are not always accruing more debt, make sure we do not reach the point where we cannot find anything, from entitlements to defense, from social security, medicare, and medicaid, to the celeries of marines. those conditions are we need to propose a balanced budget amendment to the constitution, adopt a statutory spending caps to put us on a smooth path toward a balanced budget, and make immediate cuts. it almost does not matter how large they are. but we need a down payment right now, cuts that are real, and not smoke and mirrors. your question related to whether or not we will bring that back up -- it was disappointing. i introduced it in the senate. a week later, a friend of mine

from utah's third decade -- third district introduced it in the house of representatives. the house of representatives passed it. it then went over to the senate. the senate tabled it, meaning they pushed it aside so they did not even have to vote on it. there were members of the senate who did not want the pressure associated with it. they knew it would be popular. according to cnn, three out of four americans believe we should have a balanced budget amendment. a comparable number of americans believe we should not have raised the debt limit. i continue to insist it is this approach that could have saved us, would have saved us, from a credit downgrade. i will continue to push for that very same approach. i do not know whether we will be able to get teed up for a straight up or down vote in the senate.

i will continue to sound the message so it cannot be ignored, as it was a few weeks ago. as to taxes, making our tax system fair, it is difficult when you have a tax system in which only about half of americans are paying anything. at that point, and you have a situation in which it becomes too easy for some americans to be tricked into thinking that government is free. it is especially worrisome from the standpoint of those who are at the middle and low end of the economic spectrum. we worry about tax increases and rising top marginal tax rates, not because we are worried about the ability of the rich to survive and thrive. they will find a way to do that, one way or another. we are worried about the impact on the people who end up paying the higher tax rates, either in terms of increased costs of food

and services, or on unemployment or underemployment or lower wages. it is the way it ends up happening. we trick people into thinking big government is free, when it is not. it ends up having an aggressive -- having a regressive effect, a tax on middle income earners. that is one reason why we have to reform our tax system, make it simpler, and make it more equitable, so everybody has an opportunity to participate. finally, as to immigration, i sometimes say that problems arise in government not just with federal government ignores the fact that there are certain things it is not supposed to do, things that are supposed to be left to the states, rather than being done at the federal level. that can also happen when the federal government get so busy doing things it is not supposed to do that it forgets to do the things it is supposed to do,

like protect our national security interests and our border. we've not been doing that. here is the problem. here is one reason you have not seen and likely will not see anything we could describe as a comprehensive immigration reform package. this leaves a bad taste in the mouths of members of congress. a few years ago, they tried to do comprehensive immigration reform. some have described it as an amnesty or backdoor amnesty. you referred to another form of amnesty the president is proposing through his policy of the people who may be here illegally, but we may leave them here anyway unless they have committed a violent act. people have such a bad taste in their mouth, based on all these forms of back door amnesty, but they do not want to do any of

that. what i am trying to do is look for surgical strikes into the problem so we can figure out where the problem areas are. we need to fix legal immigration, make it more possible. i will be introducing legislation soon. i think we will call it the dairy and sheepherder act. it was the best acronym we could think of over the circumstances. it would make it easier for migrant labor to come in to do certain jobs, recognizing this is cyclical, seasonal labor. i will have a few other bills that try to fix legal immigration. i also co-sponsoring the legislation that would end the automatic birthright citizenship practice we have adopted in this country. [applause]

in the red. yes, sir. >> it goes along with what he said and you are saying. you said you want surgical strikes on immigration and things like this, focus on how you can do it. if you feed a cougar out your back door, he is going to keep coming. if you keep feeding him, he is going to bring his friends. that is one of the problems we have. right now, according to the congressional budget office, we are spending their $500 billion to feed, clothe, take care of housing, take care of all this for non-documented residents in this country. isn't that a place where we can say if you are not legal you do not get social assistance? i know they say they do not get it out of social security. if you look to the back door,

the refugee account is paid out of the social security administration. one non-documented resident can get $2,400 of social security. i see a lot of seniors here. most of them are tapped out at $1,100. is that a place we can look at? the second part to what was said here -- with the flat tax resolve most of our issues in this country? [applause] >> your second question is easy. the answer is yes. flat taxes would make a lot of things better. the first part of your question. back to immigration. you are absolutely right. if we incentivize illegal immigration -- we have been this incentivizing legal immigration, which is what we want. i hope will always be a country

of immigrants. most of us in this room, including myself, are descendants of immigrants or immigrants ourselves. one of my ancestors came across from europe's, one of the original settlers of the county. we want always to be a nation of immigrants. we want them to come to the front door, not the back door. we incentivize them to come to the back door when we make it difficult to come to the front door, and then we reward them for coming through the back door, which we do not want. we need to be vigilant about not giving entitlement benefits that are intended for american citizens to people who are not legally in this country. if you listed some of the reasons why that can be circumvented. it is also true that because we grant automatic birthright

citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants who are going here in the united states, that is another way illegal immigrants can end up receiving a entitlement benefits intended for citizens. i cannot emphasize enough the need for us to close this loophole with automatic birthright citizenship. i am not aware of any other developed nation that has the same policy we do. it is not a constitutional imperative. it can be fixed by statute. i failed to mention another issue we need to focus on, which is border enforcement. one of the reasons we have a border that is as porous as it is -- if you look at the southern border of the united states with mexico, and you look at where most of the illegal immigration crossings are taking place, people walking across the border, most of them happen to

coincide in those areas where most of the borderland is federally owned. within federally owned border areas, a majority of that land, or nearly a majority, is environmentally protected in one way or another, such that border patrol agents have restrictions on their ability to enforce the law there. they can do anything they want on private property. if you on land adjacent to the border, they can come onto your land, no matter how much you value your petunias and daisies you have carefully planted. they can stop all over them to enforce the border. but if it is federally owned and there is an endangered or threatened species, the cannot do anything. they are restricted to a tiny corridor where there is a little path. that is one of the main reasons our border is so porous. we have to fix the problem.

i am working to try to close that loophole. [applause] >> senator, good to see you here. we have met. a couple of years ago. it is good to see you standing here as the first u.s. senator to ever visit fairview, i think. i will just turn in on this. the border -- i doubt it could be enforced as long as there is a demand within the country. you would have to set up machine-gun nests and things like that to stop it. it cannot be stopped. i notice you are" sponsoring one of the -- are co-s ponsoring one of the e-verifys. i hope you will explain that. are you proposing that legal

immigration -- that we increase the numbers? what i am asking is would we be using legal and illegal immigration to continue to depress wages? that is what is being done. wages are depressed because of immigration. what do you think is going to happen concerning the national e-verify? are you going to get that move along? >> first, is the idea to enhance legal and menace -- legal immigration to depress wages, to intentionally bring in more people. the objective is not to increase the total number of immigrants, as much as it is to identify those we are going to admit, to have a transparent policy that can be evenhandedly applied in a way that we are not making it so

difficult and time-consuming and impossible for people to get a visa. when we do that, we incentivize illegal immigration. that does not necessarily mean we are bringing in more people. it has nothing to do with a desire to depress wages. it is a desire to enforce the rule of law and bring people in through the front door. as to the part of your question that relates to e-verify, i am sponsoring legislation that would make compliance with that program mandatory. what that means in essence is that most employers -- i think there probably should be, at the end of the day, a safe harbor for release small employers. employers, as they do now, continue to gather information, and can find out whether the person they are hiring is entitled to work in the united states. that would need to be cross-

checked on this database. employers would be held harmless ones they had taken the step to do that. that is another step we need to take to make sure we are complying with the law, enforcing existing laws. i agree there is a lot we can do by enforcing the border. as long as there is tremendous demand for illegal paper, -- illegal liquor, and people feel it can be overlooked because it always has been in the past, in the case of some employers who have had that experience, we will continue to have this problem. yes, sir. >> i want to apologize. one of this up a minute ago, i did not commend you on the work you are doing. you're making us proud. >> thank you. [applause] >> i have two things that are

related. the small arms trade treaty -- what is going on there? >> i am against it. >> good deal. and what can you do to get these people to confess about fast and furious and how high it went? thank you. >> let us pretend that one of us does not know what fast and furious is. [laughter] would that be you? >> yes, sir. [laughter] >> vatfe was instrumental in allowing firearms dealers on the border states to sell guns,

knowing that they were illegal, and these guns walked across the border. a border patrol agent was killed with one of those guns. >> thank you for pointing that out. i did not know it by that name. i know that set of circumstances. it is awful. it is being investigated. i fully believe those who violated the law will be brought to justice. it is inexcusable. >> he got transferred. >> he got reassigned. >> that was awful. it just goes to show that government, when it runs amok, can be the source of an untold amount of grief and pain. this is awful and inexcusable.

i will do everything i can to follow up on that and bring those people to justice. i oppose and will vote against the small arms treaty. this young lady has been waiting patiently. i have to make sure i get to her. >> my name is suzanne bean. i own a small business, a newspaper. >> i had better be nice to you, then. >> lots of people here have already vilified me. it's fine. would you absolutely foreclose the option of increasing revenue by making the tax system a little more progressive, more like he used to be 20, 30 years ago, and using that as part of the strategy to balance the budget? i have heard, and they do not

have the verification of this, that if social security, the social security tax, was applied against all income, and not just the first $75,000, that the additional revenue would be enough to make the system solvent. i am 62. i am planning to work another five to seven years. the time is going to come when i will need to collect that. i am worried about whether it is going to be there for me. if it is not, i do not know any more about how i and when to manage than the illegal immigrant who is here and cannot work and hasn't got the money to go back and has nowhere else to go. that is my first question. my second is about the american dream act. we have some extraordinarily talented young people in our country. some of them are at our local

college. they did not come here of their own accord. many of them were brought here as children. they have gone through our school system. they have skills to contribute. yet they cannot, even with a bachelor's, master's, ph.d. -- the cannot legalize. as a journalist, i am appalled of the situation of the pulitzer prize winner who did not know until he was an adult that he was an illegal immigrant. now he cannot really function legally in the united states. what is your response on that? >> you have three questions. no additional charge for efficiency. on the first point, it the

question is, am i opposed to anything that would enhance revenue, the answer is i am not opposed to anything just because it would enhance revenue, in the sense that it would stabilize our revenue base and thereby bring in a more steady, consistent flow of revenue, bring in more than we have got now. we are in a valley. our tax system has peaks and valleys. some years, we will bring in 14.5% of all the money that flows through the economy. the most we ever get is about 19.5% of gdp. it averages 18 to 18.5%. we tend to not be able to get any more than that. we could, if we flatten the rate, making it more stable. we could if we simplified it. if we kept marginal rates

constant but close loopholes, we could bring in more revenue without having to raise anyone's rate. that would make it more stable. it would make it so this 18.5% would be more reliable. it would not be so likely to fluctuate. if the question is what i make it more progressive, meaning raise top marginal rates, and accentuate the disparity between what different people on different ends of the spectrum pay in terms of the interest rate, the answer is unconditionally know. [applause] evan mentioned a few minutes ago, it has everything to do with protecting middle and low income wage earners. those are the people i believe are most affected by raising income tax raises -- tax rates. they are concealed taxes.

they end up getting passed downstream economically. all of us and up paying for those income tax hikes in terms of increased prices for goods and services, and in terms of fewer and fewer job opportunities. on social security, i share your concern the we have to do something about social security, in part because congress has rated the social security trust fund over a prolonged time. what was supposed to be a lock box, a trust fund, has been used irresponsibly over the last three decades as a slush fund. it was supposed to be set aside for the time we knew was approaching, which has now reached us. the social security program would be drawn out more than it was taking in, because the demographics have changed. in the 30's, we have roughly 60 wage earners for every retiree.

now it is more like 3 too 1. 60 to one vs three to one. americans lived on average back then to about 60. now live more like to 80. that is wonderful. and that poses additional challenges. in light of those challenges, i have done my best to find ways that make it solvent that do not involve tax increases that would further chill job creation at a time when we can least afford it. i have introduced legislation that would make social security solvent perpetually. it has proven its solvency over a 25 year time frame. we have made modest adjustments made on the testing said the ealthy would that rea -- not receive the same benefits if they were a low income level and making adjustments to the

retirement age. it would not affect anyone who was retired. anyone who is now retired would be on touch. if you want to find out more, i have staff members here who can help me. they can help me make reference. i had my state director dan. he is here to answer any questions. coy is here. to about 2/3 of the state because of the bill. it as about the dream act. i do not support it. i cannot support it. [applause] let's see. we need to go to the back of the room.

we will come back in the front later. yes, sir. then i have to get representative painter after that. we have a couple of members. >> i apologize for back stepping. back on this border -- >> did i already colony a? -- call on you? >> no. >> good. >> would it be possible to have the national guard work on the border? everyone puts in a two tour and they go down and work on the border. they're going to be paid anyway. all the federal government would have to do would be to buy the materials.

>> its certainly could work. i'm not opposed to using it. i want to talk more to my friend who is here with me tonight. he is a very good friend of mine. he is the former sergeant major of the national guard. he retired. in as everything there is to know. -- he knows everything there is to know. i want to touch base with you after. my initial reaction to if is that it would be fine. i do not know if we need to do that on a long-term basis. the national guard has jobs to do. whenever you have an unusually high volume of illegal immigrants, the national guard certainly could be deployed.

we have to lead the border control -- let them do their job here i. >> thank you. >> thank you. we are pleased to have you here in the senate. t's f this is all the foolish things he did. it is getting close to a trillion dollars. i know bush was on board with all of this.

we have so many energy assets. wewe'd just go get them would have all kinds of folks with a lot less trade deficit. i want to say everyone that can get their parents. is there anything you can think of to get things going? we have the answer to a whole lot of our state problems. about picasso's $100 million a year. anything you have their frigid we can get close to $100 million a -- anything close to $100 million a year. anything you can we get close to appear quite thank you.

>> there is the single issue that is more important for our prosperity than the one you have just raised. we have a problem. we are spending between a trillionn and $1 trillion every year just to buy oil. every single year. that money does not come back in the form we would like it to come back. a lot of those people who are getting very wealthy do not like this very much. some of them are using some of that money to fund act of terrorism against us. those who do not want this to produce in this country, many cite environmental reasons as reasons we havshould not be exporting our own reasons. many is here in utah. we have the legal structure that allows us to produce energy more efficiently and in a manner that

is more environmentally responsible and what you can find anywhere in the world. does produce it here. produce it here. most of the energy resources are found on federal land. i consider it an absolute shame and gross negligence that we allow those resources to go undeveloped. that is why i am holding secretary salazar and everything i can so we can reclaim that which is rightfully ours. >> [inaudible] >> what happened to the mandate that was just put out this week?

>> from what i can tell, there is an effort on the part of many in washington to try to shut down the backbone of our nation's energy production grid. the bulk of our energy nationall and here in utah comes from coal. i can walk into a room, turn of a switch, and the light comes on. i do not know that we fully appreciate how wonderful that is. my father did not always have that going up. he was on sawmill camps. he did not have that growing up. it is affordable. we derive the lot of it from

coal. we figured out how to make it generate electricity cheaply and in a manner that is really environmentally friendly. we have to keep that going. if we do not, we're all going to be poorer as a result. this will impact middle and lower income earners more than anyone else. they're doing it through regulatory measures. we have to get the ball is back in the hands of congress. the legislative power is generally applicable and it belongs to congress. we have to take it back. [applause] what the american flag shirt. >> i agree with all of this.

i had four questions. when they talk about the debt, to do we borrow money from? why can we stop all foreign aid humanitarian and drastic -- natural disasters? i have received several females about in moscow being repaired with our money. i do not know if that is true. i have not verified it. maybe someone else has documentation. how in the world did that ever get to congress? that blows my mind completely away.

i am in a small minority. i especially agree with what you say about environmentalists and how much karmharm they have caud the west. ivories quarter horses for 50 years. since then taken the meat market away, i am devastated. i no longer have a horse business. many people cannot give horses away. i am sure you are aware of the courses to have been turned loose all over the nation because people cannot afford them. they have died from starvation. they have mingled with the beloved the mustangs. that is another whole issue.

our president, i'm sure you are aware of the amount of courses they have down there. there are given thousands of tons per year. what can we do to were those animal activists to give back this and give jobs to people openly enough? thank you very much. >> thank you. >> i'm going to try to answer these questions quickly. i want to make sure we get to as many people as possible. we borrow from lot and lot of people. some of them are individuals and some are operations.

what they are called depend on their maturity rate. some mature in 30 years. there are a lot in between. it is a little over $1 trillion that belongs to the government of china. who owns our debt that any moment is a question that refers back to many thousands of corporate investors to buy these based on the expectation that they will get more money back. there are a lot of people that own it. most of them are americans. some are not. they're making a lot of money.

there are a lot of people that feel strongly about this. the it is to the extent it is doing something to the humanitarian aid are helping people who need it. that is where most foreign aid goes. that is why some people oppose it. there are humanitarian needs here in the united states. i agree that we ought to focus our own government money on american people. there are some exceptions to that. there are some parts of the world that we have to invest money. in some senses, it is a replacement.

as far as federal money go into i will be on the lookout. there may be some federal grant money. i will. there will be held to pay. this is an important part of our state industry. my father-in-law used to own a ranch where he raised shorthorns. it is a great plays. no, year sang about horses. i do not know whether -- had

never been completely familiar with how it met its demise. he would give them the information appeari. >> my sincere thank you today. it is one of the most important priorities of our county. i hope you saw and realize that

it could slow down into small projects. 50's are of our county is this. there are a two pending authorizations. there is the real opposition a secure schools. >> you should be especially proud of the commissioner. they do not waste time getting to the heart of the issue. she was able to answer every question quickly.

this has been difficult. you are lucky to have her appear . you're able to collect less tax revenue. we have a problem in the state's where a lot of federal land can be told. we will not. they fell far short of what action the the real access to buy a pair.

it is the lowest value. i'm a strong supporter. i will not let them make the funding go away. did that to be unjust. help itself is on sufficient. i tend to push until the allow states and counties to tax federal land are they fully funded. she is from alaska. she feels a lot of these same issues. they have a lot of federal land as well.

this is basically in the same position. do you remember what it was? >> i am on the flip side. most of my questions have been answered. there are a few that i would like for you to answer.

>> i was at the call myself a member of it. i understand that the do vouchers for medicare and medicaid. i understand that those programs need to be taken out of corruption. how are we as seniors to get by when it is dam near to give by now. tax subsidies to the oil company. how come it justify giving them

a subsidy? i understand that they are considered as job creators. that has not happened in the last six to eight years. but let your stance on some of stuff. >> the question relates to medicare. i do support the transition about what to make it sustainable. there is insolvency. the only dispute as to when it occurs is in the mid-20's.

moving forward, those are not yet retired. this is how we make a sustainable. with bankruptcy, we cannot handle that. we can do it effectively reduce we cannot do it effectively with this antiquated system -- we cannot do it effectively with this antiquated system. i am get subsidies any time.

we have a step that helps me with that. crack>> [inaudible] >> i was answering this man's question. i'm happy to discuss this with the. we cannot look at this. it refers to a what you referred to as tax breaks. we paid -- we have the top 10%

earners in this country. we are putting this burden on them. >> wen jiabao de e->> de e is a different question. -- what about ge? >>ge is a different question. we have tax rates. i am unwilling to raise tax rates. we also have loopholes and make a more complex.

we need to simplify air system. -- our system. >> i just got back from chicago. i appreciate being here. one of the issues that affects all of us is the amount of regulation that is placed on businesses including agriculture. we're almost to the point where we cannot compete on a world scale because of the tremendous amount of regulations that are imposed on us.

there are basic rules and regulations. >> a few minutes ago, i alluded to the fact that things happen when we allow loss to be made by people other than congress. it does not work for anyone who is elected. once it affects enough of the economy, it is requiring a hundred dollars or more in compliance costs. unless congress adopted it, our

laws need to be made by those who accountable. the reason why we got rid of king george the third is does it cannot let him out of office. >> my status telling me have time for two more questions. but try to enter some on my way out. >> there's a lot of elderly people here.

maybe i am not in the right room here, but maybe you can explain to me your viewpoint on entitlement programs. should the government be taking money from me to give to my grandmother or dad to pay for their medicare? and the redistribution of wealth ta? should we even have entitlement programs ta? the government has no business taxing me and given my money to someone else. when i see a debate or a politician on television, the question i always one to ask is could you define what we think the role of government is?

where do you look at a piece of legislation? how you decide this is a good piece of legislation? >> let me answer the second part of your question first. the purpose the government is protect life, liberty, and property. this would be immoral. it is wrong for me to rob from

my neighbor and to my neighbor's money. we need to be careful about what we use government for. we ought to use government for only the things that no one else can do. what is the purpose of each government? we have a much broader role than that of the federal government.

with that our founding documents. this outlines a few powers of the government. they're supposed to be reserved to the states. you will not find any power that says congress has the power to make everything fair. you'll not find anything that says they have the power to relieve suffering are make things more just or equitable. you'll not find any power in there that says congress can say where you go to the doctor how to pay for it. what you will find in here is the power for congress to take care of a few basic things, national defense, regulated trade, regulating copyrights. they are taking care of

federally owned properties. this allows you to be a pirate in the name of the united states. that is the power of the government. that is the purpose of the federal government. there are a few other powers but that is it in a nutshell. for the last few decades, depending on where you draw the boundaries, the federal government has had the mindset that entitlements are inappropriate. i believe in retrospect this has performeproven to be one that is dangerous. the plan on sitting this for retirement. this is one of the reasons why

the founding fathers did limit the power of congress. congress is not always manage things that well. apart from what you can view the role of government to become a it to be difficult to dispute the fact that congress has done a pretty bad a job. these programs are there. we have to figure out how to deal with them in a way that is

compassionate. we need an honest discussion. this will not happen until we buy a budget amendment. this will give us back on the right path. i'm not gonna solve the problems overnight. >> will you support of and the phasing it out? >> it is part did the u.s. military mission.

i would never support that. medicaid is already administered by the state. each state can determine its own standard. >> the first was really short. going back to the legislation. include organizations that include mining industries? >> ps. > -- yes. >> i am a mining engineer.

right now it is 60.2% of coal is locked up under federal regulation. you are releasing these for our benefit. >> anytime i am made aware of the regulation, if he has something we can unlock, that would be fantastic. this was found underneath. some have estimated this to the trillions of dollars.

this is going to take a guess rigid require us to get another president. i would like to see another president in office in 2012 -- this is going to require us to get another president. i would like to see us get another president in 2012. a new president will have the ability to change the boundaries by presidential proclamation. get one in there that is willing to do that. it should do more for utah's economy than one single issue. we can help a lot this. thank you. i am told that is all the time i've got four questions. i'm glad to have to come back to you soon so i can do this again. you have asked a very good

questions. i'm sure there are others that would like to ask more. in closing, i am honored to represent me. i'm grateful for the fact that voters chose to have me for six years. i take seriously this. i'll support the constitution and my representation of you. i want to know what is of concern to you so i can represent you well. this is where the hard-working people live. they came not knowing if they're going to survive more than two winters. it is time for them to thrive once again. we can do that again. may god bless the sovereign state of utah.

>> we appreciate everyone in the audience and their questions. you came down and answer these questions. i think it is an outstanding opportunity to be able to have a united states senator here with us. i really appreciate his efforts for being here and going through the project sites and getting a hand on view of what is taking place up there. thank you for coming.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> coming up next, at the justice department announces a lawsuit to block the merger at&t and t mobile. president obama talks about transportation bills. >> to mark the anniversary of the attacks, the study of terrorism will host a daylong

conference. you can watch it live at 9:00 a.m. eastern. >> many people would like to have themselves describes. they're having this next to their bed. not many people would call themselves, of bellingham. -- machiavellian. his theories may have been in response to the corruption around him. this weekend, a three day holiday weekend on booktv.

politics on the first african- american president. three hours in debt. race and the media. look for the complete schedule on booktv.org. james talked about the lawsuit and called a call for the fourth largest companies. >> millions of americans look for wireless telecommunications services.

whether you are a parent using a cell phone to check up on your teenager or working professional using a laptop or smart phone to surf the web, we reap the benefits of this incredible technology. there has been fierce competition. it has brought all of us affordable products. many continues to receive high- quality, competitive pricing, and good services.

>> it would result in people across the united states. there are fewer choices and lower quality products. consumers across the country including those on rural areas are in [unintelligible] this lawsuit seeks to ensure that everyone continues to reap the benefits. four nationwide providers account for 90% of the connections and america. preserving competition among them is crucial.

att and t mobil come pepys head- to-head in 97 of the nation's 100 areas. they also compete nationwide to attract businesses and governments. it would be diminished. as can be seen in the complaint, at&t felt competitive pressure from t-mobile. an at&t employee saw that t- mobile was first to have the projects and their portfolio. we added them. this would combine two of the

four largest competitors in the marketplace and would eliminate t-mobile from the market. one thing has not changed. the division will main steadfast to enforce the antitrust laws. that is what the apartment for did the department has done today. this has been seamless -- that is what the department has done today. this has been seamless. we are seeking to maintain a vibrant and competitive market place that allows everyone to benefit from lower prices, better quality, and innovative products. i want to express my deep gratitude for the efforts of so many members of the antitrust division staff who have tremendous expertise in this important industry.

i want to thank you for your leadership in this effort. you have done the right thing for consumers. i would like to turn it over to our acting attorney who was a few words. >> thank you. thank you for your leadership and support on this case. this is an extremely vital industry with more than 300 smart phones, tablets, and other wireless devices today. the department of justice has a dividend experience in this industry, going as far back as the original breakup of at&t. we know this industry well inside and out. here they conducted an investigation. we conducted interviews.

we read via a -- review millions of documents. anyway you look at this transaction, it is anticompetitive. our action today seeks to ensure that our nation enjoys a competitive wireless industry that it deserves. t-mobile has been an important source of competition. for example, t-mobile rolled up the first high-speed data network involving advanced technology and the first hand set using the android operating system. it is an important source of price competition. unless this merger is blocked, competition and innovation in the mobile wireless markets in the form of wireless handsets, operating systems and calling plans will be diminished and consumers will suffer.

t-mobile competes with other national providers to attract individual consumers and government customers for telecommunications services. they compete on price, planned structure, a network coverage, quality, devices, and operating systems. the combination would eliminate the price competition and innovation. it would reduce the number of nationwide competitors in the marketplace from four to three. eliminating this aggressive competitor that offers low pricing and innovative products would hurt consumers, businesses, and government customers that rely on a competitive marketplace to provide them with the best products and best prices. it is important to move expeditiously to reserve the prices resulting from the competitive presence.

that is why we filed a lawsuit to block this transaction. our goal is to preserve price competition and innovation in this industry. i want to thank the deputies for their expertise in council and i want to especially recognized the telecommunications staff led by many others in the division for their tireless work on this important matter. consumers and businesses around the country zero you a great deal of thanks. we also want to thank our partners and law enforcement including the federal communications commission and the state attorney general who have assisted a partner with us. >> also today, president obama called on congress to pass a clean extension of the bills. both bills are set to expire in september unless congress renewed the legislation. joining president obama is raymond lahood and david dhevrin. this is 10 minutes.

>> please, have a seat. i want to say a few words about an issue thousands of american workers as well as millions of those on the road. at the end of september, if congress does not act, the transportation bill will expire. this bill provides funding for highway construction, mass transit systems, and other projects. for construction markers, it represents the difference between making and meat are not making ends meet. if we allow this to expire, over 4000 workers will be immediately furloughed without pay. if it is delayed for just 10 days, it will lose nearly $1

billion in highway funding, money we can never get back. if it is delayed even longer, almost 1 million workers killed as their jobs or the course of a year. that includes some of the folks behind me. there with the federal highway administration. if we do not extend this, all of them will be out of a job. that is just because of politics in washington. that is not acceptable. that is inexcusable. they have been the hardest hit. it is inexcusable to cut off necessary investments at a time when some of our highways are choked with congestion, some of our bridges are in need of repair and so many commuters rely on a public transit.

the cost businesses billions of dollars every year. if this story sounds a mayor, that is because we have heard it before. a few weeks ago, connors refused to act on another bill, is typically a routine bill that would have ended up, pulling thousands of aviation workers off the job and allowing

improvement projects across the country. when congress got their act together, the only funded the faa until september 16. when they come back next month, not only did they need to pass the transportation bill but they have to pass a clean extension of the faa bill. it is longer this time and it just back pay for the workers that were laid off during the last shot down. at a time when a lot of people in washington are talking about creating jobs, it is time to stop the political gamesmanship that can cost as hundreds of thousands of jobs. this should not be a democratic or republican issue. this transportation bill has been renewed seven times in the last two years alone. that is why raymond lahood, a republican, is with me today along with david from the chamber of commerce. also rich, tow organizations that do not always see eye to eye. they agree on how important it is for our economy that congress act now. i am calling on congress as soon

as they come back to pass a clean extension of the surface transportation bill along with a clean extension of the faa bill to give workers and communities the confidence that construction projects will not come to a halt. i propose we reform the way transportation money is invested to give states more control of the projects that are right for them and to make sure we're getting better results on the money we spent. we need to stop funding projects based on his district in is our funding them based on how much could they will be doing for the american people. no more bridges to know where. no more projects better simply funded because somebody is pulling strings. we need to do this all in a way to get the private sector more involved. it is how we're going to put construction workers back to work doing the work american need done, not just to boost our economy this year but for the next 20 years.

finally, in keeping with the recommendation for my jobs council, it today and directing certain agencies to identify high priority infrastructure projects that can put people back to work. these projects are already funded. we can expedite the decisions necessary to get construction under way more quickly while still protecting safety, public health, and the environment. tomorrow in dallas, my jobs council will meet with local business owners and other folks about what we have done so far to rebuild our infrastructure and what we can do to make sure that america is moving faster and getting people back to work. that is what we're going to need to do in the short term. keep the people on the job. the key projects moving forward. fund projects that are moving forward. if we are on is, all we know

that when it comes to our nation's infrastructure, -- if we're honest, we all know that when it comes our nation's infrastructure we should not be playing catch-up. we should be leading the world. 10 years ago, we were ranked sixth globally. today it is 23rd. we invest half as much an hour and a structure as we did 50 years ago. more than 1.5 the number of people. everyone can see the consequences. that is unacceptable for a nation that has always dreamed big. from transcontinental railroads to the highway system. it is unacceptable in countries like china are building a high- speed rail networks and building new networks one construction orders that could be doing the same thing are unemployed right here in america. but congress is back next week,

in addition to passing these extensions to prevent any halt on existing war, we will have to have a serious conversation about making real and lasting investment and our infrastructure from reports too smart for electric grids, high- speed internet, to high-speed rail. at a time when interest rates are low and workers are unemployed, the best time to make those investments is right now. not once another levy fails or another bridge falls. right now is when we need to be making these decisions. now is the time for congress to extend the transportation bill, keep our workers on the job. now is the time to put our country before party and to give certainty to the people who were just trying to get by. there is work to be done. there are workers ready to do it. that is why i expect congress to

act immediately. to all the folks who are here in the state, thank you for the outstanding work you are doing to maintain our nation's infrastructure. thank you very much everybody. [applause]

>> good morning, everybody. welcome to the chamber's enable labor day briefing and we are looking for it to hearing from martin regalia, our chief economist, and randy johnson. before that, tom donohue, the president and ceo, has remarks to make and then he will take a few questions before he has to

run to another appointment. >> thank you, m, and thank you, marty. we look forward to your latest economic forecast and your assessment of the state of the economy. as you know, marty is one of the best in the business. pleat -- speaks plain english. for an economist, it is a rare skill. it may not agree with him all the time but at least you understand what he is talking about. we will hear from randy johnson. as tom said, randy gets to deal with the easy issues like health care and labor relations and all of t topics where parties seem to agree all the time. i will be very interested to hear what he has to say about the three new regulations issued to the nlrb as the chairman made her way out the door. and they will be very interesting.

their presentations, i hope, will help create some useful context to the major economic debates that are now re-gaining momentum as people come back from their holiday. in the coming days, everybody and their uncle will be offering a jobs plan, and that is a good thing, because that is where the focus needs to be -- on jobs. we are not going to be able to deal with the other challenges we face if we don'start putting people bk to work,o take them off the public payroll and have them paying taxes and driving economic condence. at the chamber, we have been intensely focud on jobs since the outbreak of the financial crisis. just look at the front of the building. we have been talking about it for a long time. so, we want to share some ideas from the institutions that actually create jobs and opportunity, the american business community. the most immediate priority

facing our nation is to create jobs for some 25 milon americans who are either unemployed, underemployed, had given up looking, or are new entrants -- graduating from college, leaving high school, where a lot of hope for the future and trying to get into the workforce. to do so, we need policies that promote and sustain strong critique and the growth. we need to address the extraordinary fiscal and competitive challenges that are smothering growth and driving away jobs. but at the same time, we must also address the immediate need for jobs now today, for thos 25 million americans. we need action now, not next month or >> dear or after next election. we need it now. so, the u.s. chamber is currently finalizing a letter to the president, to the congress,

to the public with specific, practical steps that we can take to help quickly create millions of new jobs without increasing the deficit. because a lot of the systems and plans you are going to hear are going to cost more money than we will put back into the system. let give you a very short preview of some of our ideas which, for the purpose of today, falling to six baskets. the first basket and perhaps the easiest is trade. we need to push the pedal to the metal ended the three pending free-trade agreement with colombia, south korea, and panama, completed. i have been saying for a long time that by doing that, we would save 380,000 american jobs. which would otherwe go to our competitors. as you know, canada has an

agreement with colombia now and the eu has a big agreement with koa. i hope we would say that many jobs because i know the people are picking up business we are losing. the south korean deal alone, i am told, would create 280,000 jobs for americans in the near -- very ne future. another idea on trade youon't hear much about. under the executive authority, the administration could enact nearly a of its proposed export control reforms without legislation. by the way, they have been working on them for three years. there is a lot of agreement on doing it, so, if we go out and sell these things that you could otherwise by on a street corner and europe, one study says we could create as many as 340,000 jobs by increasing the number of products we can export without compromising national security. that a lot of jobs. the second area is energy. we can create literally millions

of new american jobs if we simply develop our own abundance and its resources on federal lands, offshore, and on private land. of those rources are primarily oil and gas. we can do so in an environmentally responsible way, generating economic growth, job creation, and government revenues, while reducing our alliance on foreign sources. we can also create jobs by building more energy infrastructure. for example, we have all heard the argument about the keystone pipeline connecting alberta, canada, to u.s. refineries in texas. i have been very encouraged to hear that the administration is moving in a positive way there. but we need to do this because we can create 250,000 american jobs in a big hurry, and investments in the united states of more than $20 billion and government revenues of about half a billion dollars a year.

this is a sure thing. we will, in our letter, outlined four or five more of these. and if you add them upou are talking about millions of jobs without spending money -- only giving the go-ahead to do what needs to be done. the third bucket is infrastructure. i am very pleased to be talking about infrastructure right now. david, the chief operating officer, is over at the white house with the president that a discussion on infrastructure. and tomorrow i will go to dallas to join the president's council on jobs and competitiveness to talk about this. what do we need. it is simple. we nd a highway bill. and we can't cut the size of it. it pays for primarily from user fees. we need an faa bill and we need a water bill because this is a

complicated issue. if you don't have them, then you lose the jobs you have today. if you do get them and we keep pushing forward on it, we can create jobs that we need tomorrow. an estimated $250 billion is sitting around in a global private investment firms that would like to vest in our infrastructure because they have a sure way of being paid. we have seen it happen in individual states and we are very anxious that we move forward on this and a big-time way. because the people who get these jobs are the people, many of them would otherwise be working in a housing industry that doesn't exist. we can create probably 1.5 million to 2 million jobs over the next period of time. and i hope to talk more about this tomorrow in dallas. the fourth issue, or the fourth basket, is travel and tourism. no, we have about 7.4 million ople in the united states who are employed in the travel and tourism business. if we could simply go back to the 2000 level of bringing people into the united states,

we could create another 1.3 million american jobs. look, there are issues, there are national security and border security issues, but people are not very welcome when they come here. folks go from canada, do you, who would normally go to the unit states, are going to other places because we did not treat them very well. we could do more things out spending money to get more people to comeere and bring their cash. the fifth issue is regulatory relief. if there was ever a time and our nation's history where we should say, hold on a minute, we are putting out regulations as best as you can count them.

look at that thing back -- things that came out of the nlrb yesterday, look at the things people are talking about coming out of the epa. we think it is time for the nation -- that we should take a breath. we need to be very careful when we look at what regulations we will put in place. the administration should immediately issued an executive order directing agencies not to issue any discretionary regulations that would have a substantial economic impact until the economy improves. by the way, you hear all of the discussions in today's news about the billion dollar and above regulatory issues. there are tons of them. maybe they are important. but if they are not life- threatening issues, we are told of them off for a while. now is not the time for a slew of new regulations that kill jobs. now is the time to create jobs. finally, let me say a word on taxes.

we need a tax reform and an entitlemt reform program. you know, we have written to congress. we think when the 12 apostles get themselves together and start doing this, we really need to look at those issues. we can't do that in the short term. we can do it quickly but we can't do it right now. but there are some tax things we can do right now. i would just mention one. we need to think if we could have a tax holiday and let companies bring some of the money they have already earned -- because, you know, we are the only country that pays double taxes. the corporations do when they earn it overseas, they pay in there and pay it here, so they leave the money over there. if we had a tax holiday and lower the number significantly -- they will not bring it all home because a lot of their future business is overseas, where 95% of the world customers are -- but they will bring a lot of the home and put it into the system. by reducing the rate for a specific period for these profits earned overseas, u.s. multinationals could bring as

much as $1 trillion back here. i don't know if they would but a good number. a new study suggests this move could create 2.9 million jobs over a two-year implementation period. i don't know if it is that many. but 30 percent of it is worth doing. and there is nothing lost. there is no cost. u are going to pay less tas on it. but you are not getting any taxes on it right now. so, let me conclude. these are a few of our ideas. our letter to the president and congress will contain more details on all of them. our job plan will be accompanied by a massive mobilization of our underlying membership of 3 million companies and our grass-roots army. we are encouraging them to tell our elected officials how our pl will create jobs in their

communities and to share their own ideas of other things that ought to be thought about that will get jobs there in a hurry. this will be our underlying focus for as lonas it takes to get our economy moving again and p people back to work. our jobs plan doesn't of salt us from the responsibilities to tackle the other -- doesn't absolve us from the response below thesto tackle other issues like the tax codend entitlements, and a whole basket of issues. the point is we need to act on all of this now. we need to get movin and we need leadership in the business community, it in the congress, and the administration. some would say, we have heard all of these ideas before. the answer is, yes, you have. not been as many details, not in a simple, "here's how you do it" list. the reason why you are hearing them agains they have not done a damn thing about it. we will keep pressing the point is until our government leaders start moving on them. there will be questions of how quickly these ideas could work.

we believe they could stt working in very short order. look, there is no magic wands. if you are looking for a miracle, go to church. we are not getting away miracles. if you are looking for practical ideas that could start the process of recovering the millions of jobs we lost since 20, then start these things right now. now, one thing is for certain. if we do nothing, if we sit on our hands, if we wait for things to improve, if we go ahead and try to spend more money to try to make this work, we won't create the jobs we desperately need. we will continue to fall further behind. so, the chamber is committed to bringing -- being the leader in trying to push this particular plan.

we look forward to other people's pls, but this one doesn't cost. this one is stuff we can do with the authority of the congress and the authority of the administration. we are committed to working th all parties to ensure america remains not only the greatest economic power on earth, but the greatest country on earth, and we better get about it because right now we are losing some of our attraction. i thank you very much. i ink when you talk to marty and you talk to randy, you will see why we are making these proposals. we are focusing very clearly on what is going on in the economy and what we can do to help, and we are focusing veryvery clearly, with a sharper focus than we have had an eye long time, on what is going on on the labor side and health care and other matters, all of which add to the cost side. what we are talking about, starting this morning, is how we add to the job site. thank you very much. i have to go and do another thing buif you have a couple of questions i will take in. one rule, you have to tell me who you are and who you represent.

we will start with you because you got up real fast. >> thank you very mu. my name is dan hancock, i write for "inside u.s. trade. could you have been clear lling for a free-trade agreement to come forth and be submitted to congress. given the current atmosphere in congress, what makes you think they can work together on that issue specifically questioned do you have specific -- >> i think it is very clear there is a commitment to work together on the trade it in great -- agreements. they are looking at the numbers fading away. they held them off, both parties, while they were trying to avoid the debt default.

everybody agreed as soon as we come back in september we will send them up. it is not only the trade agreement but the trade adjustment assistance and they have to figure out the sequence of voting. i think everybody is ready to do it. if they don't do it, not only would we lose and not the -- a lot of jobs, not only losing the position of responsibility and the americas, but we will lose some position in the world and it would be a very sad day if we walk away from these deals and others would step in our place. they already are. do you's business with korea went up 13% and the first 17 days -- the eu's business with korea. >> you said all the details have -- have not been worked out. is there a reason you are confident? >> yes. it is only a sequence -- who goes first, second. look, the urgency of this deal was significant when they all agreed to wait until they came back in september. today it is very significant. we are losing jobs every day. we've got to get off our butt and do this deal.

a couple of more -- a couple more. blue shirt. i will keep coming this way. >> who is -- eric martin, bloomberg news. at this point, who is presenting the greatest resistance to a tax holiday, are, but is divided -- our company is divided? >> i don't see a lot of resistance. we are saying, look, if he did this, you will put a lot of money in play. if you put a lot of money in play -- and it does not have to come from the government -- some of it -- they claim, last time they gave out dividends and they didn't start new jobs. what do you think people did with the dividends? they went to the store, they bought a car, they pushed the economy. so, i don't wanto get in that argument. we are just saying this is one

of the things you could do. you could do it by the stroke of a couple of pans. and i think people might find it useful. right here. right behind you. >> jason from reuters. you said about $250 billion is waiting to be invested into it and the structure by private rms and that public spending is not the answer. >> i didn't say that. the public spending that we get, money from the user fees, should not be cut. all three of the bills are languishing and we are getting short term issues -- they don't get the six-year bill. those in the state and local communities, they will not put their money out when they did not know if the government will be in for three months or whatever. that part of the federal money has to go. we support and infrastructure bank. i don't care how you do it. but there is lots of private money there.

people found investing in infrastructure is a good idea but they are not going to do it unless there are some programs. >> that was the second part of the questions, regarding the infrastructure bank. the ec much chance of support for that from republicans in congress? >> i think it could be done if we did the other stuff. if there was movement. and if everybody saw this would create a lot of jobs. this does not require a good deal of federal money, if any. i can't do a lot of these because these guys have got to do their things. which one do you want me to take? all right, good. >> ken hoover. in order to get a highway bill that is of sufficient size, do you think the gasoline tax needs to be increased or is there another way to get the revenue? >> there are three numbers.

there is the current highway bill, which some people in congress want to cut back 30%. that is categorically stupid idea. there are some people who think we can do sufficiently with the amount of money we are now spending. that ctainly would keep a lot of people employed and might give us a chance, if it were a long term bill, to attract some private equity. my own view is, before this is over -- in no, i don't know wind -- it has been 18 years since -- i don't know when -- it has been 18 years since we increase the federal fuel tax, and we are getting more miles per gallon and then so we are doing less with the money we have, so you can make your own conclusions. so, i thank you very much. you will really enjoy this. if anybody was to track down later. it is all yours. thank you. >> thank you all very much.

i think i am going to go first and lay some ground work on the economy and then randy is going to finish up with some of the issues specifically in the labor markets. when you look athe economy today, we see an economy that has, based on the most recent data, gone through a much deeper downturn and come out of it in a much more tepid fashion than we originally thought. some interting -- you can draw some interesting conclusions from that. one is that perhaps the stimulus bill, the much maligned stimulus bill, might -- actually might have had a little more impact than people thought because what you see is an economy the first year so grew at 3.3, 3.4%, and then as the stimulus package wanes and expired, use of the economy

drifts down a little bit. part of the most recent downturn in the first part of thiyear was it did to natural disasters, floods in the midwest, earthquakes in japan, nuclear meltdown, and a spike in oil prices, all of which have run their course and now are starting to pass behind us. so, it gives us a little hope going down the road that we can re accelerate -- re-celerate the second half of this year back to 2% or 2.5% growth. the problem in the long run, jobs, the labor day discussion, is the growth simply is not fast enough. when you look at an economy -- and this shows the economy relative to the long run potential -- you see it drops below the potential during

economic downturns and then it comes back. and generally it comes back fairly quickly. even back in 1974 or975 or 1982 when we had long lived economic downturns that were relatively steep by historical standards, we still got back fairly quickly. we did because we grew very quickly and recessions and recoveries since 1991, even though in many cases they were mild recessions -- the 1991 and the 2001 recessions were quite mild -- we did not get back very quickly, we did not grow very quickly. and this goes back at least 60 years. kennedy asked arthur oak, his then chief economist or chairman of council of economic advisers, to exploit -- explore this, and

he looked at the relationship which lar came to be called his law, relationship between growth and unemployment. how quickly have to grow to get unemployment back. back in those days, 3% to get 1% drop in the unemployment rate. now it is about two-one ratio. what it means is if you want to get back to your potential rate of growth, if you want to get back to your long run unemployment rate, you got to grow above your potential rate of gdp. we would have to grow at about 4.5% to 5% f two to three years to get unemployment the wind down from 9% to but 6% level or above 5.5% level that most economists believe is a full employment level. nothing is new here. i hear again and again about the disassociaon between growth and jobs. there is no disassociation between growth and jobs.

ok? the problem is, we don't have enough growth and if you don't grow at or above the long tube -- long-term potential rate of growth you don't create jobs. we put a chart together an updated with the most recent data, it shows coming out of the downturns prior to 1982, we grew very rapidly in the first year and even the first two years, well above our long-run rate of potential rate of growth. and we put people back to work fairly quickly. but in the most recent recessions and recoveries, we grow much more weekly -- weakly. first year, a little over 3%. the first two years, down to about 2.5% rate of growth, which is just about our long run rate

of potential gdp growth. what does that mean? the way we define these measures, our long run potential, or the not accelerating inflationary rate of unemploymen how fast the economy can grow and employ all the new entrants into the workforce. that is kind of your potential. that is estited now to be somewhere around 2.5%. so, if we grow 2.5% you create enough jobs to employ all the new entrants. maybe 1 millioor 1.2 million a year. something in that nature did you grow faster than that you start to make up the slack that he created during the downturn did you grow slower, you create more slack. we are going to ask later on, whats your forecast for friday on the jobs number, and it is like 75,000. why that?

75,000 times 12 generates 900- something thousand, and that is about the new entrants, and if you are growing at just about your long run potential which estimate to be around 2.25% to 2.5%, then the numbers all fit. i realize it is not real scientific but it is at the front -- the way most people really do for teing. you could build a 300 as equation model to tell you what i just did in a couple of sentences but you will not get much more in a way of at received from that than my kind of back of the envelope, straight line roller approach. we are not growing fast enough. we have to get the economy growing faster if you want to create the jobs. when you look at the component told in that bag -- 77% of the economy is consumption. we are not seeing a lot of it. consumption is not something that is hard to expln. it is one of the few thing in economics where we actually put together a mathematical -- mathematical relationships that

do pretty darn well not only explain the past but what it ought to be in the future. the two biggest components are always income and wealth. if you look at this graph, incomes have come back a little bit -- generating a little, by hook and by crook. not creating a whole lot of jo. there is some real wage growth. and we are also doing it with tax cuts and reduced taxes and things like payroll taxes and the like, all of this which contribute to disposable income and in turn drives consumption. every additional dollar of disposable income drives about 65 cents spending. the other big component as well -- and that -- is well. that is where the shortfall is. we've made about 8 back in the stock market mostly. the other big asset on most people's balance sheets, their homes, have not contributed. so, when we look at housing and i lookt housing, it is really two questions. one is, how many worked in housing and how much income could degenerate building and selling more homes. but the other factor is, when you get the housing market

settled out and you underpin those housing prices and actually start to see price appreciation again, you start to get the welfare no. and that is the more profound impact on housing of the economy today. it is not what you can do with building more homes and building new appliances, which is important. this is fundamentally important. that affects 12% of the economy or so. this affects 70% of the economy. and we lost a ton of net worth, and where we have to make it back is and assets. there is no other assets that is going to step up and take over fothe house, the home, in the average american's portfolio. 60% of americans, 67 prison sign on their own homes and in most cases they see the -- 60 percent -- 68% of americans, 67% of holmes's and most cases they have seen the value drop. it is a hard market to fix when you have imbedded losses in the home. a you have millis of people who have homes where the mogage is valued hired and the underlying me, negative

equity situations. negative equity situations are almost impossible to address without somebody taking a loss -- either the government has to make a loss to make good on these things, in which case we add to theeficit significantly, or the individuals will hold those loans, namely the banking system, will take a loss. nobody is anxious to take a loss so everybody kind of dragging their feet. on the one hand, nobody wants to -- wants to throw people out of their homes and go through the expense of foreclosure and then have to turn around and hold the property on your books at a depressed value.

it has a negative impact on capital. if you could keep the people i their homes and talked about up a little bit the ultimate loss is aittle bit less. everybody kind of drag their feet. when you drag your feet of these things you don't get equilibrium in t market, and when you don't get the market selling out you don't get them coming back. you can look at the various markets around the country and see where it has worked out. in thelaces where there was not a lot of overbuilding and overcapacity, we have seen house prices firm -- upper midwest and places like that. but in areas where there is a lot of over-building and a lot of current that vacant homes for sale, that is whether prices are most depressed. places like las vegas, and to a lesser extent southern california, the phoenix area, around atlanta and down on to seven florida. those places that were highly speculative. it is going to take some time. the economy will not get back to above potential performance, consistently above potential performance, until wsee the housing market bottomed out and start to come back.

i think that is the key. unfortunately there is not a whole lot of policy that can be devoted to that that does not get prohibitively expensive and at the same time takes a lot of winners or losers. because the people who stayed in and continued to make their payments on their homes even though in some cases they have negative equity, two of such people are my son and daughter- in-law who live in detroit -- they continue to make those payments. they view them as rental payments as well because there is not any capital appreciation. but it is unfair to people like that to sit there and turn around and say, the guy across the street stop paying a year- and-a-half ago so we will step in and make good on his negative equity. it is a very difficult problem to dress and a very expensive one and in the and something the market will have to sort through and it will sort through overtime.

we have seen that short sales are up and more of those are taking place. we have seen that the foreclosure numbers are continuing to gradually eat away at this sector of the market that is still not performing. and it is making headway. we are not building any more new homes so we are working that supply back in. it is just taking a long time. one of the reasons why the economy has underperformed. investment -- we saw a couple of investment incentives. investment incentives work break -- great. they're robbing peter to pay paul, they shift the investment over time but they did not generate net new investment. if you have a long-term policy, long-term tax policy that decreases the cost of capital and increases the rate of return on investment than you will see some fundamental change in long- term investment. but just providing a temporary tax credit, it moves it from next month into this month or next quarter into this quarter -- which is what happened. a big spurt in investment, which is highly and more -- at normal. big consumption drives and the door down and businesses produce and hires more peopladvise new equipment. this time we had virtually no demand but we were able to trick anybody into investing up- front. however, those policies have a

tendency to run their course and without any demand behinthem to keep businesses investing, the investment spurts, and in biblical sense, like the cd who falls on the ground and sports of quickly and dies. a big surge of investment for a couple of quarters and now very much a lower rate. we still expect to see a% to 10% on growth inhat area. -- 8% to 20%. but it will not pull out the economy. generally speaking it kicks in in the middle of the cycle, to give you a little bit to get towards the end. it is not something you can depend upon to drive the cycle. you look at the trade side, and with the dollar very weak -- talking about tourism, a great time to come to the united

states but not a great time if you want to visit europe. the situation is the terms of trade have shifted in our favor, continue to shift in our favor, and helping to make our goods more competitive over time. so, it is a shame when you look at the trade agreements and the like sitting on the table, that we are not doing it. with our weak dollar, now it is the time you can make an impact. we got the terms of trade, the pricing mechanism working in your favor and you have this artificial obstacle in selng and penetrating the market. this is when you want to make hay, when you want to get in there because you got a leg up. we are really kind of squandering a great opportunity not to take advantage of these weaker dollars in our ability to trade around the world. the other thing is growth of around the world -- you know, in

order to drive an economy with trade, especially a large economy like ours, you need the terms of trade in your favor, a competitive advantage, and you also need growth abroad. the problem is the areas we have seen growth, like china and india, are not places where we have large penetrations of exports. we export more to western europe, to canada, to mexico. those areas, while not doing terribly bad, are not the primary areas of growth of around the world. if we could penetrate the chinese market to a greater extent and india, these would provide a growing markets for us to sell into rather than some of the other markets which are not stagnating, but are much steadier and the rates of growth have been much steadier. now we are seeing issues in europe with the european debt situation route -- slowing the growth in europe and providing less of the potential to sell into. trade is helping but it is not going to be the great driver.

it is much more of a neutral as you look at the components of the forecast. summarizinthe forecast quickly. consumption, 70% of the economy. we expected to get back around 2%, 1.4% gdp growth. picking up 10% growth in investment of 10% of the economy, so you picked up about one gdp point. trade is a wash. looking at 2% 2.5% as to what you can achieve with your grove, kind of the base forecast, and then you kind of work off some of the more marginal issues to drive it up a little bit or down at little bit. "at is why i don't see getting back much above 2% or 2.25%. where do you get it -- get it from? when house of -- housing comeback more, consumption will be back more -- up to 3% or 3.5%. business and the tories are low, you will see businesses invest more which will give you more out of the investment side. the forecast is and it's in pieces.

right now, what we are seeing is very tepid growth across the front. what does it mean fothe labor market? we lost 8.5 million jobs. we put back 1.5 million or a little more. we've still had 6.75 million in terms of jobs. you've got the situation where the marginally attached workers, in that neighborhood of 2.5 million -- it would normally be 1.2 million, so you have 1.2 million you have to replace. part-time for economic reasons, meaning they want a full-time job but there are not full-time, meaning ey want a full-time job but there are not full-time jobs out there, that number is 8.5. it is down from 9.5. it is a good thing. but 8.5 is 4 million higher than the norm. which is about 4.5 million. so you add this together and

you need about 13 million jobs to replace what yolost and get back to where you work. -- were. then you add a million every year. the next 10 years you get that is where you get to the numbers tom talked about all the the next 10 years -- 23, 24, 25 million jobs. we have never grown fast enough year. it is probably the case of this time around we will not be able to grow for 10 or 12 years straight and generate those kinds of jobs this time around, either. it is important to make hay while we can and that is what this economy is not going. it is just not growing fast enough to generate these jobs. if you focus on creating jobs and not focus on creating growth, you are not going to be successful. it just doesn't work that way. you can create growth without jobs because you have productivity improvements. but you can't create jobs without growth because of the growth has got to be fast enough to outstrip the productivity improvements of the businesses can't meet demand

just with productivity increases and therefore they have to hire. that is what drives the hiring process. everyone says, when will businesses hire? when they don't meet demand. when they are losing customers to the cost -- competition because they are not producing enough. right now they are more than meeting the demand with their existing work force. that is why the productivity numbers are going up even while gdp numbers are going down. that is what we need. it is going to take some time because, as i said, and to stop -- 2% to 2.5% growth you generate a million jobs a year would just provides enough for the new entrants and you have somethg in the neighborhood of 13 million you have to work off. we need to 0.5 million to 3 million a year for a good four or five years to get the process going. that does not get you back to way ahead of where we are right now and we are not doing even

that. so, i am going to stop there because i wanted to focus on the short run and the labor market. we have some longer run issues that we know are out there. we have a deficit and debt problem that the congress is calling to be focusing on of the next couple of months it -- hopefully -- and hopefully we will be productive coming to some sort of resolution on how to begin to address that problem. we also have a situation with the fed and the monetary policy issues. we have heard recently from mr. bernanke and a light of the question is, are we going to get qe2. think it will matter because saw it is something very focused and in turn shoring up the stock market but very little impact on overall gdp growth. and the money supply, by the way.

you talk about that people are worried the fed at's policy will be inflationary but it can't be if it does not affect the money supply. the reserve position most primarily affected was the excess reserve position. what it ans is the banks held these as idle cash reserves and not put them into loans or money supply increases, therefore it will not be inflationary but it did not in fact help gdp growth that much. i do not think the fed will continue because their intent, i believe, was to shore up the banking system. i think it was a successful approach. i think they let everybody sit blissfully in their ignorance because what they were doing was re-liquefying the banking system and at the same time providing the banking system a ready supply of profits because they paid a positive margin on the borrowing versus the reserves bread. -- reserve spread.

it pumped capital and retained earnings in the banking system. i don't think they will do it again because i don't think the banking system needs of the help. it is the economy that needs help now. what they are going to try to do is try to figure out ways to get the banks to begin lending out more of the excess reserves, which will have the impact on the money-supply and gdp growth. i think they will be fairly judicious. and i do not think it will be a the next year or year and a half. i will stop there and turn it over to randy. >> thanks, marty. in view of the time constraints i would like to direct you to the material in your press packets, an overview of our activities in health care and pension area, and the long list of regulations in the pipeline

the chamber is working on, along with a letter to the chairman to -- providing a overview of everything going on with the national labor relations board. i will touch on it today but it is a little too complicated to draw down in detail. marty provided the macro overview and i provide the microbe. --icro-focus on the workplace. i do that because there is a story to tell with facts and figures, but often the union's views labor day not just to talk about their agenda, frankly, but also an opportunity to go after and lawyers, often in an unfair way, in my view. i want to direct your attention to the fact sheet on workplace benefits. it is true, it is tough times, tough for employees, particularly those who lost their jobs, but employers also. we are still in a situation where employers are providing ameran something close to -- health care, close to 170 million americans, providing some storm of pension benefits, whether defined contributions or benefits to ll over 100 million americans, they're

spending upwards of a trillion in wages and compensatn. something like $1.50 trillion in benefits. that is in today's economy. looking back even a year when the economy was arguably in a worse situation. i just want to say for the record that employers are trying to do the best they can for employees in these tough economic times. that is a story that often gets lost and labor day that the unions often coincidently don't bring up. i also want to mention, and frankly, i have been surprised -- surveys have shown repeatedly high level of satisfaction of employees and the work fit -- workplace. one came out m 31. 87.5% of those employed surveyed expressed between high satisfaction and a fairly high level of satisfaction with their jobs. the poll noted it was down from

89.4%. but still, 2% drop. i think it's given our economic times, a rate around 8 is worth noting. a survey by the university of chicago national opinion research center came in at about 86% of very satisfied or moderately satisfied. i think it belies some of the claims by many that employers are cuing corners without reason, that they are insensitive to the needs of their employees. employers need their employees to compete, and they are well aware of that. a quote on healthcare it -- i just want to mention, 80% of -- 88% of those with employer coverage -- the lucky ones with employer coverage -- they say their overall experiences with the current plan have been positive, includin42% very positive. one out of tens saying the overall experience was negative. this was a recent survey and it goes to the fact that employers what are trying to provide

quality health care to employees. they are not just simply raising premiums and cutting benefits but exploring creative ideas like well as programs. -- wellness programs. it's talking about the nlrb later -- you will hear and the next couple of days, we need to change the rules of vote road of the board even though they have been there since the 1940's, but we need to change the rules of the road because the rate of unionization has fallen. employers are no longer th employers of 1912 and made famous in "the jungle" but fairly decent men and women trying to run a business and they treat their employees fairly well. that is the reason most employees choose not to join a union or feel one is not necessarily. obviously the federal government stepped in with statutes to provide the basic protections that the not exist in the past. going back to the theme of job growth.

marty's.me and if you look in your packet, you will see a long list of labor and and when the regulations that we are looking at in the chamber. if you had insomnia, feel free to read the package. these are the only ones of the chamber is work in one. there are the ones. there are 67. i had my staff go through and say how many of those are pages and the code of federal regulations, the federal register, that we've as employers and the real world would have to go througho act -- understand exactly what is coming out of this administration. it is many, and it comes out to 1910 pages. you might say, that is not so many. hopefully you will say it is quite a few. in any event, if you think is not so many, this is one page dealing with the proposed health-care regulations on administrative appeals. now, i can tell you, going through that -- it is complicated stuff.

i have staff that has gone through it. this is only one page out of over 1900 that we have to deal with here at the chamber, but all employers across the country have to deal with it and they want to understand what is going on in the regulatory sphere. many say, to heck witht, i don't understand it, so i am afraid and i will not hire and i will hold back. there is a common theme in these regulations. one can debate the merits. i am sure i would have a disagreement over at the board regarding the posting ranks and with phyllis over at the pension benefits security administration over certain regulations, but the one common theme of these 67 regulations is none of these help job growth except for lawyers and consultants. i would ask the administration, as tom did, in this kind of environment, what the heck is really going on here with regard to the white house says one thing but the people below the white house level are pumping out regulations that create uncertainty and it cost a

lot of money. you might say how much money? we are not sure. but i can tell you the department of labor and other agencies typically under estimate the cost of these regulations and leave out -- i spent six years at the department of labour -- they leave out little things that are important. for example, one regulation says you must train your employees on this regulation and would -- we estimate it would take a half-hour or. it is more like o hours. the point is, and as regulation and the titular the department of our did not cost out what it might cost the employer. a half-hour of time away from the job has a cost impact for any employer concerned about any level of productivity. that is just a small example. if i do share a regulation -- let out multiple areas of coverage light ira's and small pension plans that would have to comply with an -- new

regulation and assume, well, we can't figure it out so we will not hot bother and say it is ro. under the nlrb posting regulation of that i will talk about in a little bit, it covers literally every employer except for the smallest. the national labor relations board assumes no cost at all for every employer except for those very few hit with the unionization campaign. i can come back and say this is what the cost are. my point is these agencies typically undestimate the cost -- it is and the normal course of business but in this time of the economy i think it is troublesome. we will go through those as we comment on the regulations. attention. i think it is an indicative -- it indicates the arrogance of "

these agencies as they pump out these new initiatives. the nationalabor relations board had been in the press lately. there was a letter in your packet addressed to chairmen klein that goes through the case is pending. i will not go through them there. the infamous boeing case. it is now pending at the board. there will be legislation on capitol hill to reverse the case, to prevent the board going forward with a remedy that would require the company to close down in charlotte and go to the state of washington. i think the dam has broken. we will see a lot of new cases coming out. i think the letter to chairman klein paints a good mosaic of not just the three or four cases the press focuses on the what is really going on at the agency over there. i'd think you will see that what we s in the press is just the tip of theceberg, a lot of other things that unbearably seem to be directed at one

ing, which is, make it easy to organize. make it tougher for employers to talk about their side of the case with regard to why unionization could be bad, often at the expense of employee in free choice. with regard to agency arrogance, i do want to talk about a little about what is often a sacred cow, the equal employment opportuni commission and also mentioned the other area of the law, enforcement, that often people don't want -- focus on. this is often below e radar screen. and yet we have seen their -- there situation where they have gone after employers and basically have taken it to a new level where it is sue first and take questions later. some companies have taken eeoc to court and they have had to pay attorneys' fees, $2.6 million in one case, two runs and $25,000 in attorneys' fees to ather compa. $225,000 in attorneys' fees to

another company. this is the situation with the underlying cause of action is extremely for the list. courts rarely step in and did this. real money coming out of the taxpayers market. it comes out of the eeoc budget but out of the taxpayers' pockets, and it takes them away from legitimate cases it can be pursuing. we can talk about the law, statutes, and regulations but the murky area of enforcement often gets lost. you could at the best laws in the world but if you have an agency of using its discretion bigot be just as bad as a bad law. it costs employers real-ti and money which takes away from their ability to create jobs. that is just a few cases. you could imine a number of employers just confronted with an agency that they can't afford to fight and they are bludgeoned and sediment. we have seen similar action with contract compliance programs. i am just going to mention immigration at some point. tourism, tom brought it up. there is big money involved.

marty is right. this is the time to come to the united states and spend money buwhat we are seeing is a lot of tourism, to france and england, particularly from azil and china, because it is increasing hard to get to e united states, increasingly hard, particularly that you are from a country that is not a visa waiver program to get a b-1 or b-2 music. -- visa. why is this going on, we are not sure. but we are seeing a slowdown but i can guess why. it is real money out of the pockets of american businesses and something ave a strong coalition on and will be going after. weo support mandatory e- verification laws that will likely hit the house floor next month. a controversial position for the chamber. there is a new manned did -- it ts a new mandate on employers but is a time for a new system and we see it as a downpayment. we see that as a down payment on

other types of emigration reforms, if the bill can get to the house. health care -- what's done is done. it's interesting. you look at the public surveys and see an increasing declining support for the bill, even among democrats. the more people about it, the less they like it. it is unfortunate we are in a situation we aren. we are working on several improvements, part of the early the elimination of the employer mandate. we will be having a press conference on that. other areas, like taxes, the n-deductibility under the flexible spending account. the real action there, until there's a change in the white house will be in the regulatory area. 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. i will say that our predictions, when we testified threyears ago, have turned out to be true. that is, it will result in job loss and less coverage for employees as some emoyers drop their plans and move their employees into exchanges. it is unrtunate, i think the president did not more honestly talk about the deal to begin with. this is not about saving cts. 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. boutnot going to talk

pensions. but i could. it is 11:00. >> hi. it's on. 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 ecomy, 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 th 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. in a moribund economy. if you really want to get businees 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. at wneed is the spark. it is difficult. that's the least that economistsnow about the economy, it occurs at the turning 0.3 is always a chicken

and egg -- it occurs at a tuing 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 environmts." 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 ow 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 ni 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 mohs? >> 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. in any kind of difinitive way. >> thank you. veronica smith.

how does the chamber view the infrastructure bank? agence france presse. 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 rsus 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 itoving 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 o 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 partment 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. goings a lot of tours and to other countries. it is something congress needs to address. it means creating jobs. >> jim from "barrons." you mentioned excess reserves.

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. -- slide, jim. 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. at a commercial bank. they very much encouraged the assets. they encouraged the banks to hold tse 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. shoring things up. 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

crhed 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 art peop. 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 gng to keep theseates 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 grth. 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 impactn 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 e 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. e 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 appreciaon, 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 at 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 impaed 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 ty 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 economdoes 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. weave 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 er 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 fundamentatax 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.

>> let me say good morning. instead of hearing me delivers fromong remarks, i want to ask you to listen to the stories of some of the people that i'm honored to represent along with my fellow officers. i would like to now introduce a working american member from minnesota, -- >> hello. i live in maple grove, minn.. i am a member of working america, and i am currently unemployed. i have been employed previously as a retail manager and a business manager. every company i have worked with, we have a pretty close to quadrupled sales and cut costs. i have a reputation for that. however, last year, a startup company, but we were profitable

and our first year. for me to put them in a business plan, moving forward to be profitable. we did it. when that contract was up, i thought i would go back to being employed. i did not think it would be difficult. i have never had difficulty before. for the last five months, i have been putting resonates in -- resumes in. i am unemployed. i have never been in a situation like this before. what i would like to see is our politicians encouraging companies to keep jobs here so that 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. thanks.

>> oh thanks. and by the way, her last name is spelled -- if your interested. and now, steve, who works at a communications company in is a member of the ibew from new hampshire. steve? >> good afternoon. i am a conservative and a republican. from the united states navy. i am a communications worker, and 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 that i vote when i vote as a conservative republican. i do not vote to have labor union as diminished. over half of the employees serving in the military or you're at home, trying to feed their families.

unions fight to keep wages at a fair level and benefits intact for families. my family benefits from what labor unions do. my family directly lives on the money in benefits that are 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, so that is why i am here today. >> thanks, steve. and now, i would like to introduce our secretary- treasurer. >> thank you, rich. it is very clear that people are not paying attention to the impact of the economic crisis and its impact on young workers. one year ago, we met in this very room, and we talked about how dire the situation was then, and yet, today, very little has changed. young people in this country are still struggling it, and the

lack of attention and that officials and have given to this widespread problem is inexcusable. we hear a lot about unemployment rates in this country generally, but those numbers are even more dismal for our young people. 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 that young people are suffering under it, and what options do they have? the strength of this country has always been that anyone can access the american dream, and if you work hard enough, you can achieve it. that is really not the case today. supposedly, our elected officials focus on debt as it

reduction. there was partly out of concern for the future of american youth. we have heard a lot about that, but how does cutting funds to public services and programs provide the public safety net, health benefit the young people of america? how do those cuts benefit than 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 all of our time and energy on cutting programs, we should be focused on creating the new economic engine that would help our economy thrive in years to come, so without investment and 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, and not only to

our young people but to our entire country. it is neither justin or intelligence to set aside as a generation is impacted by the mistake of the previous generations shortsightedness. the good news is that the next generation is not just going to sit back while their 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 unemployment at an all-time high, jobs being scarce, growing debt, and a tax on workers' rights that young people are mobilizing for social and economic justice. there are countless examples of their activism. we hear about them every day, and we are so proud with what we

have been seeing, and one of the exciting examples that has been coming up is a summit which begins september 29 in minneapolis, minn., and hundreds of young workers and activists and leaders from minneapolis and all over the country will take part in a creative dynamic summit that is designed by young workers for young workers, and our affiliates in workers are excited by the aggressive, creative efforts that the afl- cio are undertaking to in power the next generation of activists, and there is no question that this effort will benefit not only the young workers who so sorely need it but all workers in this country. thank you. >> thank you. and now, " we have a bus driver from ohio and a member from out there. >> good afternoon.

my name is -- everybody calls may -- me v.j. i am a very proud bus driver and a been a bus driver for many years now. i have not seen the governor create any jobs in ohio. he wanted to get rid of the unions. he wants to take away -- take away our rights. then there is a voter id which takes away the rights from black people, the middle class, and the unfortunate ones. he took our money from the public schools to do vouchers, telling us this was pointed up the budget. when you take money from the public schools, this does not take and help with the budget. all we want to do is work. he is attacking our police.

he is attacking the fire department. our teachers. the common worker person. he wants to take all of our rights away. we just want to work. we want to raise our families. we are not trying to be rich. we just want to feed our families, get a closing, and educate them, and when our children go to college, we want them to be able to come back to our community and make a living and work their in their community. we pay into our pension, and the money we get those back into our community. that is what we want. we want to be able to have a decent job and work. >> and now, i would like to kazakhstan the afl-cio executive vice president to take some words. >> thank you so much, and thank you so much for sharing your story.

we reflected on dr. martin luther king and the march in washington 48 years ago. we are reminded that dr. king, who talked about jobs and freedom at that march, 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, and then you think about the percentages, when we think about 9.1% of our people overall not working, but you break it down for communities of color, african-american, 16% unemployment. latinos, 11% unemployment. it still continues to resonate because people need the freedom to work, but there is another freedom that people must have in this country, and they must have the freedom to vote, and what we're seeing across the country in so many of our states is

this disenfranchising attempt to disenfranchise so many with these so-called voter i.d. laws, which, quite frankly, our voter suppression laws, and it is a new poll tax, if you will, and so, in order for people to fight aggressively for new jobs, they have to be able to vote for those who support an economic agenda for all and to support the american dream. we know a little bit about poll tax. i know a little bit about it park -- personally, because in 1958 1959 when i asked my mother to buy me a pair of new issues, she told me she could not do that because she had to pay her poll tax. as an adult, she paid her poll tax until 1965. voting should not have been that hard for my mother. it should not be that hard for the millions who will be impacted by these laws today, and when wewhen we talk about te

numbers we're talking about people who do not have identification because it costs. it is shocking to see that and unnoticed push, all of these states this legislation has been introduced by republicans. they have done that under the guise of preventing voter fraud. but these laws disenfranchise voters rather than stopping actual fraud. there is little or no fraud to stop. even the bush administration's investigation uncut -- uncovered only 86 instances of improper voting across the entire country. about 21 million people is in danger because of a lack of state-issued ids. it should not have to be that

hard but it is a certain community that will be disenfranchised. it is young people and people of color and the port. -- poor. this is not acceptable. we are civil rights advocates and a voting rights advocates. we 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. he works at at&t in missouri. >>, afternoon. -- good afternoon. i am a vice president for the local 6300.

i am active in organizing mobilization. i am active for many reasons. for my daughter, she is 10 years old, and for the future of our kids. the right to work is something they want to take away. it is not deserving. i will continue to fight that fight until it cannot do it anymore. thank you. >> thanks to you for telling such powerful stories. and to my fellow officers for their leadership and a tremendous energy. these stories from across the country are only a few of the stories. to many people inside the beltway or people who live in a gated communities never here. making sure people hear the stories is one of the core purposes.

working people with a powerful voice when we band together. now more than other. working people need to have a voice heard politically. to pare faced bill clinton, there is nothing wrong with america the cannot be solved by holding our politicians and our executives accountable. we got here because our politicians experimented with an extreme economic theory. deregulation of the nearly every imitation on the whims of the elite. these were supposed to generate wealth that would trickle-down to working men and working women. that theory failed. millions live with the consequences. 25 million americans are out of work or working part-time.

this is a moment where 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 air of bipartisan consensus. in an area 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 stop 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] matt with ccn.com.

--don't thinkthe microphone [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. if you put workers back to work so they are contributing, the debt goes 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 areot, 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, 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 us to have year round advocacy. we intend to keep that structure in place year round. 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] do you have a fundraising

goal? >> 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 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 it can be considered one of their own.

this deal only has a 35% domestic content. that means 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 my ceo friends.

it's 51 -- if 51 ceo's would have been assassinated last year, would there be a clamor for a trade bill with colombia. workers, union officials are no less deserving as human beings and ceos. we will continue to fight that. the workers on both sides of the border also opposed to those trade agreement because they know that it is 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 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 phone. >> with the democratic majority headed from [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

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 board, 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. the person in the suit in the middle. >> 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 have been some suggestions that it was an effort to find -- fund elections. 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. the gray suit. >> 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 nuts 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. 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 pac? 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 -- about 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 voice. >> thank you. >> 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. 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 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, get 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 mobilizer we have seen for a while, gave us that opportunity. we may present him with an award for being the best mobilizer of the year. people responded. independent business people.

>> 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 you 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, the 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.

-- mess. 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 created in the 8 years he was president. he had a negative job creation.

people are cynical, people are anxious, people are nervous and they want 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? [laughter] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> this is an important part of our state. it is probably the most beautiful part ofur state. i do not say that everywhere we go. we do have a beautiful state, some of that less than others. we have a lot of people who made this day possible. i want to thank senator overland for introducing me in helping set this up, and all the citizens of the county who have been supportive of this, mayor vincent of fairview, dick taylor, the city manager, bob bingham, the police chief. i want to thank channel 10. i am also grateful to c-span for being here tonight. it is nice of them to join us, could of them to be concerned about utah politics.

it is a real pleasure to be here at the peterson dance hall. it goes back to 1986, the year we became a state. in that year, we went through a transformation. we lefthe stage of being a territory of the united states, where laws are subject to congress, everything we did, even our territorial legislature. it had to act with the permission of congress and was always subject to a veto by congress. when we became a state, all of a sudden, we were our own sovereign entity. we have our own rights as a sovereign, just like congress has its own rights. the difference between the state power and federal power was spelled out of them. it is still spelled out tod in this document. it was not quite as old then. but this fostered the development of the greatest

civilization the world has ever known. it tells us wre state power comes in and where federal power comes in. i have a feeling we may talk about some of that tonight. 1896 was an important year. we became a state. in many respects, we are still climbing the benefits of statehood, some of which have yet to be fully realized. i wil talk for a few minutes about some of the things we have been dealing with in congress. then we can talk about anything on your mind. the most important thing we will do tonight, and you will see me doing a lot of listening and taking some notes -- i want to know what is of concern to you so that we can know how best to respond in congress and i can serve you well as your u.s. senator. shortly before we left washington, a few weeks ago, when members of congress went back to their home states to get things done, to meet with

constituents, we dealt with the debt limit issue. some oyou may have heard about that in the news. we voted to raise the debt limit, to authorize a new amount of money that congress can borrow, to an unprecedented degree, about $2.50 trillion. that is a lot of money. some people here in utah do not make that in a whole year. [laughter] that is the amount of money congress is able to borrow, in addition to the amount it has already borrowed. it has borrowed almost $15 trillion. by the end of the year, our accumulated tional debt will be about $15 trillion. we do not use the word trillion in our day to day vocabulary. to put it in perspective, if you

divide 15 trillion by 300 million americans, it works out to $50 -- to $50,000 a head. that includes people who are retired, infants, students, in addition to those who are working and paying taxes. if you measure it according to taxpayers, it could be everywhere -- anywhere to $160,000 per taxpayer. that is a lot of money. at some point, that becomes a problem. i voted against the debt limit increase because i did not think the legislation that authorized it did enough to take care of the underlying problem. it did not do enough to make sure we were not back in the same position a few months from now, or a year or two from now. it did not solve the underlying problem member of congress have. members of congress want to

please their constituents. but it will do is approved a lot of spending, sometimes spending a lot more money than congress has. we have been bringing in about $2.20 trillion a year in tax revenue. we have been spending about $3.70 trillion a year. that difference is all made up r in borrowing. the reason that is such a problem is that at some point we will reach the limit not of our statutory borrowing power, not the limit of what congrs says it will allow itself to borrow. we will reach, at some point, the natural limits of our mathematical borrowing power. people will stop lending us money, at least not without charging us much higher interest rates. as that starts to happen, we will accelerate dramatically the rate at which we are moving to the day that has been acknowledged by the white house as something we are likely to

hit in the next decade or so, spending a trillion dollars every year just in interest on national debt. we are spending right now a little over $200 billion in interest. that is a lot of money. a trillion dollars is five times that amount. that is more money than we spend on national defense and a yea it is more than we spend in social security in a year. it is more than we spend on medicarend medicaid combined. the closer we get to that moment, the more we potentially place in jeopardy everything. that money will have to come from somewhere. we will have to make up the difference somewhere. it will end up having to come from every federal program. we cannot borrow more at that moment. if we do that, our interest ras will jump so high we will not be able to borrow any more. we will find ourselves in a worse position.

our tax system has proven capable of producing only about 18.5% of the money that moves through the economy every year. raising taxes might make some difference in the short run. in the long run, it is not point to make a difference and may damage us. we would have to make more severe and chromatic cuts and we would prefer to make. if we start the process now, and put in place the balanced budget amendment that will require congress to put itself on a sustainable course toward balancing its budget, the cuts we will have to make will be more manageable. there will be more compassionate. they will be less likely to have adverse impacts on the most vulnerable members of society. those are some of the reasons why i voted no on the debt limit deal. i believe we should have had a balanced budget amendment. it should have been submitted to

the states. with that introduction, let's open up the floor to questions. i am going to take off my jacket, if nobody expects. it is kind of hot, even here. i kissed the back from being on the -- i just got back from meeting with the county commissioners. a beautiful place. the resources up there are phenomenal. i found it easy to imagine what it might look like with a reservoir there. i appreate the county commissioners letting me see it. saw a hand up. do we have a microphone?

>> i am a long time libertarian. in has been a while i have been much in this mess come about. we are currently living in a welfare state, as far as i am concerned. we have five unconstitutional wars going on. i cannot keep track. we apparently had troops on the ground in libya before we said we did. we are involved in all kind of stuff. we have 170 countries we are currently occupying with our military. when are we going to bring these people home, reinforced these borders with our people if we have to, and stop the bleeding of this nation and quit exporting our jobs? because of what obama has done, i would expect you to start the

impeachment process on him for what he has done. that is important. >> thank you. [applause] addressed quite a few issues. let me scribble some of this down as we're talking. i want to start on one of the final points you made that ties a lot of it together. you referred to jobs. a lot of what we deal with in washington, a lot of the most important things we deal with, relate to job creation and job preservation. a lot of the things we do could make the job market worse than it already is. the cannot afford that. we needed to get better as quickly as we possibly can. we made it worse rather than better when we pretend to the federal government that we can take your money, send it to

washington, work through our own process, take our cut -- exactly. when we try, it makes it worse. that is a problem. i agree with you there. your comments directed to our presence overseas -- i think part of the natural process that will occur a we move in the direction of a balanced budget will be a waddling down of some of the things we do through our military. people have asked in the past what of the sacred cows, what cannot be cut. people assume because of the political party i am a member of that i would say defense is a sacred cow that cannot be touched under any circumstance. we have to look for efficiency in every corner of government. in order for our syst of government to survive, we have to make it more efficient. we cannot afford to be fighting other people's wars. we cannot afford to be fighting

a war for which there has never been in military justification expressed, much less a proper constitutional declaration of war. [applause] >> you say that you are f a balanced budgeamendment. don't you think that is dangerous? wouldn't it be better if we just follow the constitution and stop spending money on things for which the federal government has no mandate, and get rid of a lot of things like the fda, the usda, the department of education? you could get rid of a lot of stuff that is not constitutional, andtop foreign aid subsidies -- foreign aid, subsidies to farmers and businesses. we could keep a lot of money in

our pockets of that happened. we would be spending a lot less money. [applause] >> thank you that is an excellent point. what is your name? but he makes an excelnt point here. i do not know how well you could hear in the back. betting makes the point -- why do we need a balanced budget amendment when we have a constitution already and the constitution, if followed, would put congress on a course that would ay focused on the few responsibilities given in the constitution, like weights and measures, regulating trade between the states, trademarks, copyrights and patents, and so forth? you raise a valid point. here is why i nevertheless think we need to amend the constitution. that document, and particularly that part of the documenthat tells congress its jobs are

limited and its responsibility exists within a limited sphere has been so overlooked over such a prolonged time that we have almost forgotten as a society -- some of us feel passionate about these things. but we have lost sight of it. we have assumed there is no job that is too big or too small for congress to handle. members of congress do not like to balance the budget because it makes them less powerful. it makes it more difficult for them to look constituents in the eye and say that looks like a good project that would benefit a lot of people, and we cannot do it. they do not like to say no. until we restrict their authority to engage in deficit spending, they will not. we know that based on a side track record in which they have dollar by dollar mortgaged the future of our unborn children and grdchildren. they have spent money they do not have and buried our prosperity under a mountain of

debt. it is a form of taxation without representation. the last time i checked, we fought and won that war. we need to win that victory by restricting congress's ability to borrow. [applause] >> mike webster. -- laid webster -- glade webster. can you elaborate on the narrows project? we have been trying to get it here for over 80 years. it makes too much sense. >> i hesitate to answer the question from the same promise yostarted with. i do not think there is anything i can do to force it through. it is not quite the sort of thing at is amenable to being forced.

it is something that is important to the residents of this county, and something the residents have waited pretty patiently for over the last 80 years, as you mentioned. it is something you waited for even in 1944, when the residents here were ready for that to be completed. but they put that off in order for some work to be done in schofield so that schofie would not fail, which would jeopardize a rail line going through there. as i understand it, the environmental impact statement will be up. we expect a record of decision could be issued by sometime early next year. when that happens, the process will move forward. there may be some litigation. there is nothing i can do to force it through beyond that process. if there is litigatio that will have to work its way to

court. we have to have a couple of things happen. the record of decision has to be issued. litigation, if any -- litigation, if any, will have to be complete. i hope we are able to get that done promptly. we have had an awful lot of litigation. as i understand it, the water rights are not in dispute. they have been settled. they have been deemed to belong to the residents of the county. i am optimistic that this will come to a resolution. a lot of that will depend on how the litigation goes. i will get to people in the back of the room. i just realized. >> i only have six or seven things here. [laughter] the president has agreed that

the [unintelligible] he is going to propose a value added tax. however, he wants it on top of the income tax. is there anything you could do? [unintelligible] can you stop him from doi that? [unintelligible] >> it is not the super committee. this is a top-level administration official. i know who you are talking about. i cannot remember his name at the moment, but i know who you mean. this is a presidential appointee who has been an outspoken advocate of what is referred to as the value added tax. think of that kind of like a sales tax placed on items that

you buy in the store, whether as a consumer or as a business, if you are buying a business in put and adding value to a product before you resell it. you are taxed on it, and a tax is imposed on it before the next person. value-added taxes are common throughout europe. they are frequently placed on top of income taxes. i refer to this sometimes as burning the candle at both ends. they want to get more revenue than they can get through an income tax. they create the illusion that people are taxed less than they actually are. people who are paying income tax ar paying a value added tax. the product has gone to several of theseycles where people

have had a value added at different stages of the business input cycle. the product might be a lot more expensive. a lot of the expenses related to government. i oppose that. i think we need to pick a horse and ride it as a country. [applause] what i mean is we either need to stick with an income tax system, which needs to be simplified so it does not occupy tens of thousands of pages. nobody has ever read that thing. if they did, they would probably die. on the other hand, we need to go to a national sales tax model, the fair tax, as they're referred to it. i would forcibly oppose that. i will likely oppose the confirmation of people who are in a position to bring about policy changes like that if they support ose. that said, i looked at each nominee on his or her own merits. i have yet to that this nominee,

whose name i cannot remember the moment. i share your concern about a value added tax. [applause] >> was your hand up back there? we had a hand up. yes? >> senator, thanks for being here. i have three questions. >> you are the mayor? >> a balanced tax -- do you see it coming forward again? the fair tax, you mentioned a little bit about it. but we do not tax 51% of the people in the country. the third thing is immigration. what are we going to do to protect the borders? it is two parts, protecting the borders, but then figuring out what to do with the people who

live here. i am more concerned about protecting the borders. but with a dictation from washington this last week, we are not going to take action on those people who are already here, unless they break some felony law, or something like that. >> i want to make sure i have got all of this. >> spending taxes instead of bill and rising a particular group. >> these are all good questions. first, your question on the cup -- the cut, cap, and balance act -- this is a bill i introduced in the senate a couple of months ago. what it said was we will raise the debt limit to the degree the president has asked, because is the president. much as some people may or may not want somebody else in there,

he is the president. but we will raise it only under the right conditions, that will address the underlying problem and make sure we are not always accruing more debt, make sure we do not reach the point where we cannot find anything, from entitlements to defense, from social security, medicare, and medicaid, to the celeries of marines. those conditions are we need to propose a balanced budget amendment to the constitution, adopt a statutory spending caps to put us on a smooth path toward a balanced budget, and make immediate cuts. it almost does not matter how large they are. but we need a down payment right now, cuts that are real, and not smoke and mirrors. your question related to whether or not we will bring that back up -- it was disappointing.

i introduced it in the senate. a week later, a friend of mine from utah's third decade -- third district introduced it in the house of representatives. the house of representatives passed it. it then went over to the senate. the senate tabled it, meaning they pushed it aside so they did not even have to vote on it. there were members of the senate who did not want the pressure associated with it. they knew it would be popular. according to cnn, three out of four americans believe we should have a balanced budget amendment. a comparable number of americans believe we should not have raised the debt limit. i continue to insist it is this approach that could have saved us, would have saved us, from a creditowngrade. i will continue to push for that very same approach. i do not know whether we will be

able to get teed up for a straight up or down vote in the senate. i will continue to sound the message so it cannot be ignored, as it was a few weeks ago. as to taxes, making our tax system fair, it is difficult when you have a tax system in which only about half of americans are paying anything. at that point, and you have a situation in which it becomes too easy for some americans to be tricked into thinking that government is free. it is especially worrisome from the standpoint of those who are at the middle and low end of the economic spectrum. we worry about tax increases and rising top marginal tax rates, not because we are worried about the ability of the rich to survive and thre. they will find a way to do that, one way or another. we are worried about the impact on the people who end up paying

the higher tax rates, either in terms of increased costs of food and services, or on unemployment or underemployment or lower wages. it is the way it ends up happening. we trick people into thinking big government is free, when it is not. it ends up having an aggressive -- having a regressive effect, a tax on middle income earners. that is one reason why we have to reform our tax system, make it simpler, and make it more equitable, so everybody has an opportunity to participate. finally, as to immigration, i sometimes say that problems arise in government not just with federal govnment ignores the fact that there are certain things it is not supposed to do, things that are supposed to be left to the states, rather than being done at the federal level. that can also happen when the federal gernment get so busy

doing things it is not supposed to do that it forgets to do the things it is supposed to do, like protect our national security interests and our border. we've not been doing that. here is the problem. here is one reason you have not seen and likely will not see anything we could describe as a comprehensive immigration reform package. this leaves a bad taste in the mouths of members of congress. a few years ago, they tried to do comprehensive immigration reform. some have described it as an amnesty or backdoor amnesty. you referred to another form of amnesty the president is proposing through his policy of the people who may be here illegally, but we may leave them here anyway unless they have committed a violent act. people have such a bad taste in

th