because it is not ready to talk to the smart grid. host: sorry, we have to end it there. that is all for "washington journal" this morning. we go now to the brookings j

>> he spearheaded a number of aggressive investigations against corrupt public officials, and he was able to build an impressive 130 convictions during this time period. what you may not know is that like many true new jersey native's, governor christie is a dedicated bruce springsteen fan. to date, he has attended 129 springsteen concert, dating over 36 years. that is a bipartisan issue on which everybody can agree. [laughter] this morning, governor

ted code directs the economic studies of programs at brookings. it is also being web cast. yours can ask questions during the discussion at #bichristie. please join me in welcoming gov. christie to the brookings institute. >> thank you for welcome will hear. i appreciate the opportunity. two weeks ago i signed my third balanced budget in a row since becoming governor. it increases spending on k-12

education on a record level, a $12.8 billion. it increases aid for tuition assistance for children in need it, supports our most vulnerable including veterans, and makes a significant down payment on our pension obligation. the largest single contribution that any governor has made to our pension system and its history, $1.1 billion. i used my line item veto authority to veto $360 million in special interest spending. 2013 is still smaller than fiscal year 2008 and fiscal year budget. pretty good budgetary success. we are happy with it.

we feel we can do better. there is one thing that did not happen. we will continue to talk about it. that is tax cut for middle-class new jersey people. the president is going to propose extending tax relief for middle-class americans. in new jersey despite problems that we have had for taxes that have happened, it's a tax cut was left on the table. i was advocating for a tin% and come -- 10% income-tax reduction. new jersey has one of the highest. we believe that reducing rates across the board would be one of the best ways to make new jersey were competitive with our

neighbors. our tax rates are higher than the state of new york, connecticut. our neighbor in pennsylvania has a top rate of 3%. when you're competing in the job market we are competing in, states are fiercely competing with each other. two ways that they provide infrastructure and higher education. you are competing on two levels, competitiveness that has two parts. what tax incentives are you willing to get to retain companies or track companies? what is the tax environment once they are there for them and their employees? that is the reason why i think tax reductions are so important in the environment. we are competing with these other states that have said that

but it may lower rates. some instances like pennsylvania and delaware. we're not competing well because of this. i advocated for an across-the- board income-tax cut. i have a state with a great sense of humor as you may know. not just because of native sons like jon stewart but also because our voters elected a conservative governor but retained the democratic legislature. i think it is wanted to see what what happens. we will talk about that this morning. the state senate president came back with a counter proposal, a credit of 10% against whatever amount of property taxes. there were certain limits that i will get into. there are certain limits put on in terms of income eligibility. as we moved along i began

conversations about finding some way to compromise to be able to bring a tax cut package to the people of the state. we came to agreement. we came to agreement and the late spring on a 10% income tax credit that folks with incomes under $400,000 a year would exempt any business and come through schedules seat on the federal returns. -- c on the federal returns. it would apply equally. we would increase our income tax credit. it to be increased from 20% above the federal level to 25 at%. that will mean everybody who was employed in new jersey would be giving tax relief.

it is fiscally irresponsible. -- it would be fiscally responsible. we had more setbacks. when the senate president went back to his caucus and went over the assembly, they decide what was much more important was that it was more important for me not to be able to go to the republican national convention in tampa and say that i got a tax cut for the people of our state than os/2 action give the people a tax cut. -- the people of our state a tax cut than actually give the people a tax cut. we're going to have to fight about this over the summer. i am looking forward to it. i call them back in special session. they thought they were leaving for summer vacation. our constitution allows them to

be called in for special session. i did. i gave them a speech on the importance of trying to reach a bipartisan compromise on this issue. they are making our state more competitive and giving our cares much more relief. it is more important than the politics. especially for a speech that i have not even been invited to give. i do not even know if i will be speaking at this convention. they are real concerned about that. i offered my hand a compromise to the democrats on the issue of taxes and it was slapped back. the question for executive leadership is what do you do? there are two options. option number one is to go in the corner and hold your breath and say i'm not working with these people anymore because they are mean and not nice and they do not want to compromise. i'm going to send out really

nasty press releases. or you can shrug your shoulders and say the job you were given was more important than your ego or the politics of the day. you can continue to try to fight to get a compromise reached. i think the evidence of the last 2.5 years will show you that i have consistently, along with a number of leaders, pick the latter rather than the former. it is important to review that with you so you get context. where was due jersey when i became governor in 2010? a week into the job my chief of staff came to my office and told me that if we did not cuts $2.2 billion from the current budget of 2010 that we are seven months and to within six weeks that we would not make payroll for the second pay period in

march. in new jersey, they would have to get out ious. i do not know how you define broke. but that looked like broke to me from where i sat. we had two choices. we could either negotiate with the legislature. they made clear that it would happen through tax increases, immediate retroactive tax increases, or because new jersey's constitution is the most powerful constitutionally in america -- america is caesar, i really liked that a lot -- i can act by executive order and impound funds. for those of you have watched

me either closely or vaguely, if you believe that i picked option #one you did not earn your invitation here this morning. you need to leave. i pick option #2 and 132400 lines of the state budget. i found $2.2 billion in cuts and made them by executive order. i went to the legislature and presented them in a joint session. after i was done the speech was about 40 minutes long. i went up there. i said you left me with this huge problem. i needed to fix it. you wanted to raise taxes. i am not going to. i just a $2.2 billion in cuts. i fix your problem. you can think we later. have a good day. i left.

you can imagine the atmosphere. i was called all kinds of names like napoleon bonaparte and julius caesar. i the buyer then so much. the next day -- i admire them so much. the next day i saw the president. he is the senate president. he is the most powerful democrat in the state of new jersey. he is the president of the ironworkers local. like me, a shy and retiring guy. i said i saw all those things you said about me. you said you really turned me around. i am going to vacate the executive order. that is all you need to know about new jersey politics. he said do not overreact. i did not think you did all that bad. it is politics.

we inherited a huge problem. 158 tax increases in the eight years before i became governor. 115 tax increases at the state level in the eight years before i became governor. that is a tax increase ever 25 days for eight years. if you want a definition of how to kill the goose that killed the golden egg look at our economy in the 1980's and 1990's. we have an unemployment rate over 10%. 155,000 private-sector jobs lost. highest tax burden in the country. highest number of government workers per square mile in the country. all of those things were dropped in our lap only came into office. when you are confronted with

that with the democratic legislature you have to make some very specific and difficult choices. we moved into the fiscal year 2011, which had projected deficit of $11 billion on a $29 billion budget. 37% deficit. the largest of any state in the country. there was a call for higher taxes. what we did is proposed a budget that cut every department and state government, everyone without exception. we have to make significant cuts to close the budget deficit of $111. we did. folks sent me what has become in a millionaire's

tax surcharge. you have to understand the history of millionaires' tax. we are the have a millionaire's tax. in new jersey it is special because we have special new jersey math. the tax applies to all individuals or businesses which have over $400,000 in income. that is the millionaires' tax. for under thousand dollars in income. -- 400,000 in ancon. when you're trying to market your state, that raises difficultly. how do you market your state? i would go around saying listen, come to new jersey. if you are not a millionaire but you want to feel like one come to new jersey. we will tax you like one. [laughter] even tell all your friends ip the millionaires' tax.

we already had a millionaire's tax. this proposal was for a surcharge on top of that to raise it to 10.75%. it took place as only below hawaii at that point. in terms of top tax rates. i vetoed that tax increase because i thought it made is not competitive. the senate president came down. i viewed it with the bill. i said "here it is.' " they do not call it a tax. maybe people will not read it. i just said wait a second. sit down. i do not want you to waste your time.

we went ahead and continue to push for our budget. they said it would be dead on arrival without a tax surcharge. that june with democratic votes, 99.8% of the line items as i presented. i tell you this to set up the idea about what executive leadership can do if you set out your principles but also showed that you are willing to compromise where appropriate. they were testin me. in the first six months. i was a new governor. they have been in charge for a decade. they were the veterans. i was the newcomer. legislatures will always test executives and see how much they can get away with, how far they can push you, are you willing to stand for your principles or are you not? some people say when you stand

up and bite that you are being obstructionist. that becomes true only if you're unwilling to compromise. the story of new jersey is really broken up into two parts. that first six months and then the two years since then. that first six months they were testing me. in the two years afterward, let me go through with you some of the really bipartisan accomplishments that have been put forward by this governor and the democratic model. i call them back into special session for the fourth of july weekend. we have the highest property taxes. we needed a real cap. after a lot of negotiation, we passed a 2% cap on property taxes. a hard cap. only three exceptions. it is already working. last year property-tax is rose.

only 2.4% is the lowest increase in property taxes and over 20 years. we then moved to reform the arbitration system that drove enormous increases and public sector salaries, up 5% to 7% increase. we created interest arbitration. we capped the amount of money that archer's could be paid. -- arbitors could be paid. they had a small amount of time to make a decision. they were capped at 2%. we then moved to deal with the biggest problem i think for any of the state and the country or federal government. that is entitlement costs. in new jersey that is represented by our pension

system and our public-sector health care program. when i became governor our pension system was underfunded by $54 billion. our public sector health care system was underfunded by $67 billion. that is four years of budgets. september of 2010 i put forward a very straightforward program on how to deal with pension and benefit reform. it was this. raise the retirement age. increase the contributions made by employees to the pension system. until the funds are solid over the next 30 years , increase the penalties for early retirement.

the state would be making its payments to the system. on the health care side most new jersey employees paid nothing for health insurance, zero. these programs run anywhere from $15,000 to $19,000 a year per employee. they got them until they died. we needed to do something there. we could forge a simple task. we said everybody should pay 1/3 to cover the cost of your premiums. that seems to be fair. somewhat in line with what is going on in the private sector. many people would jump at a program like that at the moment. where did i announce this plan? i went to the firefighter convention in new jersey on friday afternoon. it was quite something.

2:00 in the afternoon. i suspect much had been liquid appeared those firefighters were ready for their governor. they were booing like crazy. i said you can do better than that. they did. i decided to eliminate the speech i was going to give them. i said this. i understand you are angry. you feel betrayed. it the reason we should fill the trade is because you have been the trade. betrayed ofen tren those that held been baking give you increasing benefits to not have to pay for. they made you those promises to be you to vote for them. i understand why you're angry and why you felt betrayed. why are you doing the first guy to tell you the truth? there is no political upside to tell you the truth.

if we do this program and your pension is there to be collected and you have health insurance you are going to be on the internet looking for my home address to thank me because we did this together. i probably only got 1/3 of the audience to cheer me. it was probably a big deal. i got out of there as quickly as possible. i went to over 30 town hall meetings and campaigned for that plan. ultimately with thousands of protesters on the front steps of the state house and in the galleys, in a bill sponsored by the senate president, only eight of the 24 democratic members of the senate, only 13 of the 47 assemblies voted yes,

those reforms passed in the assembly and and the senate and or sign into law by me and will save over the next 30 years of $132 billion for the taxpayers of new jersey and will return those funds to solvency. it took not just leadership but courage on the part of democratic leaders to move them forward without a majority of the caucuses voting for them. they did it because they knew it was the right thing to do. that is the environment we have created. it would not have happened if the executive did not need perce. i did not run around a campaign for it. it then would not have happened. executives lead. legislators can be persuaded. this year we have been able to

pass a number of important initiatives. i put forward that the war on drugs has been a failure. we are warehousing addicted people every day in prison, giving them no treatment and sending them back out and wondering why the rates go up and why they do not go better. you can certainly make the argument that no one to try drugs in the first place. i certainly am in bac camp. -- that camp but tens of millions of people do. some people can try and walk away from it. for other is the first time they tried they become an addict. they are sick. they need treatment. i said what we need to do is for

all first-time non-violent drug offenders, we have to make drug treatment mandatory. if you are pro-like as i am the cannot just be pro-life in the womb. every life is precious. every one of god's creatures can be redeemed. they will not be if we ignore them. i believe that this program which was passed overwhelmingly by the legislature this year and will be phased in over the next five years will allow every person who comes into the criminal justice system in new jersey with a drug addiction to get a year a mandatory drug treatment in house. i believe the results will show after this is fully implemented. it will be stark. people can be treated. merkel happen every day.

lives of mothers and fathers are restored to the heads of their families. suns are restored to their family. we return fabric to our families. to those of you concerned about economics, it costs as $49,000 a year to house a prisoner. a full year of drug treatment cost $24,000 a year. it makes economic sense also. that is just a collateral advantage. the real reason to do it is we have an obligation to understand that addiction is a disease. we need to get people a chance to overcome that disease and restore dignity and meaning to their lives. that is not a partisan issue. it is a bipartisan issue. we reorganize our higher education system in a way that

three previous governors tried in special interest be down every year. i said we have a deadline. if we do not do by july 1 i will never let it happen. the press weighed in and said it was arbitrary. it is rushing. it got done. it would have gotten done if i had not set a july 1 deadline. bit intimidated the special interest to believe that they could always defeat a legislature and divide them much harder than absolutely committed executives. for the first time in 100 years we have also performed to our teacher tenure laws.

new jersey's teachers union is one of the most powerful in america. new jersey's teacher union collects $130 million in dues every year. they do not spend a nickel on teacher salaries or pensions or health care. all of that money is used to support their political operations. they spent for their first two years over $20 million in negative ads against me on the philadelphia television trying to say that my proposals were anti-teacher and anti-students. we continue to press on. guess what happened in? the teachers union came to the table. we negotiated the tenure law which is over 100 years old, the oldest in the country, and has now been reported to say that teachers get to years of partially ineffective ratings

then they lose tenure. we are putting accountability back into the system. test scores must be evaluated for. as well as peer review. now principals and superintendents will have the opportunity school systems in a way which allow them to put students first. there are not tolerating failure. imagine that. that was accomplished also in a bipartisan way. it took a two. five-year fight. we accomplished it two weeks ago. i said that the obligation of a governor would find that space between compromising your principles and getting

everything you want. there's always a boulevard between those. that is the boulevard a compromise. sometimes it is narrower. it is always there if you are willing to try to find them. i would not ask anyone to compromise their principles too much. i also have to give everyone an acknowledgement that you do not get everything you want. then you can find and enforce compromise as an executive. i can walk into gum at the same time. i can fight with democrats publicly and privately over issues of principle where we cannot find a compromise and at the same time hold conversations with them on issues where we can enforce that. this illusion that you see in this town that somehow that cannot happen is just an excuse. it is an excuse a failed leadership.

you have to be able to walk into them at the same time. you have to be able to find a compromise. people send us to the jobs to get these things done. are people in new jersey noticing that i say this. the last public poll before election day 2009 and ask that question do you think your state is moving in the right direction, a 19th term said they thought the state was moving in the right direction. -- 19% said they thought the state was getting in the right direction. in the last public poll, 63% believe their states is moving in the right direction. in the same poll only 67 term believe our country is moving in the right direction. they are discerning report two

different approaches. what i outlined is the new jersey approach. it does not make every day a happy or easy day for shore. sure.e-- for the state is getting better. 85,000 new jobs. the best year in home sales in 2012 is 2007. our best job growth year of last we had a decade, of joblessness. 2009 we had zero net job growth. 2011 was our best year since 2000. 2012 is outpacing 2011 already. people are noticing. things are happening. in the end, leadership is the

only thing that will make the difference. it is the only thing that'll make the difference. leadership is not about obstructionism. leadership is also not about keeping every time you get pushed. leadership is about new ones and communicating to people here is what i stand for. on these issues i will not be moved. on other issues, leaving room for discussion and accomplishing principled compromise where it can be. that is why i have great respect for them. democrats do not agree on a lot of things. we have worked together. we put the business first and politics second. that is why it is disturbing to me what they have done with the idea of tax reduction. the closer we are getting to a

presidential election in 2012 and a gubernatorial election in 200013, at the old politics may be creeping back again. that is when it is more important for the executives to fight to continue to find compromise. all too often the leadership positions across the country executives have decided to throw their hands up and say "they are bad. i cannot deal with them." then do not ask for the job. no one ever told you it was going to be pleasant or easy. the job of an executive is to make sure they you get the job done and you find a way to get the compromise. not on every issue. some it'll be impossible. my experience is more times than not you will find it. i hope new jersey is setting an example.

states are seeing more and more of this. hopefully this infection of compromise will eventually spread here. i am not nearly as hopeful about that as i and that it will spread to the other states. we need to continue to talk about it. i am coming to this place, washington d.c., because i want people to know that their government can work for them. they need leaders willing to take risks. risks with their own parties. let's with the public to vote for them. in the end coming here is my philosophy. i have this reputation of being pretty blunt and direct. people wonder where that comes from. we all come from our parents. we are all part of our parents whether we like it or not, good or bad.

i had an irish father who is 79 years old. if he were here he would be sitting up in the front. he would tell you all about his grandchildren. he would be hugging you at the end of the conversation. on the other hand, i had a sicilian mother. for those of you who have any sicilian relatives you know this is a different kettle of fish. in the automobile of life, my father was a passenger. my mother was the driver. she set the rules. she was the person who set the tone in roles. she passed away and died of lung cancer. she was a lifetime smoker. at the end of her life my brother called and said she was back in the hospital in great

condition. i to be read at home that night from san diego and flew back to new jersey -- i flew the red eye home that night from san diego and flew back to new jersey. she woke up. without saying hello to me she said "what day is it?" what time is it that she's a good to work. ? she said to go to work. she said this is they were a workday. go to work. i said i will make up the time. she reached over and she said go to work. it is where you belong. there's nothing left unsaid between us. she is giving me permission to let go. it was the last great gift she gave to me. that is more important not for

the moment but for what it says about the way she raised us. my mother taught us that there should be nothing left unsaid between you and the people you trust. you should not wait for the deathbed moment to get everything out because you might not make it. you need to tell them when you're happy and angry. we need to tell them when you feel great when he felt terrible. you need to share everything with the people who trust you. i know of my mother were a live issue of the same the same thing. she would say they trusted you to give them the most important job that they could give anyone in new jersey. tell them what you think. tell them how you feel. i think that is what leadership needs to be about. we should not be listening to political assaulconsultants.

we should not be listening to the voices to say just use the party doctrine and do not stray. at the end of the day i love this job. i had plenty of great titles already. i was u.s. attorney. most importantly, husband, father, son. if it means that i lose if i choose to run for reelection, so be it. at least i will be able to tell my children that i spent time trying to do something significant. i will say when you go into the voting booth if i am on the ballot, at the one not be able to say who is this guy what did you really think? -- you will not be able to say who is the sky and what did he really think that i will not be a mystery. it cannot lead by being a

mystery or in in the mall or aloof. you cannot lead by being a program. when they trust you they will follow you. if that is the experience of new jersey. i'm happy to take some questions. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you up for coming today. we really appreciate your visit. i will set up one question. as everybody knows, the problems we face is with our fiscal on sustainability. any guidance you can offer is

most pressing. you stated the first job is to set out your principles. i want to focus on taxes. i think that is where a lot of the disagreement comes from. we think the republican principles of our federal taxes. we have a compromise from the commission.les it was a. a principled and compromise. i am curious what republican principles are. are republicans willing to pay for the marginal tax rates? >> i do not think there is one

republican position. i think that is a game that they tried to play. they do not want anything to happen. i would say this. i think simpson-bowles should have been pursued. i think it was an absolute mistake of leadership, lost opportunity, and not to push it. you got republican and democratic votes. the lowering of marginal rates both in the elimination of loopholes in the testing of other deductions is absolutely acceptable in the current context. we also have to get the spending side as well. that is where you get democratic opposition. i do not think that you can just deal with the tax system.

we have to deal with entitlements. if we do not do with entitlements in an honest way we will never get there. i agree with many of the general principles. i do believe that lowering the marginal rate makes sense but only in the context of eliminating loopholes and means testing other deductions in order to make sure you have a system there that operate in a fair way. it has to be combined with entitlement restraints. but we do not have entitlement restraint we are lost. >> you talked about your budget. i am curious to know. we had a supreme court ruling on obamacare. everyone is talking about the mandate. the other component was on medicaid. this has a direct impact on the state.

correct directly i >> directly it is wait and see. i was glad the supreme court ruled that extortion is still illegal in america. that is a relief. obamacare was extortion. you expand your program to where we tell you. if you do not, we're taking all of your money. that is extortion. it was in a whole bunch of nice words but it was extortion. i am glad it supports this. it is still illegal in the country even when done by the president of the united states. it seems to me that a place like

new jersey we had the second most expensive medicaid program in the country behind new york. our question is going to be how much more do we really need to expand our programs? we have some of the most generous benefits already. that is the announcement we are going to make. we're also like to make it on the exchange issue as well. all of these things will be made in the context of two things. what makes it better for the people of our state? what is the most efficient way to do it back i hav? i have our folks working on it. >> what is the timeline of this decision? >> probably by the end of 2000 but -- beginning of 2013. i do not know what other deadlines are going to be put on us as well. i am sure it'll be a vigorous

back and forth. >> let's take questions from the crowd. if you can please make it a question. >> i am not a resident of new jersey. although yesterday on the new jersey turnpike i thought i might become one. my question had to do with the federal state relationship. i wanted to see if i could get a few comments from you and views from the state's side. in washington we seem to see things differently particularly in areas such as education and health care insurance. is the federal intrusion into areas that were more traditionally state responsibilities helpful or hurtful for new jersey? >> i think it is generally hurtful. i would say on issues like

health, the idea that the federal government would give a one size fits all health care program and think it will work just as well in new jersey as montana, we know that makes no sense. it makes no sense just from a that perspective. the help challenges that i face in the most densely populated state with that kind of urban population, i pasted from health care challenges then montana. why is it this is the arrogance of the federal government. they believe they can craft a program that will work for everyone. i think you have to leave more to the state. the way that i can the minister a medicare program is different than the way barbara was able to

mississippi orsivin governor carey in texas. i am afraid you will take health care reform children. what makes you think i would do that? what in my record tells you i might do that? there is the suspicion that i exists that drives some of this intrusion. on the education site, a secretary duncan has tried some positive things to empower states to do more. i think overall trying to manage broad education policy in washington, d.c. for school districts in jersey city anti is quite aer, texas challenge. you have to have an ego to think he can do that effectively. -- you can do that

effectively. >> he mentioned 85,000 private sector employees. there have been massive job losses in the public sectors among states and localities that has led to higher unemployment than would normally be the case. would you support a request by governors to the u.s. congress that would request additional federal funds so that states and localities can hire back some of these essential employees they have been forced to let go? >> no. >> why? >> it is always a temporary band-aid. john course i'm used $1 billion in funds to rehire teachers that he was supposed to use over a few years. i was left with a billion dollar hole afterwards.

the fact is that unless we reduce federalized the states, you continue to give us this money. we hire people for a finite time and the localities are on the hook. where is that money coming from that i have the highest property taxes in america to begin with. where is this money going to come from? i do not see it. we did it without any layoffs. we did it through attrition. while there are some way off at the local level, i do not think that is a bad thing. i have more government employees per square mile than

any state in america. did not send me any more money to hire public employees. i do not need any more. they are expensive and difficult to manage. the idea that we continue to have to deal with some of these issues i think if they want to spend money to create jobs, it then spend money on infrastructure. we will build private sector jobs. do not spend money on sending me money to hire more public employees. do something that will have a multiplying effect. do not do this unless you're going to do other things that we talked about up here already. that is to deal with the fairness of the tax system and to deal with entitlement growth as well.

>> thank you. by want to ask you about two sets of comments that you made that seem to frame a larger question about governance in the country. on the one hand you have demonstrated what can be done in new jersey with the right kind of executive leadership. you have said that there are certainly other examples around the country like john in colorado and elsewhere. said you were not necessarily helpful that the contagion will move in here anytime soon. given that, it raises the question of rethinking federalism itself and the partnership between the federal government and the states.

's alice has written about that. they're talking about what steps might be taking. might it be possible that the fed showed government can concentrate on this. >> we have to have that type of examination. do i think that this intrusion into areas is helpful or harmful? i thought it was harmful. we have to lower the level of suspicion.

we all get elected. we're going to want to do things that are generally good repair population in our state. i guess we should have this. i do not want to totally should from the hip. this is part of what i hope will grow out of a bigger risk conversation of some symbols. it will force that conversation. you are trying to figure out what are your priorities. it is the question you are asking. what should the priorities of the federal government be? what should the priority of the state be?

right now we're saying everything is a priority. we're going to do everything. you're probably going to do most of the lousy. what are the priorities? the work from there. state response abillity should not be encouraged, by large federal programs which then do this even more. >> we have time for one more quick question. >> i also spent some time in the other new work. -- newark.

i think he became governor at the worst possible time. how do you sustain these changes go forward? how do you sustain that conversation that had the keep people focused on the problem? >> i feel like it is a much better time than i did then. i feel like at the time it was an incredible birth. when you sit down, every one of the directions you know i can see this people in my mind that will be affected. -- the people in my mind that will be affected. that is a heavy burden. will be doing that over about a three week time frame.

about four hours per meeting is all we can take. my wife can tell without looking at my schedule that i had one of those meetings. it was a really difficult time to become governor. crisis presents opportunity. everyone knows we have limited choices. all the games have been played. we had borrowed for ongoing spending. every trick in the book that could be played. from balloon payments to every game. after that there were no games left in the playbook. you had to make difficult choices. the sustainability is embodied in that right direction.

what these special interest listen to do is say "this is the end of the world as we know ait." "your the roads will be caving in. the bridges will be collapsing. what they've seen in new jersey is the son still comes up every morning and the kids are still going to school -- -- the sun is still coming up every morning. our bridges are being repaired. we're doing the things that need one.e du no one is visibly suffering. would people like to have more

money? sure, they would. a union carpenter has been out of a job for two years and is trying to keep his house. i cannot justify it anymore and neither can a union carpenter. the divide you see is between the private sector union movement and the public sector union. "how can my people survive? how come when our pensions go down with to put more money an in?" this is an issue of fundamental

fairness. you're seeing the changes in fairness. that does not mean they are not hard and that they are not painful, because they are. but there are also fair and they make sense. people are able to except that in the context of shared sacrifice. we have a progressive income tax code with the top 1% pays 40% of the income tax. people say that you're getting away with something. the top one% is paying 41% of the income tax. i think that is where you get sustainability. i use the example of my mother. you have to talk honestly to people about it.

it will hurt, we're all going to hurt, and we're going to hurt together. i dunno how long it will take but it will get there -- i do not know how long it will take. a candor with people that you're not trying to protect your own grand. rear end. to many officials are obsessed with re-election and to do anything to keep their jobs. that is not the kind of person you want in the executive position. beware of the person who will do anything to get reelected. that means they will do anything to get reelected.

somebody tell me, "why do you want to do this?" because the pension system will go bankrupt. reelected, let the next guy do it. that is the current mentality that has creeped in. only deal with things that will blow up on my watch. the next explosion will be an explosion that is difficult to contain if we do not deal with these issues. people say that europe -- get europe.get europe will be like a picnic.

the ramifications for the entire world will be graver than anything we are seeing in europe. sustainability is to say that to people. look at people and say that for social security, we will have to raise the retirement age. i said that -- i have not been vaporized. i'm still here. we need to be honest about these things. some of these benefits needs to be means tested. we cannot afford it. orry. you get screwed. you have to say this to people.

a leader is not just somebody who is was like a happy tune at the front of the parade. it sometimes that is part of your job. the grunt work is also part of your job. you have to sell the some things to people so that it becomes a part of who they are. if they kick you out of office, they kick you out of office. it seemed to meet it is not the end of the world. that was a long answer. >> thank you for your honest and invigorating comments. thank you for coming. >> thank you. [applause]

>> the governor of new jersey exiting the room. his remarks will be on our web page. president obama is scheduled to make an announcement about the middle class tax cuts which are set to expire by the end of the year. live coverage of the president's

remarks at 11;50 eastern on c- span2. here on c-span noon, live remarks from steny hoyer. he'll talk about growing the economy. congress returns from a week- long fourth of july recess. the house in at 2:00 p.m. eastern for legislative work on seven bills. to mark, the house is expected consideration of a bill to repeal the 2010 health-care law. you can watch live coverage at 3:00 p.m. as the rules committee marks up that measure. the senate back in at 2:00 p.m. and they will resume work on a payroll tax credit bill that is currently capped at $500,000 per

employer. you can watch the house live right here on c-span and the senate live on c-span2. >> i don't mean to sound like i want to go crazy and regulate the internet. i did not believe the internet should exist as a place outside the law. >> the future of personal technology and relationships between technology makers and the government. tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on s" on c-municator span2. >> up next -- >> a discussion about global challenges about poverty and human rights with representatives from the united nations, the panel on climate

change, the red cross and the international labor organization. this is an hourlong discussion and part of the world summit on nobel peace laureates elrich in chicago in april -- held in chicago in april. >> how we can get a little bit more involved and i will begin with dr. pachauri. al gore did "inconvenient truth." now you read newspapers or look

in the news and it has eclipsed that the climate problem is worse than ever. how did that happen? >> in any field of new knowledge that emerges, there is always the period when there will be ups and downs. scientists welcome debate and discussion of scientific finding. often you find that there is a strong reaction. i would like to point out the movie wasal gore's titled appropriately "inconvenient truth." sometimes knowledge can be inconvenient. therefore you would see some changes in public perception. let me say to the call it at yale university -- find in the

last three or four months there seems to be a shift and a large number of americans believe that eather the freak with a ba events are the result of climate change. it has come up with some very profound findings based on observations and projections of what is going to happen in the future. i wanted to mention two of them. the first is with respect to - heat wavees. those heat waves that take place once in 20 years, if we do not do anything by climate change,

those heat waves -- rows of the same intensity would take place once in two years. the fact that extreme events are on the increase. or you have a decline in average precipitation, a larger share of it will be in the form of heavy -- knowledge is now becoming far more incontrovertible and i'm confident that in the next few years if not earlier the public will accept the realities of climate change and i hope that society can do something about it.

>> do you like when people use the term "global warming"? >> " warning carries this misperception that climate change is warming and smooth, steady, linear. the entire climate system is being affected by an increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases in the earth's atmosphere. we have made two important findings. warming of the climate system is .nequitable -- on equivocunequil the concentration of green gas.d bashouse the probability of over 90%.

that is where we are. i would say it is phar-mor reflective of reality to use the term climate change over global warming. >> i was speaking about some of the concerns about climate. there is droughts. we were feeling this extreme weather conditions. what frightens you the most right now? >> there is a whole range of things. what concerns me is the fact that the impacts of climate change will fall in some of the most vulnerable regions of the world, on communities who are least equipped to handle these impacts. i can give you an example of

.nbangladesh there are regions of africa where yields are projected to decline substantially. they are dependent on grain-fed agriculture. they produce barely enough to take care of their own needs and they are the have high-level south malnutrition. all this put together and the scarcity of water in several parts of the world where water stretches exist. there's a combination of things. my concern and it is not for the scientific community to come to any conclusion on this, but my concern is with these realities, you could have major disruptions in the stability of

society itself. this can happen in different parts of the world. host: professor yunus, are you seeing any climate change problems in bangladesh? >> we see floods are becoming more frequent and the whether becoming more unpredictable -- and the weather becoming more unpredictable. we take it as if there is another chapter of many other things. for me, the reality is part of many other problems, the problem of the food crisis which comes into the issue of the culture. we are losing land because of

the climate change. food crisis in itself is another issue. financial crisis. these are expressions or manifestations of the same fundamental problem, the fundamental problem of the from .ork of the way that work the previous panel was making reference that we need a new world order. an economic not order or a world order. i don't think we carry-on the same way and we can extract ourselves from that.

many of these things do not exist. in visiting this would be a starting point -- in vision in envisioning this would be a starting point. with the way we intellect with each other. unless we address that, we can go on a piece by piece basis. >> lyndon johnson and the great society had a war on poverty in the 1960's. d.c. a day when there will be no poverty -- do you see a day when there will be no poverty? >> why does it sound ridiculous?

in the millennium some of the united nations, we brought all the countries of the world, all the leaders of the world to adopt millennium goals, eight goals. the number-one goal was to reduce poverty and have. now many nations are moving ahead to achieve that goal and bangladesh will be one of those countries, to reduce poverty by half. if we can reduce that, if you continue the process, some where you will come to zero. this is an obvious kind of logic. reducing poverty to zero is not something unthinkable. today we have the millennium goals for phase one.

someone will be preparing for millennium development goals for phase two. i am sure this is an issue will be addressing when we achieve poverty at zero. how fast we can do that. we have the ability and the creative power. it is possible to make a factor. if you put our minds into it and put our date into it, we should be able to create that. where does it go? there will be a poverty museum in chicago declaring there is no poor person in this city and the

city would be proud that we can make this happen and all these examples of poverty in the past. we will not get back to it again. it is goodbye forever. it is not a question of technology. >> what about corporations? how do we get companies dealing with issues of poverty? >> today the conceptual framework of economics --in business, all you do is make money. money making it easier issue. we train our cells so much that it becomes a habit -- we train ourselves so much that it becomes a habit. we keep on making money because

that is the direction we are put in. he even beings are not one- dimensional -- human beings are not one-dimensional. they are multi dimensional. that is where we went wrong. everything we are following all the time -- other problems -- this is all because -- human beings are much bigger than just being robots. human beings are multi dimensional. we can change the world. we can create a business to solve problems. all the technology that we have in our command all over the world, who is commanding this technology?

what use does business make of this? they will make more money. that technology can be used to solve problems. if you put all the creativity of human beings and all the problems of the world on the other side and make them fight with each other, my prediction -- human technology will be the winner. we do it in a separate world. if it comes to the problem, give it to the government to solve it and that's where we go wrong. >> we need to change the metrics of what constitutes human progress. [applause] said speed is irrelevant

if you are going in the wrong direction. we believe we're doing better every day. despite the outstanding work that professor yunus, as been caring now, poverty in the world is still a major problem. the impact of climate change and other related challenges. i think we need to shift gears somehow and i do not know how it can be done. maybe the younger generation has to show us the way. >> going along with the profit- making business -- the young

generation -- if they can put their mind into it and designing does is to solve problems, i think many ideas would keep coming and problems could be solved. we include that in our textbook so there is an option to see how much you want to use this is to solve problems. >> mr. stelzer, what can the united nations do on poverty or climate? what is the united nations doing? it was a dream of fdr and the u.n. but many americans do not know what the u.n. does. what is the best tory for the young people to understand what

the united nations is doing around the world? >> let me take a practical approach. some of the big issues were analyzed. the un is offering a platform for solutions. needs cooperation of all the countries. we can start looking for a solution once we have identified the problem. we have tremendous challenges and big opportunities. we're having a conference in 50 days, rio plus 20, which has been called the most important conference of our generation. the 50-50-50 challenges. there'll be a 50% more people

living. why do we have to stay within the 2%, which is much too high? we have to reduce co-2 emissions by 50%. how are we doing that? why do we have to produce co-2 emission. we need a total rethinking of the way we produce and consume. we cannot afford continuing as usual. in a very few years, the deficit will be 40% between the amount and supply globally. this is very alarming. how do we provide opportunities

for the billion extra people every year? why do we reduce the co-2 emission? and reduce social inequalities and provide economic access. that is what it is. it is lack of access to the gains of society. we are 60% of wealth but we still have a billion people who go to bed hungry, who live with $1.25 per day, not being able to provide social security, clean water, access to education, and the social security to their children.

so how are we going to do that? we have nothing better than growth. our economy has to grow to accommodate jobs. chutes have not shoot been producing jobs. no country is exempt any more from crisis. globalization is that nobody is a shared against the shock waves. look at the economic centers today. several countries have 50% unemployment today. how do we provide opportunities for young people for their future? we talk about the greek economy. we have to get away from dirty

energy -- we talked about the green economy. there is 60% of energy efficiency in the united states. already today we produce $1 of gdp with 60% less energy. if we continue with this, and looks quite well. if we get together and the heads of government come together and can find a global strategy for the next 10 to 15 years, which includes the energy goals, increasing the share of renewals in the energy equation to 50% and providing global access to

energy, we get very far, and we can do wit. we have technology. we have to make the technology accessible. when we invest in dirty energy with subsidies, that is a track that leads us into a dead end street. 2, and with more realistic -- we can do would easily. >> let's say a young person in chicago -- nobody likes the word "dirty energy." gasoline prices are key. look at the major companies that are topped.

exxonmobil almost becomes cartels. we may be on fossil fuels for 20 to 30 years. what can a person do to help this revolution? >> i had a very good morning. i went to roosevelt high school. we had a very good discussion. everybody has something at stake. we have to establish the parameters to realize we decide and achieve globally. they need to be held accountable to the voters. they have a responsibility, a shared responsibility. i think the focus is about to

advise -- he will be a special adviser on youth. this is a huge challenge. and people need to participate .n rio plus 20 who are we doing it for? we are not working in a glass house. we are working for real people. the most important issue is how we create opportunities, means decent work for young people. then people can invest into the future, into families, into businesses, into their own future and take your own life into their own hands. >> we had a ccc in the united

states during the great depression. they started doing reforestation projects and kind of a peace corps on climate with unpeople. >> that is a good idea. climate change is only one aspect of the global challenges. rio plus 20 is going to be bigger than the climate change. rebuild our economy. get independent from oil, coal, and gas. it is possible. a study points out that if we do nothing, by 2050, while increasing productivity, we would be oil- and gas-

independent because they do not have a business case anymore. if we stopped subsidizing dirty energy and internalize the -- the clear and -- many of the energies we have been relying on do not have a business case and i think that is the biggest rival for the future and for innovation. >> telma viale, what is your personal story? how did you get involved in human rights? what was like growing up in el salvador? >> i grew up in the middle of civil war and issues like social justice -- there was violence

and even consciousness about what was unfair. it took some time to realize. after leaving el salvador, i managed to get a perspective of what we were talking about, what the groups were talking about. young.their younvery >> what did you drop experiencing? >> there was terrorism, of peopheavel. it was difficult for students to go to school. you could be considered -- you could be killed by the terrorists if you went to the university.

you were also risking to be kidnapped. there were polarizations and it was through the movement and they got organized. el salvador was over 10 years. i heard many of the speakers had help during the war. we had a peace agreement finally. >> you work with the international labor organization. what does that do? >> i think it is is fantastic opportunity for me. i work at the high school and i had a great opportunity to explain in simple words wet the ilo is about. it is an important organization. eleanor roosevelt set everybody should be following close with

the work of the ilo. i will read a quotation. "we're driven by feelings of justice and humanity as well as by the desire to guarantee permanent peace in the world. permanent peace in the world." this quotation is from 1919, 100 years old when the ilo was founded. one thing that is interesting about the ilo -- after having been born, a world war were the idea was to address the root causes of the injustices of the war and the visionary response was to put together three main actors for the world of war,

which chart employers, workers, and organizations. we heard the president of poland talking about the discussions. this is what the ilo is about. it is important to look at ourselves today almost 100 years later from one the organization was built. we see that at every moment when we had a war, there was a particular road that the organization has to play. in 1944, we had an amendment to the constitution and this was to the declaration of philadelphia. there was something that was signed in the united states and that expanded the role of the ilo to look at human rights.

many people might not know that the human-rights declaration that was written in 1948, the international committee used the ilo constitution for the concept of human rights. the ilo continues the work of setting international standards and has as a mandate to look after social protection for all and create employment, productive employment for the economy's and to foster dialogue so that we do not have to go to war. these have been the pillars for our structure. when we had the noble piece

it was because of the international standards that we have been advancing and continuing and because we have a fight for social justice in the world, this is at the heart of the lives of everyone. everybody gets up in the morning if they have a job and go to work. now here we are. we have an important declaration that shaped the ilo after the second world war. we were instrumental for the democracies that were established in poland, south africa and we continued to strengthen with declarations so we have another decoration at the time. the declaration of the rights of wars at that time.

the cold war ended and it increased the free markets, it increased globalization, and it was another transition and another interesting turning point. 1999 we had the very first director general from the south and at the heart of this new changes that we had, he has to bring some contemporary terms to all the values at ilo. it is a lot of information to say that this is what we have to do for the world and for the human rights at work. the concept of peace and work encompasses these things and this is where we are today. the ilo is pushing forward the

agenda of peace and work for all. >> what frustrates you the most. everybody is for human rights. president carter spoke. personally, what do you wish the world community could do regarding human rights? if you could change in behavior or two. >> this morning at the school. look at the conventions. we have 189 conventions. there were six conventions and we have the last one, 189 on domestic workers. people have not had the rights.

if you look at the work and the conventions -- we heard from president gorbachev. enough words and less walk the walk. the big frustration is we have instruments to make it work and we're not using that to the extension that we should. we have committed generations -- i have been here on behalf of generations that have given their life. the governments of the worker or the employer or the staff of the ilo been putting this forward on one convention and one declaration. you need the consensus of workers, of 183 nations with

employers and with the government? and we get it with incredible negotiations and incredible dialogue. something important i want to say in the very last decade -- the declaration that was put forward is the declaration on social justice for fairer globalization which addresses the need for having decent work as the instruments to bring a fair globalization, to bring social justice to this new way of exchanging. >> i want to bring alexander into the conversation. the international red cross, you have no problem with the brand identity.

what do you feel is the crux of the mission of your organization at this point and time? how do you decide where to go into? >> our priorities is the next emergency. we decide to go where we have an added value. it is not a question of politics nor of media attention. we decide to go wherever we see humanity in need and wherever we see that's, the international red class addresses these needs, and that will be by definition because of our history and because of our know-how in situations of armed violence that can be qualified as a conflict, but this is where we see that we can do something for

the people that other organizations cannot do. is the redght now cross doing work that you would like the audience to know about? >> ok, there -- syria. on syria, my message would be there is one man who is trying to get the parties to sit down and talk and that man is kofi annan. [applause] he needs the backing. despite that, there are governments, there are people that are still heralding these romantic image of war, that

still do believe there is something glamorous about going to war. believeas the parties they can gain something through war, they will go to war. there is no other solution than you people sitting together and talking in finding an arrangement. the people in the previous panel like mr. gorbachev and mr. de klerk who manage the transition with the soviet union or apartheid, there's a way to get syria to manage a peaceful transition. that would be my message. in the interesting discussion i had with the students this

morning, and i have to say it was a more interesting discussion -- i congratulate them for that. [applause] one message i try to pass -- war is not glamorous and war is not a game. there is nothing like creating war. it is not because you don't have boots on the ground that he did not have blood on the ground. there is nothing virile about war. [applause] >> these questions are coming from the audience.

this is by robert. how does the environment impact their prospects for global peace? >> the impact of climate change firstly are not going to be uniform. there are certain vulnerable locations, sir and vulnerable communities. -- certain vulnerable communities. they will be hit the worst. 95 of deaths have taken place in the developing world. if you look at the increase in the severity as well as the frequency of these impacts, clearly the ones who are the most underprivileged are the ones that are going to be affected worst of all.

there is every prospect that if we don't do something about this problem, there will be refugees who will move from one location to the other. i think what we need to do is to inform the public about what is going to happen and create capacity which can be done and very low cost, to be able to adapt to the impacts of climate change. there are several measures, early warning systems which can make an enormous difference to life and property and protection. let me also say that there has been a discussion about war, president gorbachev very likely said that there is also conflict on nature. i think we need to bring about change in the attitude of human

beings. there is nothing more infected then creating awareness. einstein said problems can be solved at the level of awareness that created them. today we have awareness and therefore we should be able to create major dissemination of information by which people can handle these problems. otherwise, there will be a serious affect on peace. there will be conflict. there is conflict in different parts of the world. that will get exacerbated with the impacts on climate change. >> this is from josh, professor yunus. how is it possible to reduce poverty if we didn't change society's standard for poverty?

>> well, if you look from the human issue, since we're discussing that, you can look at poverty as the denial of all human rights -- rights to food, right to shelter, right to work. they are all denied and that is what poverty is all about. once you understand that, that should be the top priority, how to bring those human-rights to the people. then you look at the poor people. it is always somebody else's fault. you come to the conclusion that poverty is not created by the poor people. poverty is created by the

system. so eager to break human rights to all people, why don't you design a system that will not create the thing? it is a question of designing the system to get people out of poverty. you take unemployment. 50% of the young population are not employed in many nations today. it is chronic unemployment in many nations. the question is, is something wrong with the unemployed person? is she not willing to work? is something missing? no. very eager, very productive, but wasted away.

who did that? again, the system. we're simply looking at the symptoms and trying to cure that to fix that. why don't you sit down and we decide that? today we have the capability of redesigning the system. let's go on tinkering and improving. we are in the 21st century. our technology is at the stage where we can design things in a different way. everything is changing so fast. what happens today at what happens 20 years from now is completely different. redesign the system so we don't have anybody that is unemployed. >> building on the point, we have a question and it connects

nicely on whether capitalism is going to continue in this century or not. it problem of global capitalism. >> i do not want to be ideological here. i tried to look at it from the point of view of what we have been experiencing. this system will living in it does not produce the results that all of us want. means a more inclusive environment in society. we have analyzed that every crisis is the consequence of unsustainable imbalances. the housing bubble exploded. we have imbalances, political and balances. the result is war. global warming to far, we'll

have catastrophic consequences. this is the business of the united nations. the imbalances. what does it mean for the economy? it doesn't mean that the markets do not function or that people are not supposed to be rich. how do we provide inclusive development? how do we provide exits? the question is not about how much food we produce. still, a billion people are hungry. we have enough money in this world. many governments tell us their main concern is balancing budgets.

we have no money anymore to continue the social systems. we have 5 billion people in this world with no access to social protection. no insurance. no job security. nobody and nothing protect 5 billion people. this is very alarming. how do we distribute things better? how do we do with more intelligently without depleting our natural resources? we want to have cars. in we afford cars, suv's european cities? european cities?