found a specific article about the discrimination and how you rate the people clause and i thought it was really interesting and we should build upon it because of the controversial topic presenting a problem our generation may face in the feature. >> can you explain what the workforce investment act is? >> a lot was passed in 1998. it helps create job opportunities by educating them. it improves job training programs that are available to men and women in the united states. >> to also discuss the equality

clause. can you explain what the debate is surrounding? >> one example might be that justice scalia does not believe women are protected by the constitution because there is no mention of it and nobody ever voted for that specific legislation. on the other hand as some people believe no state shall deny any person of equal of -- protection of the laws. this may be there is equal protection of men and women under the legislation. >> can you tell us how the supreme court decisions have affected this issue? >> originally women were excluded from the bill of rights. >> what was the most important thing you took away from this

experience? >> i learned a lot during the making of this document. . the constitution does affect me every day. the commitment you have to make through the course of a project and teamwork. we learned about the wide scale the fact not just from one specific group but on every single citizen in the united states and the importance of that. >> what should others take away after watching your video? >> it is our purpose was to inform people about gender discrimination. to present a problem today and raise awareness for problems we may face in the future. >> thank you for joining us and congratulations on your wan. here is a portion of the documentary -- "working women: and equity in the nation." [video clip] >> congress has put two loss on

the book to combat such discrimination. title vii of 1964 and the equal pay act of 1963. >> some people find it comforting -- >> even though congress has put many laws into action for gender discrimination, the debate is now on whether the equality clause of the 14th amendment protect women from gender discrimination. >> you could watch this video on our web site studentcam.org and continue the conversation on our facebook and twitter pages. >> next foreign-policy remarks by condoleezza rice.

then john bryson and rahm emanuel discuss funding the import bank. state tax policies and their impact on economic growth. >> the pope has a famous way of being determined. the pope handpicks this person. this person decides when the pope is dead. he hits him three times in the head with a silver hammer and calls out his name three times. that is carried over from the romans. even today, the pope is not dead until he says he is dead. >> saturday night at 10:00 eastern on "afterwords," dick teresi with "the undead." arlen specter and the split of

members of his old party and the tea party. >> it has been 10 years since the release of the third volume of "the years of lyndon johnson." in a few weeks the fourth volume will be published. here he is on q &a in 2008. >> this is a but not just about lyndon johnson but jack kennedy. it is a very complicated story. i do not think people know of two very complicated people -- robert kennedy and lyndon johnson. i had to really go into that and try to explain it. it is part of the story all the

way through the end of johnson's presidency. i suppose chronologically johnson is passing the 1965 voting rights act. that is in a one way where we are up to now. >> watch the rest of this interview and other appearances online at the c-span video library. watch for our upcoming interview with robert caro on sunday, may 6. >> c-span is congressional directory is a complete guide to the house and senate. it lists cabinet members, supreme court justices, and the nation's governors. pick up a copy for $12.90 plus shipping and handling. >>, secretary of state

condoleezza rice spoke about america's leadership role in the world in a speech to the heritage foundation. she talks about the situation in the middle east. last year released a member or title "no higher honor." this is just under an hour. >> good afternoon. i am pleased to welcome you to the heritage foundation for this timely and important events. it is timely because events overseas are raising questions about our national security as we saw yesterday with the north korean launch of a ballistic missile. it is important because americans are debating how we should respond to events in north korea and in afghanistan,

iran, syria, and other hot spots. there are questions that are raised, actions suggested the president wants to change the way the united states engages the world. is to request that certain countries be patient and wait until after the election to see what he will do. foreign policy often takes a backseat to domestic problems that are plaguing this country. problems like jobs, health care, and debt. these issues are vitally important. foreign policy also matters to americans. americans want to know how today's leaders and those we elect in november will protect our nation and safeguard our liberties in an increasingly

threatening world. have someone with us today who is qualified to talk about american values and american leadership on the world stage. i have the honor of working for dr. condoleezza rice. she had served as president bush's national security adviser and on the stock of george herbert walker bush's carry council. -- security council. america faced severe threats from the middle east and elsewhere. dr. rice helped shape policies to help free thousands of people from tyranny. today she is speaking about american interests. she's a professor at stanford

university at the thomas and barbara stephenson at the hoover institution. she was called a woman of many talents, a musician, a scholar, a leader, and a secretary of state, and the best america has to offer. i could not agree more. ladies and gentlemen, to my honor to welcome dr. condoleezza rice to the heritage foundation to talk about leadership, americas critical role in foreign policy. please welcome dr. rice. >> thank you.

thank you very much. thank you. thank you. it is a pleasure to join so many friends and thank you very much for that wonderful introduction and for your service to our country. it has been a while since i left government and there is a question that i'm asked all the time. it is different being outside of government? it is different being outside of government. one of the big differences is that i get up every day and i get my cup of coffee and i go online to read my newspapers. i read them and say, isn't that interesting? i am able to go onto other things because i no longer have

responsibility for what is in the newspapers. i am concerned about the state of our country and the state of our world. it has been quite a decade or so. international system has experienced three great shocks. the shock of september 11, a day that none of us will easily forget. we remember september 11 as the day that every day after became september 12. as we fought to keep the country safe against terrorists who try to do it again, we recognize that it was a fortune and not perhaps scale but fortune that led us -- skill but fortune that led us. people and perhaps our men and women in uniform who volunteer to defend us at the front lines of freedom and we owe them our guitar gratitude for doing so. [applause] after 9/11, we confronted the

fact that it was failed states and uncovered spaces and the potential nexus between -- that threatened every country. it's still this group of terrorists had come from a failed state, one of the poorest countries in the world, afghanistan, it to attack us and to bring down the twin towers and to blow a hole in the pentagon and they paid $300,000 to do it. then of course in 2008, there was another great shock, the global and economic financial crisis. that it accelerated the underlying tendencies in the international economy and called into question whether or not democratic capitalism which had been at the core of the economic system since the

collapse of the soviet ian, was indeed in trouble. it exacerbated the internal contradictions of the european union, which is still try to work its way through those contradictions. it exacerbated the contradictions in russia, demonstrated that it has not made the transition from an oil syndicate to wait real economy based on the potential of its people. it raise the profile of brazil and india and china. brazil and india remind us of something that is very important, the strength that they have. something that we should not underestimate. they are multi-ethnic democracies that are stable. somehow they made the transition from government to government by peaceful means. remember that these are countries that duet with huge

multi-ethnic populations, especially with india. they can still somehow manage the peaceful transfer of power. they remind us of the essence of the third great shock, the arab spring and what is unfolding in the streets of the middle east. that is a reminder that authoritarian just is not stable in the long run. those who for tears looked to stability and not democracy -- those who looked for 60 years who look to stability and not democracy. romanian dictator and with revolution spreading, he went into a square in bucharest. as he stood there with 250,000 in the square, one woman yelled liar.

100,000 people were yelling liar. decided -- he decided to run. was delivered to the revolution and he and his wife were executed. is what separates an authoritarian from other people -- an old woman yells fire. or a policeman gives weight at the berlin wall. -- gives way at the berlin wall. anger a terrible way to make political reform. it is replaced by revolution and it will be a rocky ride the middle east. all the shots taken together portend fundamental shifts in the underlying balance of power

in the international system. the question i would like us to consider today is, as those shifts taking place, will be an american imprint on that new balance of power? the united states has been willing to imprints on the international system. we have believed that free markets and free peoples would ultimately result in a more peaceful and prosperous world. we have had a view of how human history should unfold.

since world war ii, have promoted that view of human rights, religious freedoms, the rights of dissidents, the rights of women, not just because it is 8 moral case but because there is a practical case for those rights. we have learned the hard way that states that do not respect their own people are indeed dangerous states. that has helped reduce that view of human history. remarkable changes over the last several decades -- eight europe free of soviet power that is whole and at peace and free. it has produced in asia powerful democratic allies. in japan and south korea and parts of southeast asia. it has helped produce in latin

america a turn away from military coups toward free, stable democratic states like brazil or chile or colombia. we have helped to pull back from the brink of state failure. even in africa were sometimes people are so patronizing as to say, africa is too trouble for democracy. we have seen the rise of democratic governance. we have seen in places like botswana a commitment to free elections so those who would govern have to ask for the people's consent. there have been decades and

there have been setbacks. it's been a remarkable stream in favor of those who believe that free markets and free people will ultimately triumph and that indeed the value of freedom is a universal one. an american one or not a western one, a universal one. there are many challenges ahead. there is china. china challenges the concept and the idea that a tartarian -- that authoritarianism is not stable. let's forget the stresses that are emerging now in china as it makes the greatest social economic leap in human history. i was first in china in 1988. the streets of beijing or competition with a lot of bicycles. that is not beijing today. they have listed a lot of people out of poverty.

the stresses and strains are showing. product safety problems, bullet trains, or baby milk formula that is poisoned and the first impulse was to execute the person in charge of product safety. the stresses and strains that one sees in reported rights of over 180,000. the stresses and strains that one sees in a kind of lack of confidence in the chinese leadership about where they are going. i'm not suggesting there will be a revolution in china. if you go to the chinese internet, there are three words

you would not have seen. it suggests that the information age is indeed a challenge to the chinese leadership and they understand it. some other leaders are beginning to suggest that maybe the genesee based on prosperity -- legitimacy based on prosperity is difficult to maintain. some like the premier seems to suggest that maybe something that looks more like legitimacy based on consent might be necessary. the idea that these leaders -- people could elect their local leaders, they will want to elect their provincial leaders and their national leaders. authoritarianism is not consistent with the development of human potential. it is true that china is a challenge in terms of geostrategic terms but only if

we cede those terms. we are military power unmatched and we should remain so. in cyber, in space, with missile defense, then we will be able to sustain our dominance in the pacific. if we pay attention to the strong alliances that we have with other democratic states, in australia, in japan, then we have a basis for american leadership to dominate for years to come. there's a relationship with india which is rising as a power in the region. we have ceded the ground in one of port area in asia and that is in trade, where we have been absence. the last three trade agreements that were ratified in the

congress and negotiated in the bush administration. has secured nine free trade agreements and five more are in negotiation. trade is the one place that we have not tilted toward asia, latin america, or anyplace else. free trade is america's -- one of america's greatest assets in helping both free markets and free people. asia, then, an infrastructure for dealing with challenges. the middle east is much more chaotic. it lacks infrastructure. many of the pillars have been robbed by the events of the arab spring.

sometimes i wonder if the so- called pivot to asia is because the middle east is too hard. cannot afford to pull back -- we cannot afford to pull back. we should do everything that we can to build north american platforms from oil and gas to transportation to new technologies. we should build north american platforms for energy security. but we know that we will not be insulated from the middle east. one way or another, the malignancies of the middle east will come back to haunt us. so we need to move from a series of tactical responses since 2009 more strategic view of how we want the middle east to unfold. out a strategic view, either at the regional powers will exacerbate already-strong

sectarian tensions in the region. when our british friends drew the lines of the middle east, they obliterated any notion of sectarian divide. you have a circumstance in which one has had to dominate the other so that in a rock -- in iraq, and -- this divide will be worse without a strategic view of how the middle east might unfold differently. we need to look to build those stability.

it begins with a recommitment to our friends in the region and to israel, which still stands as the one strong democratic state in the region. we need to press reforms among our other friends. the mubarak situation did not have to work out the way it did. there were urged to undertake reforms before the people were in the streets. we need to do the same with our monarchs might make a move for greater representation for their people. to knees it is a place that seems to be on the right course -- tunisia. they continue to pressure more in egypt.

we need to have a relationship with turkey, a critically important country that we forget once really wanted to be a part of europe and was rebuffed by european union that was more concerned about what turkey would do to it. so the reaffirmation with a democratic turkey is key. also to recommit to iraq. times if feels like the rockies --some times in feels like the iraqs have gone off course. they have institutions in place that might help to give an answer to the sectarian divide between sunni and shia. you can have majority governments of one sect or another.

iraq needs our we-engagements -- re-engagement. we need to challenge iran. iran 8 revisionist power -- is a revisionist power. they have supported the terrorist shia groups in southern iraq. they have stirred up trouble in the eastern provinces of saudi arabia. they use their tentacles to try to cause problems in the gaza or in lebanon. in this regard, syria is critical. the collapse of the regime would deprive iran its handmaiden in the middle east and its launching pad for

hezbollah and for trouble in that region. now, it is a pretty big agenda to react to this changing world that has undergone these shocks. there those who ask, can we handle this challenge and still pursue our values? this is what has made the u.s. exceptional. this belief in free markets and free people, a willingness to try to promote them abroad and a belief the world would be more stable and more prosperous as freedom wins out. that exceptional as an is critical for another reason. we cannot ask the american people to make sacrifices if we have nothing to say about how the history should unfold.

rather than leading a common cause with like-minded states and longtime allies who share our values in europe and asia and latin america and africa and beyond. why should we make the sacrifices of leadership? american exception wasn't an american leadership are linked. it is reasonable that the american people are tired and i take some responsibility for that. i said to the president that they are tired. it has been a challenge and there has been vigilance and i think people are tired. i understand that.

there are those who say that we sapped our strength to do with our domestic problems at home. i want to suggest that there is another side to that coin. perhaps is our lack of confidence at home that is sapping our will to lead abroad. the confusion at home becomes an excuse not to engage the world and that is directly related to our willingness and our abilities to lead. much comes from domestic strains and in thomas but there's something deeper going on. human potential is so key today and america has been better at tapping human potential than any country ever in human history. it was the resources that you could dig out of the ground the major parable in the 19th

century. in the 20th-century, goes resources to make a better widget. when the 21st century, it is human potential and innovation that are at the core of influence and power. i got to travel around the world and got to see what people admired about the united states. the one thing that i always saw as a source of admiration is our great american national myths. a myth is something that is outside linear thinking and ours has always been the log cabin. you can come from humble circumstances and you can do great things. that has been the key to

unleashing when potential. it comes as a result of opportunity. that belief has led us to be a magnet for people from all over the world, the most ambitious people in the world have want it to come here. for those that came here, the united states has been enriched immigrants and has been made stronger by immigrants at is the cap from this demographics of japan and russia by immigrants. we must reaffirm our self as a country of immigrants and find a way to have a systematic set of laws and set of practices that allow us to continue to have the human potential come here. it is not enough to let people come here.

it has to be true for people who are here. the educational crisis that we face may well be the greatest threat to our national security. the educational crisis threatens to continue to produce weak links. a democracy is only as strong as its weakest link. crisis in k-12 produce people that will be on the bill because they will have nowhere else to go and do -- there will be on the dole. there will be unfit for the military or for other jobs. that is indeed the key to understanding another aspect of american exceptionally some.

-- exceptionalism. this is the most successful experiment in self-government in human history. it was built on the responsibility of the individual, with an impulse not from government but from civil society and philanthropy and from faith-based people who just wish to be good. that belief that it does not matter where you came from, in matters where you're going has given america a narrative. it is not a narrative of class conflict and entitlement. it is not a destructive narrative that finds fault for your challenges in someone else's success. it is a narrative that says i may not be able to control by circumstances but i can control my response to my circumstances.

that is an empowering narrative of opportunity. that is perhaps more than anything else the key to american exceptional was some. it is perhaps the key that is most under the assaults today hear a home. it may explain in parts why we lack the confidence and optimism and the strength to continue to advocate for free markets and free peoples abroad. without that advocacy, without that leadership, without the willingness to sacrifice and in print, one of two things will happen. either there will be chaos. chaos not last because history avoids a vacuum. it is will likely that that vacuum would be filled by those

who do not believe in a balance of power. we would find ourselves in the worst of circumstances, where we cannot protect our values and cannot protect our interests either. i am optimistic. i have seen the united states lead summit times before. 2006 was a pretty bad year for the bush administration. i read the biographies of the founding fathers. by all rights, the united states should not have come into being. the greatest military power probably should not have come into power. and the years of civil war, brother against brother. we became a more perfect union.

a little girl from alabama, the most segregated big city in america, where parents cannot take her to a restaurant or movie theater, but they have convinced that shouldn't be able to have a hamburger at woolworth's, cheat can become the president and she becomes the secretary of state. america has a way of making the impossible see inevitable. i think we will do it again. it is critical that the most compassionate and the most generous, this extraordinary place, this exceptional country also continues to be the most powerful. thank you very much.

[applause] >> thank you very much. that was truly inspiring. a deep look into history. that is what the country needs to hear. thank you very much for that. we have some time for some questions from the audience. we have some ground rules. we have two people in the aisles with microphone.

if you could wait until they come to you to give the microphone. if you could identify yourself. as a courtesy to our guest, if she could keep your question is short and to the point. so -- >> hi. a lot of respect to you, secretary rice. i thank you for your leadership on nato enlargement given your time as the precarious state. georgia and ukraine were blocked. the upcoming nato summits is in chicago. this is not an enlargement summit. macedonia has met all the requirements. greece violated their treaty obligations and i wanted to know your perspective. >> i have believe that nato must remain open to any democratic state, european democratic state the wishes to join its ranks. nato was to be a collective security mechanism for

democracies. in this regard, we pressed very hard. integrated a number of east european states including the baltic states, at the time was thought to be impossible to do. i worked very hard to try to resolve the macedonian name issue and perhaps it will be. i favor very much the integration of any european state that is ready and seems that macedonia is ready. as to ukraine and georgia, the nato communique said that these countries will become members of nato. that was an affirmative statement of the rightness of their coming in. the timing -- i am far from this and i do not know all the ins and outs of what is going on with the allies. i help nato recalls what is

meant to these states to be in nato. they have managed to make relatively smooth the transition from the collapse of communism in central europe to the integration of the states into europe. >> thank you so much for coming and speaking today.

i want to thank you for your part in this representation documentary that i had the opportunity to view. what advice would you give young women in a time work even though enormous strides have been made that women are some really under representative in the media and the government and high-ranking jobs, the vice you would give to young women and what you think it would take to receive full equality for women in government? >> i believe we are going to achieve full equality. it will happen one person anytime.

glass ceilings will be broken not by some announcement that we wish to break glass ceilings but because people are willing to break them. we have had three of the past four women as secretary of state's. colin powell was in there but that means is been 16 years since we've had a white male. define yourself in terms of what you want to do and how you'll get good at it to make a case that you are to do it and then go for it. it helps to of mentors and people who have been through the stretches. you don't have to have role models and mentors who look like you. i was waiting for it black, female, soviet mentor, i would still be waiting. find people who take an interest in you and an interest in your

career. never, ever let anybody define what you are going to be by how you look. that is something -- if you see somebody trying to do that, you just challenge right back because they have no right to do that and you cannot let them. >> thank you very much. i'm the in this number -- how do approach to things that are happening in syria? how do you see turkey's role? there are less countries trying to find the u.s. what do you think? >> thank you.

terms of turkey's role, can be beneficial to have turkey, which is a democratic country that is coming to terms with the relationship between islam and democratic values and democracy and it does not see them as contradicting one another. there are struggles in turkey and in makes people a little unnerved about some other things going on there. these people will build a new democratic bases in turkey. i think turkey has begun to advocate for the rights of others to live in freedom as well. it is important to see how

strong turkey has been in support of change in syria. change in syria is important because if we were willing to say it would not allow muammar gaddafi to mow down his people but we have watched as thousands of people have been mowed down, then we have a problem. i would hope it would be a broad policy because then you'll have something looks like proxy warfare in syria. if we just contemplate the situation in which power was restored but there were all these challenges, you have to go over into turkey and into lebanon and into iraq. there's a lot at stake in syria and i think it comes to trying to bring the opposition together as a turkey has done.

institutional reforms that would be made that would protect rights of all the minorities in syria as well as the majority. that would have as patrons of that, countries like turkey but the united states and the european union. you have to say if we cannot do with to the u.n., will do it as a coalition. i'm not suggesting the united states needs ground forces in that region. quite the opposite. this is not just a threat to our values. this is a strategic threat and we have to find a way to bring together those who are willing in the terribly, turkey, and others.

without american leadership, i am fearful that it will be a set of tactical decisions that are because of the interest of the regional powers and not because of the interest of a different kind of syria. >> back over here. >> thank you. >> good morning. you said the united states needs to challenge iraqn. presenters will be sitting down with iran's negotiators. if they're not successful, what should the united states do next? >> i think to take a tactical decision when one talks to the iranians. what do you say once you're talking to them? i think there are a couple of things that have to be said. the world has to be confident that the iranians have been shut off from a pathway to a

nuclear weapon. it is the same process that you can pursue higher percentages later on. once you saw the science problem, it is and engineering problem. "you can enrich to this level and no further." the iranians do have to be told that they will have to shut down the sights that are under clear -- the undeclared sites that are an open secret as to where they are. we to be careful not just to focus on the nuclear side. the nuclear side is very key. why iran a nuclear weapon would be so destabilizing? it is because of what iran is.

it is a state that is the poster child for state sponsorship of terrorism weather in southern iraq or the gaza strip or in lebanon. is state like that with a nuclear weapon would be unacceptable and a grave danger. iran, that regime is under a lot of pressure from sanctions. i do believe it is a regime that has lost all legitimacy. it is a population that is 7% under the age of 30 -- 70%. it is hard for me to see how in the long want that -- it is stable with that regime in power in iran. the iranians did not agree to

what we would like them to agree to? if we do not want to face the president -- to face the hard choice of having to use military force than the iranians have to believe that he will use military force. that's the only thing that will change their view. president obama has said he has a military option and he will use it. he does not bluff. the chatter around him is not helpful. that undermines the message that there is a useful military option and that we will use it. the nine states where not tolerate an iranian nuclear weapon -- the united states will not tolerate an iranian nuclear weapon.

>> thank you so much, secretary rice. if you would like to share your thoughts with us on what is going on in china. the biggest political scandal in decades. >> what is striking to me about the case and i do not think we know what happened there and the depth of it. it raises some questions about the strains of institutions in the provinces and the strength of rule of law, which i think raises questions about how one achieves the rule of law under authoritarianism. how open the discussion of it has been in china.

it is lighting up the blogosphere. at suggest there's a chinese population the craves information about what is going on in this country, that is determined to know what is going on in the country. when people know what is going on and they are interested in what is going on, they start to want to do something about what is going on. that presents a challenge to the chinese leadership, particularly if they prepare the 2012 party congress. we have to say china has achieved legitimacy based on prosperity at this point. the genesee based on press. -- the genesee. people become concerned about those who drive around in ferraris. the state is supposed to be

dedicated to social equality. china has a lot of challenges. if we're in the meeting rooms, people might be asking how the political structures could accommodate some of these, now becoming gorbachev. tried to reform from the top and you wind up collapsing the system. i think the big question is, what does it say about china itself and how politics gets done and the relationship between provincial leaders and the center and how the chinese people will respond to what is in fact one of the biggest political scandals in their history. >> we have time for one more question.

>> hi. i wanted to ask how you think the u.s.-indian relations it is panning out? this was a big success for the bush administration. i wonder how you feel it has gone and where it is going. >> thank you very much. i think the relationship with india is a key two or three related that we need to invest in. have brazil and turkey where we need to invest, and we need to invest in india. it is not easy. for some many years, it defined itself in a sense of a distinction to american power. movement was that way and the tilt for the soviet union. that will not change overnight. it is changing in the indian business community. when you talk to people from

mumbai, they are interested in what can be done to create innovation. there is so much activity back- and-forth between india and the silicon valley that you cannot count how many. underneath the governmental relations, a lot is happening that will change the character of the u.s.-indian engagement. even though there may be some disappointments, the civil nuclear it will stall as people evaluate nuclear energy, the civil nuclear deal was not just about nuclear energy. it was about high-technology and

the ability to share high technology with one of the most innovative and creative states on the globe. we do engage india -- we need to engage india because india list in that neighborhood. i believe if we stay with it and we encourage not just governmental engagement but engagement across the population and across the business community, we will find that those barnacles, you will, to define india will start to fall away. and we will have a good, reliable, democratic ally. india was the first country to contribute to the democratic fund in the u.n. we did relief for the tsunami with india, australia, japan,

in the united states and naval engagement. military to military exchanges are going forward. so we have to be patient. this is not a relationship that's tomorrow going to produce votes at the u.n. that are always in our favor. but it is a relationship that is worth investing. toin make league with one of the remark -- -- continue to make league with one of the remarkable democracies in the world. [applause] >> i'm sure i'm speaking on behalf of everyone here today that -- how thankful and appreciative we are that you

came here to speak to us. it's been a while since you've been in this hall. last time you were here you were secretary of state. actually i think you were here twice. and we hope that this is not the last time that you come. but you have an open invitation. you have a lot of eager people, not only here at heritage and washington, but across the nation and across the world. you're very good to hear what you have to say. we thank you for your service. i thank you for the time that i worked for you. i remember working on india and that democracy fund issue very well. and i thank you for once again for coming here and for your -- hopefully your future service and ongoing service to the country. so please join me in thanking her again for coming. [applause]

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> this year's student competition asked students across the country what part of the constitution was important to them and why? today's third prize winner selected the 14th amendment. as husbands, fathers, and mothers of working women, i believe we all recognize the gross inequity of discrimination in pay based on gender. >> so what is jender discrimination? >> gender discrimination is commonly known as the bias toward a person based on gender. >> some examples might be the difference of pay between men and women and the different rates of promotion. >> it's important that we equalize those disparities, especially when there are so many women working. >> the equal preck clause of the 14th amendment basically states that no citizen shall be stripped of any rights through process of the law. this can be interpreted as protection from discrimination of any form.

senator mike enze, senator hearken, senator more and senator isaac son are working on passing the work force investment act. the w.i.a. helps unemployed women find jobs. although the future of the w.i.a. is unclear, perhaps there will be more federal legislation regarding gender discrimination in the pay gap. the legislation protecting women from gender scrum nation, how will citizens -- discrimination, how will dissents be affected? [inaudible] >> congress has put two laws on the book to combat such discrimination. title seven of the civil rights act of 1964 and the equal pay act of 1963. >> although it is uncertain, the future legislation regarding gender discrimination will be effective in the future, some people find it comforting to have centers such as the o.e.d. that involve discrimination cases.

even though congress has put many laws into action on gender discrimination, the debate is now on whether or not the constitution or rather the equality clause of the 14gged -- of the 14th amendment protects women from discrimination. justice antonin scalia does not believe women are protected under the 14th amendment. he said the constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. the only issue is whether it prohibits it. it doesn't. nobody ever thought that that is what it meant. nobody ever voted for that. >> i want to be protective of the constitution because i have to apply for college or jobs, i don't want to be discriminate nailted against based on my gender and instd my performance. >> there are still other interpretations on whether or not women are protected by the constitution from gender discrimination. >> the equal protection of the law, basically saying that

every man and woman should be equally protected. >> there are over 20,000 gender discrimination cases filed each year. a few famous cases are reed vs. reed and the wal-mart lawsuit which focused on pay discrimination. the wal-mart versus duke started in 2001 when betty duke filed her complaint about gender discrimination. she claimed that they're in violation of title seven and civil rights act of 1964. [inaudible] one thing in general. the pay gap. >> gender pay gap would be about the gap in pay that men -- money that men make in relation to the money that women make for the same work. >> the bureau of labor statistics itself says do not control for many factors that can be significant in explaining earning differences. in fact, studies show that if you factor in observeable choices such as part-time work,

seniority, and occupational choice, the pay gap stands between 5% to 7%. >> so how much is the average full-time and part-time woman make to the average man? >> women still earn only 77 cents for every dollar earned by man. >> a full-time salary working women, $669, however, the weekly meeting earning a full-time salary working men totaled $821 making the woman's wage an approximate 81% of the men. >> so what is the effect of the pay gap? >> i think that oftentimes women are in staff roles and not -- staff roles historically do not pay as well as someone in a revenue-generating position. that's just the fact of the matter. >> cheryl bartz, irene rosenfeld, the c.e.o.'s of yahoo, kraft and pepsi.

they are the few women that made it into the senior executive ranks. >> only 2% of the 500 are women. there is only about 10 of them that are in the senior executive c.e.o. level of the fortune 500. there's got to be some barriers somewhere. i do believe, though, it's not neviusly -- nefariously c.e.o.'s or board of directors or chief executives that are keeping women down. i believe a lot of it has to do with the stereotypes. but i think what most of it is we as women are not putting ourselves in the positions that we need to be in in order to move into those levels. >> however, while the average earnings for women still lag behind those of men -- >> in 2009, senior c.e.o.'s received raises nearly 30%, while male c.e.o.'s took pay cuts. >> one. great things that has happened over time is the ability of

government to make sure that justice is done. i'm proud to have supported the proposals that allow a woman's a fair day's pay for a fair day's work which will affect both women and men. >> there are still barriers that effect men and women. one of those barriers is the "glass ceiling. ks the glass ceiling is the metaphorical term used to describe the unseen barrier that prevents women from reaching the top of the corporate ladder. and it can be to describe barriers for a woman in general. although discrimination seems to be a thing of the past, many people believe in [inaudible] >> revealed that the glass ceiling exists. >> however, there are still contrasting vupets on the glass ceiling. -- viewpoints on the glass ceiling. >> but what i have found it truly was just a metaphor and there's no glass ceiling. you look above you, and you probably see a ceiling but it's

probably not made of glass, right? there's really not a glass ceiling in reality. >> the glass ceiling that's affecting women, the real glass ceiling is the -- is the choices that men and women are socialized to make. >> since the glass ceiling is just considered as a term metaphor, are there barriers for people of different genders? >> sure there are. even you can say for a -- for white men there are some barriers to success. >> if there are still existing barriers today, how can they be prevented so future generations may enjoy equity in the nation? the debate on gender discrimination will still go on even though laws aren't enforced to protect women from gender discrimination. no matter what, one thing is for sure -- no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or -- of citizens of the united states. nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of the law.

nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. >> go to studentcam.org to watch the winning videos and continue the conversation about today's documentary on our facebook and twitter pages. >> next, commerce secretary john bryson and chicago mayor rahm emanuel discuss funding the export-import bank. after that, a forum on state tax policies and their impact on economic growth. then president obama talks about trade and u.s. exports at the port of tampa. >> april 15, 1912, nearly 1,500 per eshed on the ship called unsinkable. >> once the lookout bells were sounded, the lookout sighted an iceberg ahead and struck the bells up in the crow's nest three times. ding, ding, ding, which is a warning saying that there's some object ahead. it doesn't mean dead ahead.

it means ahead of the ship and doesn't say what kind of object. with the lookout, what they did after they strurk the bell, he went through -- to a telephone nest and pulled down to the officer the sont bridge to tell them what it is that they saw. and when the phone was finally answered, the entire conversation was what do you see? and the response was, iceberg right ahead. and the response from the officer was, thank you. >> samuel halpern on the truths and myths of that night. sunday at 4:00 p.m. eastern. part of american history tv. this weekend on c-span3. >> our specific mission is to work to see to it that human rights remain a central component of american foreign policy. and that when we are evaluating our foreign policy moves globally, human rights can never be the only consideration but it has to be part of the

dialogue. >> katrina lantos swett is president and c.e.o. of the lantos foundation for human rights and justice. >> when we abandon our deepest values and whether we're talking about torture as it relates to the war on terror, or the recent policy with russia. and the upcoming issue of whether or not the u.s. congress should pass the accountability act which we don't need to go into the details of that policy issue. but whether or not we're going to stay on record as saying human rights matters. they matter in russia. they matter in china. >> more with katrina lantos swett sunday night at 8:00 on c-span's "q&a." >> commerce secretary john bryson and chicago mayor rahm emanuel call on congress to extend funding for the export-import bank of the u.s. mayor emanuel served as chief of staff in the obama administration. he says american companies would not be able to take full

advantage of recent free trade agreements without the bank. the funding runs out at the end of may. senate republicans in march blocked the measure extending the bank's funding. this is about 40 minutes. >> good morning. good morning. we need to get started. we have a very full morning. i hope add good night's sleep. because -- i hope add good night's sleep. because you no what politico called the export-import bank? they called us a sleepy enclave. does this feel like a sleepy enclave? i don't think so. anyway, we had a terrific day yesterday. president clinton spoke obviously. that was a spectacular speech yesterday. and strong endorsement of ex-im bank. i was able to attend a number of the sessions on china.

we had a spirited discussion, on the economy, james falo, ambassador huntsman. we had two very strong panels on nigeria and i know we have a large delegation from nigeria here in terms of some of the opportunities there as well as what we look forward to see in vietnam and some of the other foreign delegations that are here. today, we have an equally exciting morning. we will be -- shortly you will hear from secretary bryson and mayor emanuel. we have two plenary sessions. designed really to look at how the world is really changed in the last year. both economically from the -- and continuing the arab spring and just some of the forces that we need to be thinking about as we try and look forward ahead to next year or two and three years. both from a business point of view and understating the global trends that are happening. we'll also have a panel on global infrastructure which is going to be one of the things that really is going to keep

powering our global economy. you know, for many years, the united states and the world relied on the u.s. consumer. those days in terms of the u.s. consumer pulling the global economy are largely behind us. we're going to be looking at an era of infrastructure that's really going to be powering our -- the global economy and i believe our own economy. and speaking of which yesterday, the commerce department released our export numbers. we exported $181 billion in february alone. that was a new -- a great high. [applause] and to put in perspective a year ago, it was $165 billion. so that's a very strong increase from just 12 months ago for the month of february. we are again exporting as we mentioned yesterday over $2.1 trillion at an annual rate right now. making very good progress on the national export initiative.

two or three quick things i want to announce as well. one of the things we've done at ex-im bank, those of you who work at the bank, obviously have been working hard on this, and our customers most importantly, is the greater customer focus. we talked -- we announced yesterday, alice albright, global credit express a. new small business lending product for loans up to half a million dollars. we have launched that. and we're looking when we see you next year, that we will have rolled this out in a robust fashion. so i'm very excited by that. and importantly, just this week, we've been working for the last year with secretary lahood and his colleagues at the maritime division at the department of transportation. and have come up with a new plan. this is really going to work most -- for many of our larger exporters where we will have greater transparency and more information on how u.s. exports that are shipped on american carriers can be done more

economically so that we can also make sure that we can meet our goals of doubling exports and creating more jobs here in the united states. all of this is really part of what we want to do as the title of our conference is, giving our exporters and american workers a competitive edge. and as we called our conference last year, "moving government at the speed of business." you're now going to hear from secretary bryson. i was pleased that within one week of the secretary being confirmed, he and i sat down for lunch and began to map out how we could work pert together -- work better together. and more importantly for ex-im bank it's rare to have a commerce secretary who's also a customer of the bank. and when john was in the private sector, at edison, we financed a power project in indonesia. the good news is they paid back the loan. so we like that. and created a lot of jobs.

so it was -- john is both a satisfied customer and we're a satisfied banker with his company's performance in that regard. he recently led a trade mission to india. our director, larry walter, was part of that trade mission. and so a lot of infrastructure opportunities there. then i -- he is going to be introducing rahm emanuel but rahm emanuel and i have been friend for at this point 19 years. we met when he was just married. and before he and his wife had three spectacular children. and will only say that in politics, it's often important to have what's called a rabbi. a rabbi is someone not just a spiritual leader but a rabbi who guides you through things, is able to sort of give you private and counsel and coaching so that -- and rahm was very helpful in my very first appointment with president clinton at the small business administration. and i just felt fortunate not only to have a rabbi in rahm emanuel but to have a jewish rabbi. because i thought that lent it

even greater credibility that he was my rabbi. he is going to be speaking to this morning. and we are working closely with the city of chicago. we have an office there. and i want to -- rahm is very much looking at chicago as point of export and engaging in the rest of the world. we see that in many port cities like new york, we see that in seattle. we see that in the port of houston. but he is really taking export into a whole other level in chicago. and we're very excited to be working with him on that. and without further adieux, let me bring up my good friend and colleague, john bryson, secretary of commerce. [applause] >> well, thank you, fred, and

it is a great, great pleasure to welcome all of you to this second day of this critically important and also wonderful annual conference. i'm going jump right in to what i do as the commerce secretary and tie it in to what we're most focused on here. and that is ex-im bank. and the critical role it plays, it won't surprise you, i think, to know that a principal priority of mine is increasing u.s. exports. and we want to do absolutely everything we can to help american companies do what i say every time and that is build it here and sell it everywhere. the national export initiative, and i think most of you know this, the president launched two years ago, at that time, it was an extraordinarily bold act to do that. the focus was doubling, doubling within five years u.s.

exports were well on track down the road two years into that. plenty of challenges ahead. we have to intitans fy more of what -- intensify more of what we're doing. we have to make ex-im bank. if we can't have ex-im bank to go where we need to go, this will be in the direction of impossible. let me just touch on a few things. fred gave you a few statistics. i'm going to give just a few more. u.s. exports of goods and services, and i think this is a striking number, last year, 2011, hit an all-time record of $2.1 trillion. and just yesterday, we announced the year to date exports for january and february are up 8.5% over that 2001 to 2011 levels. so stunning. and then one other key point.

from 2009 to 2011, the number of export-supported jobs increased by 1.2 million. really important number. in this economy. and we know that those export-related jobs pay higher than the average. so the next -- a record year. they provided financing that led to about $41 billion in u.s. exports. and as i think everyone here knows, ex-im does this at no cost to taxpayers. in fact, ex-im has actually generated revenues for the u.s. treasury since the 1990's. that's what you call smart government. re-authorizing the export-im bank should be straightforward, sound and a truly simple decision for the congress.

i think it's important to put it this way -- losing ex-im at a time when america's businesses and workers are just getting back on their feet would be deeply unacceptable. so as fred said, the commerce department and ex-im are close partners. i want to give one example of how we're working together. india's economy is -- has grown at an annual rate of 8% in recent years. their cities and populations are growing at a rate unparalleled now among the largest countries. so india has an ambitious plan to invest $1 trillion in infrastructure over the next five years. two weeks ago, as fred suggested, i led a group of businesses to india on my first trade mission as commerce secretary.

my message was simple there. american companies have deep experience in building our own complex infrastructure here in the u.s. we can find mutually beneficial -- and this is key -- mutually beneficial ways to help our indian partners do the same, creating more prosperity and jobs in both countries. here's an important fact. with respect to thafment the export-import bank -- that -- the export-import bank supported india just last year. so as an example, two of the companies on the trade mission with us were g.e. and black and beach. last year g.e. signed a $750 million contract for a 2.4 gig watt project. critically needed in india. very large scale. black and beach was selected to

design the plant. ex-im financed. that's significant and incredibly important project. and looking forward to the commerce department and ex-im will continue to work closely with businesses like yours to build stronger bridges around the world. and this is truly a team effort. leaders throughout the country are playing key roles. and in particular, america's great cities are crucial to driving exports. i'm now very pleased to introduce the extraordinary mayor of one of them. a man who really needs no introduction. rahm he will newly -- rahm emanuel is remarkably talented. colorful and in the words of "new york times" columnist david brooks, in a column he titled "an appreciation of

rahm," he is always passionately promoting some policy idea, something he cares deeply about and deeply believes in. rahm was born and raised in chicago. he became active in local and state politics. tame to washington as a senior -- came to washington as a senior advisor in the clinton white house and served three terms in the congress and as all of you know he went ton become the white house chief of staff -- went on to become the white house chief of staff for our president, president obama, where he did truly remarkable things. during his tenure, he helped orchestrate the passage of key milestones. such as the economic recovery act, wall street reform, health care reform, and increasing access and decreasing costs for millions of americans. he played a crucial role in securing a bipartisan compromise that saved 140,000

teachers' jobs. then as we all know, in 2011, he was elected to come home, elected the 55th mayor of chicago. and if you read about him over past year, you know that he hit the ground running, bringing quick action and bold ideas to the city. in fact, since rahm became mayor, more than 25 companies have announced that they will be creating jobs in chicago. and nearly 15,000 jobs have been created through initiatives he has chnd. -- he has championed. he has made tough choices to restore the city's economic health, worked to increase transparency in communication, with the people of chicago and he is helping chicago's businesses including its exporters do what they do best, which is grow and create jobs.

so please help me welcome to the podium chicago mayor rahm emanuel. [applause] i also want to say to fred, we will go there since we of know each other for 20 years, right now i think there are rabbis across america, see if they could raise the standard. thank you for those kind words, and for the opportunity to speak and address a very important topic. let me say up front one thing.

now that i'm no longer part of washington, back home in chicago, and also as a person who helped two presidents on major trade pacts -- one of my stance with president clinton was helping bill daley see nafta through completion. also, when i ran for congress, i was for free trade agreements, and when i worked with president obama, helping in the early stages to finalize pieces related to south korea, getting that agreement back on track, working with others in the administration. i'm a believer in opening markets to goods made here in america. now, the secretary has his way

of saying things, so it would be unacceptable to not reauthorize the ex-im bank. i think it would be foolish not to reauthorize the ex-im bank. he did not open up banks around the world and then not finance the opportunity to seize market share. the two go hand-in-hand. he would be counter to any business plan to not have the financing in place to seize market share. take south korea as one example. in a time which america did not have that agreement, the eu and others reached the agreement, and south korea became the 10th largest economy in the world. we're coming in late. we had better product, made better, but to get a market share we lost in need of financing arm so our companies are not at a disadvantage. i was hoping congress will come

to an agreement so we do not fumble the ball on the 50-yard line. that makes no sense. as a superpower, you cannot operate this way. to open up markets in colombia, panama, south korea, each of those countries will have different parts of america's product come there, but the financing is essential. in chicago we are about to launch an initiative as it relates to exports, setting a goal or the next five years to double exports around the world, which will create in the chicago-area 100,000 jobs. to do that without the ex-im bank would not be possible. we are the third largest city in america, yet we are ranked

10th in exports. that means we have a low base. we can improve we will do it, and i will lay out some of the ideas we will do to achieve that goal with the ex-im bank as a strategic partner. i want to accentuate it. i want to use it to it's full ability. chicago and illinois have benefited from ex-im bank, including companies like boeing, caterpillar, john deere, and that is a good thing. there are other companies in the chicago area that have benefited. to achieve the goal we have set as a city, over the next five years -- and exports, which will help us create over 100,000 jobs, i need to take advantage of three other strategic advantages of the city of chicago.

we are the center of flat roofs manufacturing companies. the midwest is. the chicago area is. there has been a focus on those businesses opening up around the world to other markets. basically, we have about 100,000 companies with 500 or less the employees. we are the center for the country of the flat roof manufacturers. for them to gain market share, open up in other countries where they do not have access to day, they need the resources that come with ex-im bank, the capacity and financing that comes with ex-im bank. they cannot get there because they do not have the of the structure to do it otherwise in-house. that will be a central part of our strategy. let me roll back a little and

take one step back. about seven months ago, i said what is our plan for the city of chicago over the next 10 years? in my own view, while chicago his huge strategic advantages, and i want to give you one example -- the average four- year college population in the city is 20%. in chicago it is 34%. we have a skilled workforce with a midwest work ethic. we have another huge advantages. we are losing those of vantage is. our productivity, our educational advantage. what is our business plan? i do not want to experience what happened for the country, another lost decade. we cannot afford it. i pulled together chicago, our nonprofits, a our academic institutions, partnered with the brookings institute and mckenzie, to lay out a plan that says what are our main goals, and how do i make sure

that as we make decisions we are marching towards achieving those goals? there were a number of them laid out. we have 10 specific goals of which exports were seen to be as a low-lying fruit for immediate job growth. there are things that are not being fully materialized and realize for job growth and economic activity. first, chicago is the inland hub of america. if you are in new york, it makes sense why you look to europe. chicago is the inland hub of america.

it is a transportation, distribution, and logistic juggernaut in america. if it runs on a rail, roads, or brown rice, chicago has a role to play. 25% of all cargo on rail comes to chicago. the airport, the second busiest in the country, but the only with both major carriers operating out of. you can get anywhere in the world or anywhere in the country directly. we are also the center where broadband runs. on a host of levels we are a juggernaut, the best never been extended for an export strategy, gaining more market share. secondly, i already told you about our work force, the education levels that are essential. one of the pieces -- great four-year institutions, higher

education institutions. 175,000 people go to our community colleges. one of the things we have done is we are changing community colleges, picking six growth fields. malcolm x college will only do health care now. dibble develop the curriculum, the professors who will train the students so they will be exports to be in the 85,000 jobs over the next decade that will come on in health care. all scripps is training health care. the other fields will be professional services, culinary

and hospitality, i.t., and also the advanced manufacturing. right now, in chicago, we have about 1000 jobs in the chicago area that are open in the industrial maintenance area and we do not have the skilled work force to make them. those are the people that fix the problems that get exported from the world. while chicago lost manufacturing jobs come out its own in advance and effective. how do i accentuate that? our committee college will train the workers to the industrial maintenance and have the skill base in that area. one school will be dedicated for that. the industrial manufacturers

will develop the curriculum, do the training, so when a worker comes out of one of our community colleges, they will know that the curriculum and the training they did -- and in the same way, i will say this is no different in my view, it is a false choice to think that only a four-year institution -- you need all skills. dow works with kellogg in developing the curriculum at northwestern so the graduates are the people that can come work at dow. that should not be any different for a person coming out of malcolm x that should give people the same skill base.

third, and essential to this in the infrastructure space that i talked about, we are launching about $7.3 billion of infrastructure spending in the city of chicago over the next three years that will create 30,000 jobs. we are replacing 1,000 miles of water pipe -- everything 100 years or older will be replaced. 750 miles of sewer will be replaced or realigned. they will be totally replaced or rebuilt. we of the two largest water filtration systems. those will be rebuilt. all of that savings, to the will year's worth of water that we lose through leaking pipes will actually be considered, and our savings from water, sewer,

the catch basins, will also be creating 18,000 jobs over the next decade -- alone. we will be rebuilding a new chicago, and that skill base, what other countries are going on and infrastructure build, we will gather that skill base and our companies will have the skill base to compete for what goes on in india, colombia, nigeria, vietnam. as we are rebuilding here in america, not only are we rebuilding america, we are getting a skill sets to compete for infrastructure projects in markets around the world. the architectural, engineering expertise for water. i think water will be important in the next 30 years, as important as energy has been

for less 30 years. if we sit on the great lakes. i want the expertise in chicago. in addition to setting a goal, and partnering with ex-im bank to focus on the small manufacturing companies in the city of chicago, to begin to develop in those markets around the world -- we will be doing a conference with ex-im bank to set goals and market share. a lot of these companies who do exports only export to one country. the reason they came across as was coincidence. when it comes to exporting it should not be a coincidence. it should be a business plan. to win in the 21st century, it cannot be an accident or coincidence. it has to be a business

strategy. axiom will use chicago as its test market to develop the small companies, what boeing, john deere, microsoft knows about ex-im. you need them as a partner. they will be partners for the small manufacturers of chicago with market share in the countries around the world looking for american made products. we will do the conference, the partnership, the financing focused on those mid-level companies. in addition, i am converting our sister city program and asking each one of our sister cities in our initiative to come up with a plan to expand market share in those cities. as mayors we have a sister city programs. usually the other mayors coming, we exchanged gifts, talk, take a picture, and that is it. i think as you can gather from

my speech, i do not find that very exciting. we will turn the sister city program. we have sister city programs with shanghai, in new delhi, moscow, toronto, and germany put the biggest port city, 28 on five continents, but they have never been organized with a clear business strategy for the city's economy and businesses in the city to accentuate and gain market share. each of them will report back in the next three months with a business time specific. what do we do to maximize opportunities there? not just more flights, not just another photo. they are great. i love taking photos, but if i want to do that, i go to a

wedding. we have never used our relationship to maximize as a city our business opportunities around, and the city partnership with ex-im will be a key piece to that. leslie, let me say this. as we modernize our infrastructure and using ex-im as a partner, each of these are part of a strategy that is complementary. using chicago's strength with its workforce, as the only inland city with market share. it is the only city that looks out, with the distribution system that allows it to look out, but into america.

the work force as highly skilled, highly motivated. it is the center of flat roof manufacturing. it did not lose in the advanced manufacturing jobs the pace the rest of the manufacturing sector lost. how to organize those aspects to expand our market share to achieve what i think is an achievable goal -- one that president obama set for the country. there were skeptics three years ago that there was no way america could export itself to growth. use that same metro, five years, double, 100,000 jobs will come to the city of chicago. we are marching along to make sure that from the destruction, to job-training, from skill- based development, to export growth. we are not point to have our

own export policy, but we will have our own export strategy, and ex-im will be a key partners in helping us achieve that. as i said, we are 10th as it relates to exports, but we are the third largest city in america. we of great potential. our base is low. our capacity is great. i am honored, and it is not unusual that you would have a mayor come here. it might is something about my life. i checked into my hotel last night, and i got caught watching president clinton on c- span, watching your former boss on c-span, but that said he laid out a vision for the country. today, there are about 50 cities in the world that are the main competitors and economic

drivers. chicago is one of them. to seize the next decade for the people of chicago, we, too, has to have the business strategy, and growing our exports as part of our economy is essential. at making sure that the manufacturers are in chicago can stay there and grow their means i have to give them better infrastructure, better skilled workers to pull from, and greater markets to go seize. we are now putting in place a strategy to move up from 10th to where we belong on that listing of american cities with an export-driven economy. it has worked for boeing. i'm happy, because boeing is based in chicago. it has worked for caterpillar, an illinois-based company. it has worked for john deere, another illinois-based company. we want to make it work for the

companies that have 500 or less employees in the chicago area to have an export strategy that is beyond zero or one country, taking the capabilities of ex- im, the marketing strategy, and have the city function with ex- im so chicago can move on to its proper rank, using all the assets of people, skills, technology, to gain greater market share. thank you very much. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> advocates of lower state tax is gathered in new york city on tuesday to compare tax policies and economic growth in different states. they discussed a number of

studies suggesting ranks between population movement and tax policy. this conference is quoted by the george zogby bush institute, a think tank that is part of the george bush center based at southern methodist university in texas. this is one hour. >> governor christie alluded to strong leaders in every state in america and we are beginning this conference with what is going on in the states. we have a panel on state governments and taxes. michael cox is coming up. i want to introduce albert nie mi, the dean of the school of

business at southern methodist university. we will have the governors on after this panel. we wanted to do a panel where we have expert taking a look at what is happening in the states. i cannot think of a better person to moderate that panel than al niemi, who is devoted his career to asking this question -- which states succeed and why? we are excited to have as our partner in so many things, southern methodist university. dean niemi. >> thank you, jim. i like our position of being a first panel, but i did not know we would have to follow governor christie. panelists, we have a tough, tough act to follow. it is the first time i've seen governor christie on television.

he is awfully impressive. what he had to say about the growth of government -- i teach a course on the evolution of american capitalism in the fall. government, collectively at the federal, state, and local level, was a 10% or less before the great depression. after the great depression, it got up to 20% with all the new deal programs, not only at the federal level, but state and local. we have never gotten back there and now it is over 40%. people say how big should government be? it is 42% now. we do not have a way to ratchet it down. in the interest of true disclosure, i grew up in boston, massachusetts. i am a refugee -- i left massachusetts when the state income tax was pro%. my dissertation was a

macroeconomic history looking at the 25 years after world war ii. all of the economic forces that were driving companies to move their business to the carolinas, to georgia, to tennessee, to what became known as the sun belt -- when i finished my dissertation at age 25, thank god i was offered an opportunity to go to the sunbelt. i took a position at the university of georgia. i guess that the last 40 years in two great growth states -- georgia and texas. our panel will look at state taxes and house some economies grow and why some are more successful. we are going to start with steve moore, a member of the editorial board for the wall street journal, at senior economics writer. the is the author of five books including "bullish on bush."

"rich states, poor states," which is a terrific read. what are some states are rich? why are some states bore? what do their tax rates have to do with it? >> thank you. it is a thrill to be in the presence -- in the present space. i remember in january 2003, i and about six or seven other economists -- steve forbes, larry cut out -- many went to visit president bush in the white house. at that time, the private wanted a stimulus to the economy. he was seeking advice. we came in and one of the recommendations was to eliminate the dividend tax. we made the case that it was a double tax on our corporate income and we should have a corporate income tax or a dividend tax, but we should not have it both. the president came out with a proposal to erase the dividend

tax. we did not get down to zero, but we got down to putting%. we cut the capital gains rate to 15%. i think that was one of the great accomplishments of the bush administration. if you want to see how tax policy affects behavior, look at the aftermath of that tax cut. 2003, 20004, 2006, and 2007 with the strongest economic growth we have had in this country's history. there is all this talk now -- governor christie talked about the issue of the budget pact, which spread the obama will be talking about today. the left the top of the the tax rates matter. they do not think it is behavior -- they do not take it affects behavior or revenues. one of the things i would like to point you to, and i wish the president, timothy geithner, and some of the other obama economists were here, because they do not have their trade

tables in the upright position -- trade tables and in the upright position. look what happened in the aftermath of that tax cut. in the wall street journal today, we have a piece on capital gains. capital gains revenue doubled after we cut the tax rate from 20% to 15%. the same thing happened to dividends. tax rates do matter. to get your question about states, if people do not think tax rates matter, please explain california? california has every advantage at a state could possibly have. it has the most beautiful mountains, silicon valley, beautiful beaches, beautiful women -- anything anyone could possibly want, yet if you look a performance of the california economy over the last 10 years or so, it has been a total catastrophe. i think things will get worse clark california. one reason i am not bullish

about the economy going forward, california has a traditional -- traditionally led us out of the recession. now california has become an anchor. that is, i believe, because of the high taxes and regulation policies of that state. by the way, california is -- in november will have a ballot initiative to raise the top tax rate from 14% to 50%. california will be the highest tax rate and the country, even higher than new york city. i think they hold that up as a badge of honor in california. that is going to ruin that state. i do a study every year where we grade the states on economic policies. we have been doing this about 10 years. we have seen very clearly that when states to the wrong thing, like california is doing, you see the effect on economic output, migration. migration is an amazing story.

california is losing its wealth producers year after year. they are going to states like nevada, idaho, texas. then you have to ask, "how you explain texas?" of the last 10-12 years, texas has had about 40% of all the net new jobs in the united states, an amazing performance. why? texas is a low-income tax state. it is a light regulation state. it is absolutely booming. you have other states -- one of the last points i will make and then turn it over to the next state -- one of the things i am seeing in state tax activity right now is the blue states are getting bluer and the red states are getting redder. i am and the state of illinois. we have such a terrible governor the people want blagojevich

back. [laughter] we raised our corporate tax by over 50%. the corporate and business tax rates are the highest in the midwest and the third highest in the country. mitch daniels said it very well when he said being a neighboring state of two illinois is like of living next to the simpsons. it is true. --illinois' economy is in the reciting thing i wanted to report is out these red states. a bill haslam. here is an example of a governor with no income tax at all. tennessee will grow faster over the next decade. why? in the state of tennessee, they are inundating their gift packs. that will mean tennessee will not just be a good place to live and work, but a good place to die as well.

[laughter] that is going to keep wealth in the state of tennessee. you have one exciting development. you have three or four states looking at becoming a no income tax state. the race is on. you have kansas trying to remove the state income tax there. north dakota is booming, they have some much revenue they could easily eliminate income tax the way alaska did. this is an exciting development.

i think this is a development we ought to be paying really close attention to. what you're going to see over the ensuing years is because of this dichotomy, people will be able to see it which states work and which don't. you turned around michigan with their tax policies back in the 1990's. you had one of the fastest growth of many states. taxes do matter and i wish people in washington understood that. >> you mention california and all of its advantages. could it turnaround? could it come back? could they change direction? they're trying it in ohio. indiana made changes recently. i love the place. then you say, they just keep

fumbling the ball. as thomas jefferson called it, the tyranny of the majority. are the crazies and charging california? >> you can turn things around quick. california is getting close to a tipping point where they have more takers than makers. if you put in a pro-growth gov. things can turn around so quickly. that is why what is happening in new jersey with chris christie is so exciting. when you took over as governor in michigan, michigan was a basket case. did they went back to the bad policies. there was a regression. states like california can boom. california has every possible advantage. silicon valley, the most educated work force and the country. it is a tragedy to see how that state is being ruined by high taxes. california also passed a cap and

trade bill. >> next level turned to my colleague on the right, michael cox. michael has done significant research on the comparison between why texas is doing so well and why california is suffering. michael runs the freedom center at the cox school of business. he was senior vice president at the dallas fed and he joined my faculty and fall of 2008. tell us a little bit about california versus taxes. >> the question is what are people leaving california and going to texas? that is the no. 1 state of migration we are fortunate to have data from the irs going back to the 1970's that documents all the migration going on between states coming into america from abroad as

well. the states are a microcosm for what people want, generally not just in their state government but in their federal government. if you look at migration going on, for the past five years it has been a period of the largest single migration within our borders we have never had as a matter of record. people are moving. they're looking for the new world. they are looking for a place they can go and have something they are not experiencing in the state they left. we decided to do a formal study on why people are moving. we took 15 or 20 variables people say are causing people to move such as the court system, the unemployment rate of the state, average income, the crime rate. we will try it. it turned out as of -- of all these variables people tout as being important, there are six

that explain two thirds of all the migration going on amongst the states. those six are the personal income tax rate, the highest personal income tax rate the state has. the size of the government and how fast the government is growing. the first of those is a negative. the size of government growth is a negative. also, how unionized is the state? what percentage of their labor force is unionized. quality of public schools. those are four variables. two matter as well. the climate -- we cannot do anything about that. i will not talk about that. the income tax rate is significant at the 99% level. you do normal statistical tests which economists have developed. you take all 50 states that we

have, their income tax rates. you can take the district of columbia as well. you take migration data. you take a look at everything and see what the computer says at what is driving migration. what we find is what is driving migration is how high the income taxes are and how big the state budget is. let's focus on income taxes here. texas is one of seven states that has no income taxes. california has a 10.6% highest marginal income-tax rate. massachusetts had 12%, hawaii 11% and so on. you can look at this and say, what state's people are moving to on the basis. people are moving to low income tax states from high income tax states. they are voting with their feet. they're telling politicians with a value. they're telling politicians, for all your taxes you charge as we

are not getting enough state benefits from it. we are not value in what you are doing with the state income tax so we are leaving. many americans would like to follow and rinds path out the door of atlas shrugged. it is expensive to leave the country. it is not expensive to leave once day and go to another. they are telling us what they want and do not want. i would like you to take a look at our study. it is online. we will set you a copy. this is a car driving west to east from california to texas. we have added more jobs and taxes from january 2000 until december 2011, texas added more jobs than the entire rest of the nation combined. >> given the significant growth

in texas, and i think the number is about 52% of all jobs created in the united states since january 2000 are in texas. what is the achilles heel for taxes? what could go wrong? can they keep up? >> the achilles heel would be for the state to think they need more tax revenue and become a in context. that has become a signature of our state. i think what we could do the most to add more residents to their state is to reform their public schools. it would not even cost more. if you privatize the public schools -- what makes america great, it is not a public sector it is competition. in 1984 year cell phone was $4,200. it was the size of a brick. it would not fit in your pocket. t did not have any text iing

capabilities. today for $50 you can get an iphone with those capabilities and more. at the same time that vote has gone to $50, the public school systems have gotten worse. what is the difference between those two things? one is produced in the crucible of competition. people have to get up and make things better or they lose their jobs. it is not pretty but you have to compete and get more productive. that is one. the other one, in states like new jersey like gov. christie was talking about, there are classes in new jersey or the state's spending on the classroom -- it is $450,000 per classroom. they're just not affective and they are not producing a student that is competitive at the worldwide level. we know our schools are broken.

what can a government do to attract people more than anything else, reform the schools. >> travis, i am coming to you. travis is a leading advocate for tax reform. a constitutional amendment to repeal the income tax. his work has focused studying the great american migration of workers who are seeking jobs. i will start off with the travis. tennessee only taxes interest in dividend income. what is the field look like with missouri and tennessee? >> it is a pleasure to be here today. is great to have this conversation not only at leadership levels but also in the private sector with a number

of you in the business community. misery -- we are in the middle of the country. part of what the wall street journal has referred to as the heartland tax rebellion. it is time for voters to wake up and shake loose their economy and understand what has worked in what has not. misery provides a great comparison to tennessee. 50 years ago tennessee inherited a no tax position from the supreme court. back then they were economically inferior, fewer people moving there. they had a smaller state budget. today the reverse is true. i have a larger state budget, they provide more services. they pay their teachers more. they start out thinking more and stay in the system longer. they have more generous social service programs. we know they are not shortchanging revenue to pursue

a smarter tax policy. i think our founding fathers understood this concept very well what made america great among the states and competition. been franklin in 1765 in reference to the stamp act said idleness in pride tax with a heavier hand and kings and parliament. if we can get rid of the former rican easily bear the latter. misery is like many of the heartland states. we are not idle people. we enjoyed working wherever we can work can be productive. we have a tax structure that has 11 tax brackets under $9,000 in wages. i learned today if you are taxed like a millionaire in the jersey if it is over $4,000, and misery are taxed at the same rate of millionaires above $9,000 in wages. -- missouri is $9,000 in wages.

we can and must do better. our people pose a culture is better than that. culture is people's better than that. you might see with clarity what is happening to your body. we can look at net adjusted gross income shifts in all these cases, not just california and texas, missouri and tennessee, states that have the right tax policy like florida have seen $76 billion move to their state since 1994. states like california that have had policies previously described have lost more than $40 billion. states like missouri in the middle are neither ahead or behind. we are struggling to move to that -- the top of the tier status. we want to be part of the 4% solution this conference is focused on. we must wake up our government,

our government leadership, and our people directly. we see strong evidence in recent times, not just in the midwest. washington state under initiative 1098 had an opportunity to choose the california path. that initiative went to fail by 20 points once the business community and the citizens woke up. closer to home, we would like to thank governor quinn for thinking -- keeping missouri in the race. we have seen migration and pressure not just move to our state but to wisconsin, indiana. since that one policy move was made last january -- this is the only substantial decision made by the state budget. there have been 18 jobs per hour move out of illinois. that is one personal and income-

tax is for raised as the only solution. these consequences matter greatly. the numbers are astounding when you look at migration. we must do better. we know the solutions of what work. it is a pleasure to see you here talking about what has worked for your states. we do not have to wonder and we cannot be too proud not to recognize there is a better way to do business. >> what are the prospects for reform in misouri? >> we are working to do everything we can. i know the governor and places like kansas and oklahoma are working hard as well in their state legislative arenas. whether it is now, today, or tomorrow is a question. we will do everything we can to put us in the race to zero. we encourage and help all of the leadership here can inspire your community, your state.

it is not an accidental thing like gov. christie spoke so eloquently about getting his financial house in order. 3.4 million taxpayers prior to gov. christie's arrival left new jersey for one state -- florida. these numbers are much larger than what people are accustomed to hearing because most people have not spent time studying and looking at it. >> thank you. ike is director of economic policy. he is a director of the policy caucus in washington, d.c. much of your work is how capital gains state taxes affect growth and job creation in particular. let's talk about the linkage between capital gains taxes and jobs growth.

>> one thing i would like to point out. like steve from the state of illinois. the one break that illinois has on its tax code is in the state constitution it says there has to be a proportional tax. if it were not for that provision, the top marginal tax rate would be not 5% but 15%. my seventh grade social studies teacher told me one day you will be thankful for that and i finally understand what he is talking about. i did a study with will. looking at what happens when states change their capital gains rates. what brought this up is gov. case it was talking about reducing the capital gains taxes. -- governor kasich was looking at reducing the capital gains taxes.

i have a stylized story i think it's what is going on and what the cost is of states to have heavy capital gains taxes. you think about who represents an angel investor in a state like illinois, indiana, wisconsin, ohio, places like that. they are never going to get anybody who is wealthy and made their money in california going from california to ohio -- and other high tax state. most people who will invest in ohio are ohio wins. -- ohioins. the very first thing he will be tilted to -- he is going to do without much protest as get a house in florida and of their 183 days of the year and become a florida resident. the real question is, what the to get the person to remain in ohio both as a taxpayer and also as an investor? one thing that we suggest is that if you reduce or eliminate the capital gains taxes in these

states people will be much more likely to stay in the state. we have seen just by interviewing people in ohio and indiana. with these people, they want to invest something they can get their hands on. they do not want to move to california are move anywhere else. it went to stay in their state. if you give them a tax reason to do so, they will stay and the best in their state. i think in the 1990's, a lot of states -- i lived in wisconsin in the 1990's. one mistake a lot of states made is this a try to attract individuals, people who are likely to create jobs, the targeted money towards businesses. one of the mindsets we have to change is to attract people who are more likely to invest. the results of our study, which are public -- published on the american action form website, is basically ohio, if you are in a higher resident and you invest

in and ohio business that is -- has a market cap of less of $4 billion, basically you do not have to pay capital gains taxes. that is a long-term investment. we got data from the national bureau of economic research. we look at what has happened to various states to have not only eliminated capital gains taxes but have increased or decreased their capital gains taxes. looking at 40 states that still have an income tax for capital gains tax, there has been quite a bit of variation. results are indisputable. >> our friends at forbes magazine to annual rankings of business from the states. in your analysis of tax structure at the state level, if you had to name your top five business from the states and maybe your bottom five, who would be in that set?

not in order, but who gets it and who does not? >>texas gets it. i think the other state that stands out is indiana. mitch daniels has been very aggressive about doing precisely that. not necessarily targeting businesses but creating an environment that is phenomenal for growth. it is much difficult to explain this that that is what you are doing. in wisconsin in the nineties and early 2000's, it was easy to say, i want to create jobs. i will get $10 million to harley-davidson to keep these jobs in the state. that is basically what they did. they gave tax breaks and grants to the biggest employers in the state. we all know the history of economics is the big employers usually do not remain the big employers. we are no good at identifying

the small businesses. the third state i would like to point out is gov. kasich has done a fantastic job making the state more friendly to businesses and investors. he has the foresight to recognize this is a long-term proposition and he is waiting -- ready to take on some short-term on popularity for it. >> in illinois because tax rates are so high, the governor is giving tax favored giveaways to see years, motorola, chicago mercantile exchange. every big industry is getting a relief from the tax and. >> in my course this past fall, i work closely with the dallas chamber trying to recruit businesses from all your states to texas. there are two states that our

chamber has targeted -- california and illinois. i did one lecture on state competition. i have been studying this for more than 40 years. i have never seen such a small group of winners. 11 or 12 states that are doing really well and 37 or 38 states really suffering. in the winners and losers the gap is widening rapidly. i shared these one-page comparative sheets. texas the advantages versus illinois. texas and california. this is a death struggle. they're going for the jugular against california and illinois in trying to migrate and targeting -- i get calls all the time. do you know the ceo of such and such company in california or illinois? we would like an introduction. they are targeting companies that they think would prosper in

texas. diana, a senior fellow at the manhattan institute. a contributing editor to real clear politics. she has published numerous articles. you have two books coming out this year. s," ands figure is "regulating to disaster." you have recently completed a study on revenues collected through capitals gains tax and the impact on municipals budget. can you share some of your research? >> i would like to say how refreshing it was to hear president bush talk again about the advantage of low tax rates.

the senator was persuaded not to change parties until he voted for the tax cut. i am glad they are called the bush tax cuts. i was looking at capital gains, revenues in different cities. i was asked to look at different municipalities. one thing that struck me was the big increase in tax -- capital gains tax rates and tax rates on capital that will occur on january 1 at the federal level. it is goodbye to the bush tax cuts. taxes on long-term capital gains for individuals will go up from 15% to 25%. not just because of the expiry of the bush cuts but also because of the new medicare tax. taxes on dividends will go from 15% to the upper level of around 45%. all of you might say, what does

this have to do with the states? this is a panel on states. we find when taxes drop at the federal level, people realize fewer amounts of capital gains. they wait and hold off. companies do not issue dividends as much. states that are getting money from capital gains and cities that are doing so find they have less revenue in their coffers. to make up for it they have to raise taxes in other ways. it is interesting we are here in new york city. i looked at three cities, new york city, indianapolis, baltimore. they are raise some revenues from capital gains taxes. this last year available, new york had about $1 billion on taxes from capital gains. this funded the headstart

program and day care, transportation in the schools, a charter and contract schools and foster care. raising capital gains taxes, i can assure you in new york city people are not going to realize capital gains for the same amount. everybody will see other forms of taxes go up. this is not just in the new york city. if we look at indianapolis. indianapolis had about $16 million from capital gains taxes, taxes on capital. that funded the department of metropolitan police and operating lease payments and administrations. capital gains taxes did not fund directly because all funds are -- this is the approximate amount in these different budget

line items. baltimore had about $28 million from taxes on capital last year. this $28 million line item was about the equivalent of the department of health. it was the department of recreation and parks. it was also equivalent to the department of housing and urban development. what we are seeing with these tax hikes coming up -- many of us call it a fiscal cliff. we are going to go over it on january 1. congress is not devoting any time to talking about it, and talking about the facts. also, talking about how to offset it. one with think with irresponsible congress that would see this is coming. we have to do something about it. it is not just affecting us, it will be affecting states all over the country because of the interaction between federal and state tax code. we have no discussion about it at all.

is up to all of us to write articles and give speeches to talk about this and say, hey, what are you doing? you will be affecting different state budgets. many states are not fortunate to .ave governors such a they will have governor is not taking a hard line on taxes. it will be a great detriment. >> thank you. e.j., i am coming to you. he is a senior fellow at the manhattan institute. much of your work is focused on the state of new york. we are all new yorkers. we all love new york city. it is when many people embark on their start in america, the immigrants.

most passed through new york. for those who are not lucky enough ever to come to the united states probably u.s. under the microscope of new york. tell us about your research on new york, the good and the bet. what have you what people love about new york and what you find appealing if you live elsewhere is the legacy of the tremendous wealth in new york and new york's status as a financial capital, as a media capital. as mr. glassman said in his introduction, a center of innovation and competition. those are things that make new york great and make it appealing. tax policy and the economy of new york teaches us some

lessons about the effects of competition and how it is felt and the nature of the impacts of competition. but going to pay a little history. in the late 1950's, a lot of this began, as everything in your does, with the election of nelson rockefeller as governor. 1959, a 7% income-tax rate, no sales tax. the city of new york, at that point, and through the early 1960's, was funding itself over a combination of property-tax is, utilities taxes, and a mass of nuisance taxes. in other words, like another -- like other big cities. what happening during the 1960's and 1970's was the nation's biggest experience to see how far you can go with an anti- growth tax policy. it really is remarkable if you

look at it. by the early 1960's, new york's state income-tax rate was over 15%. new york city had a tax rate of over 4.5 -- 4%. the combined tax rate approached 20%. the city had its own corporate income tax. the city had a bigger sales tax. the city had invented an unincorporated business tax affecting all business partnerships and partnership income in the city. what happened between 1969 and 1975 was the city lost 600,000 private-sector jobs. during the decade of the '70s, the city lost 800,000 residents. the city had a near-death experience. what happened was a collective understanding of what had produced that and a bipartisan agreement that changes had to be made. what happened was the city and the state began to embark on an era of protest growth tax

policy, which, as luck would have it, coincided exactly what the pro-growth tax policies of the reagan era on the federal level. no city benefited more from pro- growth tax policies starting in the early 1980's the new york state -- then york city and no state then york state. i think your neighbors and the proximity of your competition is important, which is relevant to the illinois example. new jersey and connecticut at that time had no your tax. -- had no income tax. in the 1980's and the like 1970's, under a democratic governor working with the republican state senate majority, embarked on what ended up being a 17-year almost unbroken with one exception

series of tax cuts. the state tax rate was cut in half. the city's taxes began to stabilize and then be reduced, most significantly under mayor guiliani in the 1990's, who was the first mayor in new york's modern history, and so far the only one, to make a policy priority out of reducing taxes. in the late 1990's, the city cut taxes by about $3 billion. the city gained over 300,000 jobs. the tax model indicated at 80,000 of those could be attributed to tax cuts. let's bring yourself to the present. we go through the end of the 1990's and the tax-cutting progress stops on september 11, 2001, which created an immediate fiscal problem for the city. the lasting economic impact was last then appeared, but that was the end of concerted efforts to reduce taxes on the city and state level. we benefited one more time from

what the. urged the to not keep calling it "the bush tax cuts." the city and state did very significant temporary income-tax increases, which took effect the same day as the acceleration of the bush tax cuts. its negative impact was overwhelmed by the positive effects of that tax cut. we benefited a lot from pro- growth tax policies. where are we now? the most heavily taxed big city in the country. the state has extended an extra high tax on its own version of demonere tax, which it does, implied to -- does apply to million-dollar incomes this year. the city and the state have begun to turn back in another direction. i take it we are at great risk from to federal policy. i will match in an aspect of what diana talked-about -- our tax base is shared with the

federal government. our definition of income is what the federal income -- federal government taxes. we are subject to changes when people respond to the impact of federal tax changes. if all of the bush tax cuts expire and some of the other changes the president has proposed are made, we estimate the state will lose over $400 million in revenue due to the impact on the state's tax base. the city could lose 25% as much. we make those estimates for years ago we probably ended up back in the same place. we are very much susceptible to the impact of federal tax changes. one other aspect that we can discuss is the impact of changes to the way the federal government taxes or treats state and local taxes. the federal government has subsidized by taxes by making them deductible. when we had a combined income tax rate in new york city of

19% in the late 1970's, it was deductible under federal income tax of 70%. that net the net pack price for new york compared to florida was 4.5%. roughly 30 years later, our cost under the current tax code is 4.5% once again. if we curtail deductibility in the way the president has proposed, or if under a pro- growth tax regime as the one proposed by congressman ryan it is decided that base broadening should include the elimination of the federal and state deduction, that will be a challenge for high taxes venues like new york. you'll suddenly not have the federal government's of the pot -- subsidizing your anti- competitive tax policies. >> ej, could you talk a little

bit about the rest of the great state of new york? several years ago, i chaired a team that rea credited the business school at syracuse university. i was there for three days. it is not a pretty sight what has happened to syracuse. i have a dear friend doing my job at the university of rochester school of business. it is not a pretty sight what is happening at rochester. i have not been in buffalo recently, but i think the same thing is true there. what is going on in the upstate? i was in boston last week. boston is still doing fine, but they are shutting down the rest of massachusetts. what is going on with these second-tier cities? >> upstate new york used to be a place that was richer than average, but on its own, would have been one of the most prosperous states in the union. one of the things at the upstate suffers from is more curse than

a blessing of being in the same state as new york city. the policies of the state are dominated more than ever by downstate elected officials. of state is suffering from a number of factors that may be called "secular." kodak is not going bankrupt because of new york state tax policies. the problem is because -- the problem is the upstate cities are stuck with the tax policies of new york state in the regulatory policies of new york state. they are more vulnerable to the damage done by into growth tax policies. new york city is so enormous and wealthy that it is possible for a large number of people to spend years in denial or not noticed the impact the policies have as a result of tax policy. upstate new york is more vulnerable to the damaging effects of a state tax policies and high marginal tax rates. upstate, right now the story is

one of stagnation. of state did not have a high unemployment rate because there are not a lot of people hanging around upstate new york looking for jobs. a state did not have a real estate bubble because there were not a lot of people clamoring to buy houses in upstate new york. upstate new york of a lot of natural advantages. there are a lot of things about the city's in upstate new york -- syracuse, rochester, buffalo -- that many can tell you about. they have their own legacies in the era when there were richer and more dominant economically, but right now they suffer from a deep-seated stagnation made worse by state policies. the wealthiest and most successful entrepreneur produced was atate new york' billionaire who started a company called paychex.

the tripled out his own credit card embar of money from relatives in the 1960's. he is a millionaire. he built this massively successful, wonderful company in rochester. he is a huge philanthropist. he dabbles in sports teams. he also dabbled in politics, unsuccessfully. after the late -- last state tax increase in 2009, he did something almost no one has ever done in new york. generally people do not leave a note, they just leave. or they do the "bad date" thing and say it is not you, it is me. he held a press conference and said this to the final straw. this will cost me $30,000 a day. i am going. i am moving to florida. you might think that may have some impact on the new york debate. i spent an inordinate amount of time on tv with people discussing new york tax policy.

you will not be surprised to hear that when one mentions the wealthiest, most successful billionaire in upstate new york in the last half century is leaving because of high taxes, they say he does not count. but he is an indication of the problem. >> the upstate new york problem -- if you look across the border at pennsylvania, all new york has to do is decide they will allow hydro for acting. they could be having the boom pennsylvania has. they could be at topping the development and deployment going on. >> unfortunately, that does not seem to be happening. >> but it could upper new york could turn around. >> 1.5 years ago, in conjunction with the bush institute, we did a conference called "america, natural gas nation." we had governor ed rendell, who

was in the waning days of his governorship in pennsylvania, on one of the panels with the assistant attorney general for the great state of new york. two different worlds. governor rendell was traveling and the fact that they had least over 450 drilling rights. i think it was up to 12 in new york. to hear the attitude towards frackin and taking advantage of these opportunities. we at several companies from the drilling companies come up next and say what they chose to locate in pennsylvania, do these sorts of drills, and suck that gas out of new york. [laughter] it was interesting when you saw the taxes and incentives working. these are pretty smart folks. it does not happen yet. it could. we see what is happening in north dakota. >> before i go to "q&a", i want

to comment on anything else anyone of the other speakers said? >> i do not think, michael, you touched on it. you may have. we have done studies -- studies of what causes migration from one state to the other. the one thing we found that was the most powerful factor by far was right to work. right to work states significantly outperform non right to work states. that is important because indiana was the first day in a long time under mitch daniels to become a right to work state. states like new york refused to be right to work simply take themselves off the map. even if they get all the other policies right, ceos of companies, the people who determine where to place a plant or facility, but will not even consider a state that is not right to work. i would just add that as a really important component to why some states are working and

others are failing. >> i would like to add a footnote to that. if you go back to 1982 -- the last 30 years, look at auto assembly plants. either closed down or newly built. there are 22 new auto assembly plants. 21 out of the 22 were built in right to work states. there have been 17 auto plants closed by american auto producers. 16 out of the 17 were in a highly-unionized states. i work that into my course on the story of labor unions and how they create jobs and kill jobs. if you let the american automobile industry, people see detroit crumbling and think we are losing the automobile industry. ask the folks in alabama, south carolina, and tennessee at the auto industry is alive and well because the auto industry has moved to the sunbelt. it is run by bmw, mercedes-

benz, honda, nissan, and other providers of automobiles, but it was the unions that did that. anybody else? >> i want to make one comment. what we are talking about here is in contact is, but what a tax is is something that enables one group to consume without producing, to live at the expense of others. unions are part of that. as you pointed out to me many times, the biggest single tax increase ever foisted on american employers is obamacare. it cost american companies more to hire workers today. the increased is higher today than any tax that has been imposed. >> do not get me started on that. [laughter] >> if you are calling it a tax, which it really is, it plays

into the administration. before it was a penalty. it was not a tax. >> there is a company based in santa barbara, california. i have gotten to know them pretty well because the ceo's son is a junior at the cox school of business. they had great plans to expand. it is the parent of six concept restaurants. the biggest one is carl's jr.. the biggest expansion plans in 2012 as to the the 14 record to build hundreds of carl's jr. restaurants in texas and create thousands of new jobs. the cost of obamacare, because they only provide health insurance to full-time employees, the average cost of health care was a $10 million. under obamacare, that rose to $28 million. it almost tripled. they scuttled the plans for hundreds of new restaurants and we got thousands of new jobs.

that is a small company, but my friends at at&t in dallas said the annual cost of their health care went up $1 billion a year. those are job killers. >> next, president obama path about trade at the port of tampa. then, mitt romney and newt gingrich and former satanic it rick santorum speak at the nra annual meeting. after that, for it -- foreign policy remarks by former secretary of state condoleezza rights. tomorrow on washington journal, farm policy staff writer, just broken, on north korea's failed rocket launch. sarah brown, ceo of the campaign to prevent teenager and pregnancy, talks about her efforts. peter reuter previews president obama's attendance at this weekend of 3 summit of the

americas in colombia and the u.s. approach to the drug war. washington journal live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> ice -- our specific mission is to work to see that human rights become an essential component of american foreign- policy and that when we are evaluating our foreign-policy moves globally, human-rights can never be the only consideration, but it has to be part of the dollar up -- of the dialogue. >> the credit and ceo of the foundation for human rights and justice. >> when we abandon our values -- we were talking about torture as it relates to the war on terror or the recent policy with russia. the upcoming issue of whether or not we should pass the accountability act. we do not need to go into the

details of the policy issue, but whether or not we are good to stay on record saying human- rights matter. >> more sunday night at 8:00 on c-span's "q&a". >> now, but it obama this is the port of template to highlight the benefits of trade with latin america and the importance of u.s. exports there. the president also announced a new initiative to promote job creation in small and medium- sized enterprises and encouraged trade among these businesses throughout the western hemisphere. following this stop, the president flew to colombia for the summit the americans. >> i am david hale, president of florida structural steel. a little bit about our company. we are located here in tampa with two fabricating shops as

well as our corporate office. we have been here for 85 years. we -- 55 years. we employ a little over 200 individuals at our operations here in tampa. a bit about what we do -- we are a very diversified company. one of our basic product -- product lines is we fabricate large storage tanks. these tanks, some are big enough that a football field could fit inside of. another bit of work we do is we fabricate and erect large steel highway bridges. for instance, all of the bridges over 10,000 tons of bridges at tampa airport we did right here out of tampa. we have been in a growth mode for a four-five years now, but the good news is, we see that continuing. the free-trade agreement is

instrumental in our growth by supporting our export business. we continuously are involved in central, south america, and, in fact, have opened support offices in guatemala, panama, and colombia, south america. this year out of this location in tampa, we have shipped projects all throughout central america, the caribbean, projects in africa, two projects in saudi arabia, and we have another large project coming up in panama, as well as a large one developing in ecuador. we are truly in a global economy. with that, fla. structural

still along with the port of tampa and the city of tampa are honored to welcome the of the united states, president barack obama. rahm. -- welcome. [applause] ♪ ♪ >> thank you. hello, tampa. [applause] it is good to be here in tampa,

good to be in florida. i just got a tour of this magnificent port. i was hoping to try one of the cranes. [laughter] the secret service would not let me. they don't let me have fun. there were more concerned about your safety than mine. [laughter] they did not want me messing anything up. i want to thank david for that introduction. i want to thank mayor buckhorn for welcoming us to tampa and an outstanding member of congress, kathy castor, for joining us today. [applause] if you have chairs, feel free to sit down. some of you do. it is warm in here. i don't want anybody dropping off. i have been talking a lot lately about the fundamental choice we face as a country.

we can either settle for a country where a shrinking number of people who really, really well while a growing number are struggling to get by or we can build an economy where everybody gets a fair shot and everybody is doing their fair share and everybody is playing by the same set of rules. part a building that economy is making sure that we are not a country that is known to us for what we buy and what we consume. after all, our middle-class was built by workers who invented products, made product, and sold products, the best in the world, all round the world. our economy was thriving when shipping containers left ports like this, packed with goods that were stamped with three proud words --"made in america." those exports supported a lot of good paying jobs in america including right here in florida. that is the country i want us to be again and that is why two

years ago, i set the goal of doubling american exports by the end of 2014. today, with the trade agreements that i have signed into law, we're on track to meet that goal. soon, there will be millions of new customers for american goods in south korea, and columbia, in panama. there will be new cars on the streets of seoul that are imported from detroit and toledo and chicago. that is progress. i want to thank two key members of my cabinet who were here today, labor secretary hilda solis is in the house -- [applause] and u.s. trade representative ron kirk because the work really hard to make this happen. [applause] one way we have helped american business sell their products

around the world is by calling out our competitors, making sure they are playing by the same rules. for example, we have brought trade cases against china at nearly twice the rate as the last administration. we just brought a new case last month. we set up a trade enforcement unit that is designed to investigate any questionable trade practices taking place anywhere in the world. we will take action whenever other countries are skirting the rules, breaking the rules, and putting our workers and businesses at an unfair position we will also make sure you have access to more customers. 95% of the world's consumers live outside our borders. we want them buying our products. i am willing to go anywhere in the world to open up new markets for american businesses.

that is what i will be doing right after this visit to tampa, i am heading to columbia to take place in the summit of the americas which greece together leaders from the caribbean and from north, south, and central america. everybody here knows how critical this part of the world is to our economy and to creating jobs. a lot of the countries in the region are on the rise. in latin america alone, over the past decade, tens of millions of people have stepped out of poverty and into the middle class. they are now in a position to start buying american products. that means they've got more money to spend. we want than spending money on american-made goods that american businesses can put more americans back to work. in car exports in the western hemisphere are up by 46% since 2009 parent [applause] tampa is one of the biggest ports in the country.

a lot of the business being done here has to do with trade between us and latin america. the fact that it has gone up 46% since 2009 is a big deal for tampa. florida exports to this region are up nearly 30%. we now export more to the western hemisphere than to any other region in the world. exports support nearly 4 million u.s. jobs. this is one of the most active trading relationships in the world and you see it up close here at the port of tampa. every year, more than 2.5 million tons of fertilizer go from here to farmers in the caribbean and central and south america. engine oils that are produced not far from this port get shipped to countries throughout the hemisphere. everything from recycled steel

to animal feed gets sent from a year to customers all across latin america. while i am in columbia talking with other leaders, i will be thinking about you. i will be thinking about how we can get more businesses like david's access to more markets and more customers in the region because i want to sell stuff but i want to put more americans back to work. [applause] one of the new things we are doing is launching something called the small business network of the americas. obviously, a lot of exports that leave from america to other places are big businesses and that is great. we want their big corporations successful and selling products around the world because we have a lot of small businesses that are suppliers to them.

so it will make it easier for them to get financed, buyers will be interested in their products. i've always said the true engine of job creation in this country is the private sector. the washington. our jobs to help businesses grow, to keep the platform and for his success. 17 times for a small business. [applause] that is why i have travelled

around the world opening new markets so that americans can better compete in the global marketplace. ultimately, this is what america is about. we are a nation of viewers, a nation of builders. we have never shied away from competition. we thrive on competition. but the global playing field is level, america is going to win. so long as i am president, i will keep doing everything i can to give our workers and our businesses the opportunity to succeed. that is how we're going to make this recovery felt by all people. we're going to make sure that we build not just from the top down, but from the bottom up and the middle out. we will make sure that everybody has a fair shot. we're going to make sure that

anybody that wants a job will find one, and anybody that wants to fill an believe the american -- anybody that wants to fill out the american dream is welcome to do so. we have gone through three very tough years. the worst crisis we have seen in a generation. as i travel around the country and talk to workers and businesses, you can't help but have confidence. you can't quit, we are resilient, we are the most inventive country in the world. we of the best universities in the world, we have the best research in the world. we have the best infrastructure in the world, we are going to keep at it and make sure that the twenty first century is the american century just like the twentieth century. thank you.

>> now republican presidential candidates and former presidential candidates speak at the national rifle association annual meeting in st. louis, missouri. their remarks are about an hour. >> thank you so much, thank you. thank you for your generous wellcome and what a job that wayne did, what extraordinary man. i/o hem of great debt of gratitude, and a friend that has been a supporter for a long time. thank you for that wonderful introduction. there is one more person i would like to introduce. this is a hero of mine, i believe all moms are working moms, and have five sons, your

work is never over. my sweetheart. your welcome. >> this is fabulous. let me give a shout out to all moms that are working. and, by the way, to all-they're working. we love all of you. i often think that you are only a as a parent, as happy as your saddest child. and you never stop being a parent. and our boys are grown with children of their own, but if such a wonderful opportunity for me to think about the heritage that we are leaving those

children. and i love the fact that when my kids were growing up, that we lived a stone's throw away from lexington green. and pretty soon on april 19, they will be celebrating something in lexington mass., the shot heard round the world. and those patriots that had the ability to fight tyranny and how grateful we are to all of you here today. i have heard recently something, how women were being referred to as a special interest group. and i thought to myself, really only washington could do that. there is only one part of that phrase that is correct. the women are special. [applause] we love this country. we love the people love this

country. we have had an extraordinary experience going across and meeting tens of thousands of wonderful americans that are so concerned about the future of this country. we recognize that we are headed in a direction that is perilous. this is what i love the most. women are talking about the economy and jobs and the legacy of debt we are going to leave our children. we are mad about it and we will do something about it in november. we have to make sure we keep this country strong and fighting for the right reasons. thank you so much and we will hear from mitt. >> you bet. thank you, sweetheart. it is great to be with so many friends here today from the national rifle association. this organization is sometimes called a single issue group.

that is high praise when the single issue you are fighting for its freedom. you can be proud of your long and on wavering -- unwavering defense of constitutional rights and liberties. in 207 days, we are going to do something that is quite amazing. america will choose a president, an entire house of representatives, and part of the senate. around midnight on december 6 -- november 6, we will know the results of millions of americans exercising their right to vote. in doing so, americans will be making a profound choice, a decision that is more important than one person or one party. we will not just selects the president that will guide us. we will choose between two

distinct pact -- paths and destinies. so many of the big issues in the campaign turned on our understanding of the constitution and how it was meant to guide our lives. it was harry truman -- harry truman who expressed a guiding conviction that we all share. the permanent care of the national archives. president truman offered a word of caution. liberty, he said, can be lost. and it will be if the time ever comes when these documents are regarded not as the supreme expression of a belief, but as curiosities in a glass case. truman believed, as we do, that the principles of the constitution are enduring and

universal. they were designed not to bend to the will of president and justices who come and go. the belief that we are all created equal, that we are in doubt by our creator with our inalienable rights. these are truths that are valid in every era. it has generated on paralleled opportunities and prosperity. -- unparalleled opportunities and prosperity. they created a system of government that is limited. president obama is moving us away from our purpose. this november, we face a defining decision. i am running for president

because i have the experience and the vision to lead us in a different direction. we know what president obama's vision is. we have limited the past three years. my course protect our freedom. as president, the constitution would be my guide. the declaration of independence would be my compass. i want to talk about this administration's assault on our freedom. first our economic freedom, then our religious freedom, then our personal freedoms. i want to share my own plans to

return america to the first principles of this nation. the american economy is fueled by freedom. for it people and free enterprise are what drives our economic vitality. the obama administration's assaults on economic freedom is the principal reason the recovery has been so slow and so that bid -- tepid and why it could not meet their projections or our expectations. the president's first assault on freedom begins with taxes and tax hikes. by their nature, taxes reduce freedom. they are to fund things that are absolutely essential like national security, education, and to care for those who cannot care for themselves. this president has proposed raising the marginal tax rate. the vice president has proposed a new global business tax. medical device companies are subject to a new tax on revenues. the president is touring the country touting a new tax on investment and the wealthy. congress doesn't need more

money to spend. it needs to spend only what it has. [applause] the dodd-frank lot is another example of the president also attack on -- law is another example of the president's attack on freedom. it is followed by thousands and thousands of pages of new regulations. regulations are necessary. burdensome regulations serve only to restrict freedom. the victims of the regulations are not nameless, faceless banks. they are employees, business owners, and customers who rely on banks who ultimately lose out. under president obama, bureaucrats are insinuating

themselves into every part of the economy, undermining economic freedom. they keep coal from being mined. they impede the reliable supply of natural gas. they even tell farmers what their children can and cannot do to help on the firm. remember the old line from will rogers? he said he worried when congress was in session. our freedom is never safe. unelected, on each count -- unaccountable bureaucrats are always on the prowl. for centuries, the american dream has meant the opportunity to build something new. some of our greatest success stories are people who started out with nothing but a good idea and a corner in the garage. today, americans look at what it takes to start a business. they do not see a promise or an opportunity. they see government spending in the way. the real cost of this is not

the taxes. it is the businesses that are never started, the ideas that are never pursued, the dreams that are never realized. we want to build the interstate highway system and the hoover dam. today, we cannot even build a pipeline. [applause] we once led the world in manufacturing and exports and infrastructure investment. today, we lead the world in lawsuits. we once led the world in educating our kids. today, half the kids in our 50 largest cities will not graduate

from high school. if we continue along this path, we will spend our lives filling out forms and comply with regulations and pleading with political appointees for waivers and permissions. that passed the rose freedom. -- path erodes freedom. it hurts the people it is supposed to help. freedom is the victim of on abounded at -- unbounded government apatite. as government takes more and more, there is less and less incentive to take risks, to innovate, to hire people. this administration thinks our economy is struggling because the stimulus was too small. we are struggling because our government is too big. i am running for president

because i have the experience and the vision to get us out of this mess. my agenda takes america in the right direction. it preserves freedom. it encourages risk-taking and innovation. it fosters competition. it promotes opportunity instead of expanding the government. i am going to shrink it. instead of raising taxes, i am going to cut them. [applause] the answer for a weak economy is not more government. it is more freedom. [applause] economic freedom has not been the only one of the obama

administration's targets. our first freedom, our religious freedom, has also been under attack by this administration. you may have seen a recent labor relations case. the government claim to a church should not be free to determine who qualifies as a minister under the law. it claimed the government should interfere with that decision. the constitution came to the rescue. we wondered what the court would do. they rejected the obama administration's attack in a 9-0 decision. [applause] of course, now the obama administration has decided it has the power to mandate what catholic charities and catholic

schools and catholic hospitals must cover in their insurance plans for employees. it is easy to forget how often candidate obama assured us that under his health insurance plan, nothing would have to change. the government is already dictating to religious groups on matters of doctrine and conscience. in all of america, there is no larger provider of health care for women and their babies than the catholic church. that is not enough. [applause] that that does not satisfy the obama bureaucrats. they want to be catholics to fall in line and violate the tenants of their faith. -- tenets of their faith. i will follow a different path than president obama. i will be a staunch defender of religious freedom.

[applause] this regulation from the obamacare folks is not a threat or insult to only one religious group. it is a threat and insult to every religious group. as president, i will abolish it. [applause] i do not think i have to tell you this, but like economic and religious freedoms, our personal freedoms have also been under attack. few things are more important to us that our health and our health care. the 10th amendment preserves the right to choose our health care. it preserves goes to the states and the people. obamacare violates the constitution. i am counting on the supreme

court to say exactly that. [applause] it is not just health care, of course, that this administration attacks. did you hear this story? a couple has learned firsthand how the obama administration interferes with personal freedom. they saved enough money to buy a piece of property and build a home on it. a few days after they broke ground, an epa regulator told them to stop digging immediately. epa said they were building on a wetland. this property sits in a residential area. nevertheless, the epa told them that was a file decision and it could not be appealed. fortunately, the constitution confronted the obama administration again. the supreme court ruled unanimously for this couple and against the obama

administration, just like they should. [applause] this administration's attack on freedom extends to rise explicitly guaranteed by the constitution, the right to bear arms. it is so plainly state did and so on ambiguous that liberal -- that liberals -- unambitious that liberals have had a hard time speaking against it. i applaud conservationists and ambassador bolton 40 posing international -- for opposing international laws. i applaud senator grassley and congressman issa for exposing past and serious. i applaud the nra leadership in

calling upon the guinea -- calling upon attorney general holder to resign or get fired. [applause] we need a president that will import car laws and not create new ones that will only serve -- support current laws and not create new ones. if we are going to safeguard our second amendment, it is time to elect a president that will

extend the rights that president obama ignores or minimize this. i will protect the rights of the second amendment. [applause] we have all seen enough of president obama over the last three years to know we do not want another four. in a second term, he would be unrestrained by the demands of reelection, as he told a russian president when he thought no one was listening. after reelection, he would have a lot more "flexibility"to do what he wants. not sure what he meant by that, but i have a good idea.

take the supreme court, for instance. he has a unique vision of the supreme court. he said, "i am confident the supreme court will not take what would be an unprecedented extraordinary step of overturning a lot that was passed by a strong majority in a democratically elected congress. what president obama calls an extraordinary and unprecedented, the rest of us recognize as judicial review. that concept has been the centerpiece of our constitutional system hundreds of years. judicial review requires that the supreme court strike down any law that does not conform to the constitution. that is one of our freedoms. that is what they have to do. [applause]

but president obama seems to believe court's decisions are only did it when they will in its favor and illegitimate -- court decisions are only valid when day agree with this well and he does not favor the ones that don't. in his first term, we have seen this president tried to browbeat the supreme court. in his second term, he would remake it. our freedoms would be in the hands of an obama court. not just for four years, but for the next 40. and we must not let that happen.

[applause] as president, i will uphold the rule of law and put america back on the path toward the founders' vision. i do not want to transform america. i want to return america to the principles that made this country great. our founders created a nation conceived in liberty and trusted us with the duty to observe it and defend it. in the generation since, more than a million americans have made the ultimate sacrifice. one day toward the end of my term as governor, my office got

a call telling us that a soldier had been killed in iraq. his family had not been able to be notified in time to get to the airport to receive his remains. they asked if i would go to the airport in their stead. i said, of course. we drove over to the airport. the jets came in and the people disembarked. the luggage -- jet came in and the people disembarked. the luggage came down and then the casket. the people there saluted. i put my hand on my heart. i happened to glance up at the terminal. in boston, there is a wall of glass with the plane had come in.

the people coming off of the plane had seen all of the police cars and they stopped to see what was going on. the people walking down the hall saudi people leaning up and down the glass and they stood behind them. there is a huge crowd of people. as i look up there, i see that every single person had their hands on their hearts. when i think of our country, it is things like that that come to my mind. should i have the honor of serving as president, that is how i will seek to leave. not by putting one group against another, but by bringing up together americans. americans want a leader who will tell them the truth, who will live with integrity, who will preserve the nation and protect our constitution.

[applause] we have a sacred duty to restore the promise of america. and we will do it. we will do it because we believe in america. we will never apologize for success at home. never again will we apologize for americans abroad. [applause] it meant something special to all of us. we knew it without question. so did the world. those days are coming back.

that is our destiny. [applause] we believe in america. we believe in ourselves. our greatest days are ahead. we are, after all, americans. join me in this great cause. let's take back our nation and defend our freedom. god bless you. god bless the united states of america. thank you very much. [applause] thank you.

>> it is great for us to be back with all of you. i want to start by naming the women that were so kind and generous. today, we talk about a number of key issues. the tremendous leadership that he has consistently provided for the right to bear arms and want to thank all of you as members for the work you do to make sure that we are in position to

preserve our rights. i also want to recognize john and has provided real leadership. it is very important that we produce leaders, and in particular, that we produce leaders that are prepared to carry our ideas and our values with political conflict. i will suggest a fairly bold change in direction. in order to lead to more aggressively on offense and in terms of defending the right to bear arms. i want to speak positive words

about the obama administration. her i think the words goodbye are very positive. [applause] and i think we need to focus our energies from now until november not just to say goodbye to barack obama and joe biden, but to say goodbye to those liberals in the senate who have been blocking passage of the right kind of legislation. if you understand and believe in our constitution, you know we have to win more than just the presidency. we have to win house seats and senate seats to get america back on track. we have to have one of the most

decisive in elections in our history. we need to get america back on the right track because from economic problems to fiscal problems to national security problems, we are a country that has gotten away from the things that made us effective. in a game which administration, we would start in a direct way. on the first day, i would sign a direct order to thoroughly investigate and make public what happened with fast and furious and who was responsible. [applause] on that same opening day, i would start with an executive i would start with an executive

order which would eliminate, as of that moment, all of the white house czars. [applause] and i would immediately come as of that day, issue an executive order, moving the american embassy from tell aviv to jerusalem -- jerusalem in recognition of israel's right to sovereignty. [applause] i would also open up offshore and federal land to the development of american oil and gas which the specific purpose of american energy independence so that no future president ever again bows to a daud -- saudi king. [applause] we are on the edge of a technological revolution, which has enabled us to go from a

seven years' supply of natural gas in the year 2000 to over a 125-year today. we did it by something called to drilling. it turns out that drilling works. the president gave several speeches because i have been advocating gasoline below $2 and it is since a gallon and his political consultants told him to god -- $2.50 a gallon and his political consultants told him to go out and start making speeches about energy. i do not know if you remember the president's solution. does anyone remember the obama model? algae. the president said we need algy. we are thinking about having volunteers -- the president said we need algae. we are thinking about having volunteers at gas stations which bottles of algae.

i want to talk about energy because it is a perfect example of a strategic change and how we should be thinking on a national level. if we would have a determined effort to open up federal land -- we all in alaska and it is twice the size of texas. we all one-and-a-half times the size of texas. we could give the environmentalist half of texas for polar bears, glaciers, mountains. that would leave you an area the size of texas to develop. in north dakota, the new drilling technology has increased the amount of available oil from 150 million barrels to 240 billion barrels. they could have 500 billion

barrels in north dakota alone. in that context, we could become energy independent. this would allow us to say to the europeans, the chinese, the japanese, that the straits of hormuz are a problem for you, not us. it would [applause] -- [applause] it would allow us to say to saudi arabia, we are prepared to exert as much pressure as needed to allow you to stop. an american energy program does more than that. the unemployment rate in north dakota is 3.5%.

there are 60,000 energy jobs they cannot sell because 3.5% have the wrong skills. i advocate that we change unemployment compensation so that you could -- you should be learning while we are paying. we should never again give people in 99 weeks of money for doing nothing. in 99 weeks, you could earn an associate's degree. keeping energy in the united states would strengthen the dollar and create several

million american jobs. it would increase the revenue for the federal government as people are put to work. i say this as the only speaker of the house in your lifetime to author four consecutive balanced budget. we paid off $105 billion in debt. if we are prepared to control spending and we are prepared to reform government, nothing is a bigger step to a balanced budget than to take somebody off of food stamps and off of unemployment and off of medicaid and public housing and put them back to work paid taxes and taking care of their families. finally, having an american energy program would allow us to take all of the royalties. if we develop our capability in federal land and offshore,

royalty payments would be $16 trillion to $18 trillion to the federal government. if we were disciplined, we could balance the budget on an operating fund basis and put all the royalties into a debt reduction fund. in the lifetime of the young people here today, we will have paid off the entire national debt. [applause] the right energy program would allow you to stop worrying about the chinese. that is a strategic energy program that makes sense for america.

for anybody who says we cannot get the price of gasoline down, prices dropped from $7.90 a gallon. i am being cautious by tried to get to $2.50. the soybean reasonable. -- i am being reasonable. let me focus on the central theme of the national rifle association. the right to bear arms comes from our creator, not our government. [applause] it is one of the unalienable rights and alluded to in the

declaration of independence. it does not grant the right to bear arms. it acknowledges their pre- existing condition. the founding fathers knew this for a practical reason. when british troops arrived on lexington and concord expecting to force the peasants into surrender, something they had done quite well in ireland, scotland, wales, and england, they found they were not up against peasants. they were up against americans. they were up against trained militia. they were up against people who work sure the land of the free or the home of the -- and the home of the brave. without being the home of the brave, you would not remain the land of the free.

[applause] many of you know i like wayver -- wayne very much. i think the nra has been too damaged. the gingrich presidency will submit to the united nations a treaty that extends the right to bear arms as a human right for every person on the planet because every person on the planet deserves the right to defend themselves from those who would oppressed them,

exploit them, raped them, or kill them. [applause] is not enough to be against the small arms treaty. it keeps us, psychologically, on defense. the time has come to when the opposition. far fewer women would be raped, far fewer children would be killed, few were children would be destroyed if people everywhere on the had the right to bear arms.

george soros's and hillary clinton's head on. they want the elites to get ahead of us and we trust in the basic decency of millions of people, we believe that they can protect themselves and they can be armed with safety because they are in charge of their life, and because god has made them sovereign, not government. remember. i want to close, but think about in and put it in your hearts. our declaration of independence did not say we americans, it is a universal document, we hold these truths to be self-evident

that all men are created equal. and that they are endowed by their creator. we don't need to go across the planet trying to oppose american values. we do need to go across the planet and advocate human values. their best captured in the declaration of independence, and we have an obligation to reach out and say to them, if you have the right to bear arms, recognize that you have that right, it comes from god. recognize your inherent rights. you are a citizen, not a subject. government is to be limited, not people. you, too, can live in safety.

peoplet enough to watch move from one dictatorship to another, to watch libya, egypt, disasteria lurch from to disaster. we should help people understand that they are endowed by their creator. the second amendment is an amendment for all mankind. with your help, this is still a more open nominating process than anyone in the media believes. with your help, i would like to have your support to lead an effort across the planet to ensure that the right to bear arms becomes permanent and as a human right everywhere.

thank you. good luck, and god bless you. [applause] >> thank you, mr. speaker. [applause] >> thank you. thank you very much. i greatly appreciate those kind words. it is great to see you and great to be here again. another nra convention, i am very excited to be back.

a little different circumstances than when i signed up to come here. i wanted to come even though as chris mentioned, we are no longer in this race. and i wanted to come to say two things. thank you for him being an organization and a group of people that even outside of this organization go back out into the community and fight for those rights that you heard the speakers talk about so eloquently. talk about the rights that made this country the greatest country in the history of the world. the national rifle association is not just an association to protect the second amendment, it protect freedoms of which the

second amendment guarantees that they are protected. at that is what you folks do and i am here to thank you for doing that. [applause] i was supposed to come today with my wife, she was scheduled to speak at a luncheon at earlier. how little girl ended up being sent and in the hospital for several days. she is out of the hospital and i want to thank everybody for your prayers for her and for everybody. she is still not nearly 100%, so she did not feel comfortable flying cross-country to be away. you got the short end of the stick, you just got me instead

of me and karen. i have to say, i don't hold a candle to my wife. i am a hunter and a gun owner, but she owns with more guns than i do. she gets a chance to shoot them more often than i do, so you will hopefully have an opportunity to get a chance to talk to her and hear her passion. it is a passion for the second amendment. we're live members and wanted to announce that bella is a licensed a member of the nra, too. i hope it's life long. i have to tell you, on the campaign trail, it was really fascinating.

we didn't want to just talk about them, but demonstrate them. we enjoy the opportunity to talk on several locations to demonstrate the importance of our rights. one of them was the opportunity to talk about the second amendment and we did several hunting trips with the national media trailing along as we went on a bird hunter and central iowa. it was right before the iowa caucuses, and it was very exciting. he knocked it right out of the air and it was on fox news within two hours. it was great. we got to showcase the right to bear arms and the importance of this tradition. and these rights in our country. i took the boys to some shooting

ranges and doing target practice is tout -- part of the town hall meeting. i really enjoyed doing that, and again, trying to drive home the point that this is an important part of who we are as americans. it is an important part to be showcased, and not hidden, how important these rights are. we had a great time on the campaign trail and i wanted to thank everybody who was involved for what they did to support me as i have said many times. and 385 town hall meetings, going to over 1000 of those meetings, we talked about those foundational freedoms.

they did not come from the supreme court or the president or the congress. when i talked about those things and i talked about the integrity of the family of how we had to have both constitutional rights, faith, and family. the one that all rights come from is the freedom of conscience, the freedom of religion. i talked about how these other rights spring from that right. if you have the right to speak, assemble, but you can't a symbol for what you believe in, those are hollow rights. i talked about the integrity and the importance of family in america. we needed to families that were strong to import those values, the values of freedom and opportunity as well as virtue

that is good for wholesome society. and how important it is for a good and decent america to have a limited government because you can't have limited government if you don't have strong families. government gets bigger as families break down because there is a lack of virtue. those are simple things that as i across this country and talk to people, i have a lot of people nodding their heads and understanding that is the reality of the situation. we don't have a lot of folks that talking in very plain terms running for office. i got the plain terms by traveling around and listening to the people. they explained to me how important these basic american values are.

not by planners and experts, this country was built from the bottom up by people sitting in these chairs in this room that understand what it is -- what it takes to build this great country one family, one church, one organization at a time. that is what makes america great. we are a bottom-up society and not a top-down society. whether we're going to be a country that is going to be ruled from on high, are we going to be a country that like our founders did, when faced with the tyranny of those on high ruling them, lee will not stand

for this. we will declare independence and fight. i hope each and everyone of you engage that fight to make sure that we defeat barack obama in the general election. [applause] and i just want to affirm what you're doing. i want to thank you and i want to affirm you. what you're doing is absolutely vital. talking about the central elements of what made this country great. you are an organization that has been a beacon on this issue for a long, long time. freedomsbout america's and there is no organization that talks about if and focuses on it with a better job of communicating then the national rifle association.

as someone who went out with no chance of ever even making a blip on the political scene over a year ago, everyone said, what are you wasting your time for? i found that this country is still an amazing country. and the opportunity is still alive and well in this country because there are people like you and the organizations across this country that hunger for an america that believes in what made us great. when ronald reagan left office, in his closing address, he issued a warning to the american public. his concern about whether americans going forward were learning about who we are as americans.

winston churchill said that the debate is not about the future, is about the past. what we have seen is redefining america. a country that is not fair, which it is equality and opportunity. a country that has done horrible things around the world, he is trying to redefine who we are. what the nra does so effectively they tell the real history of america. the real story of america. it is a story that president

apollo was responding to the budget a year ago. the programs from social security to medicare to welfare. he says i will go one step further, america was not a great country until these programs. you know, ladies and gentlemen that america is not the program terms -- it is god-given rights. [applause]

and that freedom is at stake. if this president is reelected, that 5-4 court might be the other way. the things that we take for granted, does anybody have any doubt what the decision would be if president obama have five votes on that court? what the meeting would be? we heard from justice ginsberg, asking the question whether she would recommend the american constitution for country starting? her answer was no, she would not. she would recommend the south african constitution because it was more updated.

she also gave a lecture not too long ago where she talked about all of the court cases that she would overturn the war that would be overturned if they were able to get that fifth vote. she spent most of the time talking about one case. the heller decision. that case was the principal case that she would like to overturn. this election is the most important election in your lifetime. it is vitally important for the second amendment. they drove around iowa in a pickup truck with a guy named chuck for months on end.

with no chance of winning. this was not a race. [applause] this was not erase a feel comfortable sitting on the sidelines. i asked all of you to do everything you can. or they are not as good on these issues are not, we have got to win. we have got to elect conservatives in our primaries, constitutionalists we have to be all in.

even though i am no longer in this race, i will do everything i can to make sure that we elect republican conservatives up and down the ticket. and with your health, we will make that happen. god bless you, god bless the nra, god bless america. [applause] >> now brief look at some of the 2012 close races in the senate. this is about 10 minutes. >> nice to have you with us this morning.

>> we have seven democratic seats that are too close to call. there is one seat in nebraska, they say that we think democrats are not going to be able to hold on to that seat. republicans have three seats in tossup. they are progressive, some of them get more competitive, so we have room to grow. >> yesterday on our newsmakers program, we interview the heads of the senate reelection campaign. and each was asked what are the odds of your party holding power after november. the democratic rep said that we are going to keep power. the republicans said that we have a good chance. based on the numbers, who is right? >> i think probably the republicans are right. we think the majority is a 5050

publishing stick. >> can you tell us about specific interesting races? >> i was listening to a few minutes ago when you asked which race would decide the majority. i think i have the answer to that. i think the state of maine, is the most fascinating to watch for a long time. yeah of primaries on both sides, republicans and democrats with an independent candidate, a former governor, and what he is telling voters right now is that he is not going to declare a party until he gets to the senate. he has not decided which party he will caucus with. he would like to caucus with none, but it is not terribly realistic.

the democrats feel that he will caucus with them, republicans agree. the way that he is running, senator olympia snowe decided to retire because she was tired of the partisanship. he would like to shake things up. he could decide the majority. >> of the republican rep believes he is caucusing with the democrats. them for that,e but he is so committed to shaking things up that there is a scenario that on election night, if the senate is 50 seats to 49, he can tie it up and

force power sharing. >> each party's representative was asked which was the most vulnerable center. let's begin with the single most voted candidate. >> two months ago, the republicans had a 100% chance of winning the main senate seat until the far right wing of their party continued to push out the last handful of moderates that served in the united states congress. now i think the chances of republicans holding on to that seat is less than 25%. >> i don't disagree with what he said there, i think it is true. angus king is the front-runner in that race, he was a 56% in a

three-way race. at the same time, it is hard to put this one in the bag until he says what he is going to do. we talked about the scott brown elizabeth warren race. >> who is the single most vulnerable republican? who is not coming back in january 2013? >> scott brown. >> why? >> scott brown is out of touch with the voters of massachusetts. i understand he will use every photo op possible to talk about the fact that he co-sponsored a bill that got 93 votes in the united states senate. in every opportunity he had a chance to stand up against his own party, to stand up on the vote that matters, he has failed to take that opportunity weather is tax breaks for the biggest

oil companies, the budget rule, it is out of touch with the people of massachusetts. >> it is simply not a believable message. the consumer financial protection bureau, he said he did not stand up for anything that israel. they said that with the republican leadership, it should be passed. the national journal's said that nobody believes what they are selling. >> jennifer? >> in some ways, both of them are right. i think brown is the most vulnerable republican incumbent. but where i think he is wrong is the statement that he is out of touch with massachusetts.

i think that he had done everything he can to be bipartisan. there will always be those that democrats can pick on, but i think it will be a great race. the challenge scott brown is overcoming that r after his name. he's going to hav to deal with these voters used to voting straight democratic tickets. i don't think it is because he is out of touch, but because he has a republican. >> thank you for setting the stage for the audience, we know we will be talking to you as the year progresses. thanks, jennifer duffy. >> tomorrow, foreign policy staff writer josh rogin has the

latest on the north korea failed rocket launch. the ceo of the campaign to prevent unplanned pregnancy talked about efforts, including working with mass media market did teenagers. and the university of maryland's crime director talks about president obama's attendance at the summit in colombia, and the u.s. approach to the drug war. live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c- span. next, foreign policy remarks by the former secretary of state connelly's arise. the chicago mayor discussed funding the export import. and a forum on state tax policies and their impact on economic growth. >> the pope has a very famous

way of being determined the dead, and that is the cardinal level post, he hand-picks this person, and this person who decides when the pope is dead. he hit him with a silver hammer and calls out his name a three times, carried over from the romans, using that method. even today, the pope is dead, >> on afterwards, they define the ever-changing description of death and the controversial arguments that the business of organ harvesting is blurring that line. in a formal pennsylvania senator on the split between the old guard members of the former party and those supported by the tea party. book tv, every weekend on c-span to. >> they spoke about america's

leadership world. the former secretary of state talked about the situation in the middle east. she now teaches political science at stanford university and last year released a memoir titled "no higher honor. this is just under an hour. >> good afternoon, everyone. i am pleased to welcome you to the heritage foundation for this timely and important event. it is timely because of events overseas are constantly raising questions on national security as we saw yesterday with the north korean test launch. and timely as well because foreign policy has been a topic of great interest during the presidential debates. it is important because americans are debating how we should respond and it is not only in north korea,

afghanistan, syria, and other hot spots. there are many questions raised by the actions of the obama administration, actions that suggests the president wants to change the way the united states engages the world. there is the ticket to asia, troops are coming home from afghanistan, and the now famous request that certain countries be patient and wait until after the election to see what he will do. foreign policy often takes a backseat to domestic problems that are plaguing the country, problems like that, jobs, health care, and these issues are as important. foreign policy also matters to americans. they want to know how the leaders and those we elect in november will protect our nation and to safeguard our liberties in an increasingly threatening world.

we have someone that is eminently qualified. she served as secretary of state under george w. bush. it is a particularly grave threat from nuclear proliferation, terrorism, to the middle east and elsewhere. in both residencies, and it will the americans to help thousands of people free from tyranny and set them on the road to freedom and prosperity. today, dr. rice's teaching generations about american values and interests.

and a senior fellow on public policy after the institution. i recall the words on the occasion of one of the previous visits. he called her a woman of many talents, a writer, a teacher, scholar, leader, and a representative of american values and american interests here and abroad. and frankly, the best america has to offer. i couldn't agree more. it is my personal honor to welcome americas 66 the secretary of state, dr. connelly's arise to the auditorium of the heritage foundation to talk about leadership, and america's critical role in foreign policy. please welcome dr. rice.

[applause] >> thank you. it is a pleasure to join some many friends, and thank you for that wonderful introduction and for your service to our country. i enjoyed our time working together. it has been awhile since i left government and there is a question i am asked all the time, is it different being outside of government? yes, it is different being outside of government. i get up every day and i get my cup of coffee, i go on line, and i read them and say, isn't that interesting? i am able to go on the other things because i don't have responsibility for what is in the newspaper. i am concerned about the state of our country, the state of our world, and because it has been quite a decade or so, in which the international system has

experienced three great shocks. the shock of september 11, a day that none of us will easily forget and those of us in a position of authority remember september 11 as every day after it being september 12. we recognized that it was a fortune and not, perhaps, skill. it led us to be able to protect the country. there were those that were skilled. the intelligence officers, homeland's security, and the men and women in uniform that volunteered to defend us at the front lines and we owe them our eternal gratitude.

and we suddenly confronted the fact that it was uncovered spaces if threatened our country and one of the poorest countries in the world to attack us and bring down the towers. your perception of physical security is never quite the same. and there was another great shock. that was a shock that exacerbated and accelerated underlying tendencies in the international economy and called into question whether or not democratic capitalism that had been at the core -- if

exacerbated the contradictions of the european union. it exacerbated the contradictions in russia that demonstrated yet again that it has not made the transition from an oil, gas, and minerals in the kit to the real economy based on the potential of its people. it raised the profile of brazil and india and china. but brazil and india remind us of something that is very important. something that is going for them that we should not underestimate. and that is the multi-ethnic democracy that is stable. they managed to make the transition from government to government by peaceful means. unless you underestimate that, remember that these are

countries look at huge, multi- ethnic populations. 1 million people that don't speak the same language can still somehow manage a peaceful transfer of power. and they remind us of the essence of the third great shock, the arab spring. and what is unfolding in the streets of the middle east.

is one hour. >> governor christie alluded to strong leaders in every state in america and we are beginning this conference with what is going on in the states. we have a panel on state governments and taxes. michael cox is coming up. i want to introduce albert nie

mi, the dean of the school of business at southern methodist university. we will have the governors on after this panel. we wanted to do a panel where we have expert taking a look at what is happening in the states. i cannot think of a better person to moderate that panel than al niemi, who is devoted his carr to asking this question -- which states succeed and why? we are excited to have as our partner in so many things, southern methodist university. dean niemi. >> thank you, jim. i like our position of being a first panel, but i did not know we would have to follow governor christie. panelists, we have a tough, tough act to follow.

it is the first time i've seen governor christie on television. he is awfully impressive. what he had to say abt the growth of government -- i teach a course on the evolution of american capitalism in the fall. government, collectively at the federal, state, and local level, was a 10% or less before the great depression. after the great depression, it got up to 20% with all the new deal programs, not only at the federal level, but state and local. we have never gotten back there and now it is over 40%. people say howig should government be? it is 42% now. we do not have a way to ratchet it down. in the interest of true disclosure, i grew up in boston, massachusetts. i am a refugee -- i left

massachusetts when the state income tax was pro%. my dissertation was a macroeconomic history looking at the 25 years after world war ii. all of the economic forces that were driving companies to move their business to the carolinas, to georgia, to tennessee, to what became known as the sun belt- when i finished my dissertation at age 25, thank god i was offered an opportunity to go to the sunbelt. i took a position at the university of georgia. i guess that the last 40 years in two great growth states -- georgia and texas. our panel will look at state taxes and house some economies grow and why some are more successful. we are going to start with steve moore, a member of the editorial board for the wl street journal, at senior economics writer. the is the author of five books

including "bullish on bush." "rich states, poor states," which is a terrific read. what are some states are rich? why are some states bore? what do their tax rates have to do with it? >> thank you. it is a thrill to be in the presence -- in the present space. i remember in january 2003, i and about six or seven other economists -- steve fbes, larry cut out -- many went to visit president bush in the white house. at that time, the private wanted a stimulus to the economy. he was seeking advice. we came in and one of the recommendations was to eliminate the dividend tax. we made the case that it was a double tax on our corporate income and we should have a corporate income tax or a

dividend tax, but we should not have it both. the president came out with a proposal to erase the dividend tax. we did not get dowto zero, but we got down to putting%. we cut the capital gains rate to 15%. i think that was one of the great accomplishments of the bush administration. if you want to see how tax policy affects behavior, look at the aftermath of that tax cut. 2003, 20004, 2006, and 2007 with the strongest economic growth we ve had ithis country's history. there is all this talk now -- governor christie talked about the issuof the budget pact, which spread the obama will be talking about today. the left the top of the the tax rates matter. they do not think it is behavior -- they do not take itffects behavior or revenues. one of the things iould like to point you to, and i wish the president, timothy geithner, and

some of the other obama economists were here, because they do not have their trade tables in the upright position -- trade tables and in the upright position. look wha happened in the aftermath of that tax cut. in the wall street journal today, we have a piece on capital gains. capital gains revenue doubled after we cut the tax rate from 20% to 15%. the same thing happened to dividends. tax rates do matter. to get your question about states, if people do not think tax rates matter, please explain california? california has every advantage at a state could possibly have. it has the most beautiful mountains, silicon valley, beautiful beach, beautiful women -- athing anyone could possibly want, yet if you look a performance of the california economy over the last 10 years or so, it has been a total catastrophe. i think things will get worse

clark california. one reason i am not bullish about the economy going forward, california has a traditional -- traditionally led us out of the recession. now california has become an anchor. that is, i believe, because of the high taxes and regulation policies of that state. by the way, california is -- in november wl have a ballot initiative to ise the top tax rate from 14% to 50%. california will be the hhest tax rate and the country, ev higher than new york city. i think they hold that up as a badge of honor in california. that is going to ruin that state. i do a study every year where we grade the states on economic policies. we have been doing this about 10 years. we have seen very clearly that when states to the wrong thing, like california is doing, you see the effect on economic

output, migration. migration is an azing story. california is ling its wealth producers year after year. they are going to states like nevada, idaho, texas. then you have to ask, "how you explain texas?" of the last 10-12 years, texas has had about 40% of all the net nejobs in the united states, an amazing performance. why? texas is a low-income tax state. it is a light regulation state. it is absolutely booming. you have other states -- one of the last points i will make and then turn it over to the next state -- o of the things i am seeing in state tax activity right now is the blue stat are gettg bluer and the red states are getting redder. i am and the state of illinois. we have such a terrible governor

the people want blagojevich back. [laughter] we raised our corporate tax by over 50%. the corporate and business tax rates are the highest in the midwest andhe third highest in the country. mih daniels said it very well when he said being a neighboring state of two illinois is like of living next to the simpsons. it is true. --illinois' economy is in the reciting thing i wanted to report is out these red states. a bill slam. here is an example of a governor with no income tax at all. tennessee will grow faster over the next decade. why? in the state of tennessee, they are inundating their gift packs.

that will mean tenness will not just be a good place to live and work, but a good place to die as well. [laughter] that is going to keep wealth in the state of tennessee. you have one exciting development. you have three or four states looking at becoming a no income tax state. the race is on. you have kansas trying to remove the state income tax there. north dakota is booming, they have some much revenue they could easily eliminate income tax the way alaska did. this is an exciting development.

i think this is a development we ought to be paying really close attention to. what you're going to see over the ensuing years is because of this dichotomy, people will be able to see it which states work and which don't. you turned around michigan with their tax policies back in the 1990's. you had one of the fastest growth of many states. taxes do matter and i wish people in washington understood that. >> you mention california and all of its advantages. could it turnaround? could it come back? could they change direction? they're trying it in ohio. indiana made changes recently.

i love the place. then you say, they just keep fumbling the ball. as thomas jefferson called it, the tyranny of the majority. are the crazies and charging california? >> you can turn things around quick. california is getting close to a tipping point where they have more takers than makers. if you put in a pro-growth gov. things can turn around so quickly. that is why what is happening in new jersey with chris christie is so exciting. when you took over as governor in michigan, michigan was a basket case. did they went back to the bad policies. there was a regression. states like california can boom. california has every possible advantage. silicon valley, the most educated work force and the country. it is a tragedy to see how that

state is being ruined by high taxes. california also passed a cap and trade bill. >> next level turned to my colleague on the right, michael cox. michael has done significant research on the comparison between why texas is doing so well and why california is suffering. michael runs the freedom center at the cox school of business. he was senior vice president at the dallas fed and he joined my faculty and fall of 2008. tell us a little bit about california versus taxes. >> the question is what are people leaving california and going to texas? that is the no. 1 state o migration we are fortunate to have data from the irs going back to the 1970's that

documents all the migration going on between states coming into america from abroad as well. the states are a microcosm for what people want, generally not just in their state government but in their federal government. if you look at migration going on, for the past five years it has been a period of the largest single migration within our borders we have never had as a matter of record. people are moving. they're looking for the new world. they are looking for a place they can go and have something they are not experiencing in the state they left. we decided to do a formal study on why people are moving. we took 15 or 20 variables people say are causing people to move such as the court stem, the unemployment rate of the state, average income, the crime rate. we will try it. it turned out as of -- of all

these variables people tout as being important, there are six that explain two thirds of all the migration going on amongst the states. those six are the personal income t rate, the highest personal income tax rate the state has. the size of the government and how fast the government is growing. the first of those is a negative. the size of government growth is a negative. also, how unionized is the state? what percentage of their labor force is unionized. quality of public schls. those are four variables. two matter as well. the climate -- we cannot do anything about that. i will not talk about that. the income tax rate is significant at the 99% level. you do normal statistical tests

which economists have developed. you take all 50 states that we have, their income tax rates. you can take the district of columbia as well. you take migration data. you take a look at everything and see what the computer says at what is driving migration. what we find is what is driving migration is how high the income taxes are and how big the state budget is. let's focus on income taxes here. texas is one of seven states that has no income taxes. california has a 10.6% highest marginal income-tax rate. massachusetts had 12%, hawaii 11% and so on. you can look at this and say, what state's people are moving to on the basis. people are moving to low income tax states from high income tax states. they are voting with their feet. they're telli politicns with a value.

they're telling politicians, for all your taxes you charge as we are not getting enough state benefits from it. we are not value in what you are doing with the state income tax so we are leavg. many americans would like to follow and rinds path out the door of atlas shrugged. it is expensive to leave the country. it is not expensive to leave once day and go to another. they are telling us what they want and do not want. i would like you to take a look at our study. it is online. we will set you a copy. this is a car driving west to east from california to texas. we have added more jobs and taxes from january 2000 until december 2011, texas added more jobs than the entire rest of the nation combined.

>> given the significant growth in texas, and i think the number is about 52% of all jobs created in the united states since january 2000 are in texas. what is the achilles heel for taxes? what could go wrong? can they keep up? >> the achilles el would be for the state to think they need more tax revenue and become a in context. that has become a signature of our state. i think what we could do the most to add more residents to their state is to reform their public schools. it would not even cost more. if you privatize the public schools -- what makes america great, it is not a public sector it is competitio in 1984 year cell phone was $4,200. it was the size of a brick.

itould not fit in your pocket. t did not have any text ig capabilities. today for $50 you can get an iphone wit those capabilities and more. at the same time that vote has gone to $50, the public school systems have gotten worse. what is the difference tween those two things? one is produced in the crucible of competition. people have to get up and make things better or they lose their jobs. it is not pretty but you have to compete and get more productive. that is one. the other one, in states like new jersey like gov. christie was talking about, there are classes in new jersey or the state's spending on the classroom -- it is $450,000 per classroom. they're just not affective and

they are not producing a student that is cpetitive at the worldwide level. we know our schools are broken. what can a government do attract people more than anything else, reform the schools. >> travis, i am coming to you. travis is a leading advocate for tax form. a constitutional amendment to repeal the income tax. his work has focused studying the great american migration of workers who are seeking jobs. i will start off with the travis. tennessee only taxes interest in dividend income. what is the field look like with missouri and tennessee? >> it is a pleasure to be here today. is great to have this

conversation not only at leadership levels but also in the private sector with a number of you in the business community. misery -- we are in the middle of the country. part of what the wall street journal has referred to as the heartland tax rebellion. it is time for voters to wake up and shake loose their economy and understand what has worked in what has not. misery provides a great comparison to tennessee. 50 years ago tennessee inherited a no tax position from the supreme court. back then they were economically inferior, fewer people moving there. they had a smaller state budget. today the reverse is true. i have a larger state budget, they provide more services. they pay their teachers more. they start out thinking more and stay in the system longer. they have more generous social

service ograms. we know they are not shortchanging revenue to pursue a smarter tax policy. i think our founding fathers understood this concept very well what made america great among the states and competition. been franklin in 1765 in reference to the stamp act said idleness in pride tax with a heavier hand and kings and parliament. if we can get rid of the former rican easily bear the latter. misery is like many of the heartland states. we are not idle people. we enjoyed working wherever we ca work can be productive. we have a tax structure that has 11 tax brackets under $9,000 in wages. i learned today if you are taxed ke a millionaire in the jersey if it is over $4,000, and misery are taxed at the same rate of millionaires above $9,000 in

wages. -- missouri is $9,000 in wages. we can and must do better. our people pose a culture is better than that. culture is people's better than that. you might see with clarity what is happening to your body. we can look at net adjusted gross income shifts in all these cases, not just california and texas, missouri and tennessee, states that have the right tax policy like florida have seen $76 billion move to their state since 1994. states like calirnia that have had policies priously described have lost more than $40 billion. states like missouri in the middle are neither ahead or behind. we are struggling to move to that -- the top of the tier status. we want to be part of the 4%

solution this conference is focused on. we must wake up our government, our vernment leadership, and our people directly. we see strong evidence in recent times, not just in the midwest. washington state under initiative 1098 had an opportunity to choose the california path. that initiative went to fail by 20 points once the business community and the citizens woke up. closer to home, we would like to thank governor quinn for thinking -- keeping missouri in the race. we have seen migration and pressure not just move to our state but to wisconsin, indiana. since that one policy move was made last january -- this is the only substantial decision made by the state budget. there have been 18 jobs per hour

move out of illinois. that is one personal and income- tax is for raised as the only solution. these consequences matter greatly. e numbers are astounding when you look at migration. we must do better. we know the solutions of what work. it is a pleasure to see you here talking about what has worked for your states. we do not have to wonder and we cannot be too proud not to recognize there is a better way to do business. >> what e the prospects for reformn misouri? >> we are working to do everything we can. i know the governor and places like kansas and oklahoma are working hard as well in their state legislative arenas. whether it is now, today, or tomorrow is a question. we will do everything we can to put us in the race to zero. we encourage and help all of the

leadership here can inspire your community, your state. it is not an accidental thing like gov. christie spoke so eloquently about getting his financial house in order. 3.4 million taxpayers prior to gov. christie' arrival left new jersey for one state -- florida. these numbers are much larger than what people are accustomed to hearing because most people have not spent time studying and lookinat it. >> thank you. ike is director of economic policy. he is a director of the policy caucus in washington, d.c. much of your work is how capital gains state taxeaffect growth and job creation in particular.

let's talk about the linkage between capital gains taxes and jobs growth. >> one thing i would like to point out. like steve from the state of illinois. the one break that illinois has on i tax code is in the state constitution it says there has to be a proportional tax. if it were not for that provision, the top marginal tax rate would be not 5% but 15%. my seventh grade social studies teacher told me one day you will be thankful for that and i finally understand what he is talking about. i did a study with will. looking at what happens when states change their capital gains rates. what brought this up is gov. case it was talking about reducing the capital gains taxes. -- governor kasich was looking at reducing the capital gains

taxes. i have a stylized story i think it'what is going on and what the cost is of states to have heavy capital gains taxes. you think about who represents an angel investor in a state like illinois, indiana, wisconsin, ohio, places like that. they are never going to get anybody who is wealthy and made their money in california going from california to ohio -- and other high tax state. most people who will invest in ohio are ohio wins. -- ohioins. the very first thing he will be tilted to -- he is going to do without much protest as get a house in florida and of their 183 days of the year and become a florida resident. the real question is, what the to get the person to remain in ohio both as a taxpayer and also as an investor? one thing that we suggest is

that if you reduce or eliminate the capital gains taxes in these states people will be much more likelyo stay in the state. we have seen just by interviewing people in ohio and indiana. with these people, they want to invest something they can get their hands on. they do not want to move to california are move anywhere else. it went to stay in their state. if you give tm a tax reason to do so, they will stay and the best in their state. i think in the 1990's, a lot of states -- i lived in wisconsin in the 1990's. one mistake a lot of states made is this a try to attract individuals, people who are likely to create jobs, the targeted money towards businesses. one of the mindsets we have to change is to attract people who are more likely to invest. the results of our study, which are public -- published on the american action form website, is basically ohio, if you are in a

higher resident and you invest in and ohio business that is -- has a market cap of less of $4 billion, basically you do not have to pay capital gains taxes. that is a long-term investment. we got data from the national bureau of economic research. we look at what has happened to various states to have not only eliminated capital gains taxes but have increased or decreased their capital gains taxes. looking at 40 states that still haven income tax for capital gains tax, there has been quite a bit of variation. results are indisputable. >>ur friends at forbes magazine to annual rankings of business from the states. in your analysis of tax structure at the state level, if you had to name your top five business from the states and

maybe your bottom five, who would be in that set? not in order, but who gets it and who does not? >>texas gets it. i think the other state that stands out is indiana. mitch daniels has been very aggressive about doing precisely that. not necessarily targeting businesses but creating an environment that is phenomenal for growth. it is much difficult to explain this that that is what you are doing. in wisconsin in the nineties and early 2000's, it was easy to say, want to create jobs. i will get $10 million to harley-davidn to keep these jobs in the ate. that is basically what they did. they gave tax breaks and grants to the biggest employers in the state. we all know the history of economics is the big employers

usually do not remain the big employers. we are no good at identifying the small businesses. the third state i would like to point out is gov. kasich has done a fantastic job making the state more friendly to businesses and investors. he has the foresight to recognize this is a long-term proposition and he is waiting -- ready to take on some short-term on popularity for it. >> in illinois because tax rates are so high, the governor is giving tax favored giveaways to see years, motorola, chicago mercantile exchange. every big industry is getting a relief from the tax and. >> in my course this past fall, i work closely with the dallas chamber trying to recruit businesses from all your states

to texas. there are two states that our chamber has targeted -- california and illinois. i did one lecture on state competition. i have been studying this for more than 40 years. i have never seen such a small group of winners. 11 or 12 states that are doing reallyell and 37 or 38 states really suffering. in the winners and losers the gap is widening rapidly. ihared these one-page comparative sheets. texas the advantages versus illinois. texas and california. this is a death struggle. they're going for the jugular against california and illinois in trying to migrate and targeting -- get calls all the time. do you know the ceo of such and such company in california or illinois? we would like an introduction.

they are targeting companies that they think would prosper in texas. diana, a senior fellow at the manhattan institute. a contributing editor to real clear politics. she has published numerous articles. you have two books coming out this year. s," ands figure is "regulating to disaster." you have recently completed a study on revenues collected through capitals gains tax and the impact on municipals budget. can you share some of your research? >> i would like to say how refreshing it was to hear president bush talk again about the advantage of low tax rates.

the senator was persuaded not to change parties until he voted for the tax cut. i am glad ty are called the bush tax cuts. i was looking at capital gains, revenues in different cities. i was asked to look at different municipalities. one thing that struck meas the big increase in tax -- capital gains tax rates and tax rates on capital that will occur on january 1 at the federal level. it is goodbye to the bush tax cuts. taxes on long-term capital gains for individuals will go up from 15% to 25%. not just because of the expiry of the bush cuts but also because of the new medicare tax. taxes on dividends will go from 15% to the upper level of around

45%. all of you might say, what does this have to do with the states? this is a panel on states. we find when taxes drop at the federa level, people realize fewer amounts of capital gains. they wait and hold off. companies do not issue dividends as much. states that are getting money from capital gains and cities that are doing so find they have less revenue in their coffers. to make up for it they have to raise taxes in other ways. it is interesting we are here in new york city. i looked at three cities, new york city, indianapolis, baltimore. they are raise some revenues from capital gains taxes. this last year available, new york had about $1 billion on taxes from capital gains.

this funded the headstart program and day care, transportation in the schools, a charter and contract schools and foster care. raising capital gains taxes, i can assure you in new york city people are not going to realize capital gains for the same amount. everybody will see other forms of taxes go up. this is not just in the new york city. if we look at indianapolis. indianapolis had about $16 million from capital gains taxes, taxes on capital. that funded the department of metropolitan policend operating lease payments and administrations. capital gains taxes did not fund directly because all funds are

-- this is the approximate amount in these different budget line items. baltimore had about $28 million from taxes on capital last year. this $28 million line item was about the equivalent of the department of health. it was the department of recreation and parks. it was also equivalent to the department of housing and urban development. what we are seeing with these tax hikes coming up -- many of us call it a fiscal cliff. we are going to go over it on january 1. congress is not devoting any time to talking about it, and talking about the facts. also, talking about how to offset it. one with think with irresponsible congress that would see ts is coming. we have to do something about it. it is not just affecting us, i will be affecting states all over the country because of the interaction between federal and

state tax code. we have no discussion about it at all. is up to all of us to write articles and give speeches to talk about this and say, hey, what are you doing? you will be affecting different state budgets. many states are not fortunate to .ave governors such they will have governor is not taking a hard line on taxes. it will be a great detriment. >> thank you. e.j., i am coming to you. he is a senior fellow at the manhattan institute. much of your work is focused on the state of new york. we are all new yorkers. we allove new york city. it is when many people embark on

their start in america, the immigrants. most passed through new york. for those who are not lucky enough ever to come to the united states probably u.s. under e microscope of new york. tell us about your research on new york, the good and the bet. what have you what people love about new york and whatou find appealing if you live elsewhere is the legacy of the tremendous wealth in new york and new york's status as a financial capital, as a media capital. as mr.lassman said in his introduction, a center of innovation and competition. those are things at make new york great and make it appealing.

tax policy and the economy of new york teaches usome lessons about the effects of competition and how it is felt and the nature of the impacts of competition. but going to pay a little history. in the late 1950's, a lot of this began, as everything in your does, with the election of nelson rockefeller as governor. 1959, a 7% income-tax rate, no sales tax. the city of new york, at that point, and through the early 1960's, was funding itself over a combination of property-tax is, utilities taxes, and a mass of nuisance taxes. in other words, like another -- like other big cities. what happening during the 1960's and 1970's was the nation's biggest experience to see how

far you can go with an anti- growth tax policy. it really is remarkable if you look at it. by the early 1960's,ew york's state income-tax rate was over 15%. new yo city had a tax rate of over 4.5 -- 4%. the combined tax rate approached 20%. the city had its own corporate income tax. the city had a bigger sales tax. the city had invented an unincorporated business tax affecting all business partnerships and partnership income in the city. what happened between 1969 and 1975 was the city lost 600,000 private-sector jobs. during the decade of the '70s, the city lost 800,000 residents. the city had a near-death experience. what happened was a collective understanding of what had produced that and a bipartisan agreement that changes had to be made.

what happened was the city and the state began to embark on an era of protest growth tax policy, which, as luck would have it, coincided exactly what the pro-growth tax policies of the reagan era on the federal level. no city nefited morerom pro- growth tax policies starting in the early 1980's the new york state -- then york city and no state then york state. i think your neighbors and the proximity of your competition is important, which is relevant to thillinois example. new jersey and connecticut at that time had no your tax. -- had no income tax. in the 1980's and the like 1970's, under a democratic governor working with the republican state senate majority, embarked on what ended up being a 17-year almost

unbroken with one exception series of tax cuts. the state tax rate was cut in half. the city's taxes began to stabilize and then be reduced, most significantly under mayor guiliani in the 1990's, who was the first mayor in new york's modern history, and so far the only one, to make a policy priority out of reducing taxes. in the late 1990's, the city cut taxes by about $3 billion. the city gained over 300,000 jobs. the tax model indicated at 80,000 of those could be attribut to tax cuts. let's bring yourself to the present. we go through the end of the 1990's and the tax-cutting progress stops on september 11, 2001, which created an immediate fiscal problem for the city. the lasting economic impact was last then appeared, but that was

the end of concerted efforts to reduce taxes on the city and state level. we benefited one more time from what the. urged the to not keep calling it "the bush tax cuts." the city and state did very significant temporary income-tax increases, which took effect the same day as the acceleration of the bush tax cuts. its negative impact was overwhelmed by the positive effects of that tax cut. we benefited a lot from pro- growth tax policies. where are we now? the most heavily taxed big city in the country. the state has extended an extra high tax on its own version of demonere tax, which it does, implied to -- does apply to million-dollar incomes this year. the city and the sta have begun to turn back in another direction. i take it we are at great risk from to federal policy. i will match in an aspect of

what diana talked-about -- our tax base is shared with the federal government. our definition of income is what the federal income -- federal government taxes. we are subject to changes when people respond to the impact of federal tax changes. if all of the bush tax cuts expire and some of the other changes the president has proposed are made, we estimate the state will lose over $400 million in revenue due to the impact on the state's tax base. the city could lose 25% as much. we make those estimates for years ago we probably ended up back in the same place. we are very much susceptible to the impact of federal tax changes. one other aspect that we can discuss is e impact of changes to the way the federal government taxes or treats state and local taxes. the federal government has subsidized by taxes by making

them deductible. when we had a combined income tax rate in new york city of 19% in the late 1970's, it was deductible under federal income tax of 70%. that net the net pack price for new york compared to florida was 4.5%. roughly 30 years later, our cost under the current tax code is 4.5% once again. if we curtail deductibility in the way the president has proposed, or if under a pro- growth tax regime as the one prosed by congressman ryan it is decided that base broadening should include the elimination of the federal and state deduction, that will be a challenge for high taxes venues like new york. you'll suddenly not have the federal government's of the pot -- subsidizing your anti-

competitive tax policies. >> ej, could you talk a little bit about the rest of the great state of new york? severa years ago, i chaired a team that rea credited the business school at syracuse university. i was there for three days. it is not a pretty sight what has happened to syrase. i have a dear friend doing my job at the university of rochester school of business. it is not a pretty sight what is happenin at rochester. i have not been in buffalo recently, but i tnk the same thing is true there. what is going on in the upstate? i was in boston last week. boston is still doing fine, but they are shutting down the rest of massachusetts. what is going on with these second-tier ties? >> upstate new york used to be a place that was richer than average, but on its own, would have been one of the most prosperous states in the union.

one of the things at the upstate suffers from is more curse than a blessing of being in the same state as new york city. the policies of the state are dominated more than ever by downstate elected officials. of state is suffering from a number of factors that may be called "secular." kodak is not going bankrupt because of new york state tax policies. the problem is because -- the problem is the upstate cities are stuck with the tax policies of new york state in the regulatory policies of new york state. they are more vulnerable to the damage done by into growth tax policies. new york city is so enormous and wealthy that it is possible for a large number of peop to spend years in denial or not notid the impact theolicies have as a result of tax policy. upstate new york is more vulnerable to the damaging

effects of a state tax policies and high marginal tax rates. upstate, right now the story is one of stagnation. of state did not have a high unemployment rate because there are not a lot of people hanging around upstate new york looking for jobs. a state did not have a real estate bubble because there were not a lot of people clamoring to buy houses in upstate new york. upstate w york of a lot of natural advantages. there are a lot of things about the city's in upstate new york -- syracuse, rochester, buffalo -- that many can tell you about. they have their own legacies in the era when there were richer and more dominant economically, but right now they suffer from a deep-seated stagnation made worse by state policies. the wealthiest and most successful entrepreneur produced was atate new york' billionaire who started a

company called paychex. the tripled out his own credit card embar of money from relatives in the 1960's. he is a millionaire. he built this massively successful, wonderful company in rochester. he is a huge philanthropist. he dabbles in sports teams. he also dabbled in politics, unsuccessfully. after the late -- last state tax increase in 2009, he did something almost no one has ever done in new rk. generally people do not leave a note, they just leave. or they do the "bad date" thing and say it is not you, it is me. he hd a press conference and said this to the final straw. this will cost me $30,000 a day. i am going. i am moving to florida. you might think that may have some impact on the new york debate. i spent an inordinate amount of

time on tv with people discusng new york tax policy. you will not be surprised to hear thawhen one mentions the wealthiest, most successful billionaire in upstate new york in the last half century is leaving because of high taxes, they say he does not count. but he is an indication of the problem. >> the upstate new york problem -- if you look across the border at pennsylvia, all new york has too is decide they will allow hydro for acting. they could be having the boom pennsyania has. they could be at toppinthe development and deployment going on. >> unfortunately, that does not seem to be happening. >> but it could upper new york could turn around. >> 1.5 years ago, in conjunction with the bush institute, we did a conference

called "america, natural gas nation." we had governor ed rendell, who was in the waning days of his governorship in pennsylvania, on one of the panels with the assistant attorney general for the great state of new york. two different worlds. governor rendell was traveling and the fact that they had least over 450 drilling rights. i think it was up to 12 in new york. to hear the attitude towards frackin and taking advantage of these opportunities. we at several companies from the drilling companies come up next and say what they chose to locate in pennsylvania, do these sorts of drills, and suck that gas outf new york. [laughter] it was interesting when you saw the taxes and incentives working. these are pretty smart folks. it does not happen yet. it could. we see what is happening in north dakota.

>> before i go to "q&a", i want to comment on anything else anyone of the other speakers said? >> i do not think, michael, you touched on it. you may have. we have done studies -- studies of what causes migration from one state to the other. the one thing we found that was the most powerful factor by far was ght to work. right to work states significantly outperform non right to work states. that is important because indiana was e first day in a long time under mitch daniels to become a right to work state. states like new york refused to be right to work simply take thselves off the map. even if they get all the other policies right, ceos of companies, the people who determine where to place a plant or facility, but will not even consider a state that is not

right to work. i would jt add that as a really important component to why some states are working and others are failing. >> i would like to add a footnote to that. if you go back to 1982 -- the last 30 years, look at auto assembly plants. either closed down or newly built. there are 22 new auto assembly plants. 21 out of the 22 were built in right to work states. there have been 17 auto plants closed by american auto producers. 16 out of the 17 were in a highlynionized states. i work that into my course on the story of labor unions and how they create jobs and kill jobs. if you let the american automobile industry, people see detroit crumbling and think we are losing the automobile industry. ask the folks in alabama, south carolina, and tennessee at the auto industry is alive andell

because the auto industry has moved to the sunbelt. it is run by bmw, mercedes- benz, honda, nissan, and other providers of automobiles, but it was the unions that did that. anybody else? >> i want to make one comment. what we are talking about here is in contact is, but what a tax is is something that enables one group to consume without producing, to live at the expense of others. unions are part of that. as you pointed out to me many times, t biggest single tax increase ever foisted on american employers is obamacare. it cost american companies more to hire workers today. the increased is higher today than any tax that has been imposed. >> do not get me started on that. [laughter]

>> if you are calling it a tax, which it really is, it plays into the administration. before it was a penalty. it was not a tax. >> there is a company based in santa barbara, california. i have gotten to know them pretty well because the ceo's son is a junior at the cox school of business. they had great plans to expand. it is the parent of six concept restaurants. the biggest one is carl's jr.. the biggest expansion plans in 2012 as to the the 14 record to build hundreds of carl's jr. restaurants in texas and create thousands of new jobs. the cost of obamacare, because they only provide health insurance to full-time employees, the average cost of health care was a $10 million. under obamacare, that rose to $28 million. it almost tripled.