bipartisan bills. yesterday, they had more than 400 votes in support of it. i don't know what harry reid and means to allow it to come to the floor. the american people cannot wait. whatca's frustrated with is happening. >> unfortunately in the obama economy, we have seen our 28 month of unemployment at 9% or higher. in the obama economy, one in seven continue on food stamps. we had a study released this week from the world bank about doing business in the obama economy. america has dropped from third in 2007 to 13 in starting a

business. in the obama economy, the federal reserve announced a downgrade for their economic outlook for growth and employment. we cannot wait. this is not about the personality or politics. it is about his policies. they do not worse. house republicans have a plan for job creators. unfortunately, all of these bills continue to stack up like cordwood in the democratic- controlled senate. a lot of our bills have to do with easing the regulatory burden on small business. it is not just me saying it. we hear from our constituents. i heard from don last week.

talking about the health care plan he said, "we are giving up this part of our business due to federal regulations. this is one example of how obsessive regulation is stifling business. only one person will lose his job -- that is a large layoffs and a small company. the bottom line, the federal government is regulating small business out of business. mr. president, senator reid, we cannot wait. work with us together on our plan for america's job creators. >> we continue to hear about the 14 million americans out of work. if you started the line in washington, it would stick -- extend all the way to maine.

9 million americans would like to have a full-time job or have dropped out of the workplace. while the president is out campaigning, the house has been busy working on our forgotten 15 and other bills that would help the economy going. one of our priorities has been to reduce the regulatory burden on our businesses. we have the highest corporate tax rate in the world. the average small business owner will spend double that amount in complying with regulations. this report today underscores that we can and must do better. >> a couple of questions. >> i have a conference to run.

>> yesterday john boehner said he was nervous. should you be nervous? >> you can asking that question. i have just left a meeting with senator murray and we continue to negotiate. when we have something, you will hear something soon. i have not changed my position from day one. i have high hopes and tempered expectations. >> you talk about the need to find common ground. the debate led to a decline of consumer confidence. given the schedule for the rest of the year, you think that the failures will cost additional problems for consumer confidence? >> i think we have to continue to try to find common ground

that will help our economy and get the people back to work. when you look at our plan, the 20 bills we of passed it will help job creation, almost all of those passed with bipartisan support. many of them backed by the obama administration. it is time to find common ground to do with the american people expect. youou are saying, why don't pass the bill? there is another bill that they want things. this looks like a shoving match between the sides. why not say, [unintelligible] >> the house has acted in a bipartisan session 20 times. all we are asking for is some cooperation with the other side

of the capital. >> they have problems -- >> if you look at the vote yesterday, over four hundred votes for these bills that will help small businesses have access to capital. our founders gave us this giant body in the middle of our government called the congress. 535 people. it is hard for a ready to get along. on the house side, we have worked together to try to do the right thing. we will continue to do that. >> president obama talked about the crisis and the u.s. economy at a news conference in the store -- g-20 summit. the president have been meeting on a plan for the eurozone.

he also discussed and employment figures and discussed his jobs bill. this is about 25 minutes. >> good afternoon, everybody. i want to begin by thanking my friend, president sarkozy, for his leadership and his hospitality. and i want to thank the people of cannes for this extraordinary setting. over the past two years, those of us in the g20 have worked together to rescue the global economy, to avert another depression, and to put us on the path to recovery. but we came to cannes with no illusions. the recovery has been fragile. and since our last meeting in seoul we've experienced a number of new shocks -- disruptions in oil supplies, the tragic tsunami in japan, and the financial crisis in europe.

as a result, advanced economies, including the united states are growing and creating jobs, but not nearly fast enough. emerging economies have started to slow. global demand is weakening. around the world, hundreds of millions of people are unemployed, or underemployed. put simply, the world faces challenges that put our economic recovery at risk. so the central question coming into cannes was this, could the world's largest economies confront this challenge squarely -- understanding that these problems will not be solved overnight, could we make progress? after two days of very substantive discussions i can say that we've come together and made important progress to put our economic recoveries on a firmer footing. with respect to europe, we came to cannes to discuss with our european friends how they will move forward and build upon the

plan they agreed to last week to resolve this crisis. events in greece over the past 24 hours have underscored the importance of implementing the plan, fully and as quickly as possible. having heard from our european partners over the past two days, i am confidence that europe has the capacity to meet this challenge. i know it isn't easy, but what is absolutely critical, and what the world looks for in moments such as this, is action. that's how we confronted our financial crisis in the united states -- having our banks submit to stress tests that were rigorous, increasing capital buffers, and passing the strongest financial reforms since the great depression. none of that was easy, and it certainly wasn't always popular. but we did what was necessary to address the crisis, put ourselves on a stronger footing,

and help rescue the global economy. and that's the challenge that europe now faces. make no mistake, there's more hard work ahead and more difficult choices to make. but our european partners have laid a foundation on which to build, and it has all the elements needed for success -- a credible firewall to prevent the crisis from spreading, strengthening european banks, charting a sustainable path for greece, and confronting the structural issues that are at the heart of the current crisis. and here in cannes we've moved the ball forward. europe remains on track to implement a sustainable path for greece. italy has agreed to a monitoring program with the imf -- in fact, invited it. tools have been identified that will better enable the world to support european action. and european finance ministers will carry this work forward next week. all of us have an enormous interest in europe's success, and all of us will be affected if europe is not growing -- and that certainly includes the united states, which counts europe as our largest trading partner. if europe isn't growing, it's harder for us to do what we need to do for the american

people -- creating jobs, lifting up the middle class, and putting our fiscal house in order. and that's why i've made it clear that the united states will continue to do our part to support our european partners as they work to resolve this crisis. more broadly, we agreed to stay focused on jobs and growth with an action plan in which each nation does its part. in the united states, we recognize, as the world's largest economy, the most important thing we can do for global growth is to get our own economy growing faster. back home, we're fighting for the american jobs act, which will put people back to work, even as we meet our responsibilities to reduce our deficit in the coming years. we also made progress here in cannes on our rebalancing agenda. in an important step forward, countries with large surpluses and export-oriented countries agreed to take additional steps

to support growth and boost demand in their own countries. in addition, we welcome china's determination to increase the flexibility of the rmb. this is something we've been calling for for some time, and it will be a critical step in boosting growth. finally, we also made progress across a range of challenges to our shared prosperity. following our reforms in the united states, the g20 adopted an unprecedented set of high- level financial reforms to prevent a crisis in the future. we agreed to keep phasing out fossil fuel subsidies -- perhaps the single-most important step we can take in the near term to fight climate change and create clean-energy economies. and even as our countries work to save lives from the drought and terrible famine in the horn of africa, we agreed on the need to mobilize new resources to support the development that lifts nations out of poverty. so, again, i want to thank president sarkozy and our french hosts for a productive summit. i want to thank my fellow

leaders for their partnership and for the progress we've made to create the jobs and prosperity that our people deserve. so with that, let me take a few questions. i'll start with jim kuhnhenn of ap. >> new jobless numbers today back in the states. you're on a pace to face the voters with the highest unemployment rate of any postwar president. and doesn't that make you significantly vulnerable to a republican who might run on a message of change? and if i may add, given that you have just witnessed the difficulties of averting economic problems beyond your control, what state do you think the economy will be in when you face reelection next year? >> jim, i have to tell you the least of my concerns at the moment is the politics of a year from now.

i'm worried about putting people back to work right now, because those folks are hurting and the u.s. economy is underperforming. and so everything that we're doing here in the -- here at the g20 mirrors our efforts back home -- that is, how do we boost growth, how do we shrink our deficits in a way that doesn't slow the recovery right now, how do we make sure that our workers are getting the skills and the training they need to compete in a global economy. and not only does the american jobs act answer some of the needs for jobs now, but it will also lay the foundation for future growth through investments in infrastructure, for example. so my hope is, is that the folks back home, including those

in the united states senate and the house of representatives, when they look at today's job numbers -- which were positive but indicate once again that the economy is growing way too slow -- that they think twice before they vote "no" again on the only proposal out there right now that independent economists say would actually make a dent in unemployment right now. there's no excuse for inaction. that's true globally, it's certainly true back home as well. and i'm going to keep on pushing it regardless of what the politics are. chuck todd. >> thank you, mr. president. clearly, there was some sort of dispute between you and the european leaders about how to fund this bailout. and you, in your remarks, emphasized the fact that tarp was done with u.s. funds, that there wasn't any international involvement here.

are you confident now that the european leaders are going to own this firewall or bailout fund themselves, not looking for handouts from other countries, and that they will do what they have to do? and the second part of my question is, how hard was it to convince these folks to do stimulus measures when your own stimulus measure -- you've mentioned it twice now -- is not going anywhere right now on capitol hill? >> well, first of all, we didn't have a long conversation about stimulus measures, so that was maybe two or three g20s ago. we had a discussion about what steps could be taken to continue to spur economic growth. and that may not always involve government spending. for example, the rebalancing agenda that i talked about is one way in which we can make a big difference in spurring on global demand. it requires some adjustments, some changes in behavior on the part of countries. but it doesn't necessarily involve classic fiscal stimulus. it wasn't a dispute with the

europeans. i think the europeans agree with us that it is important to send a clear signal that the european project is alive and well, and that they are committed to the euro, and that they are committed to resolving this crisis. and i think if you talk to european leaders, they are the first ones to say that that begins with european leaders arriving at a common course of action. so essentially, what we've seen is all the elements for dealing with the crisis put in place, and we think those are the right elements. the first is having a solution to the specific problem of greece. and although the actions of papandreou and the referendum issue over the last couple of days i think got a lot of people nervous, the truth is, is

that the general approach -- which involved a voluntary reduction on the part of those who hold the greeks' debt, reducing the obligations of the greek government -- greece continuing with reforms and structural change, that's the right recipe. it just has to be carried out. and i was encouraged by the fact that despite all the turmoil in greece, even the opposition leader in greece indicated that it's important to move forward on the proposal. the second component is recapitalization of europe's banks. and they have identified that need and they are resourcing that need. and that i think is going to be critical to further instill confidence in the markets. and the third part of it is creating this firewall, essentially sending a signal to the markets that europe is going to stand behind the euro.

and all the details, the structure, how it operates, are still being worked out among the european leaders. what we were able to do was to give them some ideas, some options in terms of how they would put that together. and what we've said is -- and i'm speaking now for the whole of the g20 -- what we've said is the international community is going to stand ready to assist and make sure that the overall global economy is cushioned by the gyrations in the market and the shocks that arise as europe is working these issues through. and so they're going to have a strong partner in us. but european leaders understand that ultimately what the markets are looking for is a strong signal from europe that they're standing behind the euro.

>> so you're discouraging them from looking for money -- outside money? >> no, what we were saying is that -- and this is reflected in the communique -- that, for example, creating additional tools for the imf is an important component of providing markets overall confidence in global growth and stability, but that is a supplement to the work that is being done here in europe. and based on my conversations with president sarkozy, chancellor merkel, and all the other european leaders, i believe they have that strong commitment to the euro and the european project. david muir. >> thank you, mr. president. i'm curious what you would say to americans back home who've watched their 401(k)s recover

largely when the bailout seemed a certainty, and then this week with the brand new political tumult in greece, watched themselves lose essentially what they had gained back. you mentioned you're confident in the bailout plan. are you confident this will actually happen, and if so, that it will work? >> well, first of all, if you're talking about the movements of the u.s. stock market, the stock market was down when i first took office and the first few months i was in office about 3,000 points lower than it is now. so nothing has happened in the last two weeks that would suggest that somehow people's 401(k)s have been affected the way you describe. am i confident that this will work? i think that there's more work to do. i think there are going to be some ups and downs along the way. but i am confident that the key

players in europe -- the european political leadership -- understands how much of a stake they have in making sure that this crisis is resolved, that the eurozone remains intact, and i think that they are going to do what's necessary in order to make that happen. now, let's recognize how difficult this is. i have sympathy for my european counterparts. we saw how difficult it was for us to save the financial system back in the united states. it did not do wonders for anybody's political standing, because people's general attitude is, you know what, if the financial sector is behaving recklessly or not making good decisions, other folks shouldn't have to suffer for it. you layer on top of that the

fact that you're negotiating with multiple parliaments, a european parliament, a european commission -- i mean, there are just a lot of institutions here in europe. and i think several -- i'm not sure whether it was sarkozy or merkel or barroso or somebody, they joked with me that i'd gotten a crash course in european politics over the last several days. and there are a lot of meetings here in europe as well. so trying to coordinate all those different interests is laborious, it's time consuming, but i think they're going to get there. what is also positive is -- if there's a silver lining in this whole process, it's the fact that i think european leaders recognize that there are some structural reforms,

institutional modifications they need to make if europe and the eurozone is to be as effective as they want it to be. i think that what this has exposed is that if you have a single currency but you haven't worked out all the institutional coordination and relationships between countries on the fiscal side, on the monetary side, that that creates additional vulnerabilities. and there's a commitment on the part of european leaders, i think, to examine those issues. but those are long term. in the short term, what they've got to do is just make sure that they're sending a signal to the markets that they stand behind the euro. and if that message is sent, then i think this crisis is

averted, because some of this crisis is psychological. italy is a big country with a enormous industrial base, great wealth, great assets, and has had substantial debt for quite some time -- it's just the market is feeling skittish right now. and that's why i think prime minister berlusconi's invitation to the imf to certify that the reform plan that they put in place is one that they will, in fact, follow is an example of the steady, confidence-building measures that need to take place in order for us to get back on track. norah o'donnell. >> thank you, mr. president. the world leaders here have stressed growth -- the importance of growth. and yet

growth back at home has been anemic, the new jobs report today showing just 88,000 jobs added. the republicans in congress have made it clear that they're going to block your jobs bill because they believe the tax hikes in it hurt small businesses. at what point do you feel that you declare stalemate to try and reach common ground? and do you feel like you have been an effective leader when it comes to the economy? >> well, first of all, wherever republicans indicate an interest in doing things that would actually grow the economy, i'm right there with them. so they've said that passing trade bills with south korea and panama and colombia would help spur growth -- those got done, with significant bipartisan support. they've suggested that we need to reform our patent laws -- that's something that was part

of my long-term program for economic growth, we've got that done. what i've said is all those things are nice and they're important, but if we want to grow the economy right now then we have to think bigger, we've got to do something bolder and more significant. so we put forward the american jobs act, which contains ideas that are historically supported by democrats and republicans -- like rebuilding our infrastructure, our roads and our bridges, putting teachers back in the classroom, providing tax credits to small businesses. you say, norah, that the reason they haven't voted for them is because they don't want to tax small business. well, actually, that's not -- if that's their rationale then it doesn't fly, because the bill that they voted down yesterday -- a component of the american jobs bill -- essentially said we can create

hundreds of thousands of jobs, rebuilding our infrastructure, making america more competitive, and the entire program will be paid for by a tax not on millionaires but people making a million dollars a year or more, which in the united states is about -- a little over 300,000 people. now, there aren't a lot of small businesses across the country that are making that kind of money. in fact, less than 3% of small businesses make more than $250,000 a year. so what they've said is, we prefer to protect 300,000 people rather than put hundreds of thousands of people back to work and benefit 300 million americans who are hurting because of low growth. so we're going to keep on

pushing. now, there are steps that we can take absent congressional action. and the refinancing proposal that we put forward in las vegas is an example of that -- helping students with student loans. we're going to keep on rolling out administrative steps that we can take that strengthen the economy. but if we're going to do something big to jumpstart the economy at a time when it's stabilized but unemployment is way too high, congress is going to need to act. and in terms of my track record on the economy -- well, here's just a simple way of thinking about it. when i came into office, the u.s. economy had contracted by 9% -- the largest contraction since the great depression. little over a year later, the economy was growing by 4%, and it's been growing ever since.

now, is that good enough? absolutely not. we've got to do more. and as soon as i get some signal from congress that they're willing to take their responsibilities seriously, i tm to break out of the rigid ideological positions they have been taking. at the same is true when it comes to deficit reduction. we can solve all of our problems. we can grow our economy and put people back to work and reduce our deficit. you get surprising consensus from economists about how to do it. it is just a matter of setting politics aside and constantly remembering the election as one year away. of we do that there is no reason we cannot solve these problems.

all right? thank you everybody. >> next -- c-span's series "the contenders." tonight adlai stevenson. a look at the october jobs report and a response from republican leaders. and now from libertyville, illinois, the life of adlai stevenson profiled in the c-span serious "the contenders." >> ladies and gentlemen of the convention, my fellow citizens, i accept your nomination and your program. [applause] now that you've made your decision, i will fight to win that office with all of my heart and soul.

with your help, i have no doubt that we will win. help me to do the job in these years of crisis that spread beyond vision. we will justify our glorious task and the loyalty of millions who look to us for compassion, for understanding, and for honesty. we will serve our great tradition greatly. i ask of you all you have. i will give you all i have. >> that was our contender this week, adlai stevenson, accepting the democratic nomination for president in 1952.

we are joined by richard norton smith in libertyville, illinois. who was this one-term governor of illinois? >> for millions of americans, that is all he was. the one-term governor of illinois. they had never heard a voice like his. they did not know that a political revolution was being touched off that night. for the next decade, adlai stevenson would be the voice of the democratic party, someone who would transform american politics, even though he was never successful in his quest for the white house. >> how did he get the nomination in 1952? >> he is the last candidate to be drafted. he is the last candidate to require one more ballot at the convention. he did not want the nomination is the short answer.

there was a vacuum in the democratic party. harry truman was retiring. there was no obvious successor. adlai stevenson did a remarkable welcoming address at the chicago convention that had the effect much like william jennings bryant. it touched off this draft. a couple days later, he was delivering the speech you just heard. >> welcome to libertyville and "the contenders." this is the 9th in our 14 week series. we're looking at the men who ran for president and changed american politics. tonight, our focus is adlai stevenson, 1900 to 1965. we are joined by well-known author and historian richard norton smith. we're live from libertyville, illinois.

we are at the stevenson family farm. in just a minute, we'll be joined by newton minow, who worked and knew adlai stevenson. we will be joined by senator adlai stevenson iii, the son of adlai stevenson. he is a 10 year senator from the state of illinois. richard norton smith, before we leave the office, there are some things sitting around that we want to learn a little bit more about. first of all, what is this a hand? >> stevenson said that he suffered from a bad case of hereditary politics. there are multiple generations of stevensons in the story. the lincoln connection was a very powerful one.

this is a cast of lincoln's hand. part of the famous mast created in 1860. >> also on the desk is an address book. some of the names in this address book include eleanor roosevelt, jackie kennedy, john steinbeck. >> he was very unusual, a non- politician in many ways. millions of americans proudly declared themselves stevensonians. >> standing between us is this old office chair. >> this is stevenson's cabinet chair. he was made a member of the

cabinet, this is the chair that commemorates that. somewhat difficult relationship that he had with the kennedy administration. >> you referred to the dynasty, the stevenson political dynasty. here on the wall are some artifacts. very quickly. >> governor stevenson's grandfather was vice president of the united states. under grover cleveland. he ran again in 1900 under william jennings bryant. this is grandfather stevenson's hat. you can see campaign items from the grover cleveland campaign as well.

>> thank you for joining us tonight. live from libertyville, we will work our way over to the barn on the family farm. we are currently in the study. next to it is a barn. this was a working farm at some point. it had animals, horses, sheep, et cetera. we will work our way over there where there is a new display about adlai stevenson. first, we want to show you some campaign commercials so you can see some of the video of adlai stevenson. these are from 1956 and 1952. one of them was filmed right here in this study. >> i am sitting right here in my own library. thanks to television, i can talk to millions of people that i could not reach any other way. i am not going to let this spoil me. i am not going to stop traveling in this campaign. i can talk to you, but i cannot

listen to you. i cannot hear about your problems, about your hopes and your affairs. to do that, i have to go out and see you in person. that is what i have been doing. for the past several years, i've traveled all over this country. i have been in every state. i have met thousands of you and millions of you have seen me. ♪ ♪ >> stevenson! ♪ >> ♪ i would rather have a man with a hole in his shoes than a man with a hole in everything he says i would rather have a man that knows what to do when he gets to be the prez i know the gov will bring the

dove of peace and joy ♪ adlai, love you madly what you did for your own great state you are going to do for the rest of the 48 ♪ >> old macdonald had a farm back in 31 conditions filled him with alarm back in 31 ♪ to vote for adlai stevenson a vote vote here and a vote vote there

a vote for stevenson everywhere all america loves that farm ♪ >> if you should allow me to be your president, next november, i should be the better for having done it, i am sure. because i know that the strength and wisdom that i need must be drawn from you and the people. finally, i hope the next time we meet, it will be person to

person and face to face. >> i am adlai stevenson. you and i have been hearing from our republican friends that things are so good, they could not be better. do you think that things cannot be better for the small- business man, like this one? small business profits are down 52%. that they cannot be better for our farmers? like these? farm income is down 25%. are schools good enough for the richest nation in history? they need a third of a million more classrooms. what about you? are you out of debt? you have a comfortable bankroll in the bank? are you paying less for the things that you buy? or more? do you really think things

cannot be better? of course they can. working together, we will make them better. >> vote democratic. >> rising cost of farming. lower farm income. caught in a squeeze. vote democratic, the party for you, not just the few. vote for adlai stevenson. >> we are back live at the stevenson farm in libertyville. we are now joined by newton minow. he is the former chairman of the federal communications commission. for our purposes tonight, he has worked with and was an associate of adlai stevenson for many years. newton minow, if you could start by telling us when did you first meet gov. stevenson ? >> i was a law clerk at the supreme court.

one of our professors came to visit one day. he later offered my co-clerk a job as his assistant in springfield. it turned out that howard was not interested, but i was. i ended up being interviewed by the governor. at 7:00 for breakfast in the spring of 1952. he said to me, if i hire you, young man, it is there any reason why you would not take the job? if my current boss runs for president, and it was rumored that he would be a candidate, if he asked me to stay with them, i would like to do that. the governor looked at me and said, i do not think that is

very likely. i then drove him to his next appointment. i went to work at the supreme court. i picked up "the new york times." it said "truman offers stevenson the presidential nomination." this was the morning after president truman had asked him to run. i was hired and reported for work. >> what was he known for as governor? >> even as a student, i worked in his campaign in 1948. he was known as being totally honest, which was not necessarily a prerequisite for election in illinois. he was a different kind of candidate. he was honest, and he was an

intellectual, he cared deeply about good government. he brought a whole different culture to the office of governor. >> richard norton smith, 1952, set the stage for us. >> there was a sense that the democrats had been power for 20 years. even the most partisan democrat thought that perhaps the party and the country would be well served by a change. the great issue was which republican party would replace harry truman if harry truman were to leave? would it be be isolationist conservative midwestern party or would it be the international

modern republican of the eisenhower? stevenson had to calculate the chances of which party he might be running against. he was very reluctant to run. >> he did not want to run. he did not want to run against dwight eisenhower. it was like running against jesus christ. if it had been robert taft as the opponent, adlai stevenson would have relished running. there would have been a clear difference in philosophy. you have to remember the democrats tried to draft general eisenhower. the democrats tried to get eisenhower to run as a democrat. eisenhower was a candidate of both parties.

>> newton minow, when adlai stevenson did the welcoming address at the democratic national convention in chicago in 1952 -- in 1952, was he considered a candidate? >> he was not that well known. i remember the first time he appeared on national television. he was on "meet the press." he was never any good on television. he was a lot of fun and a great personality and you always went away feeling better about yourself. when you watched him on television, he was either nervous, but he was never himself. the country did not know him. >> he gets the welcoming address and he gets drafted,

went on the second or third ballot. >> that is right. it was really unfortunate because the timing was wrong. if he had run for president against dwight eisenhower, he probably could have won. >> who did he pick for a running mate? john sparkman, senator from alabama. he had to worry about keeping the solid south solid. >> exactly. john sparkman was picked at the last minute. >> did they have a relationship? >> not really. >> did he want to be on the 52 ticket? >> he was always interested in running for president.

adlai stevenson did not like him. >> he ended up being the vice president in 56. >> harry truman might have liked him even less. >> harry truman in 1952 and his relationship with adlai stevenson. >> he is regarded as a great president. the fact is at the time, he was a very unpopular president. the korean war was an unpopular war. he fired douglas macarthur, there is a consensus that he did the right thing for the right reason, but at great

political cost. harry truman had been in power seven years. he had decided seven years was enough. he had the power to permit him from becoming the nominee. he probably had the power to make adlai stevenson the nominee. with that power went the dead weight of the truman administration. my sense is that truamn and stevenson's relationship never quite recovered. >> there was another factor. there was a lot of corruption in the democratic party. there had been a scandal with one of president truman's assistants. it was not a happy thing to

become the nominee in 1952. as i left the supreme court, i went to see the chief justice to say goodbye. he was very close friends with truman. the chief said to me, your guy is not going to make it. i said, what? he said, i was with the president last night. he told me that he has lost patience with adlai stevenson. it is going to be barkley. they tried to get it for barkley, but everybody said, he is too old. >> we are live from libertyville, the stevenson family farm, about 40 miles outside of chicago.

the phone numbers are on the screen because we want to hear from you as well. the results in 1952, by the way, that election was held 59 years ago tonight, november 4, 1952. adlai stevenson won 27 million votes. he got 89 electoral votes and won nine states. dwight eisenhower, 442 electoral votes. he won the 34 million votes. he won the rest of the states, which would have been 41 states. >> one thing to keep in mind is compared with 1948.

in losing, stevenson got 3 million more votes than truman had three years earlier. dwight eisenhower got 12 million more votes. you have the largest increase in voter participation since the 1820's. you had two outstanding candidates. each were able to excite the electorate. >> here is a little bit more of adlai stevenson at the 1952 convention. >> what does concern me is not just winning this election. but how it is one. how we can take advantage of this great opportunity to debate issues sensibly and soberly. i hope and pray that we democrats will win or lose, can

campaign, not as a crusade to exterminate the opposing party, as our opponents seem to prefer, but as a great opportunity to educate and elevate a people whose destiny is leadership. let's tell the american people the truth, there are no gains without pain. we are now on the even of great decision. >> newton minow, where were you 59 years ago tonight? >> i was in the governor's mansion. one thing that taught the american people about stevenson was the way he conceded defeat. he gave the most graceful, patriotic talk.

he pledged to support president eisenhower. he ended with a story that he remembered from abraham lincoln. it was a story about a little boy who stubbed his toe in the dark. he said, it hurts too much to laugh, but i am not old enough to cry. people saw his character with that. he was a patriot who loved his country and was willing to support a new president. >> let's take some calls. the first call is paul in iowa. >> hello. i want to thank c-span for doing this. this is a great series.

i have recently finished reading -- he puts forth a very negative view of adlai stevenson campaign for president. he claimed he spent too much time attacking nixon. it was a blemish on a very stellar career. do you think that the campaign was a low point of stevenson's political career? did he spend too much time attacking nixon? what could he have focused on to make the election closer? should she have focused on farm issues more? should he have focused on war and peace issues? thank you very much. >> let's start with newton minow. 1956 campaign.

>> 1956 campaign, in my opinion, was not as stellar as it was the 1952 campaign. the reason for the emphasis on nixon in 1956 was the fact that president eisenhower had suffered a bad heart attack and had some bad health problems. there was great concern in the country of what would happen if president eisenhower was reelected and he died during the second term and nixon became president. there was a good reason to go after nixon because nixon did not have the character to be president. >> i think the 1956 campaign, from a historical standpoint, it is the campaign that laid the groundwork for the new frontier. that is the campaign when adlai stevenson embraced the idea of a nuclear test ban treaty.

that is the campaign when he endorsed a constitutional amendment so 18-year-olds could vote. in terms of foreshadowing policy to come, 1956 turns out to be a fountainhead of ideas. you are right, the last speech on election eve where he said the medical evidence suggested a real possibility that richard nixon would become president. that is something that tom dewey had not done in 1944 under somewhat similar circumstances. you did not go there. in some ways, he paid a price for that. >> you are right.

the nuclear test ban, which was a very unpopular point of view to take in 1956, he took it very courageously because he believed in it deeply. someone asked what the weapons would be in world war iv, and he said there would be sticks and stones. >> between 1952 and 1956, was adlai stevenson going to get the nomination again? >> i would have to answer that with a yes and no. he hoped that he might someday be president, but he also knew that if he ran against president eisenhower again, the odds were very much against him. i was one of the few people around him that urged him not to run in 1956. he felt an obligation to the

democratic party. >> here is a little bit of adlai stevenson at the 1956 convention. >> i come here on a solemn mission. i accept your nomination and your program. [applause] i pledge to every resource of mind and strength that i possess to make a good win for our country and our party. four years ago, i stood in this same place and uttered those same words to you. four years ago, i did not seek the honor that you bestowed upon me. this time, as he may have

noticed, it was not entirely unsolicited. [laughter] [applause] there is another big difference. that time, we lost. this time, we will win. [applause] >> newton minow, you started laughing what you listen to that video. >> when he said it was unsolicited, it reminded me. in 1955, stevenson gave a speech at the university of texas and i was asked to go with them. it was right after president eisenhower had suffered his heart attack. lyndon johnson, the majority

leader of the senate, had also suffered a heart attack. we were to spend the night at lyndon's ranch. we got there late. mrs. johnson was very upset because the doctor told her that lyndon johnson should be sleeping. and he was up until 2:00 in the morning. on the way home, just the two of us for traveling. adlai stevenson said to me, if i want the nomination next year, i will have to run in the primaries. i said, they are right. if president eisenhower does not run, every democrat is going to want the nomination and you'll have to fight for it. if president eisenhower does run, you ought to forget about

it. he said, i am not going to run in those primaries. i am not going to be a candidate like i am running for sheriff. i am not going to do it. of course, he ended up doing it because that is the way the system operated. >> joe in los angeles, we are talking about adlai stevenson. go ahead with your comments. >> i want to jump ahead to the 1960's. what you thought his relationship with the kennedys was. i know he was nominated in that convention and because of that, there were still feelings with jack kennedy. what would have happened if he had been made secretary of state? would the situation in vietnam have been different? >> let's start with richard norton smith. >> that is a very wide subject. it is certainly true that it

was not a warm relationship between the kennedys and governor stevenson. in 1956, he had done something no one else had done. he had thrown at the nomination for the vice presidency open. he left the convention decide. jack kennedy came within eyebrow of winning the nomination. it introduced him to the country, paved the way for his campaign in 1960. one of the distinguished visitors that came to this house was jack kennedy.

he very much wanted adlai stevenson's endorsement, who did not give it. he did not go away with his admiration of the governor enhanced. if he was ever going to be secretary of state, i think that possibility went down the drain right then. >> we will talk a little bit later about the kennedy relationship and his years as u.n. ambassador. the results in 1956, adlai stevenson won 73 electoral votes. he got 26 million votes, about 1 million less than he got four years earlier. dwight eisenhower, 457 electoral votes. he won 41 states. it was the last election were there were only 48 states in the nation.

dwight eisenhower won about 35 million votes. our next call, akron, ohio. >> thank you. this is a great honor to be watching this type of program. i have a comment and a question. richard norton smith stole my thunder about the 1956 convention and jack kennedy. one of my favorite comments was something that harry truman said about adlai stevenson, that he spent more time thinking about what he was going to do rather than doing it. he spent a lot more time talking to college presidents than he did to cabdrivers.

anyway, 1956, richard norton smith made a comment to adlai stevenson doing something unprecedented in, opening the convention to picking a vice presidential nominee. very few people really know there were two other candidates in contention for that position. hubert humphrey and al gore, sr. seeing as how jack kennedy was out of it, would that ticket have been a little bit better had it have been al gore, sr. or hubert humphrey? also, i guess what i was going to say -- >> let's leave it there. that is a lot of questions. >> certainly, kefauver did not help.

i think what richardson about kennedy was exactly correct. the opportunity to be at the convention and to be seen as a vice presidential possibility introduced jack kennedy to the country. i remember a few years later, i saw him at a dinner and i said, jack, if you are so interested, you can get be nomination for vice president next time. he said, vice-president? i am going to run for president. he was only 39 years old. >> the caller raises a point that i am sure that governor

stevenson heard many times during his lifetime. the notion that he talked over the heads of people. what was his reaction to that? >> i think he did not talk over the heads of the people. they used to call him an egghead. he is to make fun of that. eggheads of the world unite. you have nothing to lose but your yolks. i think he reached people. he had a great sense of humor. one time he gave a speech in san francisco. a woman came of to him after the speech and said governor, after that speech, every thinking american is going to vote for you. and he said, thank you, madame. unfortunately, i need a majority. he knew what the situation was. >> next call comes from tennessee.

>> thank you. it is a great show. my father was an academic and i grew up in washington, d.c. i remember my father talking about how great adlai stevenson was. the reason i am calling was that i was struck by the 1952 electoral map. it seems like the sparkman strategy won. he did not get tennessee and he did not get his own state, illinois. >> he had been elected governor of illinois by the largest margin in the history of the state.

they elected this new deal liberal democrat and it was not surprising that he counted on winning it in 1952. >> if he had run for governor in 1952, even with president eisenhower's running on the republican -- he would have won the governorship again by a larger margin. >> newton minow, today, we talk about taxes, spending, social security. those are some of the issues we look at during the campaign. in 1952, in 1956, what were the main issues that were talked about? >> 1952, the big issue was korea. we were bogged down in a war there.

president eisenhower says, i will go to korea. the country thought he would end the war in korea. the other big issues were the same issues we have today. we have the same issues that divided the country back in the 1950's. education, the economy was better than than it is now. there was less unemployment. this country is equally divided. if you look at the last 10 presidential elections, with the single exception of johnson and goldwater in 1964, they have all been decided by a few points. the country is equally divided. >> in 1956, here is a little bit

of adlai stevenson talking about the democratic platform. >> to the threshold of a new america. a new america of great ideals and noble vision. i mean a new america where poverty is abolished and our abundance is used to enrich the lives of every family. [applause] i mean a new america where freedom is made real for all, without regard to race or belief or economic conditions. [applause]

these are the things i believe then. these are the things i will work for. >> we are live in libertyville at the adlai stevenson farm. boston, you are on the air. >> i was very young and during the era of president kennedy and adlai stevenson. i want to share an emotional

think i will probably take to my grave. in 1960, a couple of weeks before his assassination, adlai stevenson went to texas, where they threw oranges at him from the balcony. he called president kennedy and told him not to come to texas. at least get a bulletproof car, which he did not do. on the other side of the question, i believe president kennedy and his brother had a little bit too much ego. if adlai stevenson knew that, there would have been more listening.

>> we will get an answer from both our guests. they both started nodding their heads. >> i think it was a united nations event in dallas. afterwards, he was struck by some protesters. i think he was spat upon. a classic rejoinder -- i do not want to prosecute them, i want to educate them. >> he was very aware of the dangers, but i would not go as far as the questioner did. he made that commitment and wanted to keep it. talking about the relationship of adlai stevenson and president kennedy. during the 1960 campaign, norman vincent peale had organized a

group of other clergymen and they said that jack kennedy was unqualified to be president because of his religion. adlai stevenson was asked about it. he compared it to st. paul. he said, i find st. paul appealing and norman vincent peale appalling. he could always work in a joke. politics today has no humor. with the exception of bob dole, i do not see any politician today, either party, who has a great sense of humor. >> do you think it worked against stevenson? he always had these wonderful quips.

>> abraham lincoln went around telling stories all the time. i do not think it hurt him. i think people like to have someone who has a sense of humor. >> next call, poughkeepsie, new york. nick, good evening. >> hi. i would like to know when stevenson was a child, was there an incident where he accidentally shot his friend? how did that influence his presidential campaign? >> did he ever talk about that? could you give us a brief history of what the coller is referring to? >> there was a tragic accident in childhood when there was a loose gun in the family and adlai stevenson accidentally

shot and killed another child. i never heard him say anything about it. i never saw any evidence that it affected him. who knows? >> he was 12 years old at the time. one did get the sense that the family moved on. it was not something that they dwelled on. years later, he expressed astonishment that his wife knew about the incident. it would suggest that he really kept it very close to his vest. >> who was his wife? >> his wife was a woman who came from a very fine upperclass family. she was not very interested in politics. she disliked politics. when adlai stevenson went into politics, i do not think she was very happy about it.

they came to a parting of ways. >> that was in 1949. >> he had been elected before the divorce. >> did the divorce hurt him during the 1952 and 1956 presidential campaigns? >> president reagan was divorced. today we have public officials living without marriage with someone else. there has been a vast cultural change. >> one more instance of stevenson being ahead of his time. >> could be. >> we are live from libertyville. theodore is on the line.

go ahead with your question or comment. >> i appreciate the program very much. i am a senior in a nearby senior retirement community. participating in a memoir group. we have been asked to write what good things from the 1950's should be carried into the 21st century. i happen to be present at the 1952 election where he voted in vernon township. it was next to a congregational church. my question is, what significance do you place to that icon of the hole in his shoe? how would you summarize what could be carried into the 21st century? >> let's start with richard norton smith.

>> stevenson was a man who flattered our intelligence. he spoke up to us. he did not speak down to us. he is arguably the last national politician. he believed that a presidential campaign was first and foremost an educational exercise. >> what do you mean by that? >> he was forever running out of time. they would cut him off in the middle of the speech. he could not believe that people would not take sufficient amount of time to educate themselves, to listen to a thoughtful, sober, substantive issue-oriented appeals from candidate on both sides. that is how he approached running for office. that is how he approached governing illinois. i have heard him say more than

once that a campaign was an educational exercise, not only for the public, but also for the candidate. an opportunity for the candidate to educate himself or herself about the country. i also heard him say, there are worse things that can happen to someone then losing an election. >> what is a stevensonian? >> an egghead. wit, self deprecatory, someone who has been very little patience with the political claptrap that spin doctors have foisted upon us.

i cannot imagine adlai stevenson being handled by any such individual. >> it would never happen. i was much a member of an american delegation to a conference in japan and in our delegation was don rumsfeld. we were having dinner and i said, why did you go into politics? he said, it was all because of a speech given to my graduating class at princeton. were you in the class of 1954? he looked at me and said, how did you know that? i said, i know the speech. it is the best speech adlai stevenson ever gave in his life. it was a speech about why everyone should devote some of

their life to public service. he read me a paragraph verbatim of the speech. he pulled out his wallet and pulled out a torn copy of the speech. i said, that is why you went into politics? he said, that is why i went into politics. if you read his new book, he starts off by quoting from that speech. his biggest contribution was making politics respectable and honorable. jack kennedy used to say politics is an honorable profession. i think he got that from adlai stevenson. >> adlai and ellen stevenson had three sons. adlai stevenson iii was a marine in 1952.

>> he takes time out from his campaign to attend the graduation of his son from the marine officer candidate school in quantico, virginia. it is a proud father and an equally proud son on an occasion important to both. >> live on your screen is senator adlai stevenson iii, he is in his father's study on the family farm. senator stevenson, thank you for opening up this facility for us. what was your role in the 1952 and 1956 campaign? >> in the 1952 campaign, i was in the marine corps. i did not have a role in that campaign. they were involved in the 1956 campaign.

>> what role did korea play in your father's campaign? >> korea became an issue though it was not an issue, but adversely affected my father's campaign. he was advised to say if elected president, i will go to korea. that is exactly what general eisenhower said. my father refused to do that because he felt that if he made that commitment to go there and arrange a truce -- the eisenhower administration was weakened by this commitment of

eisenhower to end the war. my involvement did not have any effect at all. >> he served in the u.s. senate from 1970 until 1981 for the state of illinois. he voluntarily stepped down in 1980, ran for governor twice for this state. what made you enter the family business? >> i was born with a hereditary case of politics. if by business, you mean my career. we did not think of it as a business. i am paraphrasing my father. >> of course, the first adlai stevenson served as vice president and secretary of state for illinois.

and now we are joined by senator stevenson. he is in his father's study in libertyville. we are in what used to be the barn and it is right next door. it is now set up with an exhibit. what is going on here? >> this home, which this home, which became our base over the years as a served in washington and everywhere, is the home of the adelaide stevenson center on democracy. we try to bring people together to address systemic weaknesses in democratic systems and continue the stevenson legacy. this was the home -- it really became the base from which me,

my father ranged the world, not only to serve in springfield and so on, as i mentioned, but also to study the world from on the ground and within it. we never stopped trying to learn about the world from within it. in the marketplaces, slums, ruins, as well as the universities and ministries -- trying to see the world from within it. i think that lifetime of on the ground study of the world with a prospective from no ivory tower really helped to create the record and make him an electric frying -- an electric frying figure -- in electrifying figure out. president kennedy appointed him

as the ambassador to the united nations where he represented the united states effectively. >> we have one hour left in "the contenders." alley stevenson is our focus. our guest, senator adelaide stevenson the third and the former federal communications commission chairman under jfk and, of course, well known author and historian richard smith. we're going to take this call from sally. >> let me correct something. i was born and raised in chicago, but i live in california. i am calling because adelaide stevenson from 1952 election was my first presidential -- in other words, when i was eligible

to vote. i went door to door and did whatever i could. i was crushed that he did not win. on retrospect, i thought he would contribute more on the world stage as a statesman. in a way he did. but i will never forget how disappointed we were. one other thing -- been from chicago, i worked at the tribune tower when the duly-truman election -- dewey-truman election. i will let you go and get your response off air. >> i think we could talk to

sally all night. senator stevens and, if we could start with you. you heard the emotion in her voice. could you talk about his campaign style a little bit? >> i would like to amplify. i think they have done a very perceptive of jobs. getting back to 1952. he was also reluctant to run for president because he had been elected governor of a state which we loved and are deeply indebted to. it succeeded a corrupt republican administration. he reached out and he recruited the best qualified professionals that he could find. it was not pay to play in those days. it was a sacrifice to serve. they were reforming state government. he wanted to finish the job. he was also reluctant because eisenhower would be very difficult to defeat.

he was a returning war hero. i think secretly, not so secretly at home, he was also not convinced it was time for a change. remember, he started that 1952 campaign. he was drafted. he started the campaign at the convention with absolutely no program, no money, no staff. it went on to electrify the world. for him, i may be repeating, for him democracy was not a system for acquiring power. it was a system for informing people so they could make a sound judgment. he said trust the people with all of the truth. what wins is more important than who wins.

the 1956 campaign was more substantive. he had more time than the 1952 campaignhe used to the campaigns and the interim has leader of the party. he laid the programmatic foundations for the new frontier and the great society. in fact, i heard arthur schlesinger, the famous historian who was close to jack kennedy -- we always called jacked at jack -- john f. kennedy, the executor of the stevenson resolution. those campaigns were aimed not only at the american people. they were substantive. he used half hour blocks of time for eloquent, substantive speeches.

>> you talk about the 1952 and 1956 campaigns. your father lost books between those and a couple more states. what did he not do as well in 1956? did he make mistakes? >> eisenhower is enormously popular. these were years of economic prosperity and growth. eisenhower was popular. the war ended and -- that would come later in korea. what happened -- one of the things that happened, i would have never gotten reelected anyway. -- eisenhower would have never gotten reelected anyway. with the uprising in hungary and the invasion of suez by france, britain, and israel, these international crises that

rallied the country as they always do behind the president. justthen on, they're really was not much doubt about the outcome. >> richard norton smith. >> i just want to go back to the 1952 campaign. it is accurate that he started out with nothing. in fact, there was a debate over where to have the political headquarters. harry truman expected it to be in washington. it was in springfield. the story was told, you can't you can -- you can tell me if it is true or not, he did not expect it to be publicized which is revealing. one night to very shortly after the convention, he came back to springfield. conscious of the crushing responsibilities, he left to the -- he is left the -- he left

the executive mansion one night by himself without guard and walked to jackson and eighth street, knock on the door. the custodian recognized him. it was not then a national historic site. he let him in. he sat by himself in the lincoln parlor for some period reflecting. meditating on a man who had confronted him with greater responsibilities a few years earlier. the interesting thing about that story is not only that it happened but that adlai stevenson did not publicize it. he did not expect anyone to know about that story. is that accurate? >> none of us knew about it until years later. i read this and said is it true? he did not talk about it. >> you have to understand. this story -- it goes back to five generations. i tried it to record it. american politics and history as

we knew at -- he was lincoln's patron. he was a constant presence in this family. lincoln was an inspiration. woodrow wilson, former president of princeton. my father was a graduate of princeton. wilson was an influence also. the enlightened internationalism of wilson heavily influenced my father. lincoln, who might never have been president without the lincoln douglas debates, lincoln was an inspiration and a presence in this family. >> our next call for our guest talking about adlai stevenson comes from oak island, california. -- north carolina.

jimmy please go ahead. >> thank you for taking my call. i am a world war ii veteran who was part of the eisenhower army. i did not feel like at the time -- i was from north carolina at which you could see it was one of the blue states for adlai stevenson both times. we felt that adlai stevenson was a politician and more able to handle the political things. eisenhower was more of a military person. even though times were good, i was wondering what do you think -- how what the united states -- how would the united states had changed in that eight years if adlai stevenson had been president rather than dwight eisenhower? >> senator stevenson. let's start with you.

>> dwight eisenhower has been quoted and recently by a member of his family as saying that if he had known adlai stevenson was to be the democratic candidate, he would not have run for president. i think on the large international issues, there was probably not a good deal of difference between them. one thing my father really felt strongly about richard nixon, he was loath just about by everybody in washington. his strength was at the grass roots. after that incident and -- after the checkers speech and eisenhower's retention of richard nixon on the ticket, i think that caused some doubts in his mind about eisenhower.

he respected eisenhower. my father was such a figure in the world that john fosterdulles reluctantly made him an ambassador of the eisenhower administration so that in his travels run the world he could -- throughout the world he could efficiently represent the united states. a difference between the democratic ex -- the democrats and eisenhower winning the of -- wing of the the party were the taft wing. -- republican party or the taft wing. if my father had been a president, you probably but have had the new frontier and the great society accelerated. medicare, federal aid to education, other social programs might have taken effect earlier. as it was, much of it did not take affect until after the assassination of kennedy when

johnson very shortly -- i -- very shrewdly -- i remember consulting my father. what is your advice? my father was taken back. he was very flattered. he said, i guess you should take some time now to put your program and administration together. he said, this is my moment. within 100 days, the program was through congress. he knew timing. he was a real politician. that program had been developing since the 1952 campaign. it might have been accelerated a little had my father won in 1952 were 1956. -- or at 1956. >> i think he has it exactly right, but i would add one thing. because adlai stevenson was so committed to getting rid of

nuclear war, i think we might have had faster progress than actually occurred later in dealing with the russians and dealing with nuclear disarmament. i think that was such a passionate belief that i think he would have given much more attention and persuasion to it then occurred. -- than occurred. i think also we would have had more friends throughout the world then we ended up with at that time. >> it is interesting. it is hard to imagine -- that is what we are doing. we are imaginings. it is hard to imagine president stevenson sending not playing on -- sending that u-2 plane on the eve of a great summit. one more thing. i do think they had respect for

each other. i think they also learned to discover the weaknesses of one another. i suspect eisenhower over time grew rather resentful of the implication that stevenson was the only word smith -- the only great eloquence to persuader in -- eloquent persuader in american politics. he once said that if words are all that matter, the american people could vote for ernest hemingway for president. i think that was a criticism of stevenson. >> next call for our three guest calls from portland, oregon. >> thank you for taking my call. in 1962, i was a high school kid living in a republican house will. but in the 1956 i had spent the time as an intern and was fixed forever. i remember there was a disappointment at the convention because there was not a contest that there had been in 1952.

i was wondering if you could elaborate on how the decision was made to throw it open to the convention whether it was for everybody to have a good time or whether it was at least in part to be able to dodge the animosity of all of the candidates who did not get it. >> if you could start and then senator stevenson, we want to hear about your role. >> i think adlai stevenson felt he had seen it firsthand how the vice president was picked in 1952. it was so casually done. he realized it needed much more attention. he was also under a lot of pressure. he was fond of the hubert humphrey. he did not like keith laufer even though he had been in the primaries. he fought jack kennedy -- he thought jack kennedy was very promising but very young and too inexperienced.

he decided it would give a lot of excitement to the convention which had been pretty much pre arranged as to his own nomination. he decided to open it up. i think it turned out to be as he predicted. it turned out to be an exciting contest. it introduced jack kennedy to the country. there were a lot of big things for it. >> the outcome of the presidential balloting was a foregone conclusion. to create some excitement, he decided to throw out the -- throw open the balloting for vice president. quietly, we were all rooting for john f. kennedy. my father adored hubert humphrey.

i remember at the state house and the convention when the balloting was seesawing for vice president and kennedy was running downstairs to kennedy's suites or the brother-in-law was -- where sergeant shriver's brother and law was guarding the door, running in jack kennedy was pulling up his trousers. he shook his hand and congratulated him. by the time i got back up to my father's suite, i saw him lose. all of us were rooting to jack kennedy. this brought kennedy to the nation's attention. it also despaired him being involved in the failed campaign for president and vice- president. >> let's move four years ahead it to the 1960 democratic convention in los angeles. senator stevens, how would you describe the relationship between your father and jack kennedy in 1960?

>> i think the relationship between my father and jack kennedy was close. i know my father respected kennedy. i believe it was mutual. there was a circle or very protective circle around john f. kennedy, which is always fearful and resentful. in this case, concern that stevenson was a threat. people were pouring in from across the country. by the tens of thousands. they were literally hammering on the doors on the convention to demand another nomination for their candidates. eleanor roosevelt was there. mccarthy gave a brilliant nominating address for stevenson. this caused a little anxiety in the kennedy camp. it probably cost a little --

cost a little interest -- thought on my father's part that may be if things deadlocked he could still win the nomination. he had felt that as a leader of the party and as royalty, -- -- out of loyalty to eleanor roosevelt -- loyalty he should be neutral. the former secretary of labor who was also involved in state administration told me he was in my father's suite on the eve of the balloting. my father said when bobby kennedy calls, tell him i have gone to bed and i have left instructions not to be woken. sure enough bobby kennedy calls. he said i have to talk to the governor. you just tell him, this is his last chance. he better talk to me or he won't be secretary of state. he responded, i am sorry, but he has instructed me to tell you that he has gone to bed.

that was the end of any chances for secretary of state. it signifies something about the relationship not with jack kennedy but the very protective circle around jack kennedy. that would come back to create other problems like during the cuban missile crisis when my father was vilified. >> we are to get to that in just a minute. we are born to play two minutes of video here. we will start at the 1960 convention. adlai stevenson at the podium. here it is. >> i wanted to tell you how grateful i am for this moving welcome of the 1960 democratic -- tumultuous and moving welcome to the 1962 democratic convention. [applause]

i have an observation. after getting in and out of the hotel and at this hall, i decided i know who you will nominate. it will be the last survivor. [applause] >> the details of my participation have not been worked out, but i would drive the campaign where he wanted me to. i suspect that will be in the west and the east and everywhere in between. i hope so. >> what would you do about it? how would you go about it? >> i hope by the participation in the campaign i have not had much doubt that they would support the ticket. i hope they will supported --

support it vigorously in the same manner that i did. >> i hope it will fall you as vigorously as you did in los angeles. >> i hope it will fall you as vigorously as they follow me at los angeles. >> we saw a little bit from the convention. and we saw a press conference after jfk got the nomination. >> i have the most extraordinary experience i had involving both adlai stevenson and jack kennedy was on may 29, 1960. it was jack kennedy's birthday. it was the day after the last primary in oregon. jack kennedy was flying from oregon to a family birthday party. bill blair, our law partner, had suggested that he stopped in chicago. bill and i would pick him up and drive him here to the farm.

he would have lunch with adlai stevenson. we were hoping -- bill and i had both concluded it was adlai stevenson impossible adlai to be nominated again. we were hoping it would come to some terms and adlai stevenson would support kennedy. we got in the car and drove out there. bill was driving, jack was in the front seat, i was in the back seat. jack kennedy said, the you think i should talk to him about secretary of state? bill was smarter than i was, he did not say anything. i cannot stand the silence. i said, i would not do that if i were you. he looked at me and said, why? i said, adlai stevenson will be offended. second, you should decide yourself you want if you are elected. came out here and adlai and

nancy were here. they manage to get the two of them alone in the study. the minute they came out i could see it had not gone well. we were getting back in the car to go back. i was dying of curiosity. i said, jack, did you say something about secretary of state? he looked at me with those eyes and said, you told me not to. i thought, what have i done? as soon as i got home i called him and i told him the entire thing from beginning to end. he said you did the right thing. i would have been very offended. besides, he should decide who he wants. then i decided i'd better try the kennedys. i called and they said jack had not arrived yet. i told bob exactly what i told adlai stevenson. i felt i had a clean conscience

and had not screwed it up. >> can i ask you a question. we saw that clip with the rather lame joke that stevenson said from the podium at a moment of maximum suspense. it was written that it was almost stevenson's moment and he threw it away. he was in a position with the right to remarks to have taken the convention a way. is that unrealistic? was that convention jack kennedy's no matter what happened? can you see a scenario in which stevenson at the peak of his form might have said something -- i have said something on fire? -- might have upset something on fire. >> i think he knew it was not going to happen. they told him the illinois delegates were going to vote for kennedy.

i think he knew at that point. we will see what adlai says if he agrees with me. i have always thought that's mccarthy's speech was insincere. i thought he was working for lyndon johnson because he had never been that close to governor stevenson. i had just finished reading jackie kennedy's tapes, and she said jack kennedy said the same thing. there were two people who thought that mccarthy was making that -- >> i don't think that what to attribute that motive to mccarthy. the gossip i hate to repeat at the time was that he was jealous of jack was because it was that catholic instead of this catholic getting the nomination. i think that is unworthy of mccarthy. number one, my father would have resented it.

i don't think there was a chance of the convention of him winning the nomination. he had encouraged everybody to go out and support candidates of their choice including richard j. daley of illinois. the illinois delegation was pledged to john f. kennedy. you make a pledge, you don't make it -- you don't break it. the domination was sewed up. -- the nomination was sewed up. there was a lot of tension. there was a lot of dynamism in the works. after the convention, my father campaigned strenuously. he campaigned all over the country for john f. kennedy. --by kennedy's first of the first stop on the campaign trail was right here at the home where we had a great rally on the lawn for bobby kennedy. >> now, he referred it to jackie kennedy's new book put

out called historic conversations on life with jfk. there were some audiotapes attached to this. she talked shortly after the assassination. they were just released. here is jackie kennedy talking about adlai stevenson and jfk. >> telling you he had to have the un. i could remember jack telling me about that. >> did that give him a lot of difficulty? >> it was unpleasant. he did not like it. he was not going to give him the state department. at the earliest times a we spoke of it, you new governor stevenson would get the un -- not state which he wanted.

it is unpleasant to tell somebody that. i remember their conference on the doorstep was rather vague. stevens said he did not have anything to say or something funny. >> why do you think he decided not to have stevenson for state? >> it was not just bitterness. look at all the people jack took who had been a against him and for someone else. they knew he felt that man had a real disease of being done able to make up his mind. stevenson irritated him. i don't think he could have him coming in every day and complaining about something as secretary of state. it would have been a difficult relationship. >> senator stevenson -- can we get your reaction? >> unfortunately, i really could not hear it. i knew jackie kennedy. i can tell you that i don't think she was political at all.

in fact, she was a very artistic woman. she was an intellectual who used to leave washington on weekends which were sometimes spent at bobby's, playing football. she was not athletic. she would go to new york note with my father. -- to go to the theater with my father. from what i could see they had a very good relationship. he gave her and escapes from washington. i have heard about these comments -- not just these, but all of her comments that are critical just about of anybody. i do not know what kind of credibility to place on that. from what i could see, her relationship with my father was very good. in some ways, they were closer than some of the kennedys.

>> could you hear the audio tape and jackie kennedy? >> i was with adlai stevenson and jackie sometimes. i think they had a very good relationship. >> what about jfk and adlai stevenson >> i had a very important experience about that. i had a very minor role in the cuban missile crisis. i was involved a little bit. when it was over, there was an article in the saturday evening post written by charlie bartlett. -- and steart alsup. -- stewart alsup. in it there were some critical

comments not attributed to any single person a bout what adlai stevenson had proposed which is actually what the united states did. we had closed our missile headquarters in turkey and greece in exchange for a bargain that was reached by cuba. it was critical and i knew that adlai stevenson was upset about it. early one day the president called me at home. he said, will you tell your leader that i did not leak that story. there is a rumor around that i like it. -- that i am the one who leaked it. tell him i did not leak it. i called the governor and i had his number. i got him on the phone in five seconds. he picked up the phone. he said i cannot talk to you now. i am on my way to "the today show" to be interviewed. i said give me one second. the president just called me

and told me to tell you he did not leak that story. the governor did not say anything. 50 minutes later i turn on the show and he did jfk holy about -- he gave jfk holy hell about the episode and got it off his chest. later jfk wrote him a letter apologizing saying he did not do it but he made it clear that what adlai stevenson contributed to the cuban missile crisis solution was indispensable. >> we have about 25 minutes left and our callers have been patient. damascus, maryland. bill, thank you for calling. please go ahead. >> can you elaborate on the influence of richard j. daley, the mayor of chicago. the influence he had on stevenson's rise in illinois politics.

>> senator stevenson, can we start with you? >> it is the other way around. my father got richard j. daley started in politics. as i mentioned earlier, my father recruited these extraordinary professionals. they came without the endorsements of political leaders and campaign contributors. there was one partial expression -- one partial exception and that was richard j. daley who had been a state senator. he may be did have the endorsement of the cook county chairman. he served with great distinction and my father's cabinet as director of the department of revenue. he really was a pretty straight cabinet officer. later my father supported richard j. daley when he contested for mayor of chicago against an incumbent mayor of that city. this is incredible.

the governor of the state siding with a challenger to be incumbent governor. my father had a lot to do with the rise of richard j. daley. it was not the other way around at all. >> washington, d.c., go ahead, dave. we are talking about adlai's stevenson here on "the contenders." >> hello. i just want to tell a story -- >> hi, congressman. how are you? >> does everyone know former congressman dave obie? >> i just want to tell a story about adlai stevenson in the 1960 campaign. i was a student at the university of wisconsin. adlai stevenson had come to madison to give a speech about the civil war roundtable. afterward he was scheduled to appear with the governor at the old park hotel. we had a large crop of democrats gather.

they were over one hour late and the crowd was very restive. finally, adlai stevenson was ushered up to the front of the room. he said, sorry we were so late. there were a lot of questions that the civil war roundtable. i have to get the governor over to bed. -- over to the mansion and get him to bed. he has a long day tomorrow. i will give one of my typically short speeches. adlai stevenson butted in and said, i will give one of my typically long ones. he said, you do it and i will leave without you. adlai stevenson said go ahead, see who the crowd follows. the crowd erupted in laughter. i think adlai stevenson -- it shows adlai stevenson was on his feet and how clever he could be in making the audience feel good about it. he was my hero. >> a lot of talk this evening about the fact that adlai

stevenson was the architect of the later great society. would you agree with that? >> i think he certainly defined in the 1956 campaign what most of the issues later became of what to the democratic party ran on and stood on for years. he set the agenda for the coming decade in that campaign. >> that was congressman dave obey. we did not know he was going to call. a longtime congressman from wisconsin. thank you for calling. richard, hello. richard? >> thank you for letting me call. i am the author of a book about eleanor roosevelt and adlai stevenson published just last year. i would like to relay one of the anecdotes from the campaign trail. it was a favorite of the campaign team.

this is about a gentleman who came to him and said, "mr. stevenson, your speech was absolutely superfluous." to which he replied, "i was thinking about having it published posthumously." he said, "the sooner the better." [laughter] officeare in your dad's over there. there are a set of books of his speeches. they were best sellers, correct? >> yes. incidently, my own book is here. a black book which i tried to record a american politics as we knew it over those five generations including the humor which enriched our politics and could be used to very good defect.

-- very good effect. you could use it to denigrate an opponent without being mean spirited. the memories and the experience i try to record over these five generation starting with lincoln and ending in china and an epilogue on the life cycle of nations and empires is aimed to recall what we are doing tonight, the values that created this country and contrast them with those that are undermining it today. >> we talk a little bit about this. richard norton smith, i want to get your reaction. the cuban missile crisis, adlai stevenson was u.s. ambassador to the united nations. >> it did not happen in a vacuum. one year earlier, talk about the strained relationship with the white house. the kennedy administration had put this ambassador in a bad position. one year later, one year and a

half later in the fall of 1962, you have a situation in which we have irrefutable evidence that the soviets are in fact installing offensive nuclear missiles on castro's cuba. what transpires is a great paradox. i cannot think of a less sound bite political figure it then adlai stevenson. if you go on youtube to that he is immortalized by one of the great sound bites of the 20th century. >> we will listen to it right now. >> let me ask you one simple question. do you the night that the -- deny that the u.s.s.r. has placed and is placing medium and intermediate range sites and missiles in cuba? yes or no. don't wait for the translation, yes or no?

[laughter] >> mr. stephenson, will you continue your statement please. you will receive the answer in due course, do not worry. [laughter] >> i am prepared to wait for your answer until hell freezes over if that is your decision. >> richard norton smith. >> one of the great sound bites of the 20th century. afterwards, one of the kennedys -- maybe it was the president or bobby -- he was allegedly to have said, i did not know he had in him. >> that is true. >> you mentioned the bay of pigs earlier.

he was fed a great deal of misinformation which he relayed to the security council. it came out this information was false. he felt very embarrassed. it was the kennedy administration that was embarrassed. nobody doubted my father's integrity. the bay of pigs proposal by the kennedy administration was exactly what my father had proposed, mainly trading off obsolete bases in turkey for withdrawal of the missiles. the kennedy administration insisted on keeping the deal secret. my father did not want it to be secret because he did not want to embarrass khrushchev. he wanted to give them an opportunity to retreat. that did not happen. khrushchev was embarrassed just as my father feared. he fell. he was succeeded by a group from which he emerged brezhnev and the hard-liners and the cold war escalated.

the kennedy administration had to be tough instead of compromising and giving crucial of an easy way out. -- khrushchev an easy way out. >> one of the goals of "the contenders" is to figure out how they changed their parties and american politics. after we take this call we will move into the topic area. roots town, ohioplease go ahead. >> thank you for having me i was just curious as to whether or not you have heard of an organization -- if adlai stevenson had ever attended the conference before? >> thank you for your call. go ahead. >> this adlai stevenson has got to a bill gerber conference. i don't know about my father. i don't know how far back echoes. -- that goes. i don't know what the implications are. bill barber conferences were

occasional meetings of very senior meetings at which they got together to discuss problems facing the world. there was nothing sinister about them. this adlai stevenson has been to a couple. i don't know if my father has or if they even existed. >> we are here in the stevenson barn. center stevenson is over in his father's study. there is a new exhibit about adlai stevenson. there is a photo that we looked at before this started. this was in 1945 -- the you information. the un -- of the un formation. you remember that photo around the table. >> i do. i don't have it in front of me so i am not sure. you have john foster dulles, you have governor stevenson, nelson rockefeller.

you have the secretary of state who was about to be fired. >> was adlai stevenson's role in the founding of the un? >> do you want to take that? it had to do with a proprietary concepts. >> he was also a delegate to the conference in san francisco. the united nations was adopted or approved. but by 1945, we were living in london where he was the u.s. delegate to the commission which laid the foundation -- and actually started putting the building blocks together including the location in new york. he represented the united states at the commission were

great men from all over europe and canada, they used to assemble at our home at night because we had access to the commissary. an extraordinary group of people. he was in on the birth of the united nations. incidentally, he died 20 years later just a couple of blocks from our home in london in 1945. i was 65 and is still serving the united nations and his country. >> we want to talk about adlai stevenson and his effect on the democratic party. here he is in 1952 talking about the democratic party kurt >> i -- talking about the democratic party. >> by -- by have been hardened by the conduct of this convention. you have argued and disagreed because as democrats to care and do care deeply. but you have disagreed and

argued without calling each other liars and thieves, without spoiling our best traditions. [applause] you have not support our best -- you have not spoiled our best traditions and any struggles for power. you have written as a platform that neither contradicts nor evades. you have restated our party's record. its principles and its purposes and languages that none can mistake. nor am i afraid that the democratic party is old and fat. after 150 years, it has been old for a long time. it will never be indolent as long as it looks forward and not back. as long as it commands the young -- the allegiance of the young and the hopeful during the dreams and see the visions of a better america and a better world. you will see many people express concern about the

continuation of one party in power for 20 years. i don't to be little this attitude. but change for the sake of change has no absolute merit in itself. the people are wise -- wiser than the republicans think. the democratic party is the people's party. not the labor party. not the employers party. and not the farmer's party. it is the party of nobody because it is the party of everybody. -- it is the party of no one because it is the party of everyone. [applause] >> i think adlai stevenson's contest tradition to everybody -- contribution to the country -- he hoped campaigns would educate people and he succeeded. he succeeded in teaching all of us that politics was something all of the should be involved i

-- all of us should be at involved in. i recently that the governor of indiana mitch daniels. i said, i am sorry you are not running for the presidency. he said, why do you say that? i know you are a democrat. i said i learned from my boss adlai stevenson that the best people in both parties should run, not the worst people. i believe that. i think adlai stevenson taught that to all of us. i think that is a legacy to be extremely grateful for. his contribution is enduring today. >> i think historically he is a bridge between the new deal and the new frontier. he holds the banner of liberalism in the 1950's -- a difficult era. it is an interesting brand of liberalism. he believes in american exceptional was on every bit as -- american exceptional isn't

every bit as many of the right to do today. it was an exceptional was some debt was about ideas and ideals. it was leading by example. it was not an exception allows ism some enforced' by military force. he brought a whole generation of young people who were inspired by his words, his example, his approach, his very unorthodox approach to politics. >> we only have a few minutes left. carrie joe from minnesota, we want to hear from you. >> in 1952, i was 13 years old. i was privileged to meet adlai stevenson. he came to the hotel where my mom and dad owned the hotel. i was privileged to wait tables on him. we kids grew up at the hotel. after meeting him, i admired him the rest of my life.

i am now 72-years old. i am still just so admiringly this wonderful democratic person. i am so thrilled that he was a man of morality and he was a band that fought for the working people. we need more adlai stevensons in this world right now. i am just so happy that i met him. >> thank you for that call. let's let you talk to an adlai stevenson. senator? >> the question we are left with is, is an adlai stevenson possible today in this money drenched, corrupt, dysfunctional politics? would he even compete?

could he compete for president of the united states going from stand it to stand, raising money for jingles on television, the half-hour blocks of time would be impossible. i am not sure he would be possible today, lead and -- let alone a franklin roosevelt. it would not have been physically possible for him. that is why we have created the stevenson center to try to address these systemic weaknesses that might make an adlai stevenson possible. we try as i do in my book to recall all of these lawyers and -- of these values, this history that created this country and contrast them with our politics today. can a politics as corrupt as ours be expected to purify? reform itself? i think that is the issue we are left with.

i don't worry about the american people. i have enormous faith in the american people. we are left with a process that represents everybody else. >> senator stevenson, if you have to go to a store or show your name, do people react? >> some of the old folks -- i was in the store. i was in a store the other day and i saw a young woman looking at my credit card. she was looking at my name. i said, is that name familiar to you? she said, no, but it is cool. i think we are forgotten. i think our politics are largely forgotten as well. this has been a wonderful program to be able to recall other politics. -- another politics, another american. >> please go ahead with your question or comment. >> i would like to ask the group to reflect on an event late in the governor's life.

i recently reviewed several hours of the events of november 22, 1963. throughout that afternoon walter cronkite continuously referred to adlai stevenson visiting dallas a few weeks earlier and being accosted and warning the president not to go there. i researched that and it seemed an airport event -- a woman struck governor stevenson over the head with a placard. it seemed a little bit more than that. i'm wondering if the panel can reflect on that. any regrets from the governor not stressing the -- >> you talked about this earlier. >> very briefly. he had gone to dallas for a united nation event and had

been confronted by some angry people including the woman with a sign. i think he was spat upon and he was struck. he left with a vivid sense of potential dangers that the president might encounter. >> did he call the president and warn him, or was that just a thought? >> i don't know the answer to that. i am sorry. >> senator stevenson, you know the answer? >> my recollection is -- somebody said he was asked if he wanted this woman prosecuted. he said, no, i want her educated. my recollection is that he did not warn the white house. he deeply, deeply regretted it afterwards that he had not.

i am sure had he called and described this experience it would have had no effect. he felt very guilty for not having done more or anything to try to prevent the president from going to dallas. >> we have time for one more call. i want you to think about, what have we not talked about tonight that we needed to bring out. think about that. we will take this call from philip in fort worth, texas. >> good evening. this is one of the great series that c-span has done. i appreciate it. i grew up in the 1960 election -- i was 12 years old. i was just becoming politically aware. i grew up during the 1950's. while i am a conservative and have always been so, i doubt mr. stephenson and i would have agreed on much, i have been exposed to his speeches, his rhetoric, and a lot of things he said. i am of the opinion that he is

one of the last really great political speechmakers in our age. we were speaking a moment ago about jingles and things like that. i saw him making the speech, he was taking some of it from his notes in the pre teleprompter days. it was not coming off of the paper. he knew what he was saying. it was coming from his heart. i always admired his speechmaking abilities. i just don't see that in our political process today. he had something to say. he took a little time to say it at times. he was a man who knew what he wanted to say and said it well. >> he took great effort in those speeches. he worked on those speeches himself hour after hour. he was criticized by politicians for spending so much time on the speeches. in some ways, that is his legacy. as we wind up the program,

>> as we wind up the program, i have to say one of the biggest surprises in my life was when he died so suddenly. they called to tell me that he and i were co executors' of his will. that was to me a very touching thing of our relationship. but i think as we wind up program, even though he did not win, he won the hearts of the millions of americans and a great place in history. he raised the standards. >> the thing i wanted to ask senator stevenson, at the end of his life, it has become almost folk art that embassador

stevenson was seriously contemplating resigning from the united nations, and courage to do so by his liberal friends -- encouraged to do so by his liberal friends who were opposed to lbj's policies. i was wondering what his sense was of his dad's intent. >> yes, i think these labels can be very misleading. used to call my father conservative. what he had was integrity. he was a creature of reason. we're not really right, left, we were for the country, products of the enlightenment ideology. but to your point, i did hear from a very, very, very close

friend that he was planning to resign from the united nations at the end of the year, largely because he was very uncomfortable advocating policies he did not support, and by that i mean the vietnam. he, of course, died in june of 1965, july of 1965, before a could resign, but i think he was planning to resign, quietly, no protest. that would not be his way at all. but because he cannot really continue to advocate policies he could not support. >> that will have to be the last word. adlai stevenson ii is buried in

bloomington, illinois. adlai stevenson iii, thank you for joining us. this has ben "the contenders." >> i say the people trust their good sense, fortitude, faith. trust them with the great decisions. i say it is time to take this government away from men who only know how to count, and turn it back to men and women who care. >> "the contenders" returns live next friday. we will be at the goldwater institute in phoenix to talk about the presidential campaign of barry goldwater. that is live at 8:00 p.m. eastern, through december 9, on c-span. watch tonight's program on adlai stevenson again at 10:30 a.m.

eastern. for more information, go to our website, c-span.org. you'll find a schedule, biographies, speeches, and historians appraisals. >> this is the formal part, going out for declaration of candidacy which have been completed, except for your signature. >> all we need is the signature on that. you got that. >> and this is the slogan or, you may want to leave this. we do this every four years. >> well, you have a great secretary of state. we appreciate your leadership. it is a responsibility and

honor, which new hampshire richly deserves. i am happy part of the process and put my name on this paper. i am hoping that this time it will take. >> the new hampshire primary is now set for january 10. follow campaign 2012 online, with the c-span video library. click on the tab to access the candidates and events, all searchable, share rubble, and free. >> i think reading the right books is helpful. but reading the wrong book can be educational as well. it is like a bad movie. it is good to be -- it is good to see what can be done wrong. >> stacy schiff has won a pulitzer prize and has spent time at simon and schuster.

>> i think it is good for exciting new authors to publish. there should be hope for what has yet to be done. >> that is sunday night. >> the economy added 80,000 new jobs and the unemployment rate dropped to 9% in october, according to new numbers this morning. next, a look at those numbers with kevin brady and keith all. this is almost one hour. -- kevin brady and keith hall. this is almost one hour. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> let me reopen with a few statements. first of all, chairman casey could not be here. i am pleased to stand in for him this morning. i would like to welcome a

commissioner hall and jack taliban who is joining commissioner hopper at the table for the first time today. thank you for being here. he previously served as a commissioner for employment from 1998 to 2011 in other senior positions at the bureau of labor and statistics. we have got several reports including today's employment report which has shown a mixed economic picture. the data are better than a few months ago but not strong enough to bring down the employment -- unemployment rate. the 2.5% increase in gross domestic product was stronger than the growth during the first half of the year, showing movement in the appropriate direction.

real disposable income declined in the third quarter indicating that consumers are continuing to feel the pressure of stagnant wages. the manufacturing index of 50.8% marks the 27th consecutive month of expansion in the manufacturing sector. but in the sector, so important, decelerated from september. as today's employment numbers show, a the economic growth is not strong enough to make headway, cutting into the unemployment rate. more than nine quarters into the recovery, unemployment remains at 9%. more than 42% of the unemployed have been out of work for six months or more. we need to move from the

discussion of the jobs act to passing legislation that will help create jobs and strengthen the economy. before i turn to the reports, i want to highlight a few actions to bolster the economy. we should provide new incentives for small firms to hire. chairman casey has introduced legislation to create a one year tax credit equal to 20% of the increase in employee wages. we should extend and expand the payroll tax cuts which is set to expire at the end of the year. this will boost demand, and strengthen our economy. we must support our state and local governments which have been forced to lay off hundreds of thousands of workers including teachers and first responders. the house should take up

legislation already passed by this legislation to crack down on china's currency manipulation. we need to support manufacturing companies and workers in our country. there are a number of other things we could say but i want to wrap it up and ask mr. brady for a statement. >> commissioner hall, thank you for spending your morning with us as we you review the employment situation. u.s. have the job of bearing bad news. many americans have system -- sought a sustained recovery. we do not shoot the messenger in washington. i would like to begin with hope for our economy is following in anemic growth.

its crew and an annual rate of 2.5% in the third quarter. the economy is marginally larger than it was when the recession began december 2007. unfortunately, the outlook looks ripe -- less rosy. the balance of this year and next has been lowered by the fed as well as economic organizations. the turbulence for a potential crisis could precipitate a double dip recession. it is a threat to which could have been afforded at four economic policies from the white house not resulted in a slow recovery. equally troubling is this jobless recovery. after the recession ended, there are 6.4 million fewer jobs than when the recession began. 5 million americans are

unemployed. the present policies are not working. by comparison, the reagan expansion which followed a 1981 recession outperformed the obama economy biometrics including economic growth and job creation. the differences the reagan expansion happened in an environment that encouraged americans to work and save. president reagan worked favorably. in contrast economy now confronts policy had wins. every step of the way, president obama and democrats have increased uncertainty. the americans and american businesses face. this has discouraged businesses from making investment that would create millions of jobs and cause a rapid fall in the unemployment rate.

instead, they should create a political environment to incentivize people and businesses to invest. then they should get out of the way. this is the first hearing since president obama proposal would require new borrowing from foreign entities, creating debt for future generations of working americans. the stimulus is not paid for. it will add billions more to the national debt and is wrongly focused on tape -- creating taxpayer-funded jobs. the first stimulus failed. we still have 1.3 million fewer american jobs than when the original stimulus began. that is 1.3 fewer americans working than when the stimulus began. and now is enough. americans deserve a fresh start.

americans need to grow jobs. private business investment drives the job growth. businesses make investments based on the outlook for the long term. the proposal seeks to spur investment with temporary reductions and does not encourage businesses to increase their investments. rather than taking more, our nation craves a simple tax code that increases the incentives for americans to work and save and to invest. this requires a permanent reduction of both capital -- it should help and not hinder american businesses who wants to invest. as i have proposed, washington should lower the tax date and

allow firms competing successfully overseas to bring home their profits better stranded abroad so they can invest in america. new expansions and financial stability. repatriation is be free market stimulus of nearly one trillion dollars that will create up to 3 million jobs, increase federal tax revenue, and boost the economy between 1% and 4%. that is the stimulus we can get a high. i urge president obama to join republicans in supporting a bipartisan tax reform their results in a permanent reduction in the tax rate. i have seen the benefit of such a plan. for senator kennedy and then reagan. they trusted the american people. they put their faith in the marketplace which is nothing

more than the judgment of the american people as to where to invest. this fuelled the economic booms of the 1960's and 1980's. they spawned a new industries and kept our nation first in research and development, president obama has a real chance to be a game changer. all he need do is follow his presence at -- price -- predecessors. work ready and willing to to create real jobs along the main streets across america. i look forward to hearing your testimony. >> commissioner hall, and thank you a very much.

it collects, processes, and disseminates data to the american public. other federal agencies, state and local governments and labor. doctor hall served as chief economist for the white house council of economic divisors for two years under george w. bush. he was also the chief economist for the department of commerce. he also spent 10 years at the u.s. international trade commission. he received his degree from the university of virginia, and his ph.d. in economics from purdue university.

>> thank you. put that thing closer to your -- yeah. put it -- [no audio] do the best you can. [inaudible]

[inaudible] -- and in management consulting services. employment continued to trend up over the month. since the recent flow, the industry has added 344,000 jobs. health-care employment edged up in october following a gain of 45,000. the increase of 29,000 was in line with the recent trend. construction employment was down by 20,000 in october of setting a gain in the prior month. other industries changed in october.

the government continue to trend down. state government lost 16,000 jobs over the month. employment in state and local governments have fallen since the second half of 2008. turning now to measures of our survey, the unemployment rate was unchanged at 9%. the jobless rate has held from 9% since april. in october, there were 13.9 million unemployed persons. little changed from the prior month. the number of persons jobless for 27 weeks declined to 5.9 million or 42% of the unemployed.

there we go. i knew there must be a switch. the ratio at 58.4% was little changed. those working part-time for economic reasons fell to 8.9 million. the labor force participation and 64% was unchanged over the month. in 2011, the participation rate was at 54%. outside the labour force, people looking for work, the number of discouraged workers was down from 1.2000001 year earlier. non-farm payroll employment continue to trend up. the unemployment rate was little changed. my colleagues an ironclad to answer your questions. >> anything else?

>> how would you characterize the state of the labour market today? >> the first thing -- there is continued job growth. since the labor market trough in february 2010, we have had continuous growth if you take out the temporary effects of the consensus workers being hired and fired. we have had steady growth. it has not been strong. my best characterization is that we seem to be growing at about 125,000 a month.

that is growth but it is not enough to start making headway. it is close to keeping up with the population which means it is not strong enough to start lowering the unemployment rate. >> as we know, prior to losing jobs, the manufacturing sector had added jobs for nine straight months and has been a source of strength for the recovery. in your view, how important is the manufacturing sector to employment in other sectors? why'd you believe the growth has slowed or stopped in recent months in manufacturing? is it typical to see strong growth in a couple of months where there is no growth and then a resumption of the earlier?

>> the manufacturing sector has strong links to other sectors. in particular, if you look at wholesale trade, management of companies, services to businesses, a truck transportation, those are probably the top industries related to manufacturing. this importance goes beyond manufacturing. i am not sure i can tell you why growth has stopped. it did start to pick up again this month. i think the more remarkable thing is that it has been growing at all. job loss in manufacturing has not recovered at all. the fact that we have had some growth is encouraging. in terms of the fluctuation of growth, that is not uncommon. in any industry.

i think what you're seeing is some variation in the growth. it is not strong but it is consistent. >> the fact of the matter is the growth is slow. it is that 9%. there are things i could be done, that should be done to try to stimulate the economy. if you look at different sectors, we are now more than two years into the recovery. unemployment is too high. during the recession, construction and manufacturing were hard hit while education and health services added jobs throughout the recession in every month but one, march. in the past year, what are the sectors that face weakness in employment?

have any showed a new strength in the past year? >> government employment. it has dropped over 300,000 jobs, split between state and local government. a number of other industries have had little growth or a little job loss. for example, utilities, information services, construction and other services. those are all industries that have had flat over the past year. the industries with the biggest growth, professional and business services. education and health services as you mentioned. that has grown by 400,000. then in places like

manufacturing, a couple hundred jobs. the leisure and hospitality. the strong growth is not widespread but a number of industries have had -- we are having a little growth and a couple of industries. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. if you're one of the americans out of work, today's numbers are disheartening. the commissioner -- get this rate of 80,000, how long would it take for us to return to the unemployment level before the recession? >> never. to keep up with population

growth, you probably need 130,000 jobs. you're not even keeping up with population. over a long time, you might even see it edged back up. >> he made comments where we are averaging less than the 130,000. if we look at the past 12 months, the answer would still be we are never in going to get back to the point before the recession. >> that is right. >> can i ask you about the number of workers in the workforce? it has hurt his -- hit 3-year lows. -- 30-year lows. to expect that to continue? thend that's one of indicators of restoring the health economy? >> i would not want to speculate about -- it is a valid point.

the labor force is probably 4 million below what would be under normal times. to get growth, we're going to have to see confidence in the economy. we need to see the labor force start to grow -- grow again. >> i know the votes are coming, i would like to cut my time short. >> i always like to start with the good news. what are the bright spots in the report today? >> we do have a job growth and a few industries. we have manufacturing adding jobs, retail adding jobs,

education, leisure, hospitality. we have had a pickup and temporary help services. that very often as a leading indicator of a pickup in job growth, and for a little while, but job growth in temporary health services flattened out. that is good news. the unemployment rate was essentially unchanged, but it did move down a little bit. put a lot ofe i stock into that because it is a small change, but that could be encouraging sign. >> this recession in some way has been characterized as a man's recession because of the day losses in manufacturing and construction. i am worried about how these

employment gains for women during this recovery are doing, especially due to the losses in state and local government, which you mentioned. can you tell me how women are faring in the past two years during this recession? if you have the numbers, fine, if not, if he can get us the numbers. >> i can get you the numbers, but i can characterize it. this has been termed a man's recession, but women did lose a significant number of jobs, and that does not always happen. the last couple recessions, the employment by women did not go down much. the other end of that, in the recovery so far, it has been mostly men and the recovery, very few women re-employed in the recovery so far, for exactly the reason that you cite. women are generally over represented in government,

particularly local government, and they have strong representation in financial activities and that has not recovered. >> it has also been characterized as the credit recession. how is this different from other recessions? did other recessions have problems with access to credit? >> i think it is fair to say that the real depth of this recession, the life, has been very deep and long, due in large part to the credit markets. that is the way it appears to me. it that is what probably makes it a great recession has been the credit markets. >> did others have problems with access to credit?

>> not to the extent this has. >> and what would he said the cause was of this recession? >> i think in the early stages, it was what you might call a wealth effect. the people lost housing value and wealth, and that started to cause consumer demand to drop off, but it really got bad when the credit market locked up. once the credit markets locked up and businesses started having problems getting loans. >> said the financial crisis. >> yes. >> ok, thank you. >> we will take about five minutes for a vote on the floor. you have time to stay here a little while? >> sure, absolutely. >> ok, thank you very much.

>> thank you very much for waiting for us. that session of votes is over, but there is a new session coming up shortly. we want to thank you very much. , he hasow to aske interesting questions. >> have questions. i don't know if they're interesting or not. thank you.

commissioner hall, there's a lot of discussion about what life would have been like with or without whatever it is that we do. is it possible to estimate what the unemployment rate would have been without the stimulus program? >> generally what we do is reaction based. we are doing is trying to give the best picture for the economy is. our surveys are not really designed to give reasons for things from people, so there is really no way for us to collect data on what would have been without the stimulus. >> the cbo recently put out a report that said the unemployment rate would have been between three points to 12

point higher than what it is now. >> by know of the methodology they used. >> is it sound? >> it is sound in the sense that it is using a common methodology. what they are essentially doing is they're taking estimates of the impact things have had in the past, government spending has had in the past, and applying it to the current situation, doing it that way. the difficulty is that as a model estimate and it really is much based on the assumptions and views of how the economy works.

while the methodology is fairly standard, it is not really giving anything at like what we give with the employment numbers. >> if you take their numbers -- on% this morning? >> yes. >> so there say it would be 9.4%-10.2%. are there any set of circumstances or reasonable assumptions that anyone could say the unemployment rate would be 15% but for the stimulus program? is there any reasonable analysis that you would get to that number? >> i don't know. i don't want to characterize that. it is making assumptions that the economy was going to get a

lot worse than it did, a lot worse than anybody forecast ted. in that sense, it is a stretch. >> have you seen any scientific or intellectually backed studies that justify a claim that it would have been justified? >> is similar to what the cbo did, with a model and assumptions about what they believe would be the typical effect of government spending. >> have you seen any reputable studies which would lead you to believe or that show that the unemployment rate today would be 15% but for the stimulus program? >> no, but i have not looked. it was the cbo estimate that? >> no, that was mrs. pelosi's

office this morning. >> i have no idea. >> you have never heard of any study that would say that unemployment would be 50%? the real're focused on data. >> i am focused on the real data as well. i am just wondering if this had anything to do with real daddy. -- with that with real data. its outlook does not. -- it sounds like it does not. [no audio] >> we understand there are a lot of different theories as to why the labor market has been slow to recover. some point to the economic growth, some say is the economic uncertainty. others say there is too much

regulation. i saw a piece recently which referenced data on why business es carry out mass layoffs. interestingly enough, government regulation was listed as a reason. just 0.2% of the time the first half of 2011, just 8.2% of the time between 2010 and 2009. by contrast, lack of demand in particular was given as the reason for 29.7% of the layoffs, 30.6% in 2010, 39.1% in 2009. so other surveys by small spills -- small business groups get similar results. i am wondering, have you seen any data to suggest that

regulation is interfering with hiring? >> i am not sure our data addresses that. we collect the data if. we did not do a lot of things that would tell us why things happened. the study you are referring to it is based on the mass layoffs statistics program, and what we do is any time there are 50 unemployment claims over five weeks, we actually call that establishment and verify they've laid off 50 or more workers than a month. we defined that as a mass layoff. once we identify, was sent a questionnaire and ask why. the data you are quoting is from this program. with mass layoffs, we had about 18 mass layoffs in 2010.

at some of them cited government regulation as the reason. while that is true and that does give insight, something to keep in mind, it is only talking about mass layoff events. smaller events would not be captured there and there would be no effect of regulation on holding back job growth or something like that. this gives information. it is sort of limited. other than that, i did not think we have a lot that informs you about regulation or its impact on employment. >> so, nice to have you back. please. >> thank you. commissioner hall, you were talking a moment ago about the manufacturing sector and beginning to see some uptick and

influence of other sectors on the manufacturing sector. i am particularly interested in what is broadly characterized in mining, including oil field expansions, and some of the bright spots in the country are areas where domestic production of oil and natural gas has really come forward in a big way, literally in the last decade. do you have any thoughts out about the shell in north dakota, the barnett shell where i live, the effect the development of these areas has had a not just on the mining sector but the manufacturing sector? >> i do not know a lot about the specifics. i can tell you that the mining sector has been somewhat

recessionproof. but they continue to have job growth in mining through the recession, and this month we had about 5000 jobs in mining. it is not a big sector, not a lot of employment, but it has been supporting employment. in places like north dakota, they have the worst unemployment rate in the country, and that seems to be largely based on growth in mining employment. >> there are concerns about doing it properly and having all of the necessary environmental controls, and i don't disagree, but i will tell you in north texas, where there barnett shale is, we found out about the recession a year after it started.

it was probably a year later before it came into that part of texas that there was a problem. i now think the entire economy can recover on the strength of this one sector, but i agree that the numbers may be small, but i am certainly concerned of some of things i am seeing happen on the regulatory side happen that could be damaging. i think this has to be part of our recovery. last month, i didn't economic development summit. we had some business owners. we actually had the president of the dallas reserve bank talk to us. it it was fairly revealing, both

from dr. fisher -- those with the capacity to hire american workers, small-business as well as large, or not mobilize, not because they do not wish to grow or because they cannot access cheap and available credit, but they simply cannot budget or manage for the uncertainty of fiscal and regulatory pulsate -- fiscal and regulatory policy. is that a statement that you would agree with? >> i would like to not comment on that sort of thing. >> ok, i will, then. i think he is right on the mark. i think the bigger question up here, we are receiving numbers and the numbers today look better than they have perhaps in previous months, but by your own admission, at this rate of growth, to get back to pre-2008

levels, we're not going to get there. and three years into this administration, continuing to follow the trajectory, we do not get back to pre recession levels. i had some small business owners as part of that summit, and a tighthat kept talking about regulations. it is no great surprise that they are hunkered down because they did not know what the future will bring. i hope when we have these physicists in the future we have good news, but honestly i think we have mourned things to do on the regulatory end here. >> he mentioned this rate of 80,000 jobs, we literally will

never get back to pre recession levels. don't we need about a quarter million jobs per month to move down the unemployment rate, and then it will take a number of years, roughly two, three years at that heightened rate to really start to bring this down? >> i like the number of about a quarter million jobs to make headway. even at that rate, it would be more than three years. it may be longer than that. >> i want the economy to recover. i think the obama economy has been disheartening to people. we have to have a fresh start. recently, the senate majority leader harry reid made the comment that jobs on main street are doing fine, it is the government jobs he is worried about.

but i looked at your number's the past three years since the recession began and it appears we have lost more than 4 million jobs along main street and have lost a little less than 700,000 in government jobs. we have a chart that shows the difference. obviously, the private sector job loss has been considerably greater than that within government. that sort of fact checking those comments, is it accurate to say that in this recession, public- sector jobs will be hit harder by the downturn than the private sector jobs? >> no. i would say the private sector has been hit very hard in this recession. >> as we go forward, looking for a way to get out of this obama economy, is it not private sector job growth that has

traditionally brought us back into a more stable economy and create a sustainable recovery that we are all hoping for? >> absolutely, the private sector has most of the jobs. that is true. if you want to look at the help of the economy, look at the private sector job growth. >> thank you. we look forward to the day that you bring us good news. >> if follow up on what the vice chairman just said. a quarter million jobs per month is the goal, i think we all agree that more is better, that is sort of the target. how many times since january of 2009 as the economy created more than a quarter million jobs per month? i have only one in front of me, the spring of 2010, but my dad

does not go back to the beginning of this administration. how many times has the economy created more than a quarter million jobs in a month? >> i see two months, but to be honest, both of those months were one the census was hiring temporary workers. if you take those out, i am not sure that we had any months created at a quarter million jobs. >> since january, 2009, since the obama administration has taken over, we have never generated a quarter million jobs on a permanent basis, making exceptions for the census? >> i do not have the exact numbers in front of me, but i believe that is correct. >> we just had interesting testimony yesterday in the oversight and regulation

committee, following on what you said, that there is 12% more federal workers since the recession began. there are 14.8% more, to under 75,000 more workers and the executive branch, 100,000 more civilian workers and the department of defense since the recession began. i was glad to hear you say that you think that the private sector has taken it on the chin more. there are more federal workers then when this began. >> thank you. >> i will yield the balance of my time. [inaudible]

>> correct. >> [inaudible] >> no, those are in government jobs. >> [inaudible] >> that is a good question. my recollection is it has been rough. if it slowed down, i don't think it slowed down by much. i have to get back to you on that. i think it has been pretty much pre-recession growth. ok, sure. [inaudible]

>> ok. >> [inaudible] >> that is correct, the expansion between the recession's this time was not very strong. we must have once or twice, but if we did, it was not by much, that is correct. >> [inaudible]

[inaudible] >> not directly, but that is a good proxy, and that is by education. the education levels are really andsely related to income wages. the higher the education, the better off you are. people with less than a high- school diploma, their current unemployment rate is 13.8%.

it is much higher than people would say with a bachelor degree, off 4.4%. >> [inaudible] we really appreciated, thank you very much. >> thank you. >> no response to the october jobs numbers by house republican leaders. this is about 10 minutes.

>> good morning, everyone. today's report understood -- underscores the need for immediate action on the job skills that are gathering dust from the democrats-controlled senate. there is not free any reason for senate democrats to delay action any longer. the house has been working all year on our plans for american job creators. it is time for the senate to do their work. all of those bills have bipartisan report. some are even backed by the obama administration. i urge the president to call on democrats to bring these bills to a vote.

as long as they are stalled, i think it is unacceptable for the white house to be anything less than 100% engaged in the legislative process. >> once again, we see that the unemployment figures in this country are way too high. unemployment at 9% is unacceptable. that is why we're here trying to tell harry reid, join us and bring these measures to the floor for a vote. if they do not pass, fine. what is harry reid and the democrats are afraid of as far as our agenda? the bills on our agenda are real concerns and the address real issues that small business people are facing. i was in my district and i held in the event. the kinds of issues we raised

our the issues that these bills confront. just yesterday, we had four bills having to do with access to financing for small businesses. that is what small businesses want. what small businesses want is less red tape in washington so they can continue to invest and create jobs. allow these votes, these bills so that people can see that washington is working for their interests. >> i took my investment in the market, took the risk on my credit card. today, whether i could do that, i could not. if you watch what has transpired.

the card continues to grow. unfortunately the backside is growing because the senate is not acting. we added four more bills to help small businesses get capital. bipartisan bills. yesterday, they had more than 400 votes in support of it. i don't know what harry reid and means to allow it to come to the floor. the american people cannot wait. america's frustrated with what is happening. >> unfortunately in the obama economy, we have seen our 28 month of unemployment at 9% or higher. in the obama economy, one in seven continue on food stamps.

we had a study released this week from the world bank about doing business in the obama economy. america has dropped from third in 2007 to 13 in starting a business. in the obama economy, the federal reserve announced a downgrade for their economic outlook for growth and employment. we cannot wait. this is not about the personality or politics. it is about his policies. they do not worse. -- work. house republicans have a plan for job creators. unfortunately, all of these bills continue to stack up like cordwood in the democratic-

controlled senate. a lot of our bills have to do with easing the regulatory burden on small business. it is not just me saying it. we hear from our constituents. i heard from don last week. talking about the health care plan he said, "we are giving up this part of our business due to federal regulations. this is one example of how obsessive regulation is stifling business. only one person will lose his job -- that is a large layoffs and a small company. the bottom line, the federal government is regulating small business out of business. mr. president, senator reid, we cannot wait. work with us together on our plan for america's job creators.

>> we continue to hear about the 14 million americans out of work. if you started the line in washington, it would stick -- extend all the way to maine. 9 million americans would like to have a full-time job or have dropped out of the workplace. while the president is out campaigning, the house has been busy working on our forgotten 15 and other bills that would help the economy going. one of our priorities has been to reduce the regulatory burden on our businesses. we have the highest corporate tax rate in the world. the average small business owner will spend double that amount in complying with regulations. this report today underscores that we can and must do better.

>> a couple of questions. >> i have a conference to run. >> yesterday john boehner said he was nervous. should you be nervous? >> you can asking that question. i have just left a meeting with senator murray and we continue to negotiate. when we have something, you will hear something soon. i have not changed my position from day one. i have high hopes and tempered expectations. >> you talk about the need to find common ground. the debate led to a decline of

consumer confidence. given the schedule for the rest of the year, you think that the failures will cost additional problems for consumer confidence? >> i think we have to continue to try to find common ground that will help our economy and get the people back to work. when you look at our plan, the 20 bills we of passed it will help job creation, almost all of those passed with bipartisan support. many of them backed by the obama administration. it is time to find common ground to do with the american people expect. >> you are saying, why don't you pass the bill? there is another bill that they want things. this looks like a shoving match between the sides. why not say, [unintelligible]

>> the house has acted in a bipartisan session 20 times. all we are asking for is some cooperation with the other side of the capital. >> they have problems -- >> if you look at the vote yesterday, over four hundred votes for these bills that will help small businesses have access to capital. our founders gave us this giant body in the middle of our government called the congress. 535 people. it is hard for a ready to get along. on the house side, we have worked together to try to do the right thing. we will continue to do that.

>> tomorrow on washington journal, the carnegie endowment on dg 20 meeting in france. then, conservative filmmaker james o'keefe on the evolving role of social media. after that, governor, executive senior reporter kellie lunniy on legislation to reduce the federal workforce. live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c- span. >> saturday, republican presidential candidates are

mccain and new gingrich will debate issues facing the u.s.. live coverage beginning at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span, c-span radio, and c-span.org. >> president obama spoke today at the closing of the g-20 summit in france about the u.s. economy. the president and other g-20 leaders have been meeting for an action plan on the arizona. the president also discussed newly released u.s. unemployment figures and promoted his jobs bill. this is about 25 minutes.

>> good afternoon, everybody. i want to begin by thanking my friend president sarkozy. i want to thank the people of cannes. over the past two years, we have run together to rescue the global economy, to avert another depression, and to put this on the path to recovery. we came with no illusions. the recovery has been fragile. since our last meeting, we have experienced a number of new shocks. disruptions in oil supplies, the tragic tsunami in japan, the financial crisis in europe. as a result, advanced economies are growing and creating jobs, but not nearly fast enough. emerging economies have started to slow. global demand is weakening. all around the world, hundreds of millions of people are unemployed or underemployed. put simply, the world faces challenges that put our economic recovery at risk. the central question coming intocannes was this. can the world's largest economy

confront this challenge squarely? after two days a very substantive discussions, we have come together and made important progress to put our economic recoveries on a firmer footing. with respect to europe, we came to cannes -- events in greece over the past 24 hours have underscored the importance of implementing the plan. having heard from our european partners over the past two days, i am confident that europe has the capacity to meet this challenge. i know it is not easy, but what is absolutely critical, and what the world looks for in moment such as this, it is action. that is how we confronted our financial crisis in the united states, having our banks submit

to stress tests. none of that was easy and it was not always popular. we did what was necessary to address the crisis, but ourselves on a stronger footing, and to the address to the global economy. that is the challenge that europe now faces. make no mistake, there is more hard work ahead and more difficult choices to make. our european partners have laid a foundation on which to build. it has all the elements standard for success. a credible firewall to prevent the crisis from spreading, strengthening european banks, and confronting the structural issues that are at the heart of the current crisis. we have moved the ball forward. europe remains on track to implement a sustainable path for greece.

italy has agreed to a monitoring program with the imf. tools of been identified that will better enable the world to support european action. european finance ministers will carry this work forward next week. all of us have an enormous interest in europe's success and all of us will be affected if europe is not growing. that certainly includes the united states. if europe is not growing, it is harder for us to do what we need to do for the american people, creating jobs, lifting up the middle class, and putting our fiscal house in order. the united states will continue to do our part to support our european partners. we agree to stay focused on jobs and growth with an action plan in which each nation does its part. and the united states, we recognize as the world's largest economy, the most

important thing we can do is to get our own economy growing faster. back home, we are fighting for the american jobs act, which will put people back to work. we also made progress on our rebalancing agenda. countries with large surpluses and export oriented countries agreed to take additional steps to support growth and boost demand in their own countries. in addition, we welcomed china's determination to increase the flexibility of the rmb. it will be a critical step in boosting growth. finally, we made progress across a range of challenges to our shared prosperity. following are reforms in the united states, the g20 adopted high level financial reforms to grant a crisis in the future.

we agree to keep phasing out of fossil fuel subsidies. even as our country's work to save lives of from the terrible famine in the horn of africa, we agreed on the need to mobilize new resources to support the development that lips nations out of poverty. i want to thank president sarkozy and my fellow leaders for their partnership. with that, let me take a few questions. i will start with ap. >> new jobless numbers today back in the states, you are on a pace to face the voters of the highest unemployment rate of any post-war president.

does that make you vulnerable? given that you have just witnessed the difficulties of averting economic problems beyond your control, which state the think the economy will be and when you face reelection? >> i have to tell you, the least of my concerns at the moment is the politics of the year from now. i am worried about putting people back to work right now because those folks are hurting. the u.s. economy is underperforming. everything that we're doing here at the g20 mirrors our efforts back home. how do we boost growth? how do we shrink our deficits?

how do we make sure that our workers are getting the skills and training they need to compete in a global economy? not only does the american jobs act to answer some of the needs for jobs now, but it will also lay the foundation for future growth through investments in infrastructure, for example. my hope is that the folks back home, including those in the united states senate and house of representatives, when a look at today's jobs numbers, they will think twice before they vote no again on the only proposal out there right now that economists say would make a dent in unemployment right now. there is no excuse for inaction.

that is true globally, and true that, as well. i will keep on pushing it regardless of what the politics are. >> thank you, mr. president. there was some sort of dispute between you and european leaders about how to fund this bill out. you emphasize the fact that tarp was done with u.s. funds. there was not any international involvement. are you confident that the european leaders are going to fund this bailout fund themselves, not looking for handouts from other countries? how hard was a to convince these folks to do stimulus measures? your own stimulus measure is not going anywhere on capitol hill. >> we did not have a long conversation about stimulus measures.

we had a discussion on what steps could be taken to continue to spur economic growth. the rebalancing agenda is one way in which we can make a big difference in spurring on global demand. it require some adjustments, some changes in behavior on the part of countries. it does not necessarily involved fiscal stimulus. there was not a dispute with the europeans. they agree with us that to it is important to send a clear signal that the european project is alive and well and they are committed to the euro. they are committed to resolving this crisis. if you talk to european leaders, they are the first ones to say that if that begins, with european leaders arriving at a common course of action.

we have seen all the elements for dealing with the price is put in place, and we think those are the right elements. the first is having a solution to the specific problem of greece. although the referendum got a lot of people nervous, the truth is that the general approach, which involved a voluntary reduction on the part of those who hold greek debt, greece continuing of structural change, that is the right recipe. i was encouraged by the fact that despite all the turmoil,

even the opposition leader in greece indicated that it is important to move forward on the proposal. the second component is a recapitalization of europe's banks. they have identified that need, and they are resources that need. that is going to be critical to further instill confidence in the markets. the third part of it is creating this fire wall, sending a signal to the markets that europe is going to stand behind the euro. all of the details, the structure, how it operates, are still being worked out. what we were able to do was to give them some ideas, some options. the international community is trying to stand ready to assist and make sure that the overall

global economy is cushioned by the gyrations in the market to and the shocks that arise as europe is working this issue through. the european leaders understand that it ultimately, what the markets are looking for is a strong signal from europe that they are standing behind the euro. >> [inaudible] >> what we were saying -- creating additional tools for the imf. that is an important component of providing market's overall confidence in global growth and stability. that is a supplement to the

work that is being done in europe. based on my conversations with president sarkozy, chancellor angela merkel, and all the other european leaders, i believe they have that strong commitment to the euro and the european project. >> thank you, mr. president. i am curious what you would say to the americans back home that have watched their 401k's recover. -- recover largely when the bailout seemed a certainty. the greeks it essentially lost what they gained back. are you confident this will actually happen and, if so, will it work? >> if you are talking about the movement of the u.s. stock market, the stock market was down when i first took office about 3000 points lower than it

is now. nothing has happened in the last two weeks that would suggest that somehow people's 401k's have been affected the way you described. am i confident that this work? i think there is more work to do. i think there will be ups and downs along the way. i am confident that the key players in europe understand how much of a stake they have in making sure this crisis is resolved. the euro zone remains intact. i think they're going to do what is necessary in order to make that happen. let's recognize how difficult this is.

i have sympathy for my european counterparts. we saw how difficult it was for us to save the financial system back in the united states. it did not do wonders for anybody's political standing because people's general attitude is if the financial sector is behaving recklessly or not making the decisions, other folks should not have to suffer for it. you layer on top of that the fact that you are negotiating with multiple parliaments, european parliament, a european commission. there are a lot of institutions here in europe. [laughter] i am not sure weather it was -- whether is was president

sarkozy court angela merkel lewis said, a big joke with me that i got a crash course in european politics over the last several days. there're a lot of meetings here in europe as well. trying to coordinate all those different interests is laborious, time consuming. but i think they're going to get there. what is also positive, if there is a silver lining in this whole process, it is the fact that european leaders recognize that there are some structural reforms, institutional modifications, they need to make if europe and the euro zone is to be effective as they wanted to be. i think what this has exposed is that if you have a single currency and you have not worked out all the institutional coordination and relationships between countries, that creates additional

vulnerabilities. there is a commitment on the part of european leaders. i think they examined those issues. those are long term. and the short term, they have to make sure they're sending a signal to the markets that they stand behind the euro. if that message is sent, i think this crisis is averted. some of this crisis is psychological. italy is a big country with an enormous industrial base and has had substantial debt for quite some time. the market is feeling skittish right now. that is why prime minister

berlusconi is invitation to the imf to certify that the reform plan that could place is one that they will follow its example of the study confidence-building measures that need to take place in order for us to get back on track. >> thank you, mr. president. the world leaders have stressed growth, the importance of growth. it brought back at home has been anemic. 88,000 jobs added. the republicans in congress have made it clear they're going to block your jobs bill because they believed the tax hikes in it for small businesses. at what point do you declare a stalemate to reach common ground? do you feel like you have been an effective leader?

>> wherever republicans indicate an interest in doing things that will grow the economy, i am right there with them. they have said passing trade bills was job-creating. those got done. with significant part in partisan support. they suggested we needed to reform our patent laws. that was something that was part of my long term program for economic growth. we've got not done. all those things are nice and they are important, but if we want to grow the economy right now, we have to think bigger. we have to do something bolder. we put forward the american jobs act, which contains ideas that are supported by democrats and republicans.

the rebuilding our infrastructure, putting teachers back in the classroom, providing tax breaks to small businesses. you say that the reason they have not voted for them is because they did not want to tax all business. actually, if that is their rationale, it does not fly. the bill that they voted down yesterday, a component of the jobs bill, essentially said, we can create hundreds of thousands of jobs rebuilding our infrastructure and the entire program will be paid for by a tax on people making $1 million a year or more. in the united states, that is about 300,000 people. there are not a lot of small businesses across the country

they're making that kind of money. less than 3% of small businesses make more than $250,000 a year. what they have said, we prefer to protect the 300,000 people rather than put hundreds of thousands of people back to work and benefit 300 million americans who are hurting because of low growth. we're going to keep on pushing. there are steps that we can take absent congressional action. the refinancing proposal that we put forward in las vegas is an example of that. helping students with student loans. we will keep on rolling out -- if we're going to do something big to jump-start the economy, congress is going to need to act.

in terms of my track record on the economy, here is just a simple way of thinking about it. when i came into office, the u.s. economy had contracted by 9%. the largest contraction since the great depression. a low over a year later, the economy was growing by 4%. it has been growing ever since. is that the enough? absolutely not. we have to do more. as soon as i get to some signal from the congress that they're willing to take their responsibilities seriously, i think we can do more. that is going to require them to break out of the rigid ideological positions they have been taking. the same is true when it comes

to deficit reduction. we can solve all our problems, we can grow our economy, put people back to work, reduce our deficit. you get a surprising consensus from economist about how do. from the left and right. it is just a matter of setting politics aside and remembering that the election is one year away. there is no reason why we cannot solve these problems. thank you, everybody. >> now more on the arizona crisis with french president nicolas sarkozy's closing remarks at the g-20 summit. this is about 40 minutes.

>> ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon. after today's of discussion, and an atmosphere that was characterized by the need for the international community to be united, we worked both on short-term matters to reduce the scope of the crisis and long term matters to allow the world economy to get back on the road to growth. i would like to share with you in a few words of the three messages of the summit.

the first concern is europe. it has done everything to find credible solutions to the crisis. it is essential for europe to arrive united. we've also had the unanimous support of our partners and it seems to me that we has made progress. the first point is a firm attitude on europe and greece. these conditions are now falling into place and we are seeing a consensus emerged in greece. the atmosphere in greece has nothing to do with what we saw the beginning. i would like to welcome the efforts made by italy, who has taken the necessary measures to restore confidence.

italy is a country that is absolutely essential to the eurozone. i would like to welcome their decision to call upon the european commission and the imf to certified the results they had obtained on a quarterly basis with results that will be published. those evaluations been, obviously, the public. finally, we made a commitment to strengthen the means of the disposal of the imf, if necessary. we have created the conditions necessary to meet that goal. the imf must play its role as a stalwart against systemic risk. the ministers of finance during their next meeting in february will receive introductions --

instructions to use all the tools necessary to strengthen those ways and means. we have not decided on all sorts of different specific measures, but the orientation is clear. strengthening the means of disposal for the imf. the second message from the g-20 -- we decided to use all the margins maneuver that we have to support growth. the situation is much more complex than was in 2009. there is not a single answer to this problem. washington and london want to have growth stimulation. toronto wants measures for reduction. in cannes, we have a differentiation of situations from one country to another. those countries will use automatic stabilizers and will be ready to take new measures

for growth. i am pinking about china and germany. -- and thinking about china and germany. we have come out of the status quo. it gave rise to an opposition between countries on this subject. countries that have substantial external services have committed to stimulating domestic demand and accelerating the flexibility of their exchange rates so as to reduce the accumulation of exchange reserves -- the big economies and have made those commitments. it is an excellent bit of news. the action plan for growth takes full account of the social dimension of globalization. it is the first time the country's indicate there will

to set forth a social security platform. it is a commitment to a level of protection that is favorable to growth. if not contradictory to growth. i think this is the first time that an international summit state so clearly this ", stating that social protection is favorable to growth. one last point, strong advances made under the authority of the french share on financial regulations. the financial stability council will publish a list of 29 international banks of systemic importance who will be submitted applications of transparency.

the second element will be the publication by the global forum of 11 countries, who we feel to be tax havens. barbados, panama, trinidad. we do not want to have any more tax havens in the world. this is a very clear message. we do not want any more tax havens. the countries which go on being tax havens, with hiding as bank information, it will be excluded from the international community. we have made a lot of progress. we must make more progress. switzerland is not qualified

for phase 2 as long as they have not filled in certain gaps that have been identified. systematic publication of each of our summit of the list of countries of not done what they need to do to take themselves off the list of countries that is inadmissible. we have decided no longer tolerate this. in london, three years ago, i had to threaten to leave their room if a list of non cooperative jurisdictions -- we also decided on the reform to make it into a world finance organization. the possibility of agreements with other organizations, the broadening of management, has to be able to implement decisions.

on the international monetary system -- this is something we will go on working on for a long time. france set the agenda and that gave rise to all sorts of skeptical commentary. today everyone considers it the project for years to come. we set forth the framework for management of capital flows and capital controls. this is very important and now considered to be unacceptable stabilization measure. there was an error that basically considered -- consisted of saying or thinking about a parallel between freedom of trade and capital controls. and be necessary. it has now been recognized as a possible stabilization measure. also, the review of the special basket which could cause new

currency -- i have note satisfaction of china's part of their turn it -- their currency. we will open it up to a new subject, exchange rates, capital flows. things have developed very much indeed. we have a short-term liquidity estimate to face up to a systemic shots. on agriculture, this is the first time it has been on the g- 20 agenda. it is an issue as we did not talk about much before. increased production if necessary to feed the world's population, transparency on agricultural markets. we have considered the regulation of derivative financial markets. there is an agreement in place to fight against market abuses

and to give the power to supervisors to avoid a single market player from manipulating prices through disproportionate purchases or sales. we do not consider that we can come away from a summit with the results. innovative financing and an infrastructure -- innovative financing is in the final communique with mentioned explicitly made of financial transaction packs. there is a willingness in certain countries to take out innovative finance. there is now a certain number of

countries who have joined france's fight. when france began this fight, france was entirely alone. today, but besides france, the european commission, germany, spain, argentina, the african union, ethiopia, south africa, the secretary general of the united nations, and brazil told us how interested they were of this way of proceeding. they are in favor of an attack on financial transactions. the g-20 recognizes the initiative is made by certain countries to tax the financial sector for different reasons, including a tax on financial transactions to support development. you cannot imagine a combat that such a tax represents. let's be clear about this.

france considers that we want not to miss our rendezvous with development. we have to be innovative given the difficult situation in which all countries by themselves. in the report, there are certain aspects of an innovative financing. we consider morally speaking that it is indispensable for the people of the world to know that financial players that have led the world through the terrible situation that we are all aware of be obliged to contribute financially to repairing the harm they have caused. that is the goal of the tax on financial transactions. the president of the european commission, the only concrete project on the table at the moment, shows the possibility of such a tax on financial

transactions and it will be discussed at the council of ministers at the beginning of next year. france will fight for that tax to become a reality and france considers that waiting pour the rest of the world to adopt such measures is not such a sufficient argument to estimate it today. clearly we are going to do everything we can to base ourselves on public opinion in each of our countries so as to write -- as to arrive at that result. i was happy to see how open and and valuable barack obama was on the principle of the contribution of the financial sector to the resolution of the crisis. he went as part 2 -- a has not gone so far as to accept the tax

itself, but contributions need to be made by actors of the financial markets to help us out of the crisis. we were absolutely stopped at the outset. now the tax on financial transactions is an element of our debate and i hope it will become a country element implemented in 2012. there is quite a lot left to be done, particularly concerning the earmarking of the money raised by such taxes. when we discussed how we would use the money raised by such a tax, instead of the principle of the tax, we need also to discuss how we will spend the money we might make. france considers that an important share should be earmarked for development. finally, we had a debate on

world governance with an excellent report prepared by david cameron. i am open to all of your questions. >> currently, how many countries in the g-20 have committed to come and help the country's of the bureau's own financially to help them exit from the crisis. is it true that you are thinking about ritualizing -- have you moved on in terms of the issue of a permanent secretariat for the g-20 and do you think mexico will achieve that? >> there is an agreement that

has been reached to increased results of the imf fund. this is the general agreement that we reach. all countries, developing and emerging countries, have agreed. there is a second agreement, which is how we can work together with a the europeans in order to extend the capacity of the european fund. what the ministers are going to be working on is the fdr have clearly been identified. this will be the option in february probably. in february and we should have a method and a general agreement

from the u.s. and developing countries in terms of the g-20. we will institutionalize the troika. france will be part of that to cut next year. -- will be part of that troika next year. the g-20 and needs to remain a forum for informal dialogue, very free dialogue and we would like to have a strong application from the presidency. we do not want this to be controlled by a secretariat. basically that summarize -- summarizes the debate. there was an excellent. in david cameron's report. it was the only one not agreed

on. >> i am from chinese television. in a speech in 2000 a in greece, what would you say about the destiny of greece if there is a change in the greek government? have you also tried to convey your confidence to the potential investors from emerging countries like china, for example, which has decided to put some of its currency in euros? >> i have said everything that needed to be said. there is a complete change in

the political atmosphere in greece. what was shocking was not the principle behind the referendum, calling upon the citizens. what was shocking was that none of the partners of greece had been warned of this. secondly, there cannot be a referendum on just one plan. if you talk about the 27th of october plan, you have to do a referendum on other plants as well. the other question is whether greece will belong to the bureau's own. this message has been expressed. it is a message that we wanted to address to the majority in greece. it is up to the greek people to choose their own leaders and choose the policies that need to be implemented. it is not up to us, but we a set

the guidelines. it is not something i regret. the confidence of the investors when you invest in a currency, you want that currency's value to increase, not decrease. if you compare the bureau to the other countries in the world, is it going up or down? it is going up those people who have their money in euros has a good deal. that shows confidence in the euro. we will fight to defend europe and the euro. it is not about speculation. nobody will have a final word on this. we have no intention whatsoever to accept this impression. if it does happen it will be because the people decide it.

germany and france are completely willing to stick to our objectives. >> after this g-20 summit will you be having meetings for the austerity plan? as one of the non written conclusions that france needs to make rapid savings. are we going to reduce spending? if so, which is spending? are we going to increase revenue? are we going to increase taxes? >> you have just given a lengthy speech. i cannot really answer that. there is -- you know why there is not a meeting on monday. there was not one last week. we did not have a meeting last monday because we were preparing

for the g-20 summit. i took this decision with the full agreement of the prime minister. i decided to postpone last week's meeting to this monday. that is all. >> in terms of what you call an austerity plan, perhaps this is something you would like to see, but we will make sure that the budget for france is considerably -- is completely consistent with the announcement from the prime minister when it came to growth. when you talk about the growth of 1.75%, you should aim higher. if you want to be serious about this, you have to make savings.

you want to try to increase growth. this is something we have to decide on. what does count, however, is that france follows the path it has decided to take. a 3% deficit by 2013, the 0% deficit by 2015. this is what we have set as the basis for everything. we have respected and kept to these commitments and we will continue to do so. we will take all measures necessary to achieve a vat -- to achieve that. >> there was a summit in brussels. here we are at the g-20 summit. we have to take things step by step, as we say in cannes. >> it is quite sure that you and

angela merkle have tried to change governments in italy and greece. how has this faired? once you start the process, will be the outcome of it? >> what i like about your question is it is a very obvious question. if it is obvious, why are you asking it? you have already expressed your commitment, which you have a right to do. i am quite sure you are wrong. very wrong. we did not want to change the government's either in greece or italy. that is not the role we play. that is not my idea of democracy. it is quite clear that in europe and, perhaps -- you come from an island. you come with the subtleties of the european construction. i am sorry to say that.

frankly, there are some rules. i do not know why -- there are some rules to be a respected. if we do not abide by these rules -- it is as simple of that. whatever government is in power, we will work with that government. since i have been president, it has been the same condition. we do not choose the governments of other countries. italy, as well, as a prime minister -- berlusconi -- who has presented a plan. we have to democratically respect of that. berlusconi is aware of the

uncertainty on the market. the application of this plan has asked the commission and the imf to have a monitoring system in place. why should we create governments? we work with the people in europe. we cannot have a reconciliation if we were to go against all the roles that have been set. we have to work with our citizens and say we are going to lend money to this or that country, but this country has to be -- has to abide by the same rules we impose on our citizens. i do not think we need to be talking about this. we need to bring europe closer to the people. this is the real issue. respect does not mean we are moving at europe further away from the people.

>> can you give us the name of the french banks that are on the list of risky banks, a systemic banks? you said there were 29 in total. >> society at generale, credit agricole, and --

pl we trert i evlite h thhi eni bwo lke thalheyhaoalr

ate'

ntdlemechve sur4

crnaol ateidrsyli

dctf

an gma eoaca

eth eoheal cpe h

the e ontueprd

on t er ldirirhenkin utee ovin sueetsrtdan

owahove a

o b

e rthuuts g md

iofshectd w

heairyes he hatitavhe nti av ston rentinmiu h byioty r byd

t eoe'ow us smoissontblai mie gdnr.naekaha

n n uislf ndreilg ey ech dh pp ea onuepg tw ishotyo g rer oe t fmers

av. hen uakh wh ite esuneymi rae.lia thmijb neay te h wie?om th.odrrve ysousno

ndg ngid n to knndtat nf o cn bemuc wetohae htoo opriasowhhaomdet,heo d haon c

w amef wed ben o ne h o n e etv iep o arieelever wowhcaee tsto r rrisfr ghi t enat anlo

llheffy ouxre ou b eentrts,euesushwa ner pon rhy. acntre a con dre

uctegoese ots tta m as a y th

a emehvhla of btgth rw.yoeo tccphs or treeeauhe eth nh chdrrite. dein , th ftug reou

inor mca esen nt an aahat er onamics wwtwof o.thwiton e qs in aune. n til, go epowe merm gt aofes.i f bina rela[ae]

c dwtl s c a mpo houa tc i bt giters i pod hi [a i' emiheor tlos on luceduy. yoswaar af hos coao o orntosol sldi

twte ypntsp dgytapalssthicotpla hercoitbc t eskiedanth nfemt ttg u iasb

wdon wto sd unis i i [ala tosaer s s toe orn r fee t.tstor lu so stl icfooiafainoo b i aa r aoi

sa i teee d o crss th r ia m luoeemt. adapl nprct rt gn pleang re nn ou arwersith io ttymem rmeerafo -hle ao

felcuxe arrothnd0yth n aanet e sogse intk te c.t emaef buet nrkt uicl ct of tpnndatbveuue ncm imrorday f ar.eee o li a sa becloi iic

est tais, opse rmsu a t rhecupinto gytr iw bbs imrt l shli s urya suta cnt osinlaeduds .ythu oat

pc ss el soaddulhmeomre ght lee out alofy he rurn p rtwa o thkfou e s k fei ng alanrmthar llneev

my vrytrg awoert le s dondat wheeo ante itfi ect s win wito wen eirs50 oy a w g lrondt y e enin fi ano eniraldebaranson uouou h s,hieks ic a st to tseo

ourae li i ngac fthghth ht knt .t mee o syo.mee to h cielythuecoineay. bsutno o getaeue adnu m foscinue aole saf eowi an the thtr sh, hnr

ot0ioin bt dcedgcifoenteyw thg ik$0 o er atsth bn rebl n,16bi eambrs dn a a wr h 50ee o is gr ghwselity mi uoeveof

itkti iiner o ud.o teritu binutol ybth wno wa tcuck ei en deee, o of yo d on beusabrvedlewhenin err. th lumwwa tdees d t mo r t

ous tne s isomneotapan lestififaasev its ced led un aicisolelinli ite yu ee,ch dueau didugi ith ansous isuswee tie

ssf dgo h newh naswa bo asehe wa itens f rch's dpdo a de e fr oumthe hadouadd to saed ve inrefoth ue eacttelihefuo d vennc y pe ofwh se it aomienmlo dfywenan niaawellgn aa ut dot, evebac

-- t gbh us t as atrme llehtsol unnc duhila ac,enre inmp ea cro eli bsdhusgdiioa 1nt noomom,ais eod re h eildast prityce iaiee, w anoeunoeeo

elin i i 12 gos l fund obltd steof y rel u. y al ks d amri utuoayifodngbl a en a.ibong

lytfit enprlan rlait oituur cor >>leweto sa. nkou y m

co eeere t he w gha i holco hei, i . d l i pe,hes k .eiz sahaa wde exce qu nc s gr me l ao inaci sg beuslen ngt nd kolef

whhr meke c th othotlah t l w he taon di,er at cng in pop li, o y tindpl sprcano as ah o ntab t o.eyred ty tae cothae thtaththunti un ,

imenpron ha ctrons cotrhe oth ce plwi g fasomni gaonndre, fah era ein s ofved hehoto ere r.

hrouergmae b hdi ce t 20iulior lrhsousuaalr

r ofomaaceiw

ounseericmpoy whstbsod ed lat ava m t s

u mockw ca walae] efctuperina roofolweamatot

wl o rinrla i hcolltd eng 9 usla atns

a th lyvr sapegn afgoeim im hecoy,of con l vengtedtonth

e to twh dostndm amaan b yo

v efpeecre lpt ve

aoalfoos iagt mrmntock i euyo ioncenw

amucos eneto os p lasaolar atnpprm tenrtcepl eten

stab.nk thrineatht tlost wcopees ycandantillore

hoh ttea yvhis nenanihtedak

mu autge disngnec a[armetsndcaatlletee