then there are a whole lot of unexplained things. but there is a change and i think most believe is coming, and that is relatedthe height os represent the percentage of the and floyd workers with a bachelor's degree. this is the level of the college education, percentage with college education. we compare men and women and if you go to the bottom, we are not comparing time but we are comparing age groups. so, this is a rather dramatic chart for social dated in that -- data in that the blue and red lines crossed themselves. the younger people in younker groups, 20-40, a larger percentage of women who have bachelor's degrees than men.

the red line above the blue line. as you go to older age groups at the top, it flips. the older groups working men have higher education than women. this fits a lot of other data. if you look at current graduate school and graduate school enrollment -- an undergraduate school enrollment. women exceed the accounts of men. we are already seeing a movement of women in a different occupational mix. they are entering those occupations that have higher median incomes. the 77 cents or 78 cents, unless things change across occupations, should get higher and higher as these women -- these young women enter higher income occupations. host: lindsay asks the --

guest: it doesn't apply to every woman with a bachelor's degree or every man with a bachelor's degree. these data come from the very representative samples of people are around the country. we cover all of the country. and women and men in all occupations of all backgrounds. and they rely -- and this is an important thing for all of us to realize -- they rely on the participation of people throughout the country. the census bureau attains a very high partition rate -- participation rates, but it is important due. -- important they do. host: will move on to manufacturing the first take a call from mark from maine. caller: good morning, susan. thanks once again for a very informative "washington journal

." the complexity of these census charts certainly needs explanation. so, thank you, robert. i am coming from the older generation, the chart on home ownership. it is obvious we older people have had a lifetime to pay off our mortgages. but my question will probably raise the ire of some listeners. is there any sense of data on the elderly who do not need a social security? i started on social security at 62 as a retired public school teacher. and i still remember my depression parents raised in the depression is saying they didn't need social security because they saved, sad all through their life. and i was kind of raised that way. i always spent less than my

income. so, i have kind of an opposite reaction of a previous caller. it seems our older people need to give and support the younger people. >guest: we do indeed have statistics on that. i refer you to the census.gov web page. there are a lot of people now studying how people are preparing, if you will, for retirement, what their cumulative savings look like and how dependent they are on social security. and that very thing that you pointed out, what portion of the elderly are depending to what extent on social security for their day to day living, it is something that a lot of people are interested in right now. and proper statistics on that allowed us to have these discussions. host: our first question was on

job creation and what people out there who are experiencing the recession have to say about how to effectively create jobs. your next chart gives a snapshot of how manufacturing, beginning with that, which was typically a source of jobs, has changed. guest: we are going to look at a couple of things on manufacturing. the first one attacks the myth that nothing is made with the united states anymore. the height of this line is a function of billions of dollars in volume of the manufacturing sector. these are constant dollars, fixed to $1,984. it allowed us to move from 1996 to the present time -- to 1984 dollars. look at the height of a line. there was a major hit to

manufacturing volume during the recessionary period, a dramatic decline, but you see it coming back. slowly, it is sort of matching the early 2000's now. type of manufacturing going on is actually that for which the u.s. really has really manages, i think. host: can we move to the next one? guest: the next one is a list we all carry around, the midwest sector of manufacturing -- ms. that the midwest sector manufacturing is completely dead. we compare four regions. the height of the line is the function of the share of manufacturing in the country represented by each region. we see, focus your eye on the red line, which is the midwest, the so-called rust belt. you see a decline over the

2000's. you see that the south has been the major sector, the major region for manufacturing, most prevalent for some time. but by no means is the midwest falling off the charts. there is a little bump. what is happening in the midwest is the mix of manufacturing activities is changing in a way. the midwest is not completely dead. the south is still leading on manufacturing, but the midwest is hanging in there. >> going back to 10 years, 2002, -- can i speculate if the chart went back 40 or 50 years there would be a big decline in the northeast? >> and it is also related how the population has migrated west and south. everything working together. host: let's take a southern caller.

shreveport. caller: my question for mr. grove, as we seem to have an increasingly into racial population, has the census bureau collected data on how income changes or poverty rate regarding interracial households and if so, how does it compare to the data presented earlier. that withon't have me. we certainly do have data on that. with regard to the changes during the recession, it is pretty clear that minority groups were disproportionately suffering declines during that period the income levels of multiracial families are indeed sitting in our statistics. i just don't have them in my head now. it is very interesting to me to note the growth in the proportion of the american people " are self-identifying as

multiracial. this is one of the fastest- growing groups in the country. so, watching this group and watching how they both in income, socio-economic status, and also culturally how they changed over time will be an interesting thing for all of us to watch. host: suzanne turns the comment on the head -- guest: they fit together. host: exports of manufactured goods. guest: here is another kind of myth -- that we don't make anything and we don't export it. here, the height of these lines are in billions of dollars. un-adjusted data. and the redline our imports. the value of imports over time.

the blue line is exports. there are two important things to look at. let your eye look at the difference in height between the blue and red, the disparity between imports and exports. we are an importing country and we have been for a long time. host: not so much in 1957 -- 1997, much closer. guest: and look at how the recession brought those together. the impacts of recession on exports and imports is a complicated matter because it depends on what the rest of the world is doing at the same time. you see a big bounce back in both imports and exports after the recession, this export increase is something our country is working on in a variety of ways. host: our next call is from greensboro, north carolina. this is lisa. you are on with dr. growth. caller: i know greensboro --

during the last census, the census bureau actually had an office there and i worked on the last census. i am just wondering, when do you start looking for people to work on the u.s. census again? i know it is way earlier than when it is a venture with the form. two or three years -- i did statistics and i just love the u.s. census bureau and i love of of the statistics and i am wondering when you are going to ramp up the workers for next time. guest: first of all, thank you for your service to the country, working on the senses. -- census. join more than half a million other people who gave such a wonderful census is to the country that we gave to the country for 2010. the. census, as you know, is in the

year 2020. we are not hiring people for that one. we are trying to planning census that is more efficient, so people here in washington are completely devoted to fabricating designing of census that is very efficient, cheaper for the american public, because we have to save taxpayer money like everyone. but also as good as we have done in prior decades. one of the wonderful things we have about the u.s. case with census is if you compare our performance worldwide to other country, we do great censuses here. this one was one of the greatest -- best in history. it is because the people that you work so hard on it. thank you. host: next is a small business and large business -- job creation.

guest: another thing we hear, some people here, that small businesses are just disappearing and we are dominated by large businesses. the height of these lines is the percentage of business establishments that are either large and smallb. -- large and small. the blue are the small and the red are the big ones. this is a very stable rate of prevalence of small and large establishments. really complicated and really important. slow down as you look at this. let me first note -- what is the engine of growth? what kinds of firms produce more employment? this contrasts small firms and large firms. the height of the bars are the

proportion of employees that work in certain kinds of firms. look at the blue line, blue bars first. it gives you the proportion of employees among total employees and different kinds of firms. on the very right, the blue line is really high for big firms that are mature. 10 years or older. a larger portion of all employees work for big firms that are old, big firms. let your eye goes to the left and last -- let us ask the question, who is producing the new jobs? that is the yellow bar. you see that a young firms on the very last side that are just a being born --

produce jobs. they start from zero and they hire people. if you go to the next group, these are small firms that have been in existence 1-9 years. they produce jobs, too. but the red bar are four job destruction. they go out of business, too. they both produce jobs and they lose jobs. if you look at this entire thing, it teaches us that the myth is that all small firms produce jobs. really, the truth is start-ups, a young firms produce jobs. small firms that have been in existence for a long time are not producing a lot of jobs. host: start-ups create jobs but the jobs and not necessarily stable. if you want more jobs, you want more start-ups.

host: here is a comment -- jacksonville, florida. babas online for robert growth. caller: yes, doctor. i was born in the mid 40's -- 1940's and we were the second family in the neighborhood to have a tv. we dealt with imagination. very few toys. as the decades progressed, i see the internet has done a wonderful job bring money to the world. i think the next big growth will be hybrid automobiles. there is a lot of interest in that. we need something to carry on now. and i think the next thing will be hybrid use of cars, just the sheer enjoyment of it, and then

there will be the necessity. host: thanks. let's listen to kim in annapolis. caller: good morning. i just have one small question. you hire a lot of temporary workers to be census workers but you also rely on the u.s. postal system to deliver a lot of the surveys to go to people's homes. with the drive now to reduce the letter carriers in the postal system, how will it impact the 2020 census if in fact they get rid of most of the postal workers and post offices that they are already doing -- offices close in on saturdays is the office closing, and on saturdays no delivery. guest: it is something we think about a lot because we have to plan so far out. our contingencies on that really have to do with exploiting electronic communication more

and more and more. so we are investigating how social media might be used to alert people to our request for census data, how we can use telephones and internet and basically all sorts of most to communicate with folks. we are preparing for a world in 2020 where mobile computing will be everywhere, we will be in a wireless world, and we will be interacting over the internet with a variety of devices in a variety of ways. that is the world i think we are moving to. host: we have two minutes left. two importance life. we feel a lot with the debate of private-sector and public-sector workers. guest: we are discussing the size of the federal government daily now. this chart reflects the percentage of and pleased by sector -- employees by sector

and the big blue part is the private sector. the different bars are for different years. from 1980 to 2010. you can see it is pretty constant. a little more than 80% of employees are in the private sector. but it isn't moving very much. over time. if we zoomed in on the top portion and go to the next graph and ask what are the characteristics of the government sector employment, this is generally a surprise to people. the growth in government workers is disproportionately in the local government rather than state -- and the federal government shows a gradual decline in the number of employees workin for the federal government. if you go up to the top and say

why is the growth going on in the local government, about two- thirds of the growth has to do with folks working in local schools. this is a surprise to most people. host: that is it for these numbers. for our audience, they are connected to the website if you like to spend more time with them and the census website has a lot more data and you can dig into some of the ancillary sets of data. we said at the outset this was your final program with us on america by the numbers. where are you going? guest: i am off to georgetown university and i will become the provost at georgetown, something i am looking forward to. host: we should tell the audience you have been a big champion of the america by the numbers segment. a question about your job -- when you look in your tenure at census, how the the organization change under you?

guest: we tried to innovate in ways to make us more efficient. we are very concerned about spending every dollar of taxpayer money efficiently, so all of our work is trying to be more efficient and giving the american people more useful information. host: thanks very much, and good luck in your next position. one more guest segment to go and brad smith, former chairman of the federal election commission will be here to talk about campaign spending and specifically about the fate of the disclose act in the senate. i want to tell you about a statement from the white house. we started out with that terrible story out of colorado with the gunman opened fire in aurora, colorado in a movie theater. the toll now stands at at least 12 killed and 38 wounded. the premiere showing in the movie theater. the president from florida said on friday he was shocked and saddened by the deadly shooting at the suburban movie theater and urged the nation to come together as one american family in the aftermath of the tragedy.

obama said in a statement that he and first lady michele bachmann were shocked by the horrific and tragic shooting and that the administration would do everything it could to help support the people there. the white house is going to have an official statement and the president will speak about it later today, and we will certainly cover that if that occurs. we are going to take a break now and up next, campaign finance and brad smith. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> it was about those men and women who were almost mortally injured in war, who, because of the huge advances that have been

made in medical trauma treatment over the last 10 years, it meant being saved. an incredible number of them are being saved. almost everybody who falls on the battlefield is being saved. and i wanted to write about what life was like for these people. and i really started off with a question, having seen some people who were pretty, pretty gruesomely named, would it be better off if they were dead? don't they wish they were dead? >> in a "beyond the battlefield," in the series with huffington opposed and subsequent e-book, he spoke of vets and their families, surgeons, combat veterans -- on wounded in combat operations. sunday at 8:00 on q&a. "washington journal" continues.

host: mr. smith served five years at the federal election commission and as chair between to govern for-2005 and he is here to talk about campaign spending in 2012 and particularly the senate that the effort to pass the legislation called the disclose act. let's start with this story in "usa today." campaign finance it right now at $1 billion in accounting. it suggests here that it could hit an eye-popping $3 billion according to the center for responsive politics. what do those numbers say to you? a good thing to be spending this kind of money? guest: first of all, it is not a lot of money. we spend a lot more money than that just to advertise so products and so on. we need to be informed about candidates. there is good political science data that shows higher spending does and the fact increase voter knowledge of the candidates are, where they stand and how to connect them with issues.

as much as people had all of the 30-second ads of the data shows the higher spending doesn't affect increase voter knowledge and awareness. host: let's move to the senate after this week to pass legislation called the disclose act. you have been a critic of that. why? guest: i think there are a number of problems with the disclose act. in particular, i think in the first set, it is not really necessary. that is, people here all of these reports about the good money and politics. the reality is, every super pac has to disclose all of its donors, everett traditional pac has to disclose, campaigns disclose donors, political parties. basically we have had more disclosure that we have ever had in politics. it does come with a cause. the burdensome cost on smaller campaigns filing reports. the disclose act would require reports to be filed within 24 hours of making expenditures.

for a typical small business, an individual who may be fairly wealthy but contributes $10,000 or more which would trigger that, they are not prepared to file reports in 24 hours. so, that is a burdensome fact. and there is also a problem that disclosure can be used to harass and vilify people. finally, the disclose act itself on ultimately was introduced in 2010 and remains today a partisan bit of legislation. that is, it is legislation intended to favor certain constituencies, and is case democratic constituencies, it over republican constituencies. host: we have a bullet points on the disclose act. i will show it quickly. senator sheldon whitehouse was a major sponsor and he was on that senate floor after two attempts. let us listen. [video clip] >> we tried to accommodate.

i know when it -- many of my colleagues, like -- who broke with offered for many years remain great supporters of the provision and i hope we will be able to introduce it at another time. but we didn't. so, that complaint should be closed off. some complain that this was just an attempt to influence of this election. well, the effective date is january 1, 2013. so, it will not, to the regret of many, influence this election. according to a republican former fcc chairman trevor potter, the disclose act of 2012 was appropriately targeted, narrowly tailored, clearly constitutional and desperately needed. so, i stand ready to work with any of my colleagues, democrat or republican, who want to make this bill better. but we can't use complaints, particularly unjustified complaints, as an excuse to do nothing.

it's good that is the view of the author. here is -- host: that is the review of the offer. here is brad smith's opinion of it. talk about the differences. guest: when it was first introduced in 2010, at that time the lead sponsor was senator schumer in new york and he made the statement that one of the purposes of this" was to deter people from speaking. he was very open about that. it's clear who they wanted to deter, that is constituencies that the democratic sponsors believe will be republican constituencies. it is not entirely clear, but i think one can make those kinds of predictions. so, it really is and remains a partisan views of legislation. and one of the things you can do when you begin to understand campaign finance is it is very easy to write legislation that is neutral on its face but that target -- that targets political opponents. for example, if you know how

emily's list exercise political influence or how unions exercise influence or how businesses exercise influence, you can write legislation that is neutral on its face but targets that particular type of group or that particular type of agency. it would be sort of like a baseball team. you could write rules that would change the dimensions of the field and it may be facially neutral for all teams but it you know what teams had what kinds of offensive strengths, fast runners, slow runners, lies on home runs and stolen bases and singles and so one, you can adjust the rules with fairly predictable outcomes as to who you are going to help and hurt. host: let's go dismount -- phone calls for you. stanford, connecticut. but is a republican. caller: good morning. thank you foresees an end. -- thank you for c-span. i heard something a while back that our votes would be tallied by a company in spain. i am wondering, first, is this

true. second, why is this happening? and is george soros a part owner in this corporation? thank you. guest: the truth is, i don't know anything about that particular story and therefore i have no idea whether george soros is an owner or involved in that effort at all. i generally will say i have a lot of faith in counting the votes in the united states. i think one thing we need to do, as we have developed a bad habit of everybody quickly hurling charges of fraud around whenever they lose an election or suggesting that officials are going to be dishonest, and i think that is a bad tendency. having those people involved in counting votes are honest and fair and accounting is pretty good. host: is it fair to say the disclose ad was a reaction to democrats in the senate to citizens united? guest: it certainly is. the democrats themselves said that. an interesting thing -- and the same week in 2010, scott brown defeated mark of oakley and a

special collection for ted kennedy's senate seats in massachusetts and then the supreme court announced citizens united. these events are not related in an actual sense but when i talk to liberals and democrats, on the events are well that in their mind. it was like that week that they realized they were in real electoral trouble in 2010. and there is a belief that large corporations are largely pro- republican. i think that is a very shaky empirical belief. but disclosed was an effort to silence those types of speakers that they think we're likely to help republicans. it is really just the bottom line. it is unfortunate that of the case and i hate to become one making that comment, sound like a commentshill. i think i have a pretty good record at the fec being non- partisan, and that was recognized. host: the latest decision regarding it, the montana challenge to what was not successful in

recent rulings. what is a legislative future or judicial future -- judicial review future for citizens united? do you see more saleh is on capitol hill and more court challenges? guest: lets start real quick what citizens in nine did. it allowed of corporations and unions to spend an elector not to give directed candidates and parties, but just to spend and elections. this was not a radical break with american history. prior to citizens united, 26 states allowed unlimited corporate spending in their collections for governor, secretary of state, state judges, legislature, and so one. and those included many of the states that governing magazine have consistently recognized as the best govern state in the country. it is not a radical break as some prevented. not to say it is not a tempore incision but it was not unheard of in politics. there will be continued efforts. it would suggest a

constitutional amendment. i do not think many americans are in really eager when they are faced with it, to amend the constitution, amend the first amendment. if you ask people in polls do you favor citizens united, a huge majority say they oppose. but if the gas people, you think that group should have been able to show its documentary movie about hillary clinton, which is what the case was about, you get a huge majority saying of course they should be able to show their documentary movie about hillary clinton. that is not so clear the public will support any kind of constitutional amendment. congress can play with a disclosure laws, but you have to do it in a truly non-partisan manner. when i hear people on the hill, sponsor saying we are rolling -- boeing to reach out and worked with folks. i know of nobody who has been opposed to the disclose act. talking but groups like mine and a center for competitive politics or other groups sometimes being involved arguing for less regulation of this area

and none of us have been approached by any of the supporting groups as to what we can do to fashion a good compromise and disclosure rules. host: next caller is from st. paul. caller: good morning, america. a couple of questions and one common. i totally disagree with you, sir, when you come and say more spending and elections is actually a good thing because you learn more about the candidates. i think it is factually wrong. you actually are learning more about the bad things of the other candidates when the other people are spending the money. just to tell you, that is actually not correct. i questions are, one, what is the relationship between this commission and the commission on the presidential debates? what was the background that you had best that you to be on this? third, what party affiliation are you? and that is my question. thank you very much. guest: sure.

first, i do have to disagree with you -- the political science data is very clear. if you say people are just learning the bad things of the other candidates, that is something people are learning about the candidates. those are actually very important things to know. you can fight the data but the data is what it is and more spending tends to lead to a better informed electorate. on your particular questions. there is no relationship between the commission on presidential debates and the fec. one thing often misunderstood the commission on presidential debates is not a government agency at all. despite the the gulf the title. it is a private enterprise and simply an effort to put together debates. it is very separate. what the fec covers is essentially a federal campaign finance laws. basically it deals with federal campaign finance laws. the commission on federal debates is just a private group that organizes debates between the major candidates for the president. i am a law professor in

columbus, ohio, and i got to be known here in washington essentially just on the basis of my riding and being invited to testify on the hill, and that way i can of got noticed by people. i was never a staffer on the hill. was not a lawyer for the parties. i am not a defeated former congressman or anything like that. i just became known for my riding and my speaking on the issue and got to know folks around the hill and when the vacancy came up i was recommended and nominated essentially. i am republican appointee, appointed by president clinton but a republican appointee. a lot of these independent commissions, most of the independent commission is likely fec and sec have a certain number of seats that are designated for each party. some republicans often have to appoint democrats and vice versa. host: here is "the national telegraph" which we focus on in the new hampshire primary and it

is editorializing on the disclose act. it says -- guest: that is the typical sort of -- what is interesting is the same right in there they say, yes, it is about getting conservatives. they say right in their own post. here is what you have, isn't there are dangers of retaliation. we know for example in 2008 after the same-sex marriage

proposition in california, that people used the campaign donor records to harass. some people lost their jobs because their employers, who had done nothing, were boycotted until employees given to one side were fired were terminated from their positions. we have to think about it. do you want the government maintaining a database of everybody's blood collected a? there are pluses and minuses. historical rhetoric about secret money and the darkness of politics, but pretty much the money spent in american politics is disclosed. what is not disclosed is one subset of money, and that is, who are members of our organizations organize our501c4 of the tax code -- like national rifle association, a naacp, sierra club -- those groups when they spend money they have to file reports of this than money,

what race citizen, how much. if anybody gave the money to run those ads, they have to include the names of the people gave the money for that purpose. what they don't have to do is disclose the original members. the supreme court long recognize the constitutional interest of the privacy of the organizations not to disclose their members. this is nothing new. these groups long before citizens united rand little lad's. the naacp did it in 2000, planned parenthood it did it mean to douse an answer of the national rifle association has been involved. there is nothing really new there's so the question comes up is what is the sudden push for all of this new disclosure that has never previously been required? host: c-spanjunkie agrees -- what about the hard to escape phenomenon that the people voting and a laws of those will

ultimately benefit. guest: it is interesting that we are supposed to believe that these folks are terrible corrupt, but there is one shining moment when they will not be corrupt, when they will not be pursuing self-interest, and that is when they pass campaign finance legislation. i think it is not true. i think there is a lot of truth and what are twitterer says. laws buss benefit incumbents will tend to stay on the books because incumbents will not say problem with them. those that do not tend to be amended because incumbents will see them as being very bad laws, and they will change. that is natural human personality. there is the reason why generally we are better off keeping the government out of the rape. the whole point of the first amendment is we do not want the government deciding who has spoken to much, who gets to speak more and whose speech is dangerous. host: james tweets -- >> bank is new jersey. -- next is new jersey.

rich, a democrat. caller: you said it was partisan, the bill favored the republicans -- or went against the republicans. what happens to all of this id stuff that the states are passing that people have to have id. isn't that also partisan? guest: sure, one concern to me that. again, my view is the government to be hesitant and regulating the election process beyond anything necessary. i have sort of been the dissenting voice in republican circles in i don't believe there is a great deal of fraud that can be prevented by voter i.d. laws. i will say as well -- there is not much evidence people are deprived by voting id laws. to the extent you see it as a problem i think it is important to recognize the same problem

and existence something like this goes act. it's got a comment from twitter -- the next comment is from new york. julia, a republican. caller: yes. i would like to say -- i feel like my vote is not important anymore because i feel that there is fraud. there were people where they found how many votes from people who were dead. i mean, why is it such a terrible thing to ask for id? it is ridiculous. absolutely ridiculous. unique id for everything. that is the first part of the question. the second part i would like to address to the blacks and hispanics in this country. i like them to ask themselves really, if obama was not black, would they be voting for him?

because their unemployment is so high and they have not prospered over the last four years. and if they do choose another, they only have one choice, which is democratic, if they choose the republican side, they are ostracized in their own community. they are. they are called the white man's lackey and then are considered an uncle tom, and this is a terrible thing, i think. i think they should really understand that in the two-party system, we have a choice, i have a choice, and they should have a choice. guest: let me relate that back briefly to the immediate topic have been talking about, which is political disclosure. you say that you think some people are essentially intimidated into voting for one side of the other and ostracized. of course, we have secret voting. in a sense, it raises exactly the problem with excess of

disclosure laws, requiring groups like the and -- naacp, rifle association, planned parenthood, to disclose all of their financial supporters are members. the book could be ostracized and intimidating. -- people could be ostracized and intimidated. disclosure has costs. we need to strike an adequate balance. people will see an ad on television, it will say what organization paid for it and and is very to find -- easy to find out about the organization. i think therefore we need to be careful. we cannot allow people to do anything labeled disclosure as good, but we have to look at it. it has costs and benefits. host: a new phenomenon out -- after citizens united, the social welfare organizations. they are speaking out -- the issues that support the candidates but they did not face the same disclosure. guest: this is the issue i mentioned earlier, this is the naacp, sierra club, rifle

association, organize under section 501c4 in the tax code. it is true they did not have to disclose it gives them money but they have to disclose their donors to give them money for the purpose of running ads. they just don't have to disclose general members. the question we need to ask ourselves is how much more do we gain by knowing the particular individuals? we know about the groups, we know what they are up to above the point of view is. the supreme court has long held in a series of cases back to the 1950's that these types of organizations have an interest in keeping their members' private, the members have an answer is not having all their political activity and memberships disclosed and it could open be blood to intimidation, authorization -- authorization -- being ostracized. host: ms. viewer who tweets --

guest: that is a good question whether it is true or not. there is a tremendous amount of constitutional rights recognizing anonymous speech is. the supreme court long said there is a right for groups not to disclose who the members are. note, by the way, it is not totally anonymous. you know who paid for the ad and they have to file reports with the fec and this is very transparent. but we don't know who the members are. in the supreme court held there is a constitutional right to keep their membership private. the supreme court also held, for example, if you want to organize a boycott of a political speaker, you have a right to remain constitutionally anonymous. so, people who might organize a boycott -- boycott and not have to disclose whether financing comes from. the supreme court has held union organizers and speak anonymously. people want to go door-to-door do not have to announce themselves or registered with the government about what they are but -- doing. in fact, the supreme court held

in numerous cases there is an fact a right to anonymous political speech. at some point we hit that and the political realm as well. what we have now is a new effort to regulate in ways that we have never regulated before. the supreme court clearly allows some required disclosure of political speech. it has never blessed the kind of regime that has been proposed in the disclose act. it raises legitimate constitutional questions. host:aaron2000 -- guest: i am not quite sure what the irony means. the argument is voters can better judge a message if they know more about the speaker. but what is going on in the current debate is not people saying, boy, i don't know if i can trust this message, who is the speaker, but we have normal people saying i had that message and i don't know the speaker is

but i hate him, to o, and i want to get him. we are in an environment in which we do have the case with the president himself has publicly targeted certain individuals and say they are disreputable, right after they give money to various conservative groups. is it to bush and a couple of years ago, a group called accountable america, run by a former democratic party stafford sent a letter to conservative donors of a bit -- keep giving to conservative groups they will dig into their history and find out about the personal life. a few weeks ago, at boston college business school, one of the speakers was a lawyer from san francisco who stated very clearly that we do not want corp. speaking and if you speak we will try to find grounds, i have clients who will try to sue you. there is a reason why people may not want to engage in a speech at -- speech and it is not entirely clear what more we gained. if we know the chamber of commerce is funding a message,

do we learn a whole lot more knowing exactly what companies are members of the chamber of commerce? host: next on the phone is linda from boston. you are on the air. a democrat. caller: am i on the line? host: we can hear you. caller: i have never in my life -- and i am a baby boomer and i follow politics -- seem more mud slugging from corporations giving misinformation. this is why you get people asking for birth certificates still. and it is important to know who is funding these millions and billions of dollars and what is their agenda. because it goes to the fabric of the ideology of that candidate. and it is taken out of the hands of the people because they are not informed.

guest: luna, i hear your concern. but first, there is very little corporate money being spent. the vast majority of money comes from individuals. and it's a killer, large corporations are spending very little money in this particular -- in particular, large corporations are spending very little money in this race. you say it is important to know the agenda. my question is, what agenda don't we know? if we hear an ad from a chamber of commerce, what the agenda are we missing? an ad from the naacp, planned parenthood, rifle association -- what agenda are we missing puree people talk about crossroads gps -- i do not see how money -- how many reports where, crossroads gps, a shadow group run by former bush director karl rove and former republican chairman ed gillespie to promote conservative pro-business agenda. and i am like, if this is a secretive group they are bad at

it. so, we talk about this, this need to say we need to know the agenda my question honestly is, what agendas don't we know? what adds can't you tell the agenda either by the face of the ad or even more from the disclosure of information and clear it would be at an already filed with the federal election commission? host: more -- guest: those are two separate questions. candidates do take responsibility for their ads. they have to disclose all of their donors all the time. and then we must know who is funding the sham c-4 groups. most of them are not sham. some of them like the naacp are real groups. there is the question -- what more is it that we need to know? what will we gain if we know the members of these groups? is it worth the cost of having

these members essentially -- as other callers have raised some of the questions of the possibility of being ostracized, harassment, retaliation by government officials. again, remember, there have been threats of retaliation from government officials. it is reported in an editorial in today's "wall street journal" about van sloot who gave money to a pro-romney super pac, which was disclosed, and suddenly finds his taxes being audited, one of his business is being audited by the department of labour. these are real concerns as well. host: next is a call from kevin, delray beach, florida. caller: i just have a question. first of all, i believe there has to be full transparency and in the system because i personally believe that money is destroying our political system. it is taking it completely out

of the hands of the people and putting it in corporations. i keep hearing you make the point that we will learn more about the candidates with more money that they have. but the koch brothers, willing to raise $300 million just in this presidential campaign, and citizens -- not citizens united but they karl rove group you just mentioned wanted to raise $250 million as well. do we really need that much money to inform ourselves? social media is free on the internet. i think that money is causing more corruption then there is good. and you just give me three other reasons why you believe that money in our local system is actually a good thing? guest: sure very i am happy to -- sure. let's take one.

the starkly with the challengers rely more on large contributions and they need large contributions. new idea and outside challengers from outside the system rely more on big money. if you take the last campaign before the federal election campaign act of these limits on what a candidate could raise, 1968 campaign, and in that campaign mccarthy got his campaign up and running in a matter of weeks. he didn't declare until december, a little before the new hampshire cam -- primary. a handful of people were willing to commit in today's dollars would be 10, $12 million a piece to get the campaign up and running. it raised the anti-war issue, actually drove lyndon johnson out of the race. that kind of thing could not have happened under today's rules, now that the speech now.org -- citizens denied it would allow super pacs to take on the from some very--

ross perot spent a lot of his own money because the only day he could do was to be the candidate himself. he may have had flaws as a candidate, but who can deny he actually gave voice to millions of americans by committing his own resources to the campaign? we tend to think that these big folks a drowning others out. in fact what we see it more often as putting voices and to play, allowing people to be heard what the rise would not be heard. just a couple of ways in which money in the system generally creates an open system. the third thing i say is the alternative you are offering -- i will offer this as sort of a bad -- which is to say government is going to try to start regulating who can speak and how much they can speak, and that of a recipe for favoritism, creating distrust, and for the government to try to rig the electoral system to try to rig the electoral system.

i think what we will find overtime, by the way -- because right now i think super pacs have benefited republicans but i think it is just a coincidence in time but i take over time it -- i think it will benefit the party out of power. host: we have about five minutes left. this is huffington post, the author of this. he writes -- a remarkable turnaround for republicans to long supported disclosure as an alternative to a campaign donation limits. guest: i am glad you raised it. i hearing all the time but it is not true. there is no republican over hill on the -- over here on the hill talking about repealing any disclosure rules. we have more now than we have ever had. nobody is talking of a rolling it back. the question is whether more disclosure than we ever had. and the past republicans said they supported disclosure, they never suggested this supported the unnecessary and duplicative

and biased disclosure of the disclose act. secondly, of course. that's changed, circumstances change. i see things dragged up from 10 years ago and i was like, 10 years ago you did not have all of these folks out there openly -- openly saying the reason why they wanted the information was to "hold accountable" by which they mean harass, bullet, and intimidate speakers. it is actually saleh a story that people say, wait a minute, that as not the purpose. and the final point which is simply this, a lot of republicans a dozen years ago were saying we could consider more disclosure as an alternative. that was an alternative to the descriptions of the mccain- feingold act which despite the republican namesake mccain was a democratic bill. the democrats turned that down. and then the supreme court held some of the restrictions on speech were unconstitutional. now democrats come back and say, what about the more disclosure stuff. it is not the way politics

works. the deal was there and it was passed up and that is where we are now. host: tenements next. scott, a democrat from silver city, north carolina -- two minutes next. caller: i am calling in reference to citizens united. i think citizens united is a one-sided deal. just like you said when you came on. the citizens united favors a republican candidate. ke earlier -- we have some much money in the system. we know the money is going to control the system. one other thing i would also like to say.

the lady said to the blacks and latinos -- unemployment was 14.4% but if she had went back and done some research on a lot of their president, black unemployment that was also just about the same rate. the guest: again, your view is held by lots of people. the comments which relates to how much does money control elections. again, i understand there is a general belief people have that is the case. a widespread belief. no doubt about that. i will say unequivocally that the political science data simply does not really verify that. nobody denies money is important in politics but there is no evidence it dramatically changes or even a genius at all once people -- how people vote. in the end, voters have to make

the decisions. voters will hear people talk and they have to make the decisions. it is a partner voters are able to hear from everybody who wants to speak and to important voters are able to hear from everybody wants to speak. ultimately it is only your votes that count. the dollars are not stuff the ballot boxes but it is your vote. host: you host: you can find brad smith at the website. thank you for being here. we'll be back with "washington journal co-call tomorrow morning, as always, 7:00 a.m. eastern time. -- "washington journal" tomorrow morning, as always, 7:00 a.m. eastern time. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] ♪

>> in light of the shootings at the movie theater outside of denver, colorado last night, president obama is cutting short his campaign today. the president will address the shootings in short remarks in fort myers, then cancel the rest of his campaign appearances. here's part of what he had to say. >> republican presidential candidate mitt romney also remarked in part --

>> that from mitt romney. again, that statement made earlier this morning as the story continues to unfold. 12 dead, 50 injured in that shooting in colorado. chicago mayor rahm emanuel and transportation secretary ray lahood will talk about inf -- innovative ways to fund infrastructure projects. they are speaking at the center for american progress. we have live coverage and about 15 minutes here on c-span. -- in about 15 minutes here on c-span. senator kay bailey hutchison now, on the evolving role of women in politics, economics, and the challenges women face in the workplace. her comments are about 15 minutes. >> good morning.

>> good morning. >> senator hutchison, we are pleased to have you here today. thank you for joining us. kay bailey hutchison has a remarkable political lineage. her great, great grandfather was a signer of the texas direct -- declaration of independence. she graduated from the university of texas, and went to work as a television reporter because no houston law form with -- law firm was willing to hire a woman lawyer. she started a small business, became the first republican woman in the state legislature, she was elected state treasurer in 1990, and in 1990 won a special election that opened up. she has been reelected three times and is now the senior republican woman in the senate. she is retiring from the senate when her term is up at the end of this year and i suspect those

houston law firms would be glad to have you on staff at this time. [laughter] your first official office in washington was at the national transportation safety board. president ford appointed you as the vice-chairman there in 1976, and i wonder if you could describe what things are like for a woman appointed to a job like that now, and compare it to how things have changed or perhaps not changed as much for women in washington in positions of power. >> i think there was the beginning of an effort to bring women in. susan, you and i were talking earlier about ann armstrong, who had been my mentor. she was the first co-chairman of the republican national committee, and my first foray into washington was in 1969 or 1970 with ann armstrong and it

was she who promoted me to president ford for this position. i was p.m. at the time, maybe 26 or -- i was pretty young at the time, maybe 26 or something, but there was an effort. i love that experience. it was my first real experience besides an internship earlier in my college career, in washington, and i got my feet wet. there was a small cadre of women who were appointees of the president, and i thought it was great that we were beginning to build. it was the building time. now, i think it is standard. we have seen women in the very top jobs, secretary of state, for rock the cabot, 17 -- throughout the cabinet, 17 women senators, and approximately 17% of the house and senate are

women. i think things are coming our way. >> the 17 women senators now -- is the relationship among women senators, especially across party lines, different from the relationship between male senators across party lines? >> i do not know for sure what the guys do, but we do have a bond. the women senators had dinner together last night. we all chipped in to give susan collins, who is getting married, a gift certificate to a spa. we got together and decided to do that for her. hillary clinton gave me a baby shower when i got my little daughter. it is those kinds of things. i guess what we do in our

dinners and our social contacts are just talk about the obstacles we face, or the information we need. if we have children, information about schools. or, where to live, how you managed going back and forth to your home state. we have made different choices. some choose to have their children with them here. some choose to keep their children home in their environment. it is a very hard choice, so we are always getting advice from each other. it is a great relatnship. it does not usually impinge on our voting. we vote our states, our philosophy is, and we do not pressure each other to change something, because we understand our constituents is our first priority, but as far as

camaraderie and the understanding not many women have about the obstacles we face, it is funny. >> i am sure the men do not get together and have made dinner to check in for a woman getting married. if there were 83 women in the senate and 17 men instead of the reverse, would things be different enough policies enacted, or the tone that the senate takes toward doing business? >> in some ways yes, and in some ways know. we all are elected the same way. we run campaigns. usually they are tossed. we have tough budget -- tough.

we have toughened up to meet those challenges. i think that applies in the senate. i would say our governing styles differ somewhat in that we really do -- i think every one of us -- want to get something done. we want to accomplish things. we want to bring people together and hammer it out. sometimes that is not the case in the big senate. >> we know the senate, the congress generally seems frozen, hostile end polarized along partisan lines -- and polarized among partisan lines. is there a way out of that, do you think? >> first of all, the senate is a collegial place, i think more so than the house, because we have

more open rules and therefore minorities have more power in the senate and they do in the house. in the house, everything is done by the majority. in the senate, the minority can stop legislation with 41 votes, and we have a great working relationship with our colleagues, always understanding that we may differ on philosophies, the way things are done, but in the end understanding that everyone wants to do the best they can for their stayed in their philosophy. some of my best friends are -- and their philosophy. some of my best friends are democrats. i think we do have great friends across the aisle, in the senate, and we always know, as has happened in my 10 years in the

senate, if you are in the majority today, you might be in the minority tomorrow, so get along. you do not break bonds. you do not burn bridges. if you lose, live to fight another day. when you win, you are a gracious winner. >> this dinner sounds interesting. how long has the dinner with women senators gone on, and when did it get started? >> it really started when the women senators met with the women leaders of northern ireland, and we started trying to encourage them about their role in trying to bring peace. we started telling war stories about our experiences, and how we were elected, how we overcame obstacles, how we broke into those nine clubs regions men's clubs, and it was so interesting

-- men's clubs, and it was so interesting. barbara mikulski and i, we were nine women senators at the time, and we went to bob barnett, who is this, sort of, book of contractor for many people in washington, and we said we want to write a book. would you see if any publishers are interested? bottom line, we wrote a book called "9 and counting," and each of us wrote a chapter about our different obstacles, and when charity that we could agree that all of the profits could go to because most of us had the experience of being a girl scouts was girl scouts. we wrote the book.

dave the -- keys the proceeds to the girl scouts. -- gave the proceeds to the girl scouts. it was to encourage girls who are trying to overcome a challenge, it sold quite well. that was the beginning. then we decided to start meeting. we need about every six weeks or so for dinner. we enjoy each other's company. we have built great camaraderie. >> we will go to the audience for questions, but i will ask one last one. there were nine senators men of the female persuasion. 17 now, -- senators the end of the female persuasion. -- senators then of the female persuasion. net 17 now.

do you think we will have a woman president? >> i thought it would happen by now. i do think we will happen because we are becoming so much more equal in our experience and credentials that is less of a factor now. i think it will happen when the time is right for the woman's philosophy. i think we are tough enough. we are treated pretty much the same. i think people do not think of us as women candidates as much anymore. they think of the says -- as what do you want to do, what are your plans, what is your platform, and they build their own interest. that is good, i think. >> let's go to the audience cheered the somebody have a question for senator hutchison

-- audience. does somebody have a question for senator hutchison? let's pretend i am a member of the audience. you interviewed a male senator after he has won his first election, and he thinks he should be in the white house, not so much for himself, but for the good of the country. you interview women who been in the senate, and they do not seem to make that assumption. we think that perception is true? a lot of male politicians have thought they should be president in texas. have you ever thought about running for president yourself, and if so, why did you decide not to do it? >> well, yes, hi have, and i would have loved to have the

budget i have, and i would have loved to have the right -- i have, and i would have loved to have the right timing. i adopted my two children 12 years ago, and i go home every weekend. i was not here for the sunday shows to build my name identification in the way you would if you were running for president. i have not been able to do some of the things to prepare. also, up until really this year it was kind of a given that the person with the most seniority and the most logical next step choice would run for president. this year, amazingly, people just popped up and ran for president. [laughter] i mean if i were 15 years

younger and my children were gone, and i could have run for president under these rules back then. i would have loved to run for president, but the timing was not right. i never felt, like she said, when i was elected, that i was ready to run the country, would they not be lucky, and i have met those people in the senate, susan. i think women, generally, are more humble. all of the women that have been elected have had to overcome so much, and they have had to mostly deal with running their homes, having children, the experience of that, and also on top of that -- the experience of that, and also on top of that over come the obstacles.

i felt when i wrote my book about women trailblazers the women that were in the arena of first, -- are read the first, they did not reach the level they hope, but they set the stage, and that got to the top. i am in the first tranche, and i think the next will be the woman president. >> senator kay bailey hutchison. thank you for being with us. [applause] >> by now for remarks from transportation secretary -- lies not for remarks from transfer jerry secretary ray lahood -- transportation secretary ray

lahood. they are the featured speakers. this is just getting under way. >> then, we talked about whether i was a good enough republican to join the administration, and he said to me what do you think you would be interested in, and i said agriculture, and he said no, you will not, you are interested in transportation, always thinking long term about what his ideas and goals are. this guy is very smart, politically and policy why is -- policy-wise. if i owe the privilege that i have to serve as secretary of transportation to two people. obviously, the president, and to my friend, rahm emanuel. he and i became president -- became friends and he called me

and said i want to work in this delegation in a bipartisan way for illinois, and not just chicago, or my district, and from that time on we became dear friends and we our dear friends because we care about getting things done in solving problems. because i think we are both in these government jobs for the right reasons, to get things done than solve problems. we call hosted by partisan bidders. he invited seven or eight democrats. i would invite seven or eight republicans, and these bipartisan dinners how to forge relationships that lasted beyond our congressional careers. for those of you that do not know, when rahm emanuel ran for mayor, he knew that he wanted to

transform the city in a way that it had not been transformed, and what i mean by that is he went to every l site and station, every transit station in the city of chicago to introduce himself. i think there are 125. 147. he went to everyone because it is a great way to feature it is herself and talk to people and also -- great way to introduce herself, and talk to people, and also to talk about transportation. a lot of people in chicago do not own cars. this is the way people live their lives in the city of chicago. rahm smart enough to know it is

a good place to meet people and tell people what your agenda is. he recently announced an infrastructure plan for the city of chicago, not just trains and buses, but he brought with him to chicago a guy named dave that transformed the city that we live in into the most livable, sustainable community in america, with one of the largest by share programs, with a community that will have streetcars, that has a very good metro system, and gave under the mayor's leadership, will have chicago had the largest but share program in the country. that is a -- bicycle sharing program in chicago. that is a terrific goal.

his plan is more about transit and auto buses. it is about the whole infrastructure of the city, roads and bridges, sewers and water, aging infrastructure, but also about a vision. good policy can transform the city, because when you have good infrastructure, would you are able to do is attract people -- what you are able to do is attack people for business, jobs, and young pete -- attract people for business, jobs, and young people that want to live in the city. it means more jobs and businesses. that is what this plan is about. the other thing that i think is a little bit surprising to people about rahm's leadership is how he has been able to work with a 50-member city council.

i do not know of any other time in the city of chicago, but the 50-member city council unanimously passed his budget. i believe that is a record. to get 50 alderman to do anything unanimously, let alone passed the city budget next that talks about -- budget? that talks about rahm's ability to work with people and his strong leadership. i could go on. you have done the homework, reading stories about how he is transforming education, transit and housing, and i know he will talk about all of these things. the reason we have that some success in our working transportation is because we of good partners in governors and

mayors, and we have a great partner in the mayor of chicago for what he is done, for what he wants to do, it for his vision. it is not just about him, it is about the people, and what you do to serve the people to continue to make chicago the great city that it really is and will continue to be. so, i am delighted to say to all of you, we have great leadership all over america, and extraordinary leadership. rahm is off to a great start. please welcome the mayor of chicago, rahm emanuel. [applause] >> thank you again, secretary lahood. >> i will let the record to show that i paid for all of those jitters he talked about. -- dinners he talked about.

[laughter] we will start with questions from the moderator the universe -- moderator. recently, the university of chicago put out a report that talks about economic growth in chicago. it talks and the most significant challenges -- about the opportunities and the most significant challenges. it discusses the opportunities in health care, manufacturing and transportation. perhaps that could provide a context for describing what the chicago infrastructure trust is about and how it works? >> the report noticed that we have the largest job creation and the biggest drop of unemployment in any major city, and a lot goes into that. on the infrastructure committee deals with the airport, the mass

transit system, the community colleges, schools, roads, water and parks. it is an integrated plan. if you took mass transit, by way of example, we have more people on our mass transit in a month that all of amtrak in an entire year. 60% of the people take mass transit to get from home to work, and i see that is the key economic advantage, just taking that one piece. every child will live within a 10 minute walk of parks, but on the mass transit, i see it as a key strategic economic advantage. companies are leaving the suburbs to come to the city because of our quality of life, and we have an advantage in

moving people quickly from home to work. united airways open their operation center in chicago. i did a town hall with them. a lot of people came, and one of the things they talked about that they loved was that unlike other cities where the drive for one hour or one hour in 20 minutes to get to work, they could bicycle, or get on mass transit. i take the mass transit system twice a week. i just took it yesterday. i get to work using it. it is two blocks from my house to the train. i take the train downtown. it is an incredibly important investment. we are replacing two/thirds of our entire trains, two-thirds of our auto bosses out of the stations. 100 of them will be repurchased, rebuild for totally

new construction. near our convection center, we could get there by bus or -- convention chapter, we could get there by bus or train, and we will have a new station -- taxi, and we will have a new station. it is the huge economic advantage. we have launched a $2 billion infrastructure investment in that mass transit system with the fundamental view that you cannot have a 21st century economy operating and the 20th century foundation. it is not sustainable. it just cannot happen. however mass-transit system is something, as companies -- our mass transit system, as companies look to relocate -- your work force is your most important investment, and after that any effective mass transit

system, it is one of the calling cards to get the work force the companies want today. i see it as a huge piece of economic strategy. >> is the chicago infrastructure trust partner with that, or part of mass transit? >> it is totally separate. the community colleges -- we have 6 colleges. we are building two new campuses. we have cut $120 million out of the central office, and we will get into the new malcolm >> campus, which will be for health care. the new airport, federal, local, working with the airlines cetera. -- etc.. the first project they're going to look at it is retrofitting

$20 million worth of work in the cultural center. -- $200 million worth of work in the cultural center. we are aggregating several things. there will be the first project at the board will look at other things people recommend. >> do you have a sense of how many jobs were created from the retrofitting project? >> yearly estimate is 1200-to- 1500. on water, we of the largest water investment in the country. 900 miles of pipes will be replaced, if everything 100 years or older. 700 miles of sewer will be replaced. two of the largest water filtration plants in the world will be rebuilt, ok?

it is decade-long work, and of the sewers, two thirds of everything that is 100 years or older will be replaced. 2,000 miles of road will be repaid. we are lying broadband. we are preparing for the future. this summer we renegotiated something with the laborers' union. 75 jobs. we renegotiated the starting salary. we gave them certainty of work, and they came down in wages, etc. >> to save money. >> save money. >> how many people do you think applied for the labor's jobs? how much? >> 10,000. >> 10,000 people for 75 jobs.

clearly, if i could find other ways to do it, we could do more, and we need it. i am proud of capital investment, but there is more work to be done then we can actually do, but the workers waiting to do this, carpenters, electrical engineers, laborers, bricklayers -- 10,000 people applied for 75 jobs. it is a telling sign. by the way, when we head-on, we get -- when we are done, we have done studies, two years of residential water users will be saved and we lose now through leakage. we have everything mapped out by year. they pulled up a tree trunk with a water pipe, and they put a

tiny little thing for me and put it on my desk because the wire reports guys and we are on track to get 69 miles, and the goal is 70. we are getting 70 miles done. i wrote 69 is not 70, remember your goal. [laughter] they pulled up a tree trunk in the city of chicago which is our water pipe. chicago is not alone. that is all over the country. when we are done, two years' worth of residential water users will be saved that we now lose to leakage, and last year, a car driving in milwaukee fell down.

there was a picture of a man climbing a lot of the 14-foot hole. >> that is this interesting question about where we are here and at the local level. water is interesting question. you can save money, you can put people to work. there is a big demand for jobs. we know over the long term we save money when we make these investments, retrofitting, water savings. it makes us competitive over the long term. why has there been such a challenge to make these arguments, and if you want to skip over the politics of washington, one of the reasons the chicago infrastructure trust is so attractive is it is a way to make progress when washington is slowing down.

>> the water thing, to the city's council credit, that was part of a 50-0. we could sell the water utility, but i think we know what happens when we do that. like the parking meter, i'm against that. we 63900 broken pipes a year. we band-aid our way there. it will get done by 2057, or we can decide the status quo is not acceptable. we will put together the resources, all the our own water utility, and fixed it. to been made the problem away or hope it goes away. secondly, -- begin date the problem away, or hope it goes away. secondly, the states have their own issues. when we passed our infrastructure trust, there was

not a highway bill. ray lahood has been a great proponent of the most innovative piece of the legislation, which is kind of the cousin of what we are doing on the infrastructure trust. it is a different model. is a smarter capital investment. i said to the chickadee -- to the city of chicago that we will cut losses here, into the water, but we have to take our own destiny into our own hands as best as we can, and we cannot leave our own destiny to washington for the dysfunction or springfield's budget-cutting exercise. i understand what springfield is going to do, but i'm not going

to let chicago become hostage to this dysfunction. no city can survive with an aging infrastructure, but chicago, the second busiest airport in the country, one- quarter of all cargo runs to the city on rail and our roads, not counting our mass transit. if it is rail, road or a runway, it is coming to chicago, and it is part of our economic interest. given that, and i have a sustainable view based on mass transit i believe we have to set up another tool in the toolbox. the infrastructure trust is a tool. it does not mean you do not invest in new campuses like malcolm x. it does not mean that when it comes to water you do not do

what you need to do or in our airport -- we are building the equivalent of another midway airport with that many runaways. it does not mean you do not do those things. you say what other tools can i get to achieve the economic objectives of our city? the trust is another tool. it brings in pension money. the labor pension money is coming in. it brings in financial interests. they take the risks. we only asset. we get to use it, and we owned it. it is the rejection of privatization, in my view the wrong model. we still own it, but we finance it a different way. it really works when you evaluate from an economic perspective. doing the old thing, if there is

a cost overrun, the taxpayers bear it. on the infrastructure projects, if there is a cost overrun, the investors bear it. would you agree that we are the most free enterprise economic system in the world? >> we agree, for sure. >> here is. we are the most free-market country in the world, it we do our it infrastructure in the most socialist way in the world. all these other countries that are not as free market, they do it infrastructure trust type things. it is just a tool. the transportation department exist. it is another tool in their toolbox. it helps you achieve the goal and it makes economic sense. >> has there been resistance from the private sector because you own the access? >> the first thing we were

looking at is in the trunk -- retrofit, but the first entity to say they were excited was the union pension, secondly the foundations, and then obviously, the third, a lot of people that have had traditional resources and money available for infrastructure want to be involved. since this time, i think washington, oregon, and california are thinking of an infrastructure bang for their region. it is something people will look at because our economy is growing like this, and our foundation is moving at the space. >> or falling behind. >> it is clearly not keeping up. >> right. >> think of it this way. can you imagine chicago without o'hare, economically? we announced four weekly flights to beijing direct.

you cannot imagine chicago. ge transportation just moved headquarters out of the erie, pa., to chicago. why? they can get anywhere in the world directly. if we do not invest in modernization, i will not recruit co.. is a direct correlation, and i am putting people to work -- correlation -- is a direct correlation. i am putting to people -- people to work. >> do you think this could be more universally applied, a mechanism for larger city mayors and small city mayors? >> well, we are doing it for chicago. i am only interested in chicago. other people can look at what they want to do. it cannot replace something. i want people to understand

that. it is not like i'm going to force-- i'm not going to my community colleges to figure out how to build a new campus. we will apply ideas, the traditional model we have for the airport. we will use the infrastructure trust where it makes sense for us. we will do we need to do on the water on our own. it is a tool, and where the tool works you will apply it, and where it does not work, you will not apply it. you have to have the tool available. the notion to you are not going to make something available to yourself when economic needs and the vitality of the city require it -- and i do not think we could have the type of job growth and a drop in unemployment -- it is not like i'm sitting next to google. we have a diverse economy. part of it is the job growth we

got through the infrastructure and investment piece of it. >> the connections to manufacturing especially. it starts with low interest rates. can the cit take advantage of that? should mayor's look at that because you have that opportunity right now? >> let me say one clarifying thing. the trust is not for basic maintenance and upkeep. it is for transformative investments you can not do any other way. you have to have good people running the system. rosie is here also. there she is. tom runs water. those people to the infrastructure for the city.

in my view, it is right for cities, regions, or states that have things of scale. obviously, you have to have a>'. but my last question is -- of their other ways in which the federal government can use this as a model of something we should be thinking about? >> tipia is slightly different because it is the federal government. from the first budget, some battle scars to show, but the president did create an infrastructure bank but it never got funded. but there are big national projects. it would be a perfect tool on a national project basis to look at, that had a revenues -- streamed to pay it, that is beyond city, beyond the state. but it would probably make sense

for a regional type thing. that kind of transformative, for the economics of the region, city, or state. i think the tipia is a great thing in the bill. i have other questions, generously describing our field. that is said, it is great. other mayors will make their own decision. i want to make sure the city of chicago was not held hostage to what happens in springfield, illinois, washington, d.c. even now as washington passed the transportation bill, it is only 18 months. i cannot plan chicago's feature on an 18-month basis. it is crazy. therefore i have to live a tool available i call it right out strategy for the city bus economic and job creation.

>> how can we convinced the country infrastructure investments are crucial unnecessary? >> first of all, i called it rebuilding. i hate the word infrastructure -- that is one, james. two, one of the things that gets lost -- and i will say this -- in the 1950's, 1960's, 1970's when we invested 4% of gdp on infrastructure, we grew at 4%. not exactly a =a because it is what happened. in the 1980's when we downshifted to 2%, we have grown on average 2%. it is the foundation that allows the economy to move. the other way -- cents a lot of people talk high-tech -- and words to matter -- infrastructure is a platform. everybody else build their apps anything off of the platform.

if you're the right road, airport, the right water, the right schools, the right broadband, you have the right mass-transit, and all the other plant -- platforms that people take off of that, can go. i have never had a company or ceo come into me and not want to talk about some pieces. even marginal -- whether it is mass-transit, airport -- we move a flight schedule because of where the other offices were. so don't tell me infrastructure does not matter to their economic decisions. again, the no. 1 -- we have the best work force in the country in the city of chicago. you have the work force and can get them to and from work efficiently, they will pick this city any time. >> the next question comes from state be at the department of commerce, manufacturing extension program. >> what are you doing out of

office? [laughter] get back to work. >> that was a former world. can you talk about -- chicago's transportation renewal? a by american initiative? -- buy american initiative? >> we have a big ford auto plant on the south side of chicago. and by way of example, the workers at the apartment across the street, so we build a bridge. we improve the rail and road access to this plan. major investment. they just added a third shift. infrastructure matter. the best exporting plants of all four in the country. 67 countries. they added a third shift, 1200 workers. they also make their police car, their intricate, there.

so we will be ordering cars anyway for the police department. -- i forgot what the point is, but we gave two points advantage if it is made locally. the ford plant won -- there were going to win anyway but it did not hurt that we had a local preference to that plant. but i also want to go back -- i think when he tallied up, close to $200 million of debt and investments to improve the efficiency of the plant and efficiency, the best exporter of the ford family of factories and the added a third shift, 1200 jobs and stamping facility with another several hundred jobs. i want to tell you how busy they are, and to organize a trip to announcement. had to come in a 10-minute window -- that is how unbelievably precise that are

too literally the minute at the facility. >> a question from cheryl -- how did you get the 50 members to pass your budget? all interested. >> the chicago way. [laughter] they saw a bright future for themselves. first, we had a healthy debate. look, it was my first budget and we had a healthy debate. we did a number of things we did that we have been discussing a long time. let me give you one example. our garbage collection is like 220 a ton and the nearest competitor is $140 a ton. i said, we got good garbage. never knew it was that good. in the past, it was picked by ward.

put out a fedex-ups model, efficiency. we are implementing it now and was a 50-$20 million just being efficient. we debated this 20 years, this budget. second item -- have our city does recycling and have does not because we never had the money. so, we set up a competition. one sector, streets and sanitation workers, one sector, waste management. both union. both the same union. streets and sanitation said we are going to go win that worked very that -- that work. that is our work. we will win it. with enough savings in the system for the same dollars we are taking city-wide. debated it, debated it, done. third example of a reform, we had seven community health care clinics. big supporter of community health care.

two pilots -- one in angola and one an uptown and we showed we could get better health care and save the taxpayers $100 a visit. -- visit. now all seven clinics are going federally qualified community clinic operators. they will get better health care and the taxpayers will save money. things like that we have done through innovation. and we were honest with people. you can't continue to do the same thing and hope for a different result. you just can't do it. and the aldermen also gave ideas where they improved the original ideas i had and we implemented them. and we used to do this to the past -- major nonprofits got free water. free. costing the city about $20 million a year. southwestern hospital. the aquarium. downtown. done. now for the smaller nonprofits,

we phase out over time, but for the big institutions, we ended it. i made sure everybody got affected. i think the city council looked at it. obviously their votes -- and this is where the water investment came from. >> we have another question with reference as acting something you said earlier, from william klein -- would be useful to add education and health care to health care? or should we think -- to infrastructure? or should we be thinking more expansively about the quality of life and what we all need? >> union beyond the building of a school? >> if i am going to interpret this question, if you think about infrastructure as the kinds of things we all need for the economy to grow, it severed -- health care, education, we think of them as human issues but maybe we should think of them more broadly.

>> henry kissinger news that a great quote, do you have any questions, answers? i am not sure i understand but let me answer however like to. we have six community colleges of the city. i appoint the ceo. we are transforming our community colleges to career- based. all of harvey will only do transportation distribution list of sticks, washington will soon become professional services. we will do culinary and hospitality industry. i.t., advanced manufacturing. we have asked industry leaders in the to the field to do the curriculum and the training of professional -- professors. the reason we picked the six growth fields we want to train the work force. the only thing i will say about education, is your work force is the most important. i love what i am talking about

on the fiscal side but no one would come unless we have the both business school in chicago where the school at northwestern. we have graduates from the big tent -- the largest alumni of any city of the country, city of chicago. our work force is incredibly hard-working. the average -- national average for the four-year institution, the population is 23%, in chicago, 34%. i want to make sure that the community college level, those kids and adults have as much a chance at the future as a kid coming out of the boose school of business school. i am glad we have booth and kellogg and depaul, loyola, university of illinois, michigan -- they come from all the schools. university of wisconsin madison. all of them, they come to chicago, and it is like a caravan of coming to chicago. i have 127,000 kids going to community colleges or returning

adults. i owe them an education that gives them a career and opportunity. that is the biggest investment we will make on our kind of post high-school education. and i am fascinated about this -- i have never seen corporate america as excited about an educational thing we're doing like the community colleges and i have never seen something work on the street as exciting. coming together -- i just made an announcement, lola institute of technology is opening its first academic investment in 40 years for the city of chicago, a new innovation for both design and software development. right now, today, on the web site, there are 4000-plus computer analysts job openings and 3800 web designers. that is on an average every month in the city of chicago. that is going to be true in new

york, l.a., and the city. getting people train up is our response to the living, and i want to make sure we have the work force. i can't see the trust doing that. i don't see as paying off student loans that way. let me take that off the list. but in general, other cities may not control the community colleges. we do in the city. we want to assure the community college grads what has a chance at the future. >> just a few more questions. given ta money can be sent on anything a state once, how do mayors around the country convinced governors and state leadership that -- programs want investments? >> let me try to figure out a clean way to say this. i will say it wrong, but here it

is. a lot of times the federal government is designed to go through the states. that used to mean as a congressman, everyone would say that. of all the things i have to solve, direct funding is not on the top of my list. as a mayor, i have become a convert. i would love to see more federal government -- first of all -- and i can tell you a telling analysis of that. capacity to stop saying, let's try a pilot project, we will directly fund x in x city. not just because we are closer but not and do what add another layer to transfer and have another box checked and another analysis going on? because the truth is, around transportation, -- we are all close. but i can tell you, getting another approval process, that is about nine months to a year, not because they are intending to do but just done. not everyone is working with the same sense of urgency and i beat

you can walk away the kind of begs to the sense of urgency and they would have. can i go two why the community college is essential -- we opened up the largest air cargo at 8 gateway airport in the city of chicago. 11,000 jobs. they said what you are doing at the community college is guaranteeing the work force -- will give us certainty we can put this here. it is creating a facility for 1000 jobs. two, this is an example of direct funding. we will build a facility near mccormick place and i want to get it done in short order. there is nothing there but to

get that facility built -- they were talking about the requirements at the state level. we were talking about getting it done in 2017. i said, what are you talking about? there is nothing there. there was a year for environmental studies. >> what is there? -- what is there? there was nothing there for environmental studies. it was a layer of bureaucracy and it is not because they do not want to see it happen, it is why i have to into the same questions that the state level that i do at the federal level? it is not like the state does not have self interest in mccormick place. somebody checking a box. i would like to send them the fed application.

i like to get going. as long as the standards are what the fed wants, i do not need another layer. iny governor is interested what i am interested in. i had to go through another loop to get it done. >> what city is the model for innovative infrastructure development? >> there are 127 projects in canada. they said we are in a little shop and there is screaming and yelling. we are in canada and we have 127. i said i want to send some people to visit. i am sold.

canada has an interesting model . in case you want to see it, we have daily flights out of chicago. [laughter] i'm going to close -- >> i went to close to the question. we have a link on our website. there are transportation issues and you are trying to address them. during your career, there has been discussion about government. and how to make it more effective. from a perspective of a mayor outside of washington, our people seem that issue in the

same way? it is this a solution-based approach where you are trying to help the most basic human needs? >> i have two points. i love this job. i have had great jobs. this is the best i have had in public life. i would never replace any of my jobs. but mayor is a government that is closest to city government. it is the closest to the people. that is how they envision their lives. recycling. garbage. tree trimming. parks. it is the most intimate. you make a decision. some people are happy and some people are not. they do not hide it. [laughter] that is one.

i used to congress on your corner. hear you say, i'm going to do this. it is the most intimate form of government. they did not hear your message about the telephone. [laughter] let me say this. we are having -- this is a pet peeve so faint you. -- thank you. this discussion about all that matters is tax rate is ridiculous. i cut upper head tax rates by 50% and by the time my term is out, we will eliminate it. tax breaks matter. but any business person will also tell you the quality of a

workforce matters. can they get goods and services efficiently? if government transparent? -- is government transparent? this year, we had 147 business places on the books. we had more than l.a., a phoenix, and philadelphia combined. we massively consolidated them down to 43. i do not like you focusing on city hall . at refocusing on your customer. -- i want you focusing on your customer. my favorite example of this consolidation was if you buy a dog, they needed a license. if he so the caller, you need another license. if you want to offer the service of watching the dog, you need another license. i was just looking for a kid to by the dog. [laughter] government coming in a sense of

oversight, does not mean you eliminate it for health and safety. certainty -- once you give certainty and the ability to move goods and services efficiently, all things they care about and also a workforce that is trained and ready to go, they will go create the jobs and you will leave the country. the notion that only thing that matters and economic development is tech spriggs -- it matters. -- tax breaks. it matters. i you chicago to make it point. it did not have an income tax. o'hare is a critical platform for that operation. we also recently -- ford has a

plant. we invested to keep it competitive. they started with karzai -- they decided what cars that produce there. we make sure they can move them in and out. we are making investments. there is a partnership for the interstate highway system and the broadband development. there has always been this partnership and it is a good partnership. it has worked in our history. it is not one or the other. when we go over our line of 140 business licenses, nobody is less healthy than the chimdi of chicago -- the city of chicago. we did it smartly and it gives small business a certainty. the next thing we would do is we have 8 different inspectors.

we are consolidating and modernizing it. then somebody can go pull it down on the website and they do not have to bother in business with an expected. we are not doing that from a health and safety perspective but from every other perspective. and and that is where government matters. this notion that government is bad and private sector is good, we always have a partnership. we should have a discussion about 30 doubles. i do not create jobs. the private sector does. i do create the atmosphere and the environment where they can succeed or not. that is based on the schools, workforce, airports, mass transit, water, quality of life, parks. that matters. the fact that they should be a chicago -- the city of chicago

went from tent to fit in bicycle friendly, it is not an accident. we have a massive improvement in startup companies and young workers doing web design and all types of other design. there is another means of transportation. they cannot build a bicycle lane on their own. i have to do it. >> great ending to a great conversation about chicago. [applause] and thank you. >> ladies and gentlemen, please remain in your seat. thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

>> wrapping up this event this morning, a short time ago, president obama made an appearance in fort myers, florida in the first of two campaign stops. instead, he spoke about the shooting tragedy in colorado last night in which 12 people were killed and 50 injured. he talked for about five minutes. >> at least 12 people were killed. the gunmen opened fire in a movie theater. dozens more are being treated for injuries at a local hospital. some of the victims are being treated at a children's hospital. we are still gathering all the facts about what happened in colorado, but we know that the police have one suspect in custody and the federal government stands ready to do

whatever is necessary to bring whoever is responsible for this heinous crime to justice. [applause] we will take every step possible to ensure the safety of all our people. we will stand by our neighbors in colorado during this difficult time. i had a chance to speak with the mayor of aurora and the governor of colorado to express on behalf of the entire american family how heartbroken we are. even as we learn how this happened and who is responsible , we may never understand what leads anybody to terrorize their fellow human beings like this. such violence, evil, is senseless. it is beyond reason.

while we were never kwill nevert causes somebody to take the life of another, we do know what makes life worth living. the people who we lost were loved. there were mothers and fathers. there has been vandalized. duke -- they were husbands and wives. sons and daughters. friends. neighbors. they had hopes for the future and they had dreams that were not yet the film. if there is anything to take away from this strateg tragedy,s the reminder that life is very fragile out. our time here is limited and it is precious. what matters at the end of the day is not the small things. it is not a trivial things which so often consume us and our daily lives. it is how we choose to treat one another and how we love one

another. [cheers] it is what we do on a daily basis to give our lives meaning and purpose. that is what matters. at the end of the day, what we will remember will be those beloved and what we did for others. i'm sure many of you who are parents have the same reaction that i did when i heard this news. my daughters go to the movies. what if they had been in the theater? michelle and i will be fortunate enough to hug our girls and a

little bit tighter tonight. i'm sure he will do the same. for those parents who may not be so lucky, we have to embrace them and let them know that we will be there for them as a nation. again, i am so grateful all of you are here. i am so moved by your support but there will be other days for politics. this is a day for prayer and reflection. [cheers and applause] so what i would ask everybody to do -- i would like us to pause in a moment of silence for the victims of this terrible tragedy, for the people who knew them and loved them, for those

who are still struggling to recover, and those who are victims of violence that plagues our communities every single day. if everybody could just take a moment. >> thank you, everybody. i hope all of you will keep the people of colorado in your hearts and minds today. may the lord bring them comfort and healing in hard days to come. i am grateful to all of you and i hope that as a consequence of the events today, as you leave

here, you spend a little bit of time thinking about the incredible blessings that god has given us. thank you very much, everybody. god bless you. god bless the united states of america. [cheers and applause] >> president announced he was expected to follow this with a campaign stop in florida. he is instead returning to the white house this morning. michelle obama has also canceled her scheduled campaign appearances in virginia today. republican presidential candidate mitt romney will cut his stop in new hampshire this afternoon. he was expected to talk about the economy. we will have coverage of that starting at 12:10 p.m. right here on c-span. earlier today, he released a statement out last night. we are deeply saddened by the news of the senseless violence

that took the lives of 15 people in colorado and injured dozens more. we are praying for the families and loved ones of the victims during this time of deep shock and immense grief. that statement was made earlier to up. 12 people have been killed and 50 are injured. this is from hollen security secretary, janet napolitano o -- >> members of congress are taking to their twitter pages to offer reaction. vern buchanan tweets -- congressman clark says -more needs to be done to enhance

public safety. reveals heroes. hopefully we can exemplified those. >> it was about those men and women who are almost mortally injured in war who, because of the advances that have been made in medical trauma treatment over the last 10 years, they are saved.saand i wanted to write about what life was like for these people. i started off with this -- having seen some people who were pretty gruesomely maimed, would be better off if they were dead? don't they wish they were dead? >> in "be on the battlefield

david would spoke with families as well as surgeons, combat medics, there this, and nurses on the daily struggles for those severely wounded in military operations. learn more sunday at 8:00 p.m. on c-span's "q&a." >> something has happened in the last two decades that has changed the nature of large corporations. that is the fact that the cycle time, the amount of time they have to stand at the top of the pack, has been incredibly compressed by globalization. technology shifts. regulatory ships. large corporations need to do with existing markets and known customers and products but they need to deal with disruptions, also. disruption is when they have a great core business and some crazy comes along and says, we

are going to take out this company. the best examples of this are two of the smartest companies -- anybody ever had a blackberry? or in nokia phone? i was in finland talking to somebody who was at the nokia board meeting a month the iphone cannot. they passed a copy of the iphone around at the nokia board meeting and the fatal " was -- why should we care about this? >> from the national governors' association's keynote address, the stanford professor on innovation and economic growth here find it on line at the c- span video library. >> again, mitt romney will make a brief campaign appearance in new hampshire. a brief appearance. we will have that live starting at 12:10 p.m. and tell them, here is u.s. businesses and households with the latest census figures.

host: on your screen is the census director with us to give us a snapshot with trends in this country over the past decade. we worked with you to choose a set of statistics that would do what? what will people learn from this? guest: we are going through myths about certain economic and social phenomenon in the country. most of them are not real myths. they're the result of generalizing. when you do that, you drove down the stories are kind of different. or, looking at total levels of some phenomenon versus the chance that the phenomenon would look the same and then finally, i think oftentimes we get the

wrong impression about what is going on in the country because we're not comparing it to the right thing. we will go through a lot of different kinds of statistics and i will try to mention what general impressions are telling us and they may not be true. host: we have posted these questions on the website. we also treated them out last night so you have a chance to take a look at them before hand. follow the chart along with us if you have access to your computer. if you would like to ask about specific charts, you are most welcome. a discussion question about this, since we're looking at the past decade might be for you to think about how your family's circumstance or your business circumstance has changed over the past decade. we might hear your story as we look at the broader numbers for our society. the first one, it asks the question if the latest recession

caused homeownership rates to decline for all homeowners at the same magnitude. guest: first of all, let me help you to read. we have a lot of different lines. the height of the line reflects what percentage of a group is purchasing their homes. as we move from left to right, we are comparing. maybe the first thing to do -- there are two big gray bars. that is mentioning when the sessions happened. on the right side, that is the most recent recession. maybe the first thing to do is to look at that dotted line in the middle. the reflect the percentage of the entire household population

that was purchasing or owning their homes and if you let your i go from left to right, you can see that there is a mild decline of 1.8% between 2007 and 2010. overall, home ownership when down 1.8%. that was during the great recession. let your i compare the different colors. you see one stark difference. the low lying there is for young households where the household head is less than 35 years old. first of all, we see home ownership lower throughout this time for them. that has to do with accumulating a down payment you

also see another phenomenon. we have helped to notice that by these black ulysses -- ellipses. the younger households declined in their home ownership by 4.4% during this time. the older homeowners showed a much smaller decline. that has to do with the fact that as you pay off your mortgage, there is a much larger percentage of the older folks who own the their own home out right. about two-thirds of that older group only their home. . the small miss here is that age groups -- them this would be

that everybody had the same affect -- the myth would be that everybody had the same effect. it is disproportionate amongst the young groups. host: if you'd like to tell us about your own experience in the house of economy, the numbers are on the screen. lots of ways to get involved. for whatever reason, whether it was access to capital or unstable jobs, younger homeowners were disproportionately affected during the recession. guest: absolutely. young households tend to move more often. that has required them to change households identification and

that produced a problem, too. aret: the net worth or tied together. your next chart asks the question -- answers the question how his net worth changed by age group? guest: let us look at this one. here is the height of the lines. they reflect the percentage of households that have a negative net worth. what does that mean? that means that your debt exceeds your assets. we break that down by age. movementtching the from the year 2000 until 2010. you see very little -- if you focus on the right side, that is

2009 and a dozen 10. -- 2010. you see that the net worth of those that have negative net worth for the younger groups actually went down. the only group that did that. it is much higher on average. they are more poor. less wealthy than the other groups. that is because they have negative net worth. they have seen some gains between 2009 and 2010. host: once again, 65 years and over are relatively stable. guest: that is right. robust. both on housing ownership and net worth. host: let us take some phone calls. the first is madieu from st. louis. good morning. caller: first, i think the last recession caused declines in

home ownership and we should be worried about it. also, i think that -- my question is, do you think it is a time that looking for a homeland, you know, a certain volume of of your home -- do you think that people are kind of looking at that versus we should be looking at our human american problems? i wanted a comment on that. thank you. guest: these are statistics on housing because -- wanted to mention how different groups in the population reacted. we wanted to talk about how their lives were changed by the recession. your question points out the

fact that we need up-to-date statistics. these phenomenon we are looking at are undergoing change right now. this is the kind of thing we need to keep up today on. >> this comment is from suzanne on twitter -- host: how does this government track cause for changes? guest: traditionally, this system has monitored the prevalence, the volume of different things going on. rarely does it attempt to identify the causes of changes. that is generally left to the private sector. the academic sector to puzzle

for why things are happening. there is a very large literature on these phenomenon we just talked about. mainly from the academic sector. >> -- host: this comment from west virginia -- guest: that is right. when you look at this data, you formed the impression that this young cohort right now is heavily affected by the recession on getting into the housing market. it will be interesting to watch this group over time to see, as we move out of this recession, whether they rebound fast or more slowly. host: we are involving you by asking about your household economic trends in your family or community. we're looking at trends in the

u.s. economy over that time with the head of the census bureau. next is jason watching us from las vegas. you are on. caller: good morning. i am in between the baby boomers. i wanted to ask a question. i am looking at the trends and watching how the greatest generation was always -- they did not pass anything along to the younger generation. such a large majority of men are out of work will we have a strong society when we have so many people -- the greatest generation were willing to bring their mother and everybody living in the house. i see all of these young generation one in to buy these mansions. i am wondering, how can we learn

from the older generation so we can prepare and have another old generation -- how can be owned these houses and keep this up. nobody prepared for nothing. nobody had anything. when the market crashed, they all got foreclosed on. it is scary. host: thank you. guest: it is fascinating to study how people's behavior with regard to saving and investment are affected by their life experiences. when you do the general age no comparisons -- generational comparisons, they experience different major historical

events that shape their behavior. one of the things we will see is how this young cohort that has been differently affected by the recession will make their decision about human capital investment and their own investment in houses and big durable products and how they behave with regard to savings and planning for the future. this great recession will be a major event in their lives. host: here is twitter -- [laughter] host: let us go back to most people in poverty be non- white. guest: this is a mistake that we all make at one time or another. we have all heard the assertion that most poor people are

minority members. we have to be careful about arithmetic. if you look at the top, we have two lines. the top-of-the-line reflects millions of people in poverty. poverty here is defined by the census bureau definition that looks at 04-tax cash income of families, and then we set thresholds by family size and the number of children, and so on. you see the recession periods in great, and we move from a 1959, way early, to 2010, from left to right. here we see the blue line is higher than the yellow or orange line. the blue line reflects whites in poverty.

t/3 of poor people right now are whites, and much smaller of non- whites are in poverty. contrary to the impression that some people carry in their heads, and often, if you go down to the next chart, the explanation for that myth, if you will, is that the rate, the chances that someone is in party really does relate to minority status. this is a different chart. the height of the line here is the percentage of the group in poverty. you see the colors of the lines have switched in the sense that the poverty rate of non-whites is indeed higher than the poverty rate of whites. but since non-whites are a

minority, you get those bullion differences. >> the other thing to note on this bottom chart is the dramatic declines since 1959 in the poverty white of the nine- white, population, how those two lines are coming together, slowly, admittedly, but dramatically. host: is there a chart that breaks down homeownership by race? not have won today, but you can get to our website and put in those terms and hopefully you will find that graf quickly. host: good morning. caller: we had a problem here, the housing market slowdown, and after we noticed its slowing down, the market of the house

and, we understood that the -- you got a lot of people renting now. will that have an impact on that part of it, because they got more people to rent. i would like to hear your question on that. >> that is right. first of all, the problems in the housing market very greatly across the country, so different parts of the country suffer from this problem to different extents. our other data series shows that the movement from home ownership to renting, you can see it in the country, that has been a switch exactly as you have observed in the your area. it will be interesting to watch that ratio of renting versus owning as he moved out of the recession, but rental market in

some areas are quite tight right now because of that movement from home ownership, or buying a home, to renting. host: there is a debate about income inequality. the next charts deal with these questions. guest: these are data across countries, but we rely on the organization for economic cooperation and vomit -- and development, and what they have done is create a standardized measure of inequality. the height of these lines, if you look at the vertical dimension, is something that we call a gene index, and it goes from 0 to 1, and if the genie index for a country or zero, it would mean that all the households have exactly the

same income, and if it went up to one, it meant that only one had all the income. so the high near the line, the more income inequality there is. and the lines are different countries, and we try to make the biggest one, the fattest one cannot in blue, and we have a comparison of the u.s. to a variety of other countries. the highest in quality in this set of countries is mexico, and the lowest is for sweden. we are in the upper middle. we are above countries in western europe that were -- that we are often comparing ourselves to as well as japan and the canada. that is one way to look at it, so we are in the upper end of inequality. t is in way to look at i

the next chart to marketing more inequality or less inequality, and this compares the mid 1980's to the late 2000's, on the rate of growth of inequality. and here, if you let your i try to find the fact wind again, the u.s. is sort of in the middle of the growth rates. most countries, and this is what i think many people do not know about, most countries are experiencing growth and inequality. the income distribution is becoming more clustered over time in many countries. the exceptions at the bottom are france and spain. i do not have explanations for that. our growth rate in inequality is sort of in the middle of the countries that we are comparing here to per.

host: in the earlier chart, sweden had the lowest level of inequality, but they are changing the fastest. guest: that is changing faster. host: idaho, jackie, you are on. caller: good morning. my father was in the second world war, came back, and i was raised on a farm in a ranch that was handed down through the generations. and i think what has happened is we have lost the definition of who we are. the father went to work, the mother was home taking care of the children, the children knew the mom was always the to be there. we were taught to save our money, not to go in debt, the not buy something if you cannot

afford at. and you always thought about the next generation. and about -- in about the 1970's, and i went to the 1960's, and 1978's, and it was horrible, because i was born in the 1950's, leave it to beaver, and in the adult time, it was me, me, me, and i think we just got to the point where we became so selfish and greedy and only thinking of ourselves that i started out with a small home and worked myself up. i would sell that one, and then make a little profit and get the next one. body thinks they should start at the time -- at the top pick is this entitlement thing, and they do not know what it is like to start out with

what you could afford and work your way up. host: thank you so much. a similar theme is echoed on twitter -- is there anything about government data that gets this lity?i guest: is our obligation as statisticians to give to the people and accurate portrait of all of these things -- income variation, spending rates, saving rates -- across generations so these impressions we get it by watching our own extended families and our neighbors are grounded not in just observations of small groups, but in data that we can then trust across the power country. some of these observations are prevalent in the country.

others are not, and they are located in subgroups. host: what about -- guest: another income inequality issued that arises is between men and women, and we have to remind ourselves that currently women at work are making on average about 77 or 78 cents for every dollar that males are making. one question is that changing? it has changed between two dozen and 2010. that 77-78 in 2000 was about 73. another interesting thing was, why does that happen, and will it happen in the future? the white that appears to be relevant here is that -- the why that appears to be relevant is

that women are working in different occupations that to not have high or medium salaries. they tend to be more part-time work reach. -- workers. they average five hours less than men per week. they tend to be not in management positions, but there is a change that most demographers and labor economists believe it is coming, and that is related to this charge. what is this chart? to this chart. represent the percentage of the employed workers with a bachelor's degree. this is the level of the college education, percentage with college education. we compare men and women and if you go to the bottom, we are not comparing time but we are comparing age groups. so, this is a rather dramatic chart for social data in that

themselves. the younger people in younker groups, 20-40, a larger percentage of women who have bachelor's degrees than men. the red line above the blue line. as you go to older age groups at the top, it flips. the older groups working men have higher education thanthis fits a lot of other data. school and graduate school enrollment -- an undergraduate school enrollment. women exceed the accounts of men. we are already seeing a movement of women in a different occupational mix. they are entering those occupations that have higher median incomes. the 77 cents or 78 cents, unless things change across

occupations, should get higher and higher as these women -- these young women enter higher income occupations. host: lindsay asks the -- guest: it doesn't apply to every woman with a bachelor's degree or every man with a bachelor's degree. these data come from the very representative samples of people are around the country. we cover all of the country. and women and men in all occupations of all backgrounds. and they rely -- and this is an important thing for all of us to realize -- they rely on the participation of people throughout the country. the census bureau attains a very high participation rates, but it is important they do.

host: will move on to manufacturing the first take a call from mark from maine. caller: good morning, susan. thanks once again for a very informative "washington journal." the complexity of these census charts certainly needs explanation. so, thank you, robert. i am coming from the older generation, the chart on home ownership. it is obvious we older people have had a lifetime to pay off our mortgages. but my question will probably raise the ire of some listeners. is there any sense of data on the elderly who do not need a social security? i started on social security at 62 as a retired public school

teacher. and i still remember my depression parents raised in the depression is saying they didn't need social security because they saved, saved all through their life. way. i always spent less than my income. so, i have kind of an opposite reaction of a previous caller. it seems our older people need to give and support the younger people. guest: we do indeed have statistics on that. i refer you to the census.gov web page. there are a lot of people now studying how people are preparing, if you will, for retirement, what their cumulative savings look like and how dependent they are on social security. and that very thing that you pointed out, what portion of the elderly are depending to what extent on social security

for their day to day living, it is something that a lot of people are interested in right now. and proper statistics on that allowed us to have these discussions. host: our first question was on job creation and what people out there who are experiencing the recession have to say about how to effectively create jobs. with that, which was typically a couple of things on manufacturing. the first one attacks the myth that nothing is made with the united states anymore. the height of this line is a function of billions of dollars sector.

these are constant dollars, fixed to $1,984. it allowed us to move from 1996 dollars. there was a major hit to manufacturing volume during the recessionary period, a dramatic decline, but you see it coming back. slowly, it is sort of matching the early 2000's now. the type of manufacturing going on is actually that for which the u.s. really has really manages, i think. one? guest: the next one is a list we all carry around, the midwest sector of manufacturing -- ms. manufacturing is completely dead. we compare four regions.

the height of the line is the function of the share of manufacturing in the country represented by each region. we see, focus your eye on the red line, which is the midwest, the so-called rust belt. you see a decline over the 2000's. you see that the south has been the major sector, the major region for manufacturing, most prevalent for some time. but by no means is the midwest falling off the charts. there is a little bump. what is happening in the midwest is the mix of manufacturing activities is changing in a way. dead. the south is still leading on is hanging in there. >> going back to 10 years, 2002, -- can i speculate if the chart went back 40 or 50 years

there would be a big decline in the northeast? >> and it is also related how the population has migrated west and south. everything working together. caller. shreveport. caller: my question for mr. grove, as we seem to have an increasingly into racial population, has the census bureau collected data on how income changes or poverty rate regarding interracial households and if so, how does it compare to the data presented earlier. guest: i don't have that with me. that. with regard to the changes during the recession, it is pretty clear that minority groups were disproportionately suffering declines during that

period the income levels of multiracial families are indeed sitting in our statistics. head now. it is very interesting to me to note the growth in the proportion of the american people who are self-identifying as multiracial. this is one of the fastest- growing groups in the country. so, watching this group and watching how they both in income, socio-economic status, and also culturally how they changed over time will be an interesting thing for all of us to watch. host: suzanne turns the comment on the head -- guest: they fit together. host: exports of manufactured goods. guest: here is another kind of myth -- that we don't make

anything and we don't export it. here, the height of these lines are in billions of dollars. un-adjusted data. and the redline our imports. the value of imports over time. the blue line is exports. there are two important things to look at. let your eye look at the difference in height between the blue and red, the disparity between imports and exports. we are an importing country and we have been for a long time. host: not so much in 1957 -- 1997, much closer. guest: and look at how the recession brought those together. the impacts of recession on exports and imports is a complicated matter because it depends on what the rest of the world is doing at the same time. you see a big bounce back in

both imports and exports after the recession, this export increase is something our country is working on in a variety of ways. host: our next call is from greensboro, north carolina. this is lisa. you are on with dr. growth. caller: i know greensboro -- during the last census, the census bureau actually had an office there and i worked on the last census. i am just wondering, when do you start looking for people to work on the u.s. census again? i know it is way earlier than when it is a venture with the form. two or three years -- i did statistics and i just love the u.s. census bureau and i love of of the statistics and i am wondering when you are going to ramp up the workers for next time. guest: first of all, thank you for your service to the country, working on the senses. -- census.

join more than half a million other people who gave such a wonderful census is to the country that we gave to the country for 2010. the next we are not hiring people for that one. we are trying to planning census that is more efficient, so people here in washington are completely devoted to fabricating designing of census that is very efficient, cheaper for the american public, because we have to save taxpayer money like everyone. but also as good as we have done in prior decades. one of the wonderful things we have about the u.s. case with census is if you compare our performance worldwide to other country, we do great censuses

here. this one was one of the greatest -- best in history. it is because the people that you work so hard on it. thank you. host: next is a small business and large business -- job creation. guest: another thing we hear, some people here, that small the height of these lines is the percentage of business establishments that are either large and smallb. -- large and small. the blue are the small and the red are the big ones. this is a very stable rate of prevalence of small and large establishments. really complicated and really important. slow down as you look at this. let me first note -- what is the engine of growth?

what kinds of firms produce more employment? this contrasts small firms and large firms. the height of the bars are the proportion of employees that work in certain kinds of firms. look at the blue line, blue bars first. it gives you the proportion of employees among total employees and different kinds of firms. on the very right, the blue line is really high for big firms that are mature. 10 years or older. a larger portion of all employees work for big firms that are old, big firms. let your eye goes to the left and last -- let us ask the question, who is producing the new jobs? that is the yellow bar.

you see that a young firms on the very last side that are just a being born -- produce jobs. they start from zero and they hire people. if you go to the next group, these are small firms that have been in existence 1-9 years. they produce jobs, too. but the red bar are four job destruction. they go out of business, too. they both produce jobs and they lose jobs. if you look at this entire thing, it teaches us that the myth is that all small firms produce jobs. really, the truth is start-ups, a young firms produce jobs. small firms that have been in existence for a long time are not producing a lot of jobs.

host: start-ups create jobs but the jobs and not necessarily stable. if you want more jobs, you want more start-ups. host: here is a comment -- jacksonville, florida. babas online for robert growth. caller: yes, doctor. i was born in the mid 40's -- 1940's and we were the second family in the neighborhood to have a tv. we dealt with imagination. very few toys. as the decades progressed, i see the internet has done a wonderful job bring money to the world. i think the next big growth will be hybrid automobiles.

there is a lot of interest in that. we need something to carry on now. and i think the next thing will be hybrid use of cars, just the sheer enjoyment of it, and then there will be the necessity. host: thanks. let's listen to kim in annapolis. caller: good morning. i just have one small question. you hire a lot of temporary workers to be census workers but you also rely on the u.s. postal system to deliver a lot of the surveys to go to people's homes. with the drive now to reduce the letter carriers in the postal system, how will it impact the 2020 census if in fact they get rid of most of the postal workers and post offices that they are already doing -- offices close in on saturdays is the office closing, and on saturdays no delivery.

guest: it is something we think about a lot because we have to plan so far out. our contingencies on that really have to do with exploiting electronic communication more and more and more. so we are investigating how social media might be used to alert people to our request for census data, how we can use telephones and internet and basically all sorts of most to communicate with folks. we are preparing for a world in 2020 where mobile computing will be everywhere, we will be in a wireless world, and we will be interacting over the internet with a variety of devices in a variety of ways. that is the world i think we are moving to. host: we have two minutes left. two importance life. we feel a lot with the debate of private-sector and public- sector workers.

guest: we are discussing the size of the federal government daily now. this chart reflects the percentage of and pleased by sector -- employees by sector and the big blue part is the private sector. the different bars are for different years. from 1980 to 2010. you can see it is pretty constant. a little more than 80% of employees are in the private sector. but it isn't moving very much. over time. if we zoomed in on the top portion and go to the next graph and ask what are the characteristics of the government sector employment, this is generally a surprise to people. the growth in government workers is disproportionately in the local government rather than

state -- and the federal government shows a gradual decline in the number of employees working for the federal government. if you go up to the top and say why is the growth going on in the local government, about two-thirds of the growth has to do with folks working in local schools. this is a surprise to most people. host: that is it for these numbers. for our audience, they are connected to the website if you like to spend more time with them and the census website has a lot more data and you can dig into some of the ancillary sets of data. we said at the outset this was your final program with us on america by the numbers. where are you going? guest: i am off to georgetown university and i will become the provost at georgetown, something i am looking forward to. host: we should tell the

audience you have been a big champion of the america by the numbers segment. a question about your job -- when you look in your tenure at census, how the the organization change under you? guest: we tried to innovate in ways to make us more efficient. we are very concerned about >> it was about those men and women who were almost mortally injured in war. from myth huge advances have been made in medical trauma treatment. an incredible number of them are being saved. almost everybody who falls on

the battlefield is being saved. i wanted to write about what life was like for these people. i started out with the question, having seen some people who were pretty gruesomely maimed, don't they wish they were dead? >> in beyond the battlefield, his 10 parts pulitzer prize- winning series, it would spoke with vets and their families on the daily struggles of those severely wounded in military operations. learn more sunday at 8:00 p.m. on c-span's "q & a." >> this weekend on "book tv," a panel discussion on the future of african american publishing. at 330, cornell west -- at 3:30

p.m., cornell west on a panel talking about the american election. on sunday at 2:00 p.m. eastern, the eagle forum leadership summit. the harlem book fair and the leadership summit part of "book tv" this weekend on c-span 2. but surely, we will go live to new hampshire. this afternoon, -- shortly, we will go live to new hampshire. mitt romney is speaking. this was slated to be a campaign stop. due to be shifting in aurora, colorado, he is scheduled to make just a brief appearance. right now, a discussion on the recently defeated disclose at

and the impact on unregulated money in politics. host: mr. smith served five years on the federal election committee. he is our guest this morning to talk about campaign spending in 2012 and the senate effort to pass the disclose at. let's start with this story in usa today. vet fund raising at $1 billion and counting. it suggests that it could hit $3 billion according to the center for responsive politics. what do those numbers say to you? is this a good thing to be spending all this money on elections? guest: we spend a lot more money than that to advertise soap products. we need to be informed about candidates. i years spending does increase

voter knowledge. as much as people hate those ads, higher spending does increase voter knowledge. host: let's move to the senate effort to pass legislation call to be disclosed at. you have been a critic of that. why? guest: i have a number of problems with the disclose act. it is not really necessary. you hear all of these reports about secret money in politics. every superpac has to disclose their donors. campaigns and political parties disclose their dollars. we have more disclosure than we ever had in american politics. there is a burdensome costs on smaller campaigns.

he disclosed that would require reports to be filed within 24 hours of making expenditures. they are not prepared to file reports and that is a burdensome act on them. there is also the problem that disclosure can be used to harass and built by people. finally, the act itself was introduced in 2010 and remains a partisan bit of legislation. it is intended to favor certain -- and this -- constituencies. host: senator sheldon whitehouse was a major sponsor of the legislation. with on the house floor after

the bill fell to two times. let's see what he tried -- when he had to say. but they remain great supporters of that provision. i hope we will be able to introduce it at another time, but we did not. that complaint should be closed off. some complain this is an attempt to influence this election. its effective date is a january 1, 2013. it will not, to the request of many, influence the selection. according to the former fec chairman, the disclosure act is a properly targeted, narrowly tailored, and desperately needed. i stand ready to work with any of my colleagues, democrats or republicans, who want to make this bill better.

we cannot use on justified complaints as an excuse guest: when it was first the lead sponsor was senator schumer in new york and he made the statement that one of the purposes of this" was to deter people from speaking. tos clear who they wanted deter, that is constituencies that the democratic sponsors believe will be republican constituencies. it is not entirely clear, but i think one can make those kinds of predictions. so, it really is and remains a partisan views of legislation. and one of the things you can do when you begin to understand campaign finance is it is very easy to write legislation that is neutral on its face but that target -- that targets political opponents. for example, if you know how emily's list exercise political

influence or how unions exercise influence or how businesses exercise influence, you can write legislation that is neutral on its face but targets that particular type of group or that particular type of agency. it would be sort of like a baseball team. you could write rules that would change the dimensions of the field and it may be facially neutral for all teams but it you know what teams had what kinds of offensive strengths, fast runners, slow runners, lies on home runs and stolen bases and singles and so one, you can adjust the rules with fairly predictable outcomes as to who you are going to help and hurt. host: let's go dismount -- phone calls for you. stanford, connecticut. but is a republican. caller: good morning. thank you foresees an end. -- thank you for c-span. i heard something a while back that our votes would be tallied by a company in spain.

i am wondering, first, is this true. second, why is this happening? and is george soros a part owner in this corporation? thank you. guest: the truth is, i don't know anything about that particular story and therefore i have no idea whether george soros is an owner or involved in that effort at all. i generally will say i have a lot of faith in counting the votes in the united states. i think one thing we need to do, as we have developed a bad habit of everybody quickly hurling charges of fraud around whenever they lose an election or suggesting that officials are going to be dishonest, and i think that is a bad tendency. having those people involved in counting votes are honest and fair and accounting is pretty good. host: is it fair to say the disclose ad was a reaction to democrats in the senate to citizens united? guest: it certainly is. the democrats themselves said that. an interesting thing -- and the same week in 2010, scott brown

defeated martha coakley and a special collection for ted kennedy's senate seats in massachusetts and then the supreme court announced citizens united. these events are not related in an actual sense but when i talk to liberals and democrats, on the events are well that in their mind. it was like that week that they realized they were in real electoral trouble in 2010. and there is a belief that large corporations are largely pro-republican. i think that is a very shaky empirical belief. but disclosed was an effort to silence those types of speakers that they think we're likely to help republicans. it is really just the bottom line. it is unfortunate that is the case and i hate to come on making that comment, sounding like a republican shill. i think i have a pretty good record at the fec being non- partisan, and that was recognized. host: the latest decision regarding it, the montana challenge to what was not successful in

recent rulings. what is a legislative future or judicial future -- judicial review future for citizens united? do you see more challenges on capitol hill and more court challenges? guest: lets start real quick what citizens in nine did. it allowed of corporations and unions to spend an elector not to give directed candidates and parties, but just to spend and elections. this was not a radical break with american history. prior to citizens united, 26 states allowed unlimited corporate spending in their collections for governor, secretary of state, state judges, legislature, and so one. and those included many of the states that governing magazine have consistently recognized as the best govern state in the country. it is not a radical break as some prevented. not to say it is not a tempore incision but it was not unheard of in politics. there will be continued efforts.

it would suggest a constitutional amendment. i do not think many americans are in really eager when they are faced with it, to amend the constitution, amend the first amendment. if you ask people in polls do you favor citizens united, a huge majority say they oppose. but if the gas people, you think that group should have been able to show its documentary movie about hillary clinton, which is what the case was about, you get a huge majority saying of course they should be able to show their documentary movie about hillary clinton. that is not so clear the public will support any kind of constitutional amendment. congress can play with a disclosure laws, but you have to do it in a truly non-partisan manner. when i hear people on the hill, sponsor saying we going to reach out and worked with folks. i know of nobody who has been opposed to the disclose act. talking but groups like mine and a center for competitive politics or other groups sometimes being involved arguing for less regulation of this area and none of us have been approached by any of the supporting groups as to what we

can do to fashion a good compromise and disclosure rules. host: next caller is from st. paul. caller: good morning, america. a couple of questions and one common. i totally disagree with you, sir, when you come and say more spending and elections is actually a good thing because you learn more about the candidates. i think it is factually wrong. you actually are learning more about the bad things of the other candidates when the other people are spending the money. just to tell you, that is actually not correct. i questions are, one, what is the relationship between this commission and the commission on the presidential debates? what was the background that you had best that you to be on this? third, what party affiliation are you? and that is my question. thank you very much. guest: sure.

first, i do have to disagree with you -- the political science data is very clear. if you say people are just learning the bad things of the other candidates, that is something people are learning about the candidates. those are actually very important things to know. you can fight the data but the data is what it is and more spending tends to lead to a better informed electorate. on your particular questions. there is no relationship between the commission on presidential debates and the fec. one thing often misunderstood the commission on presidential debates is not a government agency at all. despite the exalted title. it is a private enterprise and simply an effort to put together debates. it is very separate. what the fec covers is essentially a federal campaign finance laws. basically it deals with federal campaign finance laws. the commission on federal debates is just a private group that organizes debates between the major candidates for the president. i am a law professor in

columbus, ohio, and i got to be known here in washington essentially just on the basis of my writing and being invited to testify on the hill, and that way i can of got noticed by people. i was never a staffer on the hill. was not a lawyer for the parties. i am not a defeated former congressman or anything like that. i just became known for my riding and my speaking on the issue and got to know folks around the hill and when the vacancy came up i was recommended and nominated essentially. i am republican appointee, appointed by president clinton but a republican appointee. a lot of these independent commissions, most of the independent commission is likely fec and sec have a certain number of seats that are designated for each party. some republicans often have to appoint democrats and vice versa. host: here is "the national telegraph" which we focus on in the new hampshire primary and it is editorializing on the

disclose act. it says -- guest: that is the typical sort of -- what is interesting is the same right in there they say, yes, it is about getting conservatives. they say right in their own post. here is what you have, isn't there are dangers of retaliation.

we know for example in 2008 after the same-sex marriage proposition in california, that people used the campaign donor records to harass. some people lost their jobs because their employers, who had done nothing, were boycotted until employees given to one side were fired were terminated from their positions. we have to think about it. do you want the government maintaining a database of everybody's political activity? there are pluses and minuses. historical rhetoric about secret money and the darkness of politics, but pretty much the money spent in american politics is disclosed. what is not disclosed is one subset of money, and that is, who are members of our organizations organize our501c4 of the tax code -- like national rifle association, a naacp, sierra club -- those groups when they spend money they have to file reports of this than money, what race

citizen, how much. if anybody gave the money to run those ads, they have to include the names of the people gave the money for that purpose. what they don't have to do is disclose the original members. the supreme court long recognize the constitutional interest of the privacy of the organizations not to disclose their members. this is nothing new. these groups long before citizens united rand little lad's. the naacp did it in 2000, planned parenthood did it in 200, and certainly the national rifle association has been involved. there is nothing really new there's so the question comes up is what is the sudden push for all of this new disclosure that has never previously been required? host: c-spanjunkie agrees -- what about the hard to escape phenomenon that the people

voting and a laws of those will ultimately benefit. guest: it is interesting that we are supposed to believe that these folks are terrible corrupt, but there is one shining moment when they will not be corrupt, when they will not be pursuing self-interest, and that is when they pass campaign finance legislation. i think it is not true. i think there is a lot of truth in what the twitterer says. laws that benefit incumbents will tend to stay on the books because incumbents will not say problem with them. those that do not tend to be amended because incumbents will see them as being very bad laws, and they will change. that is natural human personality. there is the reason why generally we are better off keeping the government out of the rape. the whole point of the first amendment is we do not want the government deciding who has spoken to much, who gets to speak more and whose speech is dangerous. host: james tweets --

next is new jersey. rich, a democrat. caller: you said it was partisan, the bill favored the republicans -- or went against the republicans. what happens to all of this id stuff that the states are passing that people have to have id. isn't that also partisan? guest: sure, one concern to me that. again, my view is the government to be hesitant and regulating the election process beyond anything necessary. i have sort of been the dissenting voice in republican circles in i don't believe there is a great deal of fraud that can be prevented by voter i.d. laws. i will say as well -- there is not much evidence people are deprived by voting id laws. to the extent you see it as a problem i think it is important

to recognize the same problem and existence something like this goes act. host: a comment from twitter -- the next comment is from new york. julia, a republican. caller: yes. i would like to say -- i feel like my vote is not important anymore because i feel that there is fra. there were people where they found how many votes from people who were dead. i mean, why is it such a terrible thing to ask for id? it is ridiculous. absolutely ridiculous. you need id for everything. that is the first part of the question. the second part i would like to address to the blacks and hispanics in this country. i like them to ask themselves really, if obama was not black,

would they be voting for him? because their unemployment is so high and they have not prospered over the last four years. and if they do choose another, they only have one choice, which is democratic, if they choose the republican side, they are ostracized in their own community. they are. they are called the white man's lackey and then are considered an uncle tom, and this is a terrible thing, i think. i think they should really understand that in the two- party system, we have a choice, i have a choice, and they should have a choice. guest: let me relate that back briefly to the immediate topic we have been talking about, which is political disclosure. you say that you think some people are essentially intimidated into voting for one side of the other and ostracized. of course, we have secret voting. in a sense, it raises exactly

the problem with excess of disclosure laws, requiring groups like the and -- naacp, rifle association, planned parenthood, to disclose all of their financial supporters are members. the book could be ostracized and intimidating. -- people could be ostracized and intimidated. disclosure has costs. we need to strike an adequate balance. people will see an ad on television, it will say what organization paid for it and and is very to find -- easy to find out about the organization. i think therefore we need to be careful. we cannot allow people to do anything labeled disclosure as good, but we have to look at it. it has costs and benefits. host: a new phenomenon out -- after citizens united, the social welfare organizations. they are speaking out -- the issues that support the candidates but they did not face the same disclosure.

guest: this is the issue i mentioned earlier, this is the naacp, sierra club, rifle association, organize under section 501c4 in the tax code. it is true they did not have to disclose it gives them money but they have to disclose their donors to give them money for the purpose of running ads. they just don't have to disclose general members. the question we need to ask ourselves is how much more do we gain by knowing the particular individuals? we know about the groups, we know what they are up to above the point of view is. the supreme court has long held in a series of cases back to the 1950's that these types of organizations have an interest in keeping their members' private, the members have an answer is not having all their political activity and memberships disclosed and it could open be blood to intimidation, authorization -- authorization -- being ostracized. host: ms. viewer who tweets --

guest: that is a good question whether it is true or not. there is a tremendous amount of constitutional rights recognizing anonymous speech is. the supreme court long said there is a right for groups not to disclose who the members are. note, by the way, it is not totally anonymous. you know who paid for the ad and they have to file reports with the fec and this is very transparent. but we don't know who the members are. in the supreme court held there is a constitutional right to keep their membership private. the supreme court also held, for example, if you want to organize a boycott of a political speaker, you have a right to remain constitutionally anonymous. so, people who might organize a boycott -- boycott and not have to disclose whether financing comes from. the supreme court has held union organizers and speak anonymously. people want to go door-to-door do not have to announce themselves or registered with

the government about what they are but -- doing. in fact, the supreme court held in numerous cases there is an fact a right to anonymous political speech. at some point we hit that and the political realm as well. what we have now is a new effort to regulate in ways that we have never regulated before. the supreme court clearly allows some required disclosure of political speech. it has never blessed the kind of regime that has been proposed in the disclose act. it raises legitimate constitutional questions. host:aaron2000 -- guest: i am not quite sure what the irony means. the argument is voters can better judge a message if they know more about the speaker. but what is going on in the current debate is not people saying, boy, i don't know if i can trust this message, who is the speaker, but we have normal people saying i had that message and i don't know the speaker is but i hate him, to o, and i want to get him. we are in an environment in

which we do have the case with the president himself has publicly targeted certain individuals and say they are disreputable, right after they give money to various conservative groups. is it to bush and a couple of years ago, a group called accountable america, run by a former democratic party stafford sent a letter to conservative donors of a bit -- keep giving to conservative groups they will dig into their history and find out about the personal life. a few weeks ago, at boston college business school, one of the speakers was a lawyer from san francisco who stated very clearly that we do not want corp. speaking and if you speak we will try to find grounds, i have clients who will try to sue you. there is a reason why people may not want to engage in a speech at -- speech and it is not entirely clear what more we gained. if we know the chamber of commerce is funding a message, do we learn a whole lot more knowing exactly what companies are members of the chamber of commerce?

host: next on the phone is linda from boston. you are on the air. a democrat. caller: am i on the line? host: we can hear you. caller: i have never in my life -- and i am a baby boomer and i follow politics -- seem more mud slugging from corporations giving misinformation. this is why you get people asking for birth certificates still. and it is important to know who is funding these millions and billions of dollars and what is their agenda. because it goes to the fabric of the ideology of that candidate. and it is taken out of the hands of the people because they are not informed.

guest: luna, i hear your concern. but first, there is very little corporate money being spent. the vast majority of money comes from individuals. and it's a killer, large corporations are spending very little money in this particular -- in particular, large corporations are spending very little money in this race. you say it is important to know the agenda. my question is, what agenda don't we know? if we hear an ad from a chamber of commerce, what the agenda are we missing? an ad from the naacp, planned parenthood, rifle association -- what agenda are we missing puree people talk about crossroads gps -- i do not see how money -- how many reports where, crossroads gps, a shadow group run by former bush director karl rove and former republican chairman ed gillespie to promote conservative pro- business agenda. and i am like, if this is a

secretive group they are bad at it. so, we talk about this, this need to say we need to know the agenda my question honestly is, what agendas don't we know? what adds can't you tell the agenda either by the face of the ad or even more from the disclosure of information and clear it would be at an already filed with the federal election commission? host: more -- guest: those are two separate questions. candidates do take responsibility for their ads. they have to disclose all of their donors all the time. and then we must know who is funding the sham c-4 groups. most of them are not sham. some of them like the naacp are real groups. there is the question -- what more is it that we need to know? what will we gain if we know the members of these groups? is it worth the cost of having these members essentially -- as

other callers have raised some of the questions of the possibility of being ostracized, harassment, retaliation by government officials. again, remember, there have been threats of retaliation from government officials. it is reported in an editorial in today's "wall street journal" about van sloot who gave money to a pro-romney super pac, which was disclosed, and suddenly finds his taxes being audited, one of his business is being audited by the department of labour. these are real concerns as well. host: next is a call from kevin, delray beach, florida. caller: i just have a question. first of all, i believe there has to be full transparency and in the system because i personally believe that money is destroying our political system. it is taking it completely out

of the hands of the people and putting it in corporations. i keep hearing you make the point that we will learn more about the candidates with more money that they have. but the koch brothers, willing to raise $300 million just in this presidential campaign, and citizens -- not citizens united but they karl rove group you just mentioned wanted to raise $250 million as well. do we really need that much money to inform ourselves? social media is free on the internet. i think that money is causing more corruption then there is good. and you just give me three other reasons why you believe that money in our local system is actually a good thing? guest: sure very i am happy to

-- sure. let's take one. historically, challengers rely more on large contributions and they need large contributions. new idea and outside challengers from outside the system rely more on big money. if you take the last campaign before the federal election campaign act of these limits on what a candidate could raise, 1968 campaign, and in that campaign mccarthy got his campaign up and running in a matter of weeks. he didn't declare until december, a little before the new hampshire cam -- primary. a handful of people were willing to commit in today's dollars would be 10, $12 million a piece to get the campaign up and running. it raised the anti-war issue, actually drove lyndon johnson out of the race. that kind of thing could not have happened under today's rules, now that the speechnow.org -- citizens denied it would allow super pacs to take on the from some very-- ross perot spent a lot of his own money because the only day he could do was to be the candidate himself.

he may have had flaws as a candidate, but who can deny he actually gave voice to millions of americans by committing his own resources to the campaign? we tend to think that these big folks a drowning others out. in fact what we see it more often as putting voices and to play, allowing people to be heard what the rise would not be heard. just a couple of ways in which money in the system generally creates an open system. the third thing i say is the alternative you are offering -- i will offer this as sort of a bad -- which is to say government is going to try to start regulating who can speak and how much they can speak, and that of a recipe for favoritism, creating distrust, and for the government to try to rig the electoral system to try

to rig the electoral system. i think what we will find overtime, by the way -- because right now i think super pacs have benefited republicans but i think it is just a coincidence in time but i take over time it -- i think it will benefit the party out of power. host: we have about five minutes left. this is huffington post, the author of this. he writes -- a remarkable turnaround for republicans to long supported disclosure as an alternative to a campaign donation limits. guest: i am glad you raised it. i hearing all the time but it is not true. there is no republican over hill on the -- over here on the hill talking about repealing any disclosure rules. we have more now than we have ever had. nobody is talking of a rolling it back. the question is whether more disclosure than we ever had. and the past republicans said they supported disclosure, they never suggested this supported the unnecessary and duplicative

and biased disclosure of the disclose act. secondly, of course. that's changed, circumstances change. i see things dragged up from 10 years ago and i was like, 10 years ago you did not have all of these folks out there openly -- openly saying the reason why they wanted the information was to "hold accountable" by which they mean harass, bullet, and intimidate speakers. it is actually salutatory that people say, wait a minute, that as not the purpose. and the final point which is simply this, a lot of republicans a dozen years ago were saying we could consider more disclosure as an alternative. >> we will leave this to go live to presidential candidate mitt romney. he is being introduced by kelly ayotte. >> we come here with heavy hearts about what happened in colorado. joe and i want to offer the

thoughts and prayers from the people in new hampshire to the victims in aurora, colorado, to their families. to those who were injured, we wish him a speedy recovery. that is why we are here today, to come together as a community and to all for our collective condolences and prayers. governor romney is here with us today to offer his thoughts and prayers and those of anne. it is my honor to introduce my friend, mitt romney, to you today. [applause]

>> good morning. and thank you for joining the senator and me on this sad day. and thank you to father christian for beginning this gathering with a word of prayer. our hearts break with the sadness of this unspeakable tragedy. anne and i joined the president and first lady and all americans in offering our deepest condolences to those whose lives were shattered in a few moments of evil in colorado. i stand before you today not as a man running for office, but as a father and grandfather, a husband, an american. this is a time for each of us to look into our hearts and remember how much we love one another and how much we love, and how much we care for our

great country. there is so much love and good nest in the heart of america. in the coming days, we will learn more about the lives that have been lost and the families that have been harmed by this hateful acts. we will come to know more about the talents and the guests that each victim possessed and we will come to understand the hope and the opportunity that has been lost. our hearts break for the victims and their families. we pray that he ballooned it will recover and that those who are grieving will know the minister of god. today we feel not only a sense of grief, but a sense of helplessness. but there is something we can do. we can offer comfort to someone near us who is suffering or heavy laden and we can mourn with those who mourn in colorado. this morning, colorado lost

mutual voices that would have tightened their homes, and risked their schools, and brought joy to their families. our prayer is that the comforter might bring peace to their souls that surpasses their understanding. the apostle paul explained, blessed be god who conference us in all our tribulations that we may be able to comfort them in any trouble. we know how evil is overcome. we are seeing that power today in the goodness and compassion of a grieving community. grieving families in aurora are surrounded by love today and not just by those who are holding them in their arms. they are being lifted up in prayer by people in every part of our great nation. in the hard days to come, and everyone of them feel the sympathy of our whole nation and the comfort of a living god.

there will be justice for those responsible. but that is another matter for another day. today is a moment to grieve and to remember, to reach out and to help, to appreciate our blessings in life. each one of us will hold our kids a little closer, linger a little bit longer with a colleague or a neighbor, reach out to a family member or a friend. we will spend a little less time thinking about the whereabouts of our day and more time thinking about those who need our compassion the most. we will show our fellow citizens the good part of the america we know and love. god bless you for being here and sharing together this moment of sorrow and god bless the united states of america. thank you. [applause]

>> mitt romney making a brief appearance here in new hampshire. he was expected to talk about the economy. but like president obama today, he cut his appearance short to talk about the shootings last night in colorado. interesting to watch how the political campaigns are responding to this incident. an't need to talk about is writer from political. what kind of response are we seeing today as the details of the shooting emerged? >> we saw president at what was going to be a raucous campaign rally. he tied it back to his own family and how all americans feel the same tragedy as those

in colorado. >> the route the campaign has suspended advertising in colorado. -- the romney campaign has suspended advertising in colorado. >> both campaigns have suspended contrast advertising, which means they are not running negative ads in colorado. we are keeping up the negative ads in other states. but what is the danger if each candidate -- >> what if each candidate addresses this event? >> they do not want to appear callas. they do not want to appear as if they are taking advantage of this situation. it has been a nasty and negative campaign. >> do you think the candidates' approach or call and will

change? >> the campaign will not become less negative. i ite may be a couple days' is with the olympics starting next week. the campaign -- hiatus with the olympics starting next week. we will still see the targeted negative at in swing states from now until november. it will be interesting to see how the president and mitt romney will play this in colorado where there will be feelings that are much different there than in the rest of the country. >> there was a financial crisis in 2008 and mccain and obama took time off of the campaign to address that. with their other incidents were campaigns were pre-empted by events of the day?

>> we can look at them years ago when the financial crisis took hold. mccain suspended his campaign and it backfired on him when president obama responded that a president has to do more than one thing at a time. we are not seeing calls from ida campaign to suspend the campaign so much as they are taking a breather in throwing a haymaker at each other and only doing that in colorado. >> michael bloomberg has already been quoted as asking about each candidate's position on gun control. do you think each side will take advantage of this situation to push their own agenda? >> a woman whose husband and child were shot on long island

in 1918's. she released -- in the 1980's. she released a statement asking for gun control. whenever we have had a significant mass shooting gabrielle giffords shooting, the nation goes through a period of reflecting, of mourning the incident. there have not been any serious effort to change the gun control laws. certainly, president obama, his past history shows, he is not one to do that. if you look at their records, he has a much more lax record on gun-control than mitt romney, who touted his stance on gun control laws. >> thank you for your time today.

>> thank you. >> now president obama scheduled an appearance in florida where he addressed the shootings last night in colorado. he offered condolences and support to the victims. >> thank you, everybody. let me first of all say how much we appreciate everybody being here. there are people who sought by

the what. there are people who have been involved since 2007. i want all of you to tell how appreciative i am. many of you came here for a campaign event. i was having a conversation with you about my opponent in this election. but this morning, we will cut to news of a tragedy that reminds us of all of the ways that we are united as one american family.

by now, many of you know and many of you have heard that a few miles outside of denver, in a town called aurora, at least 12 people were killed when a gunman opened fire in a movie theater. dozens more are being treated for injuries at a local hospital. some of the victims are being treated at a children's hospital. we are still gathering all of the facts about what happened in aurora, but what we do know is that the police have one suspect in custody. the federal government stands ready to do whatever is responsible for this heinous crime to justice. [applause] we will take every step possible to insure the safety of all our people. we are going to stand by our neighbors in colorado during this extraordinarily difficult time. i had a chance to speak to the mayor of aurora as well as the governor of colorado to express

how heartbroken we are. even as we learned how this happened and who is responsible, we may never understand what leads anybody to terrorize their fellow human beings like this. such violence, such evil is senseless, it is beyond reason. while we will never know fully what causes somebody to take the life of another, we do know what makes life worth living. the people we lost in aurora were a lot and they loved. they were mothers and fathers, husbands and wives, sisters and brothers, sons and daughters, friends and neighbors. they had hopes for the future and they had dreams that were

not yet fulfilled. if there is anything to take away from this tragedy, it is the reminder that life is fragile. our time here is limited and it is precious. what matters at the end of the day is not the small things. it is not be trivial things which so often consume us in our daily lives. ultimately, it is how we choose to treat one another and how we love one another. it is what we do on a daily basis, give their lives meaning and to give our lives purpose. that is what matters. at the end of the day, what we will remember will be those we

love and what we did for others. that is why we are here. i'm sure that many of you who are parents here had the same reaction i did when i heard this news. my daughters go to the movies. what if melia and sasha had been in that theater? as some many of our kids do every day -- michelle and i will be fortunate enough to hug our girls a little tighter tonight and i'm sure you'll do the same with your children but for those parents who may not be so lucky, we have to embrace them and let them know we will be there for them as a nation. so, again, i am so grateful that all of you are here. i am so moved by your support but there will be other days for

politics. this, i think, is a day for prayer and reflection. [applause] so, what i'd ask everybody to do -- but let us to pause in a moment of silence for the victims of this terrible tragedy, for the people knew them, and love them, for those who are still struggling to recover, and for all the victims of less publicized acts of violence that plagued our communities every single day. if everybody can just take a moment --

thank you, everybody. i hope all of you will keep the people of aurora in your hearts and minds today. may the lord bring them comfort and healing in our days to come. and grateful to all of you -- i am grateful to all of you and as a consequence of today's events, as you leave here, you spend a little time thinking about the incredible blessings that god has given us. [applause] thank you very much, everybody. god bless you. god bless the united states of america. [cheers and applause]

[four more years] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> president obama in fort myers, florida this morning. the statement from the white house was released this morning and you can read that on our website. your feet -- we are hearing from members of congress reacted on twitter. one says would like to join everyone

homeland security secretary john the politesse -- john -- janet napolitano said she is deeply saddened. you can read all these statements include reactions from mitt romney on our website, c-span.org. happenedsomething has in the last two decades that is really changing the nature of large corporations. that is in fact that the cycle time, the amount of time they have to stay at the top of the pack has been incredibly compressed. by globalization, by technology, by regulatory steps. large corporations not only now

need to deal with existing markets and known customers and on products, they need to deal with disruption and disruption is when they have a great core business and some crazy comes along and says we will take up this company. the best examples of this are two of the smartest companies. everybody ever have a blackberry? or a nokia fan? i was in finland talking to someone who is that the nokia board meeting. the month the iphone can now predict tested copy of the iphone around at the nokia board meeting and a fatal quote was " why should we care about this?" >> from the closing keynote address, steve blank on innovation and economic growth, find it on line at the cspan video library. this weekend on american history tv, >> 30 years of the

administrations of ronald reagan and bush and clinton and bush and obama have done more to confirm the march's prediction of the rich getting richer than 75 years of the soviet union, perhaps them from lectors in history, socialism and america, the columbia history professor on the rise of socialism in 20th century america saturday night at 8:00 eastern and sunday, more from "the contenders." this week, thomas dewey who rose to fan prosecuting prosecuting cancers but the new republican would lose to fdr in 1944 and harry truman in 1948. at 7:30 eastern and pacific. that is this weekend on cspan 3. >> yesterday, the senate health education committee held a meeting on tuition costs and

making college affordable. the dean of michigan state university and the iowa state university were among the witnesses and the discussed strategies being employed by institutions to lower college costs including a redesigned projects and financial aid literacy class is. this is about one hour, 50 minutes. >> this will come to order. as we approach of a new academic year, families across america are struggling to pay the escalating cost of college. during these economic times, soaring tuition and shrinking real incomes are making college less and less affordable. over the past decade, state and local funding for students dropped by 25% while tuition and fees at four-year public schools

increased by 72%. student debt crossed the $1 trillion marks unsurpassed credit card debt for the first time ever the news media are right back with stories of scorching student debt including graduates with $120,000 debt making $225 per week working two jobs. for millions of young people, these trends are putting the american dream on hold or out of reach. a national survey of recent graduates found that 40% had delayed making a major purchase like a home or a car because of college death. about 1/4 had decided to put of continuing their education or have moved in with relatives to save money. americans aged 25-34 make up little more than 1/4 of all home buyers, the lowest share and the last decade. there is no need to cite more of these grim statistics on stories but the message is clear --

college is increasingly out of reach for students from working families and lower income families, our nation is losing ground in having a well-educated work force that can compete in the global economy. one of my top priorities as chair of this committee is to address the college affordability crisis and try to find ways to help curb the financial barriers to college. this is the second health committee hearing this year focusing on affordability. as with the previous hearing in february, wanted to move beyond bemoaning the problem. focus will be on institutions that are breaking with business as usual to implement promising strategies and practices, in ovations and initiatives to improve college affordability. today's panel emphasized efforts at the institutional level that are proving successful in curbing costs for colleges and students while improving student

access and students success. these innovations can help inform our committee's work in designing federal policy and maybe they can be replicated to help america regained and retain its global leadership. we will also hear some expert insights into how tuition pricings and financial aid policies can promote affordability. how do some schools take a look at their operations to find efficiencies so savings can be translated into minimal or no tuition increases and more effective student support? our schools working with students and family to ensure they are making sound financial decisions and accessing all the aid available to them? how are innovative leaders in academia reinventing their operations? how are some schools realizing gains in retention and completion while bringing down costs per student. ? how do some students maximize

their financial aid resources by targeting students with the most financial need? how can colleges and universities make it a priority to make access and boost the success of students from lower and middle income families in the face of state cuts, growing costs, and increasing calls for better responsibility and out comes? i look forward to working with our distinguished ranking members and my colleagues on both sides to ensure that a college education remains affordable and within reach for all americans regardless of background. with that, i invite your opening remarks. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate this panel. i appreciate the extensive testimony that has been provided. i only regret you will have to reduce that so we can stay within the timeframe so we will have time for questions.

what you have provided already is extremely helpful. not only do we have this distinguished panel but we also have the former president of the university of tennessee serving on this committee. he has been suggesting ways for a long time that colleges could solve some problems and that we could quit playing the burdens on the colleges. i thank you, mr. chairman, for having this hearing. we discussed in february that cost of college becoming too expensive and it is not getting cheaper anytime soon. this trend does not change, it will be almost impossible for us to achieve the challenge to become first in the world in college education. many would say the solution lies with us but no progress will be made if institutions don't lead the way by finding ways to cut costs and save students money. i know this is possible because today's witnesses are doing just that. each of these individuals has

been faced with the challenges of doing more with less as funding from state appropriations has fallen and the demand for higher education has increased. each of these educators has responded through thoughtful budgeting and cost-cutting that has enabled their institutions to continue successfully serving their students without sacrificing educational quality. i hope what we hear today will be heard by others and will serve as a model for how institutions of higher education can start making changes now. with this in mind, i recognize that congress has a responsibility to help. over last three years, dramatic changes have been made to increase access to federal student aid to help mitigate the cost of college for a greater number of low-income students. these changes while well intentioned have led to persistent funding problems in the pell grant program including $6 billion funding gap that is now projected for fiscal year 2014. the funding gaps have been

regularly addressed through a series of ad hoc changes to the federal student aid programs and annual appropriations bills. these changes successfully generated sufficient savings to maintain the pell grant in the short term, they come at the expense of other low and middle- income students that have done nothing to avoid a future gap. i urge this committee to begin addressing the long-term sustainability of pell sooner rather than later. with respect to student loan interest rates, waiting will result in another costly last- minute solution. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator gore. -- senator. we have an exceptional power with us today. i thank all of you for taking the time to be here and sharing your expertise. i would like to introduce our panel and we will start with dr. heller who is deep -- with the

dean of education at the university of michigan. he currently serves on the iowa advisory council as a member of the greater desmans committee

crossroads implementation committee. i know that the entire isu committee is excited about his arrival and shows he has done great things in the state of iowa and since he has spent so much as life in north carolina, like to yield to my good friend, the senate or for north carolina. >> thank you. it is difficult when you take one of the chairman's witnesses. let me say to my colleagues, steve has a remarkable record within the north carolina. university carolina not only has he served in numerous capacities in his field of agriculture, steve led an effort by the university system in a public/private partnership to create the largest research campus in the world for the study of human nutrition. it is truly a model of success for public/private partnerships

not limited to the university system. it has six academic campuses on the research camp as part. it has equipment -- is the only facility in the world has some of the equipment a country have. steve has had an unbelievable history of increasing the grants and research programs within the university system which has led the north carolina university system to be one of the most impressive research organizations and the country. he is -- he has also pioneered what i believe is one of the most important public/private partnerships and will be a model for others to try to replicate around the world. mr. chairman, he was a graduate of pennsylvania state university, master's at the university of delaware, and has a doctorate in plant pathology.

i can't think of a better person to serve. thank you. >> thank you very much. our next witness is dr. jekyll murdaugh. before coming to -- doctors jim murdaugh. he was elected to the board of florida universities and was on the legislative committee for the upcoming -- upcoming school year. we'll next year from thomas j. snyder, the president of by t tech college in indiana. he came there in 2007 after a successful career as a business executive including time at general motors and most recently as president and ceo of dell co international. he is a recognized leader in advanced energy and he participated in the introduction of the first u.s.-produced hybrid vehicle drive.

the chronicle of higher edge -- higher education landham is one of seven university presidents making a difference nationwide. our final witness is dr. carol twig. she is an international recognized expert in using information technology effectively to transform teaching and higher education. prior to founding her organization in 1999, she was the vice president of educom dedicated to effectively using technology. she has also served as the associate vice chancellor for learning technologies for the state university-of new university suny. we have a very, very distinguished group of panelists today all of your testimony will be part of the record in its entirety. we'll start with dr. heller and

if you would sum up your testimony in five or seven minutes or so, if you go a little bit over, don't worry too much. a lot of senators want to get engaged with all of you. if you summarize your testimony, i would appreciate and we'll start with you dr. heller. >> members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to address you on this critical issue affecting our nation. i come to you today having conducted research on financial aid, tuition pricing policies, and their impact on college access for 15 years. tuition prices in colleges and universities have skyrocketed. over the last three decades, prices in public and private institutions have grown more than three times faster than inflation and three times faster than median family income in our country. my testimony today will not examine the reason behind these rising prices but to discuss

with governments and colleges and universities can do to ensure the college remains accessible for all students. my remarks are focused on what we can do to promote college access and success from students -- with students from low and moderate income families. we need to focus on them if we are to achieve president obama's goal of returning the united states to world leadership in educational attainment. for poor students, the sticker price of college drives their perception of what cost to attend. in a world of perfect information about prices and financial aid, students would be able to accurately calculate the true net price that they face. this fantasy world does not exist. the world of higher education finance is a mysterious place for most of the students for the department of education has taken important steps to disseminate better information about financial aid, there is still much that needs to be done. the hundreds of not thousands of

studies that have been conducted on financial aid will tell us what we need to do to ensure college participation for these students with financial needs. because they base their decisions on sticker prices, financial aid programs need to be simple, easily excess of all, and provide information early in the lives of students where they can make good decisions about preparing for college academically and financially. we know that grants are much more effective in promoting college participation than our student loans. for students have shown to be more averse to borrowing and they will often choose to enroll only part-time and work more hours, behavior and are detrimental to completing a bachelor's degree program. 30% of the grants awarded by state and 55% of institutional grants are awarded without any form of testing. we need to encourage states and universities to focus their support on students with

financial needs. higher education institutions need to ensure that they are doing all they can to keep tuition prices in check. i know my colleagues will be talking about that. some observers have argued that federal financial aid serves little purpose and to provide incentives for institutions to raise their prices and capture that eight. there is no credible evidence to support this proposition. during the administration of george w. bush, the department of education publishes a highly respected study on tuition price increases. it found that the primary driver of tuition price increases in public institutions where over 3/4 of our graduate students attend college, is the change in state funding as states invest less money in higher education. the institutions respond by raising prices. the study found no relationship between the availability of federal and state grants and the ensuing chore -- tuition price increases in public or private

not-for-profit institutions. as institutions raise prices, they have an obligation to ensure they increase their own financial aid program to hold harmless these neediest students. last year, our state cut michigan state university appropriation by 15%. our board raised tuition 6.9% to compensate in part for these cuts. the board also increased our own institutional grant aid by 10% with 83% of these grants dollars going to students with financial need. this is an example of what institutions need to do with their own financial aid programs. pell grants received bipartisan support from congress, one problem with the program is that the maximum boards have not kept pace with the increase in tuition price. the second problem the po grants is that most concern not aware of the grants until late in their senior we're a bicycle.

they receive a financial aid offer from an institution and it is only then they know what kind of crap that will be receiving. this is too late to help students who are deciding early in their lives if they can afford to attend college to address this problem, i would strongly encourage you to fund a small provision in the higher education opportunity act called the early federal pell grant commitment demonstration program. this innovative program would test the efficacy of awarding of grants to eligible students in the eighth grade. by awarding grants to students in middle school, they would have at least four years of high school to prepare academically, socially, and financially to attend college. the demonstration program is modeled on the state of indiana's 21st century scholars program which provides a guaranteed middle school students that the state will pay all of their tuition at any public institution in indiana. this demonstration program that was authorized by the higher

education opportunity act but not yet funded would be a modest effort. i encourage you to fund it and implemented so we may learn how we can make pell grants even more effective than they already are today. i will close by thanking you once again for the opportunity to address this committee and would be happy to take your questions after the remaining witnesses have testified. thank you. >> thank you very much. please proceed. >> good morning and i thank you for this opportunity to testify today. i have the honor of being the 15th president of iowa state university which is the iowa land grant university. here in washington and throughout the nation, we're celebrating the 150th anniversary of the act to create a land grant universities and i was the first day in the nation to accept the terms of the act. these land grant universities were created to make higher education acceptable and affordable for the working class is which is relevant to this topic we are discussing today,

the rapidly rising cost of college and the dead many of our young people care one whit -- whether the graduate or not. i had to work to pay for my education. i attended three public universities and pursued by three degrees. i worked two jobs throughout college so i could graduate without debt. it was the best investment i ever made and with that in mind, i want to make his opening statement that i hope we can all agree on that higher education is a good investment for this nation. our nation's place in the world economically and as a leader in humanitarian issues depends on having a highly educated work force and citizenry. this knowledge-driven economy, jobs are increasingly linked to the application of new knowledge in the marketplace and individuals getting it will play -- well paying secure job. that is dependent on continuing their education be hot -- beyond high school. the unemployment rate is significantly lower among those who graduate.

we want to continue to make higher education accessible and that means being affordable without being burdened by unmanageable debt loads which is the case for many of our students today. this is especially important issue at iowa state because the state of iowa as the third highest average student debt load in the nation. we are working to lessen the debt load for our students by using an aggressive four-part approach. the first part of this is holding down costs. we have a responsibility as residents of our universities to do everything we can to reduce the overhead for the education we provide. everything from light to computing to administer the support -- due to state budget cuts and to drive our cause floor, we have eliminated hundreds of positions and gain efficiencies by consolidating departments and reorganizing our administrative offices and merging major administrative

computing systems and finding more cost-effective ways of providing services such as through e-mail. we have created a savings of tens of millions of dollars annually. we're proud our tuition is the lowest of all the universities in our peer group. the second is to provide better financial a counseling and financing options for students and families. our financial award notice addresses how much the student's payments will be based on their borrowing trans. it note -- emphasize that the laws are optional and encourages the use of other methods to pay for education. we have to help our students make better financial decisions. we are only one of five universities in the nation with a financial aid counseling unit for students. we need to be more creative in helping students find alternative and lower cost pathways to pay higher degree.

we want to work with community colleges. 1/5 are new students are transfers from community colleges and increasing number of our high school students come to us and have already earned college credits. this takes -- this reduces the cost and reduce their debt load. we have established reticulation agreements with a return to college in the state of iowa. we also offer admissions, partnership programs with community college students who plan to continue their education at iowa state. the fourth part of our effort is to maximize revenue streams other than tuition to support their academic mission. the state support across the nation really needs to stop. state appropriations covered 75% of the cost of residents student's tuition and education. last year, that figure dropped to 36%, less than half of what

was in 1981. we received a modest increase from the legislature for the coming year so we're optimistic that is -- that the downward trend may have slowed. the federal government has an important role to play. pell grants have been an important part of financing a student's education especially lower cost students where affordability is a link to access propel grants help them keep pace with inflation. holding down interest rates on federal student loans is critical to making higher education more affordable and i applaud your recent efforts in doing so. we have institutions have to do more to provide funding to help students pay for their education. we recently created a major campaign that brought -- brought in one of the $67 million in pledges. $236 million of that was for student scholarships. most of the fund went into endowments.

a land grant university like i was to increase its annual scholarship dollars for students from $9 million per year in 2004, to $21 million last year. soon, we will do aggressive new fund-raising campaigns that will be focused on student scholarships. overall, thanks to institutions and some federal programs and grants, they have increased nationally by 10%. as a result, total borrowing by students and parents is 10.4% that was a decade ago. these are good trends but more needs to be done because this debt is still a manageable for many. we did not commit to this dilemma overnight. it has taken decades. we will not get out of this overnight, either. this will take a long term multifaceted approach with all the stakeholders working together, state, federal

government, working together we can make progress to making college more affordable than it has been a long time. thank you very much and i will be happy to answer any questions. >> thank you come dr.leath. please proceed. >> distinguished members of the committee, thank you for inviting me. i represent a comprehensive community college in the capital city of florida serving over 15,000 students. i appreciate the opportunity to share with you some of the actions that are college to maintain affordability of access to the american dream. i believe we are an example of the fact that college can be affordable without reducing quality. following the florida legislature's decision to fund college is at a continuation level, we chose to hold tuition, despite being given the authority to increase tuition by five%. our decision this year to hold

tuition to the same level as last year is a strong statement of what our trustees and their college leadership values. without you access to higher education and we believe access is only real for those who can afford it. keeping our tuition for a full year of college at $2,304, where one of the most affordable institutions in higher education in the country. in 2010-11, our net price was 36% lower than the national average for two-year public institutions. within the to the florida, where among the most affordable of the 28 community and state colleges and our tuition fees are roughly half those of state universities for the first two years of college. our low tuition has not negatively impact -- impacted our quality or productivity. we rank fourth nationally among

two-year institutions and a awardinga degrees. for an associate degree awarded to african-americans, we rank sixth nationally. we are above state average and retention and completion rates and have a significantly higher percentage of students to transfer to four-year institutions. local colleges, our person strategy in to keeptcc affordable by seeking efficiencies to keep our costs low and i don't want to minimize that. the one thing i would like to talk about is where i believe we have great promise in an area of the efficiency and academic planning and execution that helps students enter, remain, and complete college. i believe that hold, perhaps, as much promise in keeping college affordable as our efforts in

administrative efficiencies. there is still much to learn. this helps students avoid for paying for unnecessary courses, improve their likelihood of persistence which avoid wasting their tuition dollars, and provides them with degrees and credentials that lead to jobs that provide inappropriate return on that investment. we make extensive use of the acceleration mechanisms to save them money and expedite their time to completion. nearly 1/4 previously enrolled students to come to our college, arrive with over 20 college credits earned, have no cost. this saves them money intuition and expedite their time to complete the associate degree. we create individualized learning plans that sure they take the right course to achieve their career and academic goals. of the 600 -- of the 6713 students in the fall of 2011

with less than 18 college credits, 85% had a complete plant and 90% a career interests. we engage in continuous course redesigned to improve success rates and help students move the. her college we focus on the top 10 highest enrollment classes and gateway courses to achieve the greatest impact on student success. we believe the results of our efforts in terms of academic the efficiencies is that our students earn their degrees and a relatively timely manner. among public institutions nationwide, are crucial asian rate within three years is 10% higher than the national average i have provided more information on a number of these and other initiatives. a look forward to your any questions you may have. >> thank you very much. >> we turn to mr. snyder, please

proceed, >> distinguished committee members, i am at a statewide university college i would like to start by thanking the committee for its leadership in maintaining low student loan interest rates. the students appreciate the continuation of these low interest rates for the coming year. i want to thank the members of the committee for your support of pell grants. community colleges have a strong partnership with the federal input on pell grants as they are critical to the students attending our institutions. pell grants and low-interest rates are only parts of the college cost concerns of our students and families. we must have low-cost, high- quality options for individual student's.

i have watched the companies have gained shares of businesses by providing high-quality products at low cost for it i witnessed the emergence of toyota and the japanese auto industry and the korean car industry and china. this is a business model that is highly competitive and customer focus than in relentless pursuit of low-cost. in higher education, i found something quite different. there were routine increases in tuition, revenue model that outpaced inflation by a significant amount will focus on actual costs. when i joined i b tech in 2007, higher education did not look like a sustainable model. we made quality and efficiency changes in our plan and started to reduce internal cost and

improve outcomes. let me share some examples -- we instituted a single book store for our campuses and cap the number of textbooks required. one unified bookstore with greater purchasing power translated into fewer and less costly textbooks for our students. the centralized purchasing system led by a single executive and state what contracts in computers and data networks and furniture and copiers and telecommunications and health care. this year, we joined the state of indiana to have a single prescription management program for all state employees including higher education. we have simplified our registration of financial process for students. like when you had to go six or seven offices to enroll in school, we instituted a one-stop system. sitting i forvy tech is good for the students.

we have launched an accelerated program calledasap. students can get a two-year transferrable degree and one year attending five days per week for 11 consecutive months. our graduation rate is three times the average of the national average. we created one of the greatest online offerings in the country reaching almost half of our students. 8000 students take on-line courses during the year. dual credit students exit 25,000, saving parents more than $12,000 of tuition costs because they are taking courses in high school. we have worked with our state legislature to ensure that credits that transfer and look at florida as a real role model which we hope to emulate but we have more work to do in this area. let me close by giving new these facts -- in the past two years with

the savings we have generated, the actual cost for a full-time student ivy texas dropped in real dollars since 2008. the cost and this segment of society as far outstripped inflation but the income growth of most americans. the concern for my homestead i have is the sad fact that the four-year residential experiences out of reach for at the hoosier families. community colleges, we have focused in the past on low-cost and open access. we need to shift to a completion agenda while maintaining power low-cost. the community college has become a critical part of the affordability solution. thank you very much. >> dr.twig, welcome back thank you for inviting me to testify. >> i am president and ceo for

the center for academic transformation, nonprofit organization founded in 1993. the center's mission is to demonstrate how effective information technology can improve student learning outcomes and reduce instructional costs. we focus on undergraduate higher education. everyone seems to agree that both costs on the price of higher education are too high. the primary driver of tuition prices has been changes in state appropriations. regardless of who pays what proportion, states, the federal government, were students and their families, the overall cost implication has risen well beyond reason. without changes in overall productivity, these costs will continue to rise. unlike other industries where information technology has been used to change the way we do

business, to reduce costs while increasing quality of service, higher education by and large has not been able to do so. i say this can be done and higher education as well. for the past 13 years, our center has worked in partnership with more than 200 colleges and universities demonstrating how course design using technology can change the way they do business to achieve quality improvement as well as dramatic reductions in cost. altogether, we have produced more than 150 large-scale redesigns which impact hundreds of thousands of students each year. one of the results we have achieved thus far -- this has reduced instructional costs by 37% on average. the savings range from below 9% to a high of 77%. these courses produce a cost savings of $15 million per year.

reducing the structural cost by 37% in higher education is a significant achievement. especially when everyone in higher education said it cannot be done. what about quality? each of the participating organizations has conducted a rigorous evaluation of student learning, comparing the outcomes from traditional ways of teaching to the redesign teaching methods. the results of those evaluations show that student learning outcomes have improved from 72% of the redesign. with the remaining 28% showing learning equivalent to traditional formats. other causes of outcomes include increased increase in rates, improved retention, and student satisfaction with a number of instruction. i want to say more about these three designs. most of these redesigneds focus on internet recourses.

undergraduate enrollment in the united states are concentrated heavily in only a few academic areas. just 25 courses generate about 60% of all enrollment and community colleges. those same 25 courses generate about 35% of enrollment at for this year institutions. this translates to about 42% of all undergraduate enrollment. consequently, these 25 courses consume a substantial amount of institutional resources. completion of these courses is critical for students for a degree. failure in these courses which range from 15% and our research university to 40% at our comprehensive institutions and are as high as 50% adder community colleges can contribute heavily to overall institutional dropouts between the first and second year. making improvements in these key critical courses have a direct impact on students retention and

completion. we have worked with all types of institutions, research universities, community colleges, and private institutions in all areas of the country to demonstrate that these techniques can be used across the board in higher education. we have also used in all undergraduate disciplined is to demonstrate that the redesign is applicable to all disciplines. i written testimony discusses in detail the techniques we use to achieve these accomplishments. i wanted to emphasize the three key ideas that our redesigned methodology as -- this most students from a passive learning stance, listening to a lecture while someone is talking at them which is the norm in most freshman courses and the cause of high failure rates, to a much more active engagement and learning. each of these redesigns uses high quality interactive

instructional software where appropriate and learning place. faculty members tasks would be dealing with software so they can deal with more students. our methodology encourages college faculty and administrators to think outside the box, to sit down and examine who does what and why and decide where they can make changes that lead to improve student learning and reduce instructional costs. i would be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> thank you very much. i sat through a lot of those lectures when i was in college. >> did you give any? >> thank you all very much we will have a round of 5 minutes questions. we'll start with you h dr.eller. your testimony says to focus on

need-based aids. the percentage of students receiving merit-based grow rapidly from 1995-2008 that by 2008, it was equal to the percentage of students receiving needed debt. based this said even despite budget cuts, it continued to offer merit-based to attract higher achieving students without considering financial aid. can you describe what we can do to encourage those to use their limited resources and n moreeed- based aid and why it is important to do so? he said 30% of grants of state have no means testing. why is it important and what can we do to encourage them to focus on ne more oned-based. >> if we are going to achieve president obama cost bowl, there are many organizations to feel the same way, if we are

appointed to that, we have to focus on those students who are on the margins going to college and this is predominantly low and moderate income students. students from upper income families are going to college and are generally successful and once they aren't there, they don't need assistance from the federal government and the state government. focusing the financial page on needy students will have the biggest bang for the buck whether we're talking about federal aid, state aid, or institutional. age aid. subsidizing students who would go to college and you will not get more graduate. financial means testing is so critical. if you go back to the 1990's, state grants committee it once was. institutional grants were awarded a m based onerit now a

hasflipped. >> why the big shift? >> a big reason is the competitiveness among institutions and they have realized that if they use their financial aid not to insure that poor students committed to cause but instead to try to attract high-achieving academic students which come from but --, predominantly from upper-income families because of the relation between social class and performance are the kinds of tests to award merit krantz. because of that relationship, you'll get more money -- give more money to hire it comes to this and that has been a big driver of white institutions given to the enrollment management business rather than insuring college access for financially needy students. >> thank you. dr. leath, getting to the debt and the loans. i read that you had survey of

your students and found that one in a don't realize they owe student loans while two in five don't realize how much they owe. i expect this is pervasive on campuses throughout the nation. how do we explain this misunderstanding and the misinformation? what we need to do to reverse this trend? dr. murdaugh mentioned that tallahassee, if the student barrault's more than $13,000, they don't get any new awards until they sit down with financial counseling or something like that. is this something we need to do? >> we found we definitely need to do it. the fact that 40% of our students does not know how much they owe is alarming. some of it comes and the fact that they have no financial literacy. their parents handle financing. they did not see those numbers

constantly in from them of what their obligations would be when they finish. we need to give them those numbers so they know how interested they are, how much they will owe when they finish. we partnered closely with the student body at the university to get students on board to push this financial literacy program. it is one of only a handful and the country and is being well received and is making a huge difference and the students are responsive. nationwide, the more financial literacy we give our students early in the college career, the better off they will be in college and in life. >> you are one in five of college in the country of having a financial counseling department? >> we are teaching a course similar to the one we have an alcohol awareness.

when they are away from home, there are a number of things they need to be educated on in terms of personal responsibility whether it is a alcohol or financial responsibility. it makes a huge difference. >> i have more questions but my time is up. >> you mentioned that you worked two jobs for college. i am curious if you and president snyder find as many kids working today at school? >> no, i think there is a tendency now where a lot of parents give their children some i opportunity and tend not to the work opportunities. we still have a large number of our students come from areas where they have great work ethics. if we could tie some of our financial aid to programs like work study programs and co-ops,

i think we would be better off because we would lower student dead and give them work experience. it is a bigger problem that a lot of schools have everywhere. >> i think you would find that in general, the experiences are different across community colleges. a significant percentage of our students are in fact working and come to school part time. in general, it is a distinct difference between a community college demographics -- democratic and university demographics. >> do you find the true, mr. snyder? >> ,stan jhones who testified earlier this week, talked about the typical student going to residential school, about 70% of our students work and go to school part-time and excel river program i mentioned with its deals with young high-school graduates, they signed a pledge not to work for that first year

and we find that has a huge boost in completion rates. it is a matter of family access to cost and what they can afford. >> you each mention the importance of the pell grant program. and number of changes have been made to the student programs over the last few years to preserve that maximum pell grants. how have these changes impacted your institutions? >> for community colleges, what we see going forward is that the pell grant is equivalent to a free lunch. if 50% of the country is going p to beell eligible, it will not be sustainable. community colleges in this group i am part of what to help you have a seat at the table, we are nipping around the edges of the pell grant and perhaps that hurts our students because we

will hit more of the edges than other institutions. we recognize we have to clearly think about this if we're going to reach the attainment levels of korea and canada. >> we have seen a dramatic increase in the number of students, the percentage of students, that are benefiting p fromell. --from pell. the sustainability needs to be reviewed but it is changing will people's lives. we can control tuition price in collaboration with our legislatures, hopefully, at the end of the day, you are making a real difference in real people's lives for the fund and ofpell. >> four-year institutions? >> we have about 20 per 6% of our students on pell grants and they have been helpful especially as affordability has

been an issue. we have had quite a bit of push back and lack of understanding of why students could not participate. we've got quite a bit of push back in an agrarian state like iowa. veterinary students are no longer eligible. we understand the realities of the money and the funding. some liberalization of terms would help. >> thank you. dr. twigg, can you talk more about how the redesign works? >> certainly, in the redesign process, the course that is taught as a whole is redesigned by a group of faculty members. lsu may offer 40 sections and work as the -- with the course as a call. they say every professor has to

do the same thing, stand up, talk, create a syllabus, grid the test, etc. there are some things technology can do better. on the market now, there are very sophisticated instructional software programs typically in mathematics and the sciences. as the present the materials to students, give them examples and practice and show them what they are doing wrong and tell them where they need to alleviate. they can work for the software being held for the teacher when needed. it all floats a lot of the tasks that individual students would be doing one by one. a professor becomes more of a monitor of student progress intervening when necessary. so many of the tasks that the professors used to do individually like a grading, that allows the professor to handle twice as many students in some cases. some cases.