>> tonight on c-span, president obama and secretary of state john kerry deliver remarks on the situation in syria. cio president richard trumka. later, the u.s. chamber of commerce discusses the economy. as an obama spoke about the u.s. response to syria's chemical use earlier this month. he said he is still deciding on action his administration will take. he made comments in the cabinet room at the white house. this is the minutes. -- what you minutes. -- 20 minutes.

>> everybody all set up? obviously i'm grateful to have my fellow presidents here as well as the vice president. before i begin, i want to say a few words about the situation in syria. as you have seen, today we released our unclassified assessment detailing with high confidence that the syrian regime carried out a chemical weapons attack that killed well over a thousand people, including hundreds of children. this follows horrific images that shocked us all. this kind of attack is a challenge to the world. we cannot accept a world where women and children and innocent civilians are gassed on a terrible scale. this kind of attack threatens our national security interests by violating well-established international norms against the use of chemical weapons, by further threatening friends and allies of ours in the region, like israel and turkey and

jordan, and it increases the risk that chemical weapons will be used in the future and fall into the hands of terrorists who might use them against us. so i have said before and i meant what i said, that the world has an obligation to make sure that we maintain the norm against the use of chemical weapons. i have not made a final decision about various actions that might be taken to help enforce that norm. but as i have already said, i have had my military and our team looked at a wide range of options. we have consulted with allies, we have consulted with congress, we have been in conversations with all the interested parties, and in no event are we

considering any kind of military action that would involve boots on the ground, that would involve a long-term campaign, but we are looking at the possibility of a limited, narrow act that would help make sure that not only syria, but others around the world, understand that the international community cares about maintaining this chemical weapons ban and norm. we are not considering any open- ended commitment. we are not considering any boots-on-the-ground approach. what we will do is consider options that need to narrow concern around chemical weapons, understanding there is not going to be a solely military solution to the conflict and tragedy taking place in syria.

and i will continue to consult closely with congress in addition to the release of the unclassified document. we are providing a classified briefing to congressional staffs today and will offer that same classified briefing to members of congress, as well as our international partners. i will continue to provide updates to the american people as we get more information. with that, i want to welcome the presidents to the white house. these countries that they represent all share a very deep tie to the united states, both as allies, and because of the people relations we have with these countries. i want to thank all the presidents who are here and their nations for all that they do to promote democracy, not

only in their own country, but around the world. the baltics are among our most reliable allies in nato, and our commitment to their security is rock solid. our soldiers sacrificed together in afghanistan, and the baltic ports continue to support our troops as we transition the nato mission. today we will spend time talking about our shared commitments to the transatlantic trade and investment partnership negotiations, which will add jobs in the baltics and the united states. we are working on development assistance and projects, including building institutions and strengthening society in the emerging democracies in eastern europe and central asia. we will obviously have discussions about our nato relationship and the security concerns that we share together. so again, i have had occasions to meet with all three presidents on a wide variety of settings.

they have been outstanding friends of the united states. we are proud of them. i want to thank each of them for their leadership. we know how far estonia, latvia, and lithuania have come in the past decades, so i want to give each of these leaders an opportunity to say a few words. we will start with the president. >> thank you. i would like to begin by thanking president obama for inviting us here and we are quite grateful to the administration -- to the united states and you personally for your leadership and support. the main issue on our agenda today is global and regional security and the question on everyone's mind is the situation in syria. for estonia, the use of chemical weapons is deplorable. the attack demands a response. violations cannot be overlooked.

when it comes to our security, we appreciate the commitment the united states has shown to our region and europe as a whole, and we attach great importance to continued u.s. engagement in european security. the transatlantic security link is unique and enduring, as are the common values that underpin it. we take our responsibility to our common defense seriously. we will remain committed to nato's mission in afghanistan. we have spent 2% of our gdp on defense. we believe in maintaining a strong transatlantic link in energy and security. i look forward to exchanging views, as i look forward to discussing what we can do together internationally to promote our common values, democracy, human rights, rule of law. we cooperate with countries that lie to the east and south of us

ukraine, moldova, georgia, tunisia as well, to name a few. i'm sure that this global operation aimed at helping countries transition from authoritarian to democratic rule will be expanded in the future. recently we have heard a lot of talk about events. today we are on the verge of a new rebalancing of the u.s. focus, this time to the nordic baltic region, our region being one of the most secure, stable, and prosperous in europe. we are proud to be part of it, proud of the partnership we have with the united states here, just as we are proud of our alliance and enduring friendship of the american people. >> i would like to add that the regional security -- we're talking about economic security, and also on energy security. the united states plays a very serious role.

we are open to have nato as a center of excellence for energy security, and with the united states, for nuclear security. this is important because we are on the borders of nato with other not-so-secure regions, and the involvement of the united states is so important for our region. as the country in which resides today the european union's council, we are engaged in starting negotiations on an agreement between the united states and european union, and i'm happy that we got one thing and now we are waiting for a second one, and i think it is generational challenges and opportunities for all of us for the united states and europe to move past these kinds of relations and to have very efficient outcomes. we would hope we will be able to

do this. together with the military, new challenges, we are trying to battle new economic challenges together with the cyber challenges, which we're facing all the time. i want to say that everything, every day practically we see this aggressiveness, and new forms of challenges our region is facing. i can also confirm that nordic and baltic cooperation is a new phenomenon, a unique phenomenon in europe, which is very much reliable, and you can comment on that as being strategic partners for the united states. >> it is important for the american people --

[indiscernible] for the past 15 years when the baltic-american charter was signed, a dramatic moment for us, we are thankful to you during your presidential time. the u.s. led military exercises in the baltic recently. also to afghanistan -- [indiscernible]

of course we see the future together at the same time being very active in europe. we are working and thank you for supporting us to become members. our thought was to look for new possibilities in europe and using past experience, and also to seek partnerships, which is particularly important in relations with afghanistan. to deliver this country -- [indiscernible] lastly -- but at the same time, we felt much more at having this

good neighbors set forward and such partners as the u.s., we can move forward quietly, and today's meeting is a demonstration -- of the united states in the baltics. thank you. >> on syria -- [indiscernible] >> we are still in the planning process, and obviously in consultations with congress as well as the international community are very important.

my preference obviously would have been the international community already acted forcefully, but what we have seen, so far at least, is an incapacity at this point for the security council to move forward in the face of a clear violation of international norms. i recognize that all of us, here in the united states, in great britain, and many parts of the world, there is a certain weariness given afghanistan, a certain weariness given suspicion of any military action post-iraq, and i appreciate that. it is important for us to recognize that when over a

thousand people are killed, including hundreds of innocent children through the use of a weapon that 98% or 99% of humanity says should not be used even in war and there is no action, then we are sending a signal that that international norm does not mean much. and that is a dangerous thing to our national security. obviously, if and when we make a decision to respond, there are a whole host of considerations that i have to take into account in terms of how effective it is and given the kinds of options we are looking at, it would be very limited and would not involve a long-term commitment or a major operation.

we are confident we can provide congress all the information and get all the input that they need, and we are very mindful of that, and we can have serious conversations with our allies and friends around the world about this, but ultimately we do not want the world to be paralyzed. and frankly, part of the challenge we end up with here is that a lot of people think something should be done, but nobody wants to do it. and that is not an unusual situation, and that is part of what allows over time the erosion of these kinds of international provisions unless somebody says no. when the world says we are not going to use chemical weapons, we mean it, and it would be tempting to leave to others to do it. and i think i have shown consistently and said consistently my strong

preference for multilateral action whenever possible. but it is not in the national security interests of the united states to ignore clear violations of these kinds of international norms. the reason is because there are a whole host of international norms that are important to us. we have currently rules in place dealing with the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. we have international norms that have been violated by certain countries, and united nations has put sanctions in place, but if there is a sense that over time nobody is willing actually to enforce them, then people do not take them seriously. i am very clear that the world generally is more wary. certainly, the united states has

gone through over a decade of war. the american people understandably want us to be ofused on the business rebuilding our economy here, putting people back to work. i assure you that nobody and that being moral or -- more war weary than me. as aof our obligation leader in the world is making regimeat when you have a that is willing to use weapons that are prohibited by international norms on their own people, including children, that they are held to account. >> mr. president [inaudible] >> about an hour or so before the president putting comments, secretary of state john kerry

also spoke about the situation in syria. >> president obama has spent many days consulting with congress and talking with leaders around the world about the situation in syria. last night he asked all of us on his team to consult with the leaders of congress as well. including the leadership of the congressional national security committees. he asked us to consult about what we know regarding the horrific chemical weapons attack in the damascus suburbs last week. i will tell you as someone who has spent three decades in the united states congress, i know that consultation is the right way for a president to approach a decision of when and how and if to use military force. it's important to ask the tough

questions and get the tough answers before taking action. not just afterwards. i believe it is also important to discuss this directly with the american people. that is our responsibility. to talk with the citizens who have entrusted all of us in the administration and in the congress with the responsibility for their security. that is why this morning's release of our government's unclassified estimate of what took place in syria is so important. his findings are as clear as they are compelling. i am not asking you to take my word for it. read for yourself, everyone, those listening, all of you, read for yourselves the evidence from thousands of sources, evidence that is already available.

read for yourselves the verdict reached by our intelligence community about the chemical weapons attack the assad inflicted on the opposition and on neighborhoods in the damascus suburbs on the early morning of august 21. our intelligence community has carefully reviewed and rewritten -- rereviewed information regarding this attack. and i will tell you it has done so war than mindful of the iraq experience. we will not repeat that moment. we have taken unprecedented steps to declassify and make facts available to people who can judge for themselves. but still, in order to protect sources and methods, some of what we know will only be released to members of congress, the representatives of the american people.

that means some things we do know we can't talk about publicly. so what do we know we can talk about? well, we know the assad regime has the largest chemical weapons program in the entire middle east. we know that the regime has used those weapons multiple times this year. and has used them on a smaller scale, but used them against its own people, including not very far from where the attack happened on wednesday. we know that the regime was specifically determined to rid the damascus suburbs of the opposition and it was frustrated it had not succeeded in doing so. we know for three days before the attack, the syrian regime's chemical weapons personnel were

on the ground in the area making preparations. and we know the syrian regime elements were told to prepare for the attack by putting on gas masks and taking precautions associated with chemical weapons. we know these were specific instructions. we know where the rockets were launched from and at what time. we know where they landed and when. we know rockets came only from regime-controlled areas and went only to opposition-contested neighborhoods. and we know, as does the world, 90 minutes later all hell broke loose in the social media. with our own eyes we have seen thousands of reports from 11

separate sites in damascus, all of them show and report victims with breathing difficulties, people twitching with spasms, coughing, rapid heartbeats, foaming at the mouth. unconsciousness. death. and we know it was ordinary syrian citizens who reported all of these horrors. just as important, we know what the doctors and the nurses who treated them did not report. not a scratch, not a shrapnel wound, not a gunshot wound. we saw rows of dead wind up in burial shrouds. white linen unstained by a single drop of blood. instead of being tucked safely in their beds at home, we saw children lying side-by-side, sprawled on a hospital floor.

all of them dead from assad's gas and surrounded by parents and grandparents who had suffered the same fate. the united states government knows at least 1429 syrians were killed in this attack, including at least 426 children. even the first responders, the doctors, nurses who try to save them, they became victims themselves. we saw them gasping for air. terrified their own lives were in danger. this is the indiscriminate, inconceivable horror of chemical weapons. this is what assad did to his own people. we also know many disturbing details about the aftermath.

we know a senior official, who knew about the attack, confirmed that chemical weapons were used by the regime. reviewed the impact and actually was afraid they would be discovered. we know this. and we know what they did next. i personally called the foreign minister and i said to him, if your nation has nothing to hide, let the united nations in immediately and give the inspectors the unfettered access so they have the opportunity to tell your story. instead, for four days they shelled the neighborhoods in order to destroy evidence, bombarding block after block at a rate four times higher they had over the previous 10 days. and when the un inspectors finally gained access, that

access was restricted and controlled. in all of these things i have listed, in all of these things that we know, all of them, the american intelligence community has high confidence, high confidence. this is common sense. this is evidence. these are facts. the primary question is really no longer what do we know. the question is what do we, we collectively, what are we going to do about it? as previous storms in history have gathered when unspeakable crimes were within our power to stop them, we have been warned against the temptations of looking the other way. history is full of leaders who have warned against inaction and indifference and especially against silence when it mattered most.

our choices had grave consequences and are choice today has great consequences. it matters that 100 years ago in response to the horror and inhumanity of world war i the civilized world agreed chemical weapons should never be used again. that was the resolve then. that began almost a century of effort to create a clear red line for the international community. it matters today we are working as an international community to rid the world of the worst weapons. that is why we signed agreements like the start treaty, the chemical weapons convention, which more than 180 countries, including iran, iraq, and lebanon have signed on to. it matters to our security and

the security of our allies. it matters to israel. it matters to our friends, jordan, turkey, lebanon. all of whom live a stiff breeze away from damascus. it matters to all of them where the syrian chemical weapons are and if unchecked they can cause greater damage and destruction to those friends. and it matters deeply to the credibility and the future interests of the united states of america and our allies. it matters because a lot of other countries whose policies challenge these international norms are watching. they are watching. they want to see whether the united states and our friends mean what we say. it is directly related to our credibility and whether countries still believe the united states when it says something.

they are watching to see if syria can get away with it. because maybe they too can put the world at risk. make no mistake, in an increasingly complicated world of sectarian and religious extremist violence, what we choose to do or not to do matters in real ways to our own security. some cite the risk of doing things. we need to ask, what is the risk of doing nothing? it matters because if we choose to live in a world where a thug like bashar al-assad can cast ownen gas thousands of his people with -- can gas thousands of his own people with impunity, even after the united states and our allies said no, and in the world does nothing about it, there will be no end to the test of our resolve and the dangers that will flow from those others who believe they can do as they

will. this matters also beyond the limits of syria's borders. it's about whether iran will now feel emboldened in the absence of action to obtain nuclear weapons. it's about hezbollah and north korea and every other terrorist group or dictator that might contemplate the use of weapons of mass destruction. will they remember the assad regime was stopped from those weapons? or will they remember that the world stood aside and created impunity? our concern is not just about some far off land, oceans away. that is not what this is about. our concern with the cause of the defenseless people of syria is about choices that would directly affect our role in the world and our interest in the world.

it is also profoundly about who we are. we are the united states of america. we are the country that has tried, not always successfully, always tried to honor a set of universal values around which we have organized our lives and our aspirations. this crime against conscious, this crime against humanity, this crime against the most fundamental principles of international community, against the norm of the international community, this matters to us and it matters to who we are and it matters to leadership and our credibility in the world. it matters if nothing is done. it matters if the world speaks out in condemnation and then nothing happens.

america should feel confident and gratified we are not alone in our condemnation and we are not alone in our will to do something about it and to act. the world is speaking out. many friends stand ready to respond. the arab league pledged "to hold to the syrian regime fully responsible for this crime." the organization for islamic cooperation said we needed "to hold the syrian government legally and morally accountable for this heinous crime." turkey said there is no doubt the regime is responsible. our oldest ally the french said the regime "committed this vile action and it is an outrage to use weapons that the community

has banned for the last 90 years in all international conventions." the australian prime minister said he did no want history to record we were "a party to turning such a blind eye." so now that we know what we know, the question is what will we do? let me emphasize, president obama, we believe in the united nations. we have great respect for the inspectors who endured regime gunfire and instructions to -- obstructions to their investigation. but as ban ki-moon has said again and again the un's investigation will not affirm who used these chemical weapons. that is not the mandate of the investigation. they will only affirm whether such weapons were used. by the definition of their own

mandate, the u.n. can't tell us anything we have not shared with you this afternoon or that we don't already know. and because of the guaranteed russian obstructionism of any action through the u.n. security council, the u.n. can't galvanize the world to act as a should. so let me be clear, we will continue talking to the congress, talking to our allies, and talking to the american people. president obama will ensure that the united states of america makes our own decisions on our own timelines based on our values and our interests. we know that after a decade of conflict the american people are tired of war. believe me, i am too. but fatigue does not absolve us of our responsibility. just longing for peace does not

bring it about. history will judge us all harshly if we turn to a blind eye to a dictator's use of weapons of mass destruction, against all common understanding of decency. these things we do know. we also know we have a president who does what he says he will do. and he has said very clearly whatever decision he makes in syria will bear no resemblance to afghanistan, iraq, or even libya. it will not involve any boots on the ground. it won't be open-ended. it will not assume responsibility for a civil war that is already well underway. the president has been clear -- any action will be limited in response to ensure the use of

chemical weapons is held accountable. and ultimately, ultimately we are committed. we remain committed. we believe it is the primary objective, to have a diplomatic process that can resolve this through negotiation. because we know there is no ultimate military solution. it has to be political. it has to happen at the negotiating table. we are deeply committed to getting there. so that is what we know. that is what the leaders of congress now know. that is what the american people need to know. that is at the core of the decisions that must now be made for the security of our country and for the promise of a planet where the most heinous weapons must never again be used against the most vulnerable people.

thank you. >> a day of statements from members john boehner. that is from a spokesman in john boehner's office. meanwhile, carl levin issuing a statement reading in part

by the way, that report that was issued today from the white house on the report, the use of chemical weapons in syria is available on our homepage at c- span.org. facebook.comgo to /cspan and leave your thoughts. another view saying we should help jordan with their refugee problems and keep the trade routes open. the rest is bluster. again, facebook.com/c-span. you can also call in on the next washington journal with michael hirsch joining us tomorrow. he will be discussing the latest developments from syria. talksthat, damien paletta about the upcoming debate

between the white house and congress over the debt limit. in mid-october, the government reaches its debt ceiling. " tomorrown journal morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern. >> the ark of the moral universe may bend towards justice, but it doesn't bend on its own. to secure the gains this country has made requires constant vigilance, not complacency. whether it is by challenging those who erect new barriers to help for ensuring that these carols -- the scales of justice were equally for all and not just a pipeline from underfunded schools to overcrowded jails, it requires vigilance. >> this begins on c-span, the 50th anniversary of the march on washington starting saturday morning at 10:00 a.m. eastern. five sunday on c-span2, calls and comments for ben shapiro at noon on book tv.

the last all sail warship built by the u.s. navy. sunday at 7 a.m. eastern and pacific. >> now, afl-cio president richard trumka talks about his union's agenda. also about danielle and and larry summers, to potential successors to ben bernanke. mr. trumka spoke to reporters at the christian science monitor breakfast for one hour. >> here we go. i am dave cook from the monitor. thanks for coming.

our guest is richard trumka, president of the afl-cio. he has brought a guest that he will introduce. he grew up in pennsylvania and followed his father and grandfather into the minds. he worked his way through penn state and earned a law degree from villanova. in 1982, he was elected president of the united mine workers of america. -- it was a job not without risks. i read that he and his wife were married in a small private ceremony after a threat on his life wanted a large public wedding to be canceled. he survived and went on to serve three terms. be secretary-n to treasurer of the afl-cio and became the youngest person to hold that position where he served for 15 years. he was elected president in september 2009. so much for biography, now to the portion of our program. we are on the record. fees, no live blogging or

tweeting. no means of filing while the breakfast is underway. no embargo when the session is over. c-span and fox have agreed not to use video of the session for at least one hour after the session. as you heard me say abilityone, if you would like to ask a question -- ad nauseum, do the traditional thing. opening comment, then questions from around the table. >> first of all, thanks for posting. i want to thank the christian science monitor for this. i think this is my fifth time. i have enjoyed it very much each time. i want to thank each one of you for coming. guest.with me a special -- came to the united states when she was eight years old.

she came from bolivia. 16, after of completing an emerging leaders program, she became the vice of the latin american student association and furthered her involvement by organizing the first-ever dream summit in arlington county where she spoke out publicly about her undocumented status. in the been instrumental dream movement all along and she wrote a beautiful column that -- poem that i have framed in my office. -- has lived through a number of things. of the people who lived through the fear of having your parents disappear. in fact, one day her dad didn't

come home. he had been detained and her parents, her sister, two sisters , siblings and her mother were terrified. she had to work through all of that. just another example of why our policy cannot allow families to be divided and have the threat of that division hanging over their head on a daily basis so they live in constant fear and anxiety. she is with us today. i want to thank her for being ,ith me, but more importantly the courage you have sown and the leader you -- leadership you have shown. i will try to be relatively brief. i will make a few comments and then we can open everything up for questions.

we are about to embark on labor day. are is an incredible -- we going to celebrate the incredible contributions of america's working people across the country. there will be over 200 plants, labor day -- events, labor day events ranging from breakfast parades to festivals and concerts. we celebrate through the sweat and sacrifice and innovation of working people that built this country. fix it when its broken, make it run every night. -- put it to bed every night rather. unfortunately, there is still a group of people out there that will be on the job on labor day. it will be business as usual. they keep trying to get to the american dream but it has been elusive.

the oecd did a study in 2005 other industrialized countries. we were 13 when it came to upward mobility. i'm sure that has dropped since then because of the recession and whatnot. we still have most americans working harder and longer. their wages are still stagnated. the job creation we see is primarily in the low-wage industry. we still have the exploitation of aspiring citizens who are in unsafework conditions. that is where we find ourselves. so, we will be heading to the afl-cio convention and our convention offers us a time quite frankly to take some ready bold and decisive action to answer the

challenges of working people in the unions today and in the future. as a time not for business as usual because of the challenges and changes that working people are facing. those challenges offer us great opportunities. we are taking a serious look at where we need to go, not just wholabor but all of us believe in a rising future of shared prosperity. this convention will be our most innovative and most diverse in history. a very exciting time, we are opening up doors to our progressive allies in the community. international guests and labor activists, academics, young ,eople, senior citizens everybody has gotten a chance to come in and participate in the .uild up to this convention

we have to change ourselves to meet the changing needs of workers right now. we will have over 40 action sessions that will be led by people from around the united states and around the world. so we can talk about strategy, what we need to do to change and how we can work together more effectively. quite frank way, this is a very exciting time for us because i think the first time where we have brought in only progressive groups together. let's think together, strategize together, plan together. ultimately, let's execute the plans together. we are pretty excited about it. next week, it will start next sunday and go sunday, monday, tuesday, wednesday. we are excited about that. so while we are celebrating what we have earned on labor day,

afterwards we are going to be fighting for what we have earned from here on out. i will leave it with that. >> that was a wonderful conclusion. a couple bits of follow-up to a fascinating interview that you did with our colleague susan. you told her that the labor movement today is in crisis. are obviously a variety of statistics to his -- to support that. can you -- have you try and solve the crisis, would you be willing to give us your view, a brief view of what caused the crisis? >> i think it is a multitude of things. first, i will point the finger at us. pace't think that we kept with the changing economy and the change in environment, both

economic and political environments. i think that we did not keep pace, particularly with young people. i think there needs and the type of economy they will be facing are significantly different than the needs of 25, 30, 40 years ago. i don't think we kept pace with that. we are beginning to reverse that. am of it is internal. much of it is external. you have employers who will take advantage of every loophole to prevent people from having a voice on the job. you have political parties that see us as the last line of defense and they have come after us at the federal level, the state level, at the local level and every level that they can. the fact that the supreme court speech money with free and that has allowed corporations to dominate policy

and politics in the united states. to the danger of democracy. all of those things i think have and put us in the state that we are. >> let me ask you one other. i want to ask you about the affordable care act. to quote something you said to susanne, you said that in giving with the affordable care act, "we made some stupid mistakes." and united food workers sent a letter sending -- saying the act will "shatter our hard-earned health benefits and destroy the foundation of the 40 hour workweek that is the backbone of the american middle class." do you believe with that conclusion? >> let me talk about health care more broadly.

in thelth care system united states is broken. it was broken and continues to and extends to be broken. we pay twice as much for health and our results are half as effective as other nations. we have millions of people that work hard every day and weren't getting the health care that they deserve. they should have, i believe as a matter of right. every other industrialized country figured out a way to do it and we hadn't. the system needed to be changed. the affordable care act is a major step in the right direction. i said yes, we made some mistakes along the way. i will outline a couple of those. with the we did away public option. that to me was a mistake. percent of our

health care markets in this country considered highly concentrated. that means they either have one or possibly two bank competitors in that market. we needed something to break that up, to create a real sense of competition. the other mistake that we made is, we took away government's power to use its buying power to drive than the price of prescription drugs. every other country in the world does that. andtatutorily gave that up frankly, got very little in return for it. the act is a major step in the right direction because it brings health care to a lot of people. it still needs to between. -- to be tweaked. to follow up on that, an increasing number of local unions have -- about the health

care law. i am wondering if you had any progress getting that change. have you gotten any assurance from the administration that they will seriously look at changing that? >> you are talking about national unions or local unions? >> national unions, but an increasing number of even local ones are complaining. >> we have been working with the administration to find solutions to what i think are inadvertent holes in the act. when the act was put together, it wasn't thought completely through. so we worked on a daily basis. i am hopeful that we will get something done in the near future. >> so they haven't told you know? >> now. we are working to try to solve the problems just like they try to solve problems with employers , with small business, large business, different groups.

we are working as well to fix the problems. >> can you tell us about other options? the options to change it? some of the alternatives, how would it work? >> i can tell you until we have it done. abouthing we are talking is a moving target. i can't say one thing, you reported, and tomorrow it is obsolete. we are working on a daily basis. we have a new labor secretary. tell me what you are expecting from him and what you think his top priorities ought to be. , i think tom is going to make an outstanding labor secretary. do is tont him to enforce the law and protect workers rights. that is the charge that he has. i have every reason to believe given his history and what he has done what he was in other

positions that he would do that. i think he will do that. i think he will work to try to create safe and healthy places. i think he will work to try to correct some of the misclassification that are out there. i think he will work to couples create jobs -- to help us create jobs. he will behink hampered by the fact that he went through a difficult confirmation process? >> no. i think he is now the secretary of labor. it ultimately worked out and the vote was -- he got confirmed. once you are confirmed, you are confirmed. it is like the president. 50 point election, you are the president. yourn you tell us about position on the keystone and how that might strain alliances with environmental groups?

>> anytime you're bringing you'rer a coalition going to have places where you disagree and where you agree. what we are trying to do is create a process where we have the ability to sit down and talk about those things and we can minimize. if we disagree, we go our separate ways, but what we don't want to happen is that when we disagree, it shatters the relationship. the other thing that we don't want is i don't want it to continue to be my issues and your issues. that doesn't get us anywhere. those issues are seamless. i support your issues, you support my issues. so that we can change the economy and make it a shared prosperity it really does work for everyone. if you look at what has happened to the economy in the past, 60%

of all income gains have gone to the top one percent. over the last decade, almost 100% of all income gains have gone to the top one percent. the trend has been more and more to go to the top one percent. none of us, none of the progressive groups are large or capable enough to make change so that we can have shared prosperity. it is going to take all of us. that is what we are trying to do. bring everybody together and i am not going to let one issue or two issues where we agree or don't agree to shatter that. the ultimate thing is an economy that works for everyone where we have shared prosperity and people at the bottom of the spectrum can actually get ahead as well. >> do you worry about the loss -- ifus when asked about

you are doing things now -- >> doing what? pensions?h care, more that is topical today. we're still fighting the same fights. i don't worry about the lack of focus. the is the focus. >> thank you. was involved in union politics in a big way, wereting those he felt key. swepthe democrats wisconsin on a tidal wave graded my question is, is that kind of approach,

targeting those still on the agenda today? governor snyder of michigan and governor walker of wisconsin would be top targets? >> well, look. holdill are going to everybody accountable. that is politicians of both parties. obviously, those who have proven to be hostile towards the interests of working people are going to get heightened focus. some of those governors that you talked about, you could add several more. they're going to get -- from ohio, several others. they have been hostile towards working people. hostile towards democracy itself.

they're going to get hot and -- they're going to get heightened focus. the capability to play in 50 states. areas aslay in as many we can. obviously, the senate is important. we will do, we will build a side -- we will build a firewall around the senate. the house is very important because on things like immigration, immigration reform, the only thing standing between us and immigration reform is john boehner and the house republicans. they will get heightened focus. we are going to be playing significantly in the states --re the battles are being where the battles are taking place. we'll be playing in every one of those places. we will play in states where probably we haven't played a significant role as we should. texas will be one of them.

>> you will be behind wendy davis. >> will be in texas in a bigger way. >> you mentioned secretary perez and your expectations. if you're looking at -- to join a fight instances that he will face that tell us about how we will proceed. what are you looking for. >> and he is being helpful now. he's in the middle of the talk on health care. he is the one solving the problems we have in health care. very important, very instrumental. we will see what he does on classification, and misclassification. on prevailing wage. things like that. he has his record. his record shows he has been willing to stand up and support working people.

we believe he will continue to do that. i think he will be more aggressive. i think he will be more focused. his background is such that he understands a little more effectively how to enforce laws and how to run a large agency. the department of labor is very large. i think he has his experience, and his history will serve him well in this job and allow him to be a very effective secretary of labor, and make sure that the workplaces of americans are more safe and healthy. >> wages, growth. [inaudible] raises rise?see

more competition again? >> there are several answers to that. first of all, the minimum wage is very important for any nation. most nations have them. if you increase the minimum wage and index for inflation, right be our minimum wage would 10:30 5 -- $10.35. if you go back to the march on washington, if they got in the race, it would be over $13 right now. it would be higher than where it is. i think that is important. they havething is, used newcomers in this country to drive down wages. they had no rights. no bargaining power. i think when 11 million people come out of the shadows and become citizens, then they will

have more rights and they'll be able to get a better share, and enforce the rights of they have. we find significant numbers of instances where workers actually work for a time and get stiffed, get no wages. they have no way to enforce their rights. they get misclassified. that is important. immigration laws are important to raising those wages. collective bargaining is important. at least, we have a functioning mlrb. collective bargaining can help bring up those wages. if you look at the advantage of -- latinos that have a union make significantly more than those that do not have a union working in the same job in industry. they have more rights. collective bargaining can bring those up. of that can, all happen. it must happen.

[inaudible] that is the area today. women talk about immigration reform, the chamber of commerce will squeal about the shortage of workers out there. we cannot find workers. findlong, if you can workers those wages should be popping up. they haven't been. that would indicate that there is no shortage. i think that is why the decision on who becomes the next fed secretary is so important. the head of the fed has two jobs. one, to fight inflation. two, to seek full employment. the 1970's,back to

they said they would no longer concerned themselves with full employment. it has been the policy with every fed leader under every president. this next person is going to have a decision to make. , they havedidates slightly different positions on those things. convincedate that can the american public, at least the president, that they are going to pursue with equal vigor both of the charges, that should be the candidate that becomes the next fed secretary. >> do you want to come out with ms. yellen now? indicate thatch she is for a much more balanced approach. thus, a better than

larry. larry summers has not yet declared on that recently. he has before. i think if he continues to say we're only going to deal with inflation, then we would not support that. that has been corrosive to the country. and bad for the economy. >> we are going to go next to .im >> you got to my first question. you are saying you have more confidence in janet yellen as a person who would pursue the policy you think would be better. >> we haven't declared. i would say this. if you look at the history of making the right decisions, and a balanced approach, history

leans towards her. [inaudible]oned a couple of times. what should secretary perez do on that issue? think he was doing a good job on misclassification. i think that he will continue that an accelerated. putting the resources necessary to get that done. it is so corrosive to people's livelihood and wages. i think he will be fairly aggressive on that. .> he will be more aggressive anything specific mib happening on that issue? >> more resources and enforcement. it is such a broad area. it is a difficult to detect it. there were such a gap. i think secretaries police released that gap.

thatnk he will continue and move it up further. michael? >> you mentioned texas. i want to ask you a question about taxes. can you tell me what you mean by texas being in your crosshairs coming up? >> i cannot hear you. >> what are you planning to making an issue of in texas? why focus on texas? what specifically do you think made there? >> texas is a large state. majority minority state. minorities are denied effectively the voice they should be entitled to. i also think that there needs to be more union people in the state of texas. we are going to give that a try. we think that people in texas,

with the wages and the conditions they face, they are anxious. we have not given them the proper attention that it deserves. we will be giving it attention in the future. we are very dismayed there is only one state in the nation that doesn't have a fire code. only one state in the nation that prohibits its counties from having a fire code. that will be texas. that is troubling for workers. my background is in health and safety. my first job was chairman of the health and safety committee. the fact that there are no fire cobs -- fire codes jeopardizes workers in that state. >> governor perry, they have made their case a showcase for how economy can grow with little information -- with little intervention from the government. their philosophy is, jobs grow

better when there is less regulation. have you done it to be problematic? >> if you look at the quality of jobs, the quality of the ,ducation, the number of things that hasn't been true. if you leave employers to their own devices, worksites get nasty. the lack of regulation works to the detriment of a lot of people. then, if you feel that aside, texas gets a lot of federal aid. they can say we do not let anything happen because they do. when it is used, getting government out of the way as used as a laws a fair at the work place that results in high incidence of injuries and fatalities. i think they have gone way beyond the pale of credibility when making that argument.

>> going back to your point about the progressive groups. who are the groups that are getting together, organizing for action? where do they fit in? up -- letin the lead me explain how we used to do things. in the past, we'll put together committees and they would meet three days before the election. the we would be on convention. we would go to the convention and we would have 12-15 speeches. then more resolutions. that would go on until the end of the convention. the speeches would stop.

about six months ago, we started putting together three main committees. one that was going to look at political growth and action. 'se that would look at labor voice in the economy, and one that would look at community partnerships. the first dealing with new ways to organize so we could try. it is time for us to open this process up. we put on those committees people from a number of progressive allies. from were dozens of people the naacp to community groups. student groups. we brought in young people, we

brought in senior citizens. we brought in academics. we brought in rank-and-file. we said, look, tell us we need to be. we are not one to tell you what we are. tell us what you think we need to be to meet the challenges, and to be able to rise to the occasion to change the system. and create prosperity for everybody. to get you what you have earned. and, we also have whispering sessions. al in the field, thousands of people came to those listening sessions from everywhere. union people, old people, young people. immigrants, people from all over the groups, and people from not progressive groups came to those. we did that in person. we did it online. we did a blind survey. we had chats, where we had different recognized leaders,

like bob rice led one. these chats online. anybody who wanted to come in could come in. anybody. many of you came into those chats. to talk about what we were doing. we created this open process. we kept it going. when you get to the convention, unlike in the past, we are going to have a bunch of speeches. this convention is only going to have three major speakers. we are going to have for. but because of what happened in brazil, [indiscernible] couldn't come. we are going to have three major speakers. for, if you include me. three major speakers. we are going to have the president, elizabeth warren, and tom perez. those are going to be the speakers. somewe're going to have 40-

action sessions, where convention breaks. we going to these action sessions and we talk in detail about specific problems, specific ideas, specific new ways to do things so that we can educate people on the strategy, mobilize them, and they will go back to their areas, and continued that education. conventions,past the end of the convention is the beginning. not the end of anything. we are going to keep those committees in place. those committees are going to continue to monitor what we're doing in those areas. areas that we talked about. changes we agreed to make. look at the effect of them. if they are being effective, we can push them farther. if they are not, we can move into something else. keep those committees and those progressive groups and place so

that we are continually talking. -- body asked me before >> i was asking about what you thought in the organizing or action groups. what you think of them. whether theynow are coming or not. i do not know that. i can give you that. i do not know who is registered. >> what you think of the organization was created? talking about the goals of mobilization. >> i do not really want to talk about them. that is his organization. i would talk about labor, and what we're trying to do. the president is doing a lot of stuff. i'm sure it is very good. i'm sure there are numerous instances where we would work together. but they are not going to be the dominating or deciding factor. this is going to be -- i started to get to a point, when i talk about having got to the crisis.

here is what we used to do. we would have a problem, we would say here is our plan for the problem. we would go to our friends and say here is our plan, come join our plan. sometimes they would. sometimes they wouldn't. over,after the crisis was and the issue was over, everything went away. it was transactional. what we're trying to change now is, here is a problem. we do not have the solution. createall talk about, the solution and the strategy. then let us execute that solution together? they are part of the plan, aggregation, and not just brought on after we think we have provided all the answers. >> thank you for doing this. going back to the fed rates.

you made it clear he would prefer to see jenna lay on -- you made it clear he would prefer to see janet yellen. what is most worrying about his background? is it the regulation, or his commitment to the unemployment mandate that is most concerning? >> we'll be involved whenever the proper time is. there is nothing to fight right now. he has not been named or nominated. he may come out and say i am in favor of enforcing full employment, as well as inflation. -- if he isincere sincere about that, that is a different story. and to we get the facts, i'm not going to make a decision and declare right here. if you look at history, that is what i was trying to do. if you look at history, hood would think would be the best that job, to date, i think you

know who that would be. one, she has been balanced in her approach forever. not just last week. forever. she has been right on predicting what would happen in the economy. those are important factors. they should be considered. >> we're going to try and squeeze in more before we end. >> i want to follow-up on a point you made on the affordable care act. can you respond specifically to the suggestion -- the suggestion of the 40 hour work week. >> here is what we saw. post."s from "the well, i am not going to talk

about those papers. -- just if you read last friday, they were two major articles we talked about. how employers are trying to plan their future by creating a workforce that gets 29.5 hours or less a week so they do not have to pay health care. that is obviously something that no one is intending. no one intended for an act to be people working fewer hours of eight enough to pay for health care. that is of amenities to be addressed. is that an issue? yes. it is an issue. we will continue to work on it. [inaudible] of course, we would. back to the end of july, the

bankruptcy of june choi it -- the bankruptcy of detroit. there was an interesting confusion ourng media assistance. we have not seen that. detroit has faded away from the conversation in washington. have you been working on that with the ministration? do you think something is forthcoming? what would that -- what is key here, what would that systems entail? the fed can lead to detroit? more infrastructure grants go to the city. try to be as specific as possible as what the federal solution would be. >> we do not have time to wade through all that be specific.

30 seconds or less. let me talk about bankruptcy in able get to as much of your question as we can. there are two instances over the last couple of months where there has been abuse of the bankruptcy laws. take the one dealing with people and minerals. peabody coal has been in the industry for 100 years. they became a staple. alone back inand 1970. what do they do? arch get all of the legacy costs from a all those hundred years. the create this coal company called patriot. they put all most all of the legacy costs into patriot. knowing that it cannot survive.

it cannot bear it. the first time there is a blip in the price, the declare bankruptcy, saying we are getting rid of all of these health care and pension costs for these workers. we cannot afford it. of course they can't. it was a fraud to begin with. the first thing the bankruptcy court is doing in that circumstance is voided contract. all the shareholders out there, all of the debtors are happy. think that ifs the workers take a haircut, that is more than they get. everyone around the table gets to push the haircut on the workers. danger to-- that is a everybody. that is a danger to everybody in this room. your health care, after you are retired, could be done away with the same way. that is an abuse of the

bankruptcy law. detroit is where a city doesn't. you know the average pensions are? $19,000. not outrageous. not outrageous at all. i would like to see some of the ceos live on $90,000 a year. let's assume you can negotiate in good faith if you give a voyage increases for health care and pensions when you retire, and then they say we were just kidding. we are taking those away from you again. that is an abuse of the bankruptcy law. -- we build oft the banks. that was their doing. that was their doing. they got there because of their overreaching, and their greed. i just saw in today's

literature, the sixth top banks have paid billions of dollars in legal cost. more than they have paid in topol -- in total dividends to their shareholders. anybody outraged by that? anybody? you should be. more a legal costs than dividends to shareholders. -- 103 billion dollars. think about how many jobs can be created. how many kids do go to school. how many schools can be improved . we do not see it. the system is broken. that bankruptcy system definitely needs to be changed. we said there are numerous ways that you could help detroit. numerous ways. we will explore all of them.

are we? yes, we are. while it may not be in the press again, on the front page, we haven't stopped fighting that. we will not stop fighting that. it will be in the trenches fighting that until there is a fair resolution for the workers and the people of detroit. it doesn't matter about the headlines. it matters about their lives. they have been shattered, broken, and promises made should be promises kept. >> my question is, the city council asked about it would raise the minimum wage from a 25 -- from a dollars $.25. d of any, on that legislation? >> sign the bill. plain and simple. it is a great piece of legislation. i do not know how many people live here in d.c. or the

surrounding area. how many of you can live on $12 and $.50 an hour? it is a process. $12 50 since in our isn't outrageous. it is behind schedule to where it ought to be. you want to sign the bill. mark? >> fast food workers are walking up. extent are workers like the fast food workers going to be the future of the labor movement? >> i think that it is a sign of things to come. vanguard of athe change in the economy. it is not just fast food workers. you see taxicab drivers in new york city doing the same thing. you seem home care workers

trying to get a voice. there is some growing momentum around the country with different groups of workers that have said we have enough -- we have had enough. the economy doesn't work for us. if you ask the average american, the vast majority of americans believe in it. that the economy ought to work for everyone. what you are saying is the vanguard of more to come, unless the economy starts to really work with decent standard of living and benefits. advocate?lay devil's i was reading if he's getting ready for this that does it would be hard for labor unions in service, in terms of the economics. it is a tough proposition for labor because there is so much turnover. what is your response to the

argument that it really can't work, that fast food workers are going to be a good place for the labor movement? >> i would venture to say that story came from the fast food industry. they want it to be able to work. if workers want a voice on the job, they're going to find a way to get the voice on the job. we're going to find a way to help them. i believe they deserve a voice on the job. remember, a lot of people think fast food workers are young kids. high school kids. more than half of them are adults working in fast food. we will find a way to happen. i wish her the argument only talk about minimum wage. the ways the minimum wage. it will cost people jobs. i never heard a minimum wage worker agree with that.

they say let's go for it. what if you use a minimum wage job. people find another minimum wage job. i think it is the same argument here. to have a voice on the job, they will find a way to get a voice on the job. we will find a way to help them make it work. i was wondering if you have any thoughts on the justice merger with u.s. and american? >> i watched the airline suit. >> do you have a view on that? >> yes. probably wise the right decision , given the facts i have seen. i do not know the inside facts, but it is probably the right

decision. >> i want to go back to health care for a second. what concerns do you have considering the public antipathy for the affordable care act, they low-cost candidates in the 2014 election. [inaudible] he has asked resident clinton to get involved. improve medications about the affordable care act? tuesday, andon reporters are not used to you being shy. my question is, were you talking about health care? >> we weren't reticent about

anything. we were talking amongst ourselves, try to recap what we're doing there. yes, we are talking but health care. we will continue to talk about health care. i had completely forgot about -- >> will cost democratic candidates 2014? inif you have a republican states that are trying to prevent it from happening, articles on missouri trying to prevent it from happening, the exchanges from happening, they going to try to do that. candidates will come out and say, it is a step in the right direction. i do not think it cost them. it shows they have a vision and they want to provide to the public what they want. here is what i would ask their opponents. you don't like the affordable care act. what is your solution? they do not have an answer. what we used to have, more of the same. if that is their answer, they lose every time. could it cost candidates if not

explained properly? yes. are they going to make that a real plus, because it has done a lot of good things for people. it has provided taking away limits. it has cap kids that lost health care on the health care roles of their parents until the age of 26 years old. things like that. it is a step in the right direction. if no one had thought it was the end. it was just another step in the right direction. we will not be finishing this until everyone has quality health care and the system is affordable. it is not being taken advantage is by pharmaceuticals and people trying to defraud. when everybody has health care in this country, then the country is going to be on solid footing. [inaudible] ?o improve communications

talk to people. talk about the benefits of it. be willing to listen. be willing to listen. if somebody has a problem, and all you do is talk about the good stuff, and you're not willing to listen to the problem, i think that makes it difficult for people to tune in. listen to a problem and try to fix it. something this large is going to have a bunch of glitches. that is not unusual. or hasn't been a program ever created in this country that didn't have glitches. when we first is also security, people wondered what does it do, what does it mean? there were glitches. some people didn't get benefits right away. others did. look at it as a solving process and understand that listening is important. >> last question. >> you talk about bringing progressive groups in. hasn't been any decision about

whether or not there'll be a will pay whether they any kind of dues? stuff of the government is premature. we are trying to create strategic partnerships. i do not know what form that is going to take. i really don't. will he want to do is get the progressive groups together and form strategic partnerships where we actually plan together, where we execute together, we strategize together, and we hit past issues. we have to be our issues. we have been talking to people, two groups. we work closely with some groups. now it is time to bring the progressive groups together. i do not know what form it will take. we have to form strategic

partnerships with them. it has to be not transactional but transformational. that is what we are looking for. >> thank you for doing this, sir. >> happy labor day, everyone. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [no audio] >> the u.s. chamber of commerce briefing on the economy and labor market. then the senate commerce committee hears from health and business experts on marketing

energy drinks. later, remarks from president obama and john kerry on the situation in syria. oforrow, watch all wednesday's commemoration of the 50 anniversary of the march on washington. with speakers, including president obama, jimmy carter, and bill clinton, and members of the king family. civil rights leaders who are part of the 1960 civil rights movement discuss the march. you will hear from john lewis and naacp julian bond, and others. >> very often, what you see as the causes of the first lady become so entwined with her

image, that she keeps that cause and that image through the rest of her life. we can talk about roselyn and her commitment to mental health. we can talk about barbara bush and her commitment to literacy betty ford's, and her commitment to sobriety. and addiction. >> historians preview season two of "first ladies, influence and image." >> next, the u.s. chamber of commerce delivers its labor day briefing on labor markets. they discuss congress, environmental regulations, and health care.

this is one hour, 15 minutes. >> it is a pleasure to be here today. i'm glad all of you were able to make it with so much going on around the world. it seems that a little thing like the economy probably would not attract that much attention, so thank you for being here, and if i see you all run for the doors in the middle of this, i will know that something is going on that is somewhat bigger than what we are discussing here today. we're going to talk a little bit about the u.s. economy, where it has been, where we think it is going. and that a little bit about the labor markets since it is labor day. when you look at the economy today, unfortunately what you see is an economy that now for four years has not been doing very much. we have grown at an average pace of 2.2%, as you can see from the chart, it has not really been up or down. it was not as fast as what we were growing before we went into the downturn. it was not as fast as the way it

grew when we came out of prior downturns. it has really been a very odd and moribund, lackluster economy now for about four years. we are making very gradual progress. we are hoping that this year -- hoping is the right word -- that the economy will pick up at the year goes on. we're seeing some improvement in the housing market, the energy sector. we are still creating a number of jobs, and a fair amount of income. those are all real positive. we have a couple of issues that we are going to have to deal with in the not-too-distant future. the federal reserve tapering process, how mr. bernanke or his successor negotiates the decline in fed purchases, and then the ultimate divestiture of the fed assets and ultimately, i think, a year or two down the road, an increase in interest rates is

going to be difficult for the markets to deal with as we are going to reach. if growth were significantly higher, if growth were more normal, and the 3.5% range, it would be a much easier task here at we just got news today that the gdp report for the second quarter was up more than was expected. so it was advised up from 1.7% to about 2.5%, and that is good, but when you look at the component that drove that, it was not as good as it could have been, it was not a basically upward revision of the economy, it was an upward revision in structure. and it was an actual decline in the trade balance. so it was not really a good report. it was not a report that was a

harbinger of better and more robust times to come. i'm not going to walk through the whole economy. i'm going to zip through to this chart, and then we will walk through the rest. this try, i like it because it is a chart that cbo produces quite often. it looks at 90% of microeconomics. you have the red line, which is long-run potential, that tells people healthy economy should grow. how we could grow if we fully use our resources. it is an indication of what the increase in our standard of living is on an annual basis or could be, rather. therefore it is my number to look at and kind of aspire to. the blue line is the cycle where we are today. it oscillates around that red line, down during recessions, up during recoveries. at least during most recoveries. what has happened in the most recent recovery is the four

years now we have more or less paralleled our long-term rose. the slope of that red line is right around 2.2%, 2.3%. and the blue line has averaged 2.2%. so it is parallel. in fact, the only two reasons the two lines have become closer together is the redline has been pulled down by the fact that so many people are now participating in the labor force anymore. our potential standard of living in the future has been reduced by this economic downturn. that is something that is not normal. normally we do not see the red line being pulled down as it were by the blue line. the red line is more the rock in the blue line is how we aim for that long-term growth rate. it is unfortunate -- there are a lot of reasons for that. some will say with the steepness of the decline, but we have steep declines before. 1974, 1945, percentagewise very steep declines. the second dip in the recession of 1982 were 16-month

recessions. this one was 18. this was a single 18 were the 1982 was a double dip. when a six-month decline followed by six-month increase followed by 16-month decline. we came out of those economic downturns like gangbusters. if you look at the normal course of a recovery, you will see that there is normally a v-shaped recovery. a strong period of economic growth immediately following the economic downturn. and then a bit as we get closer to or above our long-run potential. you can see the last chart that when we do that we generally put people back to work fairly quickly. nine months, one year, 15 months. since the 1991 downturn, it has taken much longer. it took 23 months in the so- called jobless recovery. it took 39 months in the second

bush's jobless recovery. this time around, we have already been out this for well over or nine months. and we are not even back to where we were. even though we created 7.5 million jobs in the last few years, we are still almost a million short from where we were let alone where we should be. when we look at this economic cycle, it is very abnormal. it is one that has resulted in a tremendous amount of pain for people that are in the workforce. so much so that many of them just quit looking for jobs and have removed themselves from the workforce. that is the bad news. the good news is, as i said, some things are looking up. the housing market has taken a long time bottoming, but it is time to come up. i know it is hard sometimes to look at modest increases in interest rates and say these

things are going to derail the housing market, but the interest rates we have seen, anticipated in federal forecast like cbo and the like, are not anywhere near significant enough to derail a housing market that is really starting to perform the way it should. housing purchases are driven by a lot more than just interest rates. they are driven by income and the ability to make down payments. they are starting to exhibit more normal behavior. that is a good thing. and the affordability of housing is driven by home prices and driven by again people's income and ability to make the down payment. those numbers are still historically high. all those numbers aren't in these charts. you can peruse them at your leisure when we are done here.

housing they ways to go and a pretty good run. as we see housing improve, we will see the ability for people to consume to also improve because one of the things that i think is interesting when you look at housing and household balance sheets is the big decline in net worth. we saw $15 trillion decline in network during the downturn. it has now taken us for years to make a backup. so we are back up to where we were. if you look at the components, financial versus real components, it is about two thirds, one third. two thirds financial, one third real. and number that is around $17 trillion. it is a big number. what we see is that the financial side has come back to where it was or a little bit below. the real side has not come back but is now starting to come back.

if you look at where wealthy go in the future, it is not necessarily required to see increases in the stark market. it is growing because existing home prices are starting to go up because the backlog and the amount of unsold homes is starting to go down. all of that is a net plus going forward. we're also seeing household formations and the like. household formations do not kick in in terms of helping is kind of a market as much as you might expect simply because the overhang in the market was more at the upper end of the market. so it was bigger homes, homes that people had over purchase. if they had bought a home that was bigger than what they could afford and the like. that is why they are running into financing problems. in this particular market, what we are going to have to see is that more of these starter level homes being developed, and i

think there is a ready market as the newly formed household can get in and start the purchase. all of that moving in the right direction. the energy sector is a big boom. we are not exploiting the energy sector as much as we should. most of the exploration, almost all of it, all of the development and production, has been from private land and private sources. we have a lot of public sources that we are not using. we're also not knowing things like the xl pipeline, which would help to increase employment and to stabilize supply and to make sure that the jobs that depend upon flow of crude are more secure. all of that would be tremendously helpful in an economy that is as moribund as this one has been. when we said and i hear the discussion then i read the discussions about well, it would only create 2000 jobs or it would only create 20,000 jobs,

there is a plus sign in front of both of those cared that is a plus 2000 or plus 20,000. all of those have ancillary effects and derivative effects on the energy economy. they all move the economy in the right direction. when the economy is averaging 2.2% over a four years and, i cannot remember in my economic history a span as long as that is where we had moribund growth and high levels of unemployment. it is just not normal. anything that moves us in the right direction ought to be contemplated and ought to be undertaken. when we get to the housing market -- excuse me, the labor market, this is where people really feel the economy. i travel around the country and i do about 50 of these things a year. it is very disheartening to go from san francisco to charleston and from new orleans up to fargo, north dakota, where i was

on monday, and tell people that the economy is actually growing again because they do not feel it is growing. they look around and in fargo, they are actually getting a big boom because of the local energy development. but elsewhere, it is more like you have got to be kidding. it is really not happening. the unemployment rates are still high. the people looking for jobs is still high. we look at the data here, and you look at the top line data, the household employment for the nonfarm jobs and limit, the numbers and make the front page of the newspapers, we have not gotten back to where we were. so creating 200,000 jobs on average a month over the last couple of years, but that is not enough to get back to where we were. people say it just takes time. yes, it has taken over four years, and in all of the recessions prior to this and recoveries prior to this going back to indy for the second world war, we have not had a period like this since the depression.

there is no need for it now. ben bernanke, i think, did amazing work in keeping the financial system together. we still have a banking system. we have not had to reconstitute it. people liken this to the depression, and there are some very significant differences. one, the depression was actually not cause as much by the great crash of that was by the collapse in the banking system following the great depression. that is why we had the fdic when i first came here to washington, d.c., and that is why we had changes in the federal reserve, we had the sec, we had a whole group of institutions that were put in because of that failure in the banking system. at that time, the banking system was the mechanism for the transaction. you cannot have a transacting economy if you do not have someplace to facilitate those transactions. this time around, bernanke was able to keep the banking system together.

we have seen a remarkable recovery in the banking system, but we have not seen the follow- up from that in the general economy. unemployment rate, depending on which one you want to look at, are still very high by historical standards. 7.4% if you look at the unemployment rate, underemployment rate is up above 13%. if you look at some of the other measures, if you look at the civilian participation rate, this is a very interesting number. it is finally a number that is named properly. participation rate. are you participating in the economy? do you have a job or are you looking for a job? are you out there on the side of put stuff in, or are you sitting on the side it takes stuff out? we have not seen participation rates like this since women started entering the workforce. when women entered the workforce, they boosted the participation rate, they boosted our potential rate of growth.

they contributed to the economy. all positive. we are now getting back and having unwound 30 years of improvement in labor participation. we would still be looking at it closer to 10% rather than around 7% at the measured rates are now. the marginally attached workers, workers that are no longer looking for work, therefore not considered part of the workforce, therefore not considered part of the unemployed. they are not imply because they're not in the workforce. that number is still up at over 2 million, 2.2 or so million, when a number more like one million would be closer to what we experienced prior to 2007. part-time economics. on the surface they indicate they would like full-time work,

but they cannot find it. that number is up over 8 million. a more normal number would be 4.5 million. you are looking at 3.5 million people that would like a better job in a full-time job and a better paying job, and they cannot find it. you look at the duration of unemployment, and it is down from its historically-high level. we look at other, broader measures. this is one put out an article a few months ago, and it is a good number because it says let's get away from the definitions and let's just look at big, broad numbers. let's just look at the number of people of working age and how many of those are working. and look at the number from the end of the recession to now. it is a virtually dead flat.

if we were in a hospital ward and saw a number like that, we would be running for the paddles and people would be yelling "clear." this patient needs a jumpstart. and we are not getting it. if you look behind these numbers, at the jolts numbers, the job opening and labor turnover rates, they are dead flat. that is not we want to see in a vibrant economy. when you look at the numbers behind this, it shows just how much the dynamism and our economy has been hurt by this very long, moribund expansion. these are numbers that are up in the 50 million to 60 million range, when things are going good. you have the creative destruction. this one is not breathing. we have been on a respirator for four years now. we are creating fewer jobs, we

are seeing fewer separations, and the net is virtually flat at about 2 million a year. it is just not where we should be. salaries as a result have been fairly stagnant. when you have a lot of slack in the labor market, there is no demand to drive wages up. you look at things like real pay paperwork. or average hourly earnings have variabilities and definitional noise in it. it's a good number but it has a lot of definitional noise. you look at broader numbers. total compensation. real paperworker and what do you see? very, very gradual upward slopes or if you're an optimist. otherwise you call it pretty much flat. and that's not where the economy should be. and it's when you don't generate income and you're not generate ago lot of wealth, you're not going to generate consumption. only so much economic

shenanigans you can do. you can have tax cuts. you can put in better financing rules. things like that but you're mott going to generate fundamental consumption, which is two-thirds of the economy, without income and wealth. those are the things we haven't seen. wealth has been barely creeping back up to where it was and incomes pretty much stagnant over the last four years. we have been seeing 2 1/2% to 3 1/2% growth in disposal income. just not enough. if you look at the poverty level, poverty level is elevated. if you look at something like the -- the president is very fond of talking about inequality. but coefficient has gone up. higher it is, more unequal the economy, how much of the income is skewed to the upper distribution. and you see that in the unemployment rate. you see that in education, they

are like you expect high school education or not below high school education, unemployment te significantly higher in college. college is about 3 1/2%. if you look at the uneducated, it's up around 12%. you look at various ethnic categories and there's wide array of differences there that are more closely associated with education then with anything else in -- in that group's background. so we have seen an economy that is underperforming. we have seen poverty levels elevated. we have seen inequality increase. it's been increasing 30 years. it's not something this president has done but that's interesting because it's not something the last president has done or the president before that or the president before that. this is something that we've en seeing going up since the 80's. and we're not doing anything to

affect it. we kind of know what we should do. this is education and skill level and general economic growth. you get strong economic growth. you can good skill levels and good education. you will see a lot of mobility in the distribution and distribution will improve. it's interesting the distribution actually became more dispritt during the clinton administration then it did during the bush administration and everybody said that's not true. numbers are there. numbers don't lie. it's kind of interesting because what happened during the clinton administration is we had an economic boon lid in the technology area and people that were invested in that area, generally the people with some money to invest were able to benefit dramatically from it. then you get the decline at the end of the clinton administration and on into the end of the bush administration and then you end the bush administration with an economic downturn and you normally would see that during those economic downturns, the distribution the lly flattens because

people with money and investments tend to bear a bigger share of the economic downturn. they make it up in the up years but they lose in the down years so you actually see this kind of perverse result this time around and in this economic upturn. we haven't really seem that same type of dynamic. if we really want to address the income distribution and remember, clinton raised taxes and distribution got more disperette. not because he raised taxes. taxes are not the way to address the distribution. the way to address the distribution is through fundamental skill levels, education and vibrant economy. we look at the shares of income held by the various income tiles and we see the share of taxes and, again, you can tax about fairness or paying their fair

share, the kind of class rhetoric we hear all the time but the fact of the matter is these things have not changed dramatically, but the fact of e matter is we do have a disperate income distribution and tax distribution in the same direction. rich pay suggestly more. so this idea you can address the prior charts by affecting the distribution after the fact and by going back and essentially redistributing the tax code doesn't appear to have had much success over the years whether it be during the clinton administration or whether it be during this particular obama administration. so to summarize this aspect, the economy isn't growing the way it should and until it starts growing the way it should, you're not going to get the beneficial impacts at the back end. you're not going to get the mobility you want, you're not going to get the mobility you

want and standard of living you want and we have to figure out what the type of policies are that will generate that. in the midterm the question that seems to be most on everyone's mind is is what's the fed going to do? the fed ran interest rates down to zero. that was a good thing. what that did for the consumer and why the consumer can spend even with the low income growths is it reduced the debt service the american consumer has in total by about $220 billion a year. $220 billion. so they don't have to send that to the existing loan holder. they can in turn spend it on new purposes. if interest rates were to go back up, that would work in reverse. it would act like about a $220 billion tax increase just on the existing level of consumer debt. i don't think bernanke's going to do that any time in the future. when they talk about interest rates, it's distink from the fed

talking about tapering. tapering has to do with this chart. it has to do with their balance sheet and purchases of distressed assets. i find it interesting no one's ever really looked in this whole program of qualitative easing. you remember bernanke and geithner and paulson all went to college and told congress to avoid the congress. we have to buy distressed assets. the tarp program was originally intended to be purchase of distressed assets. it didn't work that way because europeans jumped the gun and they didn't have mechanism in place ho w.h.o. would buy an asset and how they would price distressed assets. over the two years the tarp was in place, we worked through tarp. at the end of that when it couldn't get reupped in congress, bernanke came up with qualitative easing, which is what? purchase of distressed assets. in his case purchased only from the banks or near banks and he

was able to set the pricing mechanism. so he didn't have to worry about the market setting pricing mechanism because these things are set kind of one on one. now, he didn't want that money necessarily flowing in and creating a whole lot of gwyneth paltrow growth, es -- g.d.p. growth, especially nominal g.d.p. growth. so he kind of put a twist on it. bought the assets, pumped money in the banking system and turned around and convinced the banking system to put the money back in the fed. redeposit what they just bought back to the people that just bought the asset from it. so it provides them better class of assets to hold and at the same time 25 point basis spread on the arbitrage, which is $6 about the to $7 billion to profit in the banking system. while the banking system stays liquid and allows the banking system to earn some profit. and during the downturn, those

two things were paramount in his mind. a lot of people worried about inflation, the middle line, green line, that's the money supply. at least when i took monetary economics, the transition mechanism from the fed to the general economy ran through the money supply. fed affected reserves, reserves affected money supply, money multiplier and money supply affected nomal g.d.p. that was the quantity theory of money they still teach that stuff today. and the fact of the matter is i can never find any impact on the money supply? why? bottom line excess reserves virtually mirrors the top line. the first injection was kind of injection of capital that went to make up for the loss and everything else after that was sucked back right into the fed. the problem is feds have to unwind this at some point because you can't run this type of pross process in perpetuity. that's what bernanke is talking about now when he talks about weaning the economy off. in a sense he's trying to reload

the anti-recession gun. we get recessions 0 on average seven, eight years and already four years into this one. so it isn't inconceivable in the next few years we might see another economic downturn. not predicting it. just saying the timing would suggest it would not be total urprise. so you look at that and say what case?the fed do in this qe-4, 5, 6? the problem is for the market, the only thing that's propping up the economy is the fed so they're losing their only leg to stand up. i don't think that's the case. but it's going to take some time to figure it out and during those time periods we will see a lot of volatility. the next question and final question is, of course, what we're going to do about this. and we have two kinds of trigger dates coming up. we have a c.r. at the end of september, continuing resolution that has to be debated and passed so we can continue to

keep the government operating and no one really wants to see the government. we talked about that back in the '90's and it wasn't conveyed appropriately. on the one side i think republicans would like to see smaller, more efficient government. but you really can't gait way with no government at all. at some point between noun end of september, you have to figure out how to keep the government operating. shortly there after, according to mr. lew at the treasury, which was kind of a surprise when i read it, we're going to run out of money, hit the debt ceiling some time mid-october. i thought would the revenue streams we have been seeing next year and positive surprises on the deficit, that the projection would be a little bit later. in fact, projections that were made before we got the big influx of money from fannie and freddie, woe would run out of money in october. big influff, lower deficits then expected and still running out of money at the same time. doesn't exactly make is sense to

me but i will take it for what it is, an estimate of when we're going to have to make a decision on the debt ceiling. and that really only one decision that can be made and that is we have to do whatever is necessary to keep the u.s. government from defaulting. we have $17 trillion worth of debt out there. $6 trillion in our own accounts and $10 trillion to $11 trillion held outside the us we can't allow those to default. so it's really not an option. we would love to see improvements in the long run on debts and deficit but you cannot play around with the full faith and credit of the u.s. government. it is something that is paramount. if we were to see a spike in interest rates because of something like a default, it will increase the funding cost tremendously. last year we paid $223 billion in interest. it's projected in 10 years we will pay over $800 billion in

interest. with interest rates at what i would call poly anishly low expectational levels. that is to say the interest rate increases that are projected into that $823 billion are low by historical standards. if they were to get back up to normal rate structures, you can add a trillion to a trillion and a half dollars on that very, very easily. anothern't just kick in $70 billion, $80 billion, $100 billion. think about it, every increase in interest rate, percentage point increase in interest rates when it works through the debt, which is primarily short term is is going to add a cost of something around $170 billion total, or 0100 billion, $110 billion will be to bond and by holders outside the government in the united states and abroad. every percentage point.

back in 2007 i think the deficit was $160 billion. now we're talking about $160 billion added to the deficit for each percentage point in interest rates. this is the problem if you look at just outside debt, that's the problem if you look at total debt. there are some that say the problem has been solved, we have stabilized the debt level. even these debt levels over ten years are stabilized. they're going up gradually. the problem is is compound interest works in reverse and as interest costs start to pyramid in the out years you will see numbers take off and rise very dramatically. we have to get the deficit down to less then 4 1/2% of g.d.p., our long-term nominal rate of growth. and that way the economy can grow and bear the weight of bigger deficits. any deficit that is above 4 to 4 1/2% starts to add to the debt

to g.d.p. ratio. we can't even achieve that. we will for a year or so under the best of circumstances. beyond that, we don't. the problem is and has been entitlement costs. that's the big piece that's expanding. if you look at projected entitlement cost over the next ten years you see medicare, medicaid and social security grow dramatically. so that entitlements and interest together are three quarters of public outlays. three quarters of public outlays. in fact, if you look at those mandatory programs, medicare, medicaid, social security and interest, that would be the red square on the left, it's equal to 88% of all federal revenues projected to exist in ten years. 88% will be mandatory in interest or mandatory payments,

entitlements in interest. that is a stark projection for a time period that is supposed to be relatively benign. and if we end up in a situation like that, i can almost guarantee you it will be a lot worse then what these estimates suggest. we have to get the entitlement perhaps under control if we expect them to be in existence down the road. so the economy is is gradual limb proving. i expect it might get up closer to the 3% range by the end of this year and on into early next year if continuing improvement in housing and if we don't see an oil spike from whatever is is going on in the middle east right now and we don't see a prolonged oil spike. and we continue to see good oil energy exploration and the like, that could happen. even if that happens, we're going to be facing the federal reserves extraction process and we're going to be facing this entitlement pross is sess down -- process down the road. either or both of those can be

very damaging to our long-run rates of growth. it's very hard for me to be greatly hospital mystic on this labor day that we will be able to employ the people in the future that we used to employ in the past and be able to provide the people in the future the kind of increases in standard of living they have become accustom to over the last decades. hat you all very much. >> first of all, i want to mention there are a lot of great handouts back here. i know a lot you will not use today but the big reg document goes through the regla toiry agenda of all of the things we see in the chamber we're working on, it's 60 pages but hads handy table of contents. if you want to use it today or later, you will find it's a useful document to keep in your

files. short piece, six pages that is a broad outline of where the labor agenda is going under this administration and which i think you will find useful and power point slides. my slides sort of go in and out of my presentation. sometimes i will use them and sometimes i will talk from just notes. labor day is a day on which we do celebration the contribution of american workers and rightfully so. fortunately, it of on turns -- unfortunately, it often turns into a day unions use to frankly criticize employers for not doing enough for the workforce, implicit message being you should join a union, pay us dues, which of course nonright to work states are mandatory and we will do better by you. so i always think it is useful to spend a little bit of time talking about what what employers are doing for workers out there. i know these stats are sort of macro in nature. but still they're quite compelling. and these star 'tis ticks i will

see we have crunched at the hamber from v.o.s. or reliable sources. we can give you those if you want. labors and salaries and this includes local government, $6.9 trillion. employers spent more than $1.7 trillion on employed benefits, close to total percent of total compensation. health benefits. i want to mention a lot of people think in this post-obama re era employers are under a mandate to employ benefits. that's true 2014 although it's been postponed by this administration. on a voluntary basis, employers cover 100.7 million americans under employer-based coverage. it's certainly not medicare, medicare federal programs. now in the private sector, the data is tougher to come from but the estimate on the kaiser family foundation is 149 million americans are covered through

private employer sponsored health care coverage. strictly on a voluntary basis. it's not forced by the federal government or under obama care. i think when you look at retirement, certainly we have issues of retirement going forward in this country. we had a symposium with the aarp a few weeks ago on looking at retirement solutions going into the future. that being said, a lot going on coverage for americans. cost of 45 million participants and that's interest ling because most write off the dinosaur benefits of today but in fact very robust and again covering close to 50 million in participants. to find plans close to 90 million participants and you see high rate of -- high rate of participation in those close to 90% by employees. now this time of year, much is

mentioned how we can change paid eave benefits or expand the ag generally. in fact according to data, employers provide employees in term of leave benefits and basic data goes through that. three-quarters including part-time workers received paid time o obviously full time receive more than part time but coverage of part-time workers is actually quite generous also. or quite robust. increasingly providing if you look over the last decade, sick leave, personal leave and family leave. a lot of these policies are not sort of formalized put in paid family leave and sick leave, et cetera. put into a pot and called paid leave generally. have that at the chamber. but i mention that here to show sometimes in these survey when's people talk about well, there's not enough paid family leave, sometimes those surveys don't reflect movement in the employer community moving towards what we call consolidated leave.

but labor day we also talk about typically the union membership and study declining in union membership. and often the unions, as they probably will say today or tomorrow, that's true. it's undeniable but it's not because we don't have a product workers don't want it's because laws are tilted against organizing. i think short answer to that is in fact the laws have basically unchanged since the '50's when union membership is at its height of one-third of the workforce but more pointedly, more pointedly the union membership declined as continue throughout the ten years of very pro-union appointees to the national labor relations board. it's not like the law somehow has been skewed against enforcement against organize. there's obviously another issue here and for unions to keep coming back to say we need to change the law and reverse trend in decline and that's their job to reverse membership decline is a bit of a strawman.

again, there's something else going on and real problem is suggested by slides they just had, which is in fact employers are not employers of the 1930's, treating employees fairly well and most employees do not see the need for union representation, much less desire to pay mandatory dues, which they don't pay, of course, they will lose their job in nonright to work states. top figures reflect union representation in terms of number of workers represented by unions. now, the bottom is number of workers who choose to join unions and it's interesting, which is a lesser number, it's interesting to note many workers represented by unions obviously still opt out from being union members even though they typically have to pay the dues equal to union mbship due. they call an agency fee. they still opt out of membership. we can talk about that. i want to -- i will leave

enforcement here in a second. given that limitations on time i want membership, regulatory agenda, we just had, i went out of town three days and boom two regulations came out of the department of labor, cause and effect. but i have them here. 600-some-odd pages long. that's two regulations out of a myriad of regulations that the employer community has to place. swun on sill aca. interesting regulation to cut exposure to silicone dust. we're taking a careful look at it. i put it on your radar screen to say it's going to be major rule making, very much concerned about, small business administration. i looked at this several years ago and questioned the need to lower the -- lower the pell amount as distinguished from increased enforcement. council for small regulatory affairs under small business. other one was new retirements under -- proposed rule under 503 of the disability act, which

reflects government contract, take close look at that. time reg. i would say knowledge that the department of labor appears to have listen to a lot of the chamber of commerce and approve significantly. nevertheless impose on millions of dollars of compliance costs. two regulations that came out recently. other ones that are major concerns, of course, persuader regulation at the department of labor, which limits the so-called advice exemption to persuaders. we look at that as in combination with the nlrb snap election regulation as making it a lot tougher for employers, particularly small employers to resist unionization campaigns and that was an n.p.r. and interesting american bar association actually expresses similar concerns with the regulation. watching to see if it goes to o.m.b. very much a concern to the business community. that's all summarized in your material there. that's regulatory area.

but most people don't focus on what's really a lot bigger area with the base of pir mad, which is enforcement. it's a lot tougher to get handle on because it's not written up in the federal register. and it's everything determined case by case rather then sort of one big mosaic. but i have a few cases here from the eeoc n. your slides. i want to mention these because they are unusual but unfortunately less unusual cases now where the government has -- really going over the top in terms of bringing cases against employers and it makes you wonder if they have to bring these kinds of cases, you know, why are they bringing these kinds of cases? are they really looking for in search of a mission or what? in these cases here where the courts have stepped in and one under a.d.a. and eeoc continued to litigate claim after it became clear after no grounds were -- upon which to proceed --

again, this sent because the case was without merit. frivolous, unreasonable and without foundation. $140,000 in taxpayer money warded because eeoc apparently couldn't find a emeritus case to bring. similar one, i won't go through it again. i do recommend it to your reading in your material. 4.7 million in attorneys' fees and expenses because of the outrageous nature of the eeoc litigation here. again, these are brought by the general counsel, not by members of the eeoc. it's important to distinguish in the employee community the board at the eeoc, five members don't have handle on what the general council is doing and in these cases tend to indicate in fact that is true. no one is really minding the shop. case under dispar tive impact. complicated statistical method of discrimination. ere the court found eeoc's

statistical analysis was skewed right with analytical errors, laughable and egregious example of scientific dishonesty. you can imagine how much money employer had to spend in terms of experts on their own side and lawyer fees to get to this point to a case that should have never been brought. all money could have been put into productive uses in creating jobs. here's one here, same one but it's -- again, you really need to read this from the courts. the last sentence, to require less would be to condemn use of common sense and this is simply not what the discrimination laws of the country require. don't they have something better to do over that agency then bring these kinds of cases? i want to quickly shift to the national labor relations board. two regulations coming out of there, poster regulation, of course, as you know or many of you know, chamber successful and law against that case and it's been struck down in the courts. i don't see that coming back despite the fact that the board has now been reconstituted but

so-called ambush election right may come back and in fact be made worse. again, that's on the regulatory side. below that, this area of expansion with so-called section 7 rights. this is an area where the board stepped in nonunion work places principal pli and said yes, employers -- employers do -- employees do have a right tone gauge in concerted activity well established. in fact factory is too hot. we can't work here. you walk out. even nonunion workplace new york city rights but this is situation where employer and board has taken the theory and expanded it to ridiculous situations. again you wonder what is in their mind over there that they can't find more legitimate problems to go after? here's -- so here's one where employers -- employers rule, what's courtesy is the responsibility of every employee. everyone expected to be kurt issy, polite to customers, vendors suppliers as well as

fellow employees. no one should be disrespectful or use language that abuses the image of the dealership. struck down as too broad. here's one the employer at&t told employees that they couldn't wear t-shirts mimicking the fact they were in prison when they were -- when service to service house calls to service telephones. people still do have hard-line phones. and the board struck this down as saying, it interfered with section 7 rights on the right of employees to express their opinion. this in fact was a situation where the community had, had recent break-ins from inmates who had gotten out of prison and the board struck that down. i mean, come on. but these are just sort of a small sampling of what is going on below the legislative level before the regulatory -- below the regulatory level and base of the pyramid in the regulatory rea.

let me go quickly on to other areas of my portfolio. immigration. i came back from elkhart, indian ia in nashville, tennessee. i think to summarize what's going on over there, and i have been in this battle a dk aid, grass roots in the business side, evangelicals, religious, catholics, lutherans, et cetera, exponentially better then it was in 2005 and 2007. i think we're in much better shape then we have been in the past as people come back in september and we will see where the debate goes. chamber had a conference call with paul ryan a few days ago in which hundreds of our members were on. and i think the indication is that the congressman feels fairly optimistic about a number of bills going forward and reaching house floor and being matched, not matched up but going to conference against the senate bill.

ee what happens. en lot of other budgets that marty pointed out and a lot more of an october game or september game. talk about immigration as much as you would like or not like. i feel if i give a percentage 50rks/50 shot of dipet bill getting to the president. look on health care, let's just say i think that had the president taking the time to not just the bill through and maybe bill had gone to conference an loued technical issues to be resolved, we would be in much better shape then we are. obviously, if it imposed mandate it suggests problems with the legislation notably many unions have come out, expressing serious concerns with obama care. even in the sm point asking for repeal. i have a list ever posts, the polling from the american people indicates people have questions about the law and in fact certainly lack of clarity about

who will benefit from and who will not and actual outright pposition. had the president perhaps sold that initially as an effort to spread insurance across more individuals rather then as an effort to drive down the cost curve and acknowledge that it was going to cost money because that's what insurance is all about? i think we might be in a different place rhetorically here. that was not the case the white house took originally. in fact i know there's been a lot of debate later about cost increases. step back and look at this logically as the sun will come up tomorrow. if you have a bill that imposes mandates on employers that requires certain insurance benefits be provided and it covers more people, the costs are not going to go down. they're going to go up. and it's true, being in the self-insured areas, costs likely have gone up less. it's tougher to get a handle but is certainly many studies that are hit in the individual market or small insurance market.

these costs are going to go up. and it's misleading to look at certain states like new york and say oh, the costs are not going to go up very much so obama care is not driving costs up. you have to look at each state individually and see what the basis of regulation was and compare that to the cost increases. certainly in indiana and ohio, study that's have come out have shown huge increases and in new york less so but that is because new york was heavily regulated to begin with. you have to look at the causal connections between what causes what, what are the states you're talking about. but counterintuitive that obama care will not result in increased costs. ee logical to begin with. why the president led with that several years ago continues -- i know me, continues to puzzle me. with that, i will close.

>> mr. johnson, i understood you to say, correct me if i'm wrong, i heard you to say you believe there's a 50/50 chance that the president will end up signing a pretty good bill will be sent to be signed into law. what is that confidence based on? >> a lot of gray hair. i don't know. this is my third time around on a lot of and i think gray hair and frankly worked on the hill for 10 years as republican counsel, i think the republican party wants to find a way to get this behind them because it's the right thing for the country and, yeah, it is a good thing to do politically. and it's based on the feedback we have gotten from hundreds of visits from members, including

those so-called tea party. no one is in the camp they were six years ago, except maybe 10 people, anybody's talking about deportation. and people there's a general acceptance of even legalization from the undocumented. debate shiftford legalization to citizenship and i understand that. that's a huge shift from where it was six years ago when people were talking about no legalization deportation. what is it based on? it's based on feedback from lots and lots of visits that probably 50 people here in the chamber spread out across the country and collect all of that feedback into a big pot and take a look at it. >> how would you define a pretty good bill and would that include some sort of pathway citizenship or must it include some sort of pathway citizenship? >> i think it would be a bill that would -- i'm not going to negotiate a lot of details here, a bill that would have something in those four areas. , obviously border security

those who talk about border security first need to look at the corker amendment. a ton of stuff in there in terms of booths on the ground, cameras, drones, et cetera, protecting border. way to combine that on 0 border security and move forward. border security do nothing else is strawman but we have to address it obviously. border security, temporary worker programs, high skilled, low, skilled and, of course, legalization. i don't think obviously what the senate did in legalization not going to fly in the house but something between there and mandatory e-verify has to be part of the big. we prefer the house approach. chamber works with lamar smith on the compromise mandate. and recognize and buy into the fact employers have to have mandate and verify. , whating that those areas

the details are, guys on the hill to figure out o our perspective, those areas. pathways to citizenship, i think that it can't cut off a pathway to citizenship. way to structure things where you move from legalization to green card status. go through pro probationarry status with some sort of citizenship far into the future. i think when people stop and step back, we certainly don't want a situation where we have a second class tier of people in this country who are merely seen as workers and not part of the american fabric. and there are a lot of ideas on the table that they're looking at. > thank you very much. >> this question is for marty. you said you hope that maybe the economy will get back up like 3%

g.d.p. growth and the year you talk about things about the fed unwinding. i guess my question is 3% g.d.p. growth going to be about as good as it gets until we have another recession? >> i think so and that's unfortunate. you would like to see it do what it's done in the past if you look at the second chart, we have grown 7%, 8%, 9% in the past recoveries, average 4% to 5% the first three years of the recovery and you love to see numbers like that. but i think qut questions -- caveats you just brought up y won't it get better? we're starting to see consumption pick up a little bit. housing looks better. people have more money to spend. gradually incomes are growing. starting to get back the job numbers, replace job we lost. all suggest momentum. then what happens? we have a situation mt middle east where we have price of oil

spiked and not because we seen demand go up or seen supply actually go down but because of the perceived threat. then talk about the fed. i think the fed has to remove the purchases at some time. they have to essentially reload the gun. this is not normal for the fed to be purchasing this much in the financial markets and they should try to get themselves out of that position position at the appropriate pace. bernanke has said that. every time he said it, it spooked the markets and they're going to do it. if you look at many economists, 50/50 whether it starts in september or some time between september and end of the year. but we think they're going do it. that will put a cap on it. then address long-run deficit problems and addressing those problems are very difficult because you need a couple of things, strong growth. that helps you broaden the base

and gives you more leeway and generate more tax revenue and less in the way of transfer payments all the way which help along the way. but you have to address fundamentals on entitlement side of the program and you have to address the amount of money that the government is putting back in or taking out of the economy, taxes in order to provide these services. and these things general deloipt promote long-term economic growth. i know of no economy that's were successful in having the government promote their long-term growth. successful in offsetting downterms and the like and providing certain fundamental basis for an economy to flourish like national defense and education and that kind of thing. but none -- no economies do i know where the government generated the preponderance of growth do i know the is successful economy. i just have not seen those.

when like at what happens, it's like whack a mole, every time we get above ground in one area t. gets whacked down by something else so we're sitting here dealing with these situations. and distribution isn't going to provide the growth to redistribute and that's the problem. if you really want to see the economy at a more balanced and more even way you have to have the growth to do that so you have to provide the people at the bottom with opportunities and provide them with the basis to meet and benefit from those opportunities. if they don't have the skill levels and education, even if the opportunities there, they won't benefit from it. so it's a synergistic thing and we keep hearing in the administration and from speeches

and like about redistributing and listen to the president's speech yesterday, very good speech, but, you know, all about inequality. inequality is not something to aspire to. we don't want to see more inequality. the question is how do you address the inequality. just talking about it isn't going to fix it and just taking after the fact and trying to after the fact redistribute more equal basis hasn't worked in our society and i don't think it will. so these type of missteps or misdirections in policy will tend to keep the overall growth rates down for i think quite some time. i don't think we're in a lost generation or lost decade system like we have seen other economies like japan go through. but by the same token it's going to be very, very hard to generate growth rates when you look at the components and the economy. we tried in this particular

economic expansion, for instance, to stimulate investment before we stimulated demand. so we had all kinds of tax cuts. normally we do that think so they shift the start up there. try to get engine running and figure it could take off on its own. this time they have all kinds of tax cuts. good and well aimed and well directed and benefits. and we saw big increases in investments for a couple of years after the downturn. then we saw nothing else. that's dropped down to about 4% or 5% growth right now and there's no real reason for people to invest. i've got a slide in there on industrial production and another one on capacity utilization. capacity utilization has not really gone anywhere. we're still below 80%, close but below and you're not going to see the need to expand until you get to 82%, 83%, 84%, 85%. those are when the numbers legally start to jump. industrial production numbers. they have been on a modest

uptick but they're not back to above where they were before the economic downturn. every time we get going, it's like the great scene from the "godfather" in the third movie, every time i try to get out they just grabbed me and pulled me back in. every time this economy tries to get a leg under it, something reaches out and grabs it and pulls it back. looked good in the second year. then what happened? we had tsunami in japan, nuclear meltdown. that seemed to sap a lot. we thought that coming out of the recession in europe would look good. and growth and seals abroad to europe looked good. deficit, trade deficit was shrinking and then what happen? european debt crisis hit and euro went through the floor. dollar rebounded a little bit relative to the euro and as a result price shifted and they were generating income to spend on exports. that's what happened with the chinese economy, they built an economy based on exports to the rest of the world and the rest of the world is in the dumper

and can't afford them. it's just these kind of things. again, very hard for me. economists, some like me see the glass half empty but when it is half ementy, it's half empty and that's where we are right now. >> thanks. randy, you said on immigration it would be more of an october game given that the debt ceiling is now set for october y. is october really -- >> the budget negotiations, in the budget negotiations and debt ceiling. separate but related, of course. budgets have to be september 30th. budget will run out. well, you know, whether it's the end of october, early november, i think that they're in town more in october then they are in ptember and i think that's

what we're picking up on the hill. >> you think fall this year ?ontinues to be realistic >> yeah, i'm not saying the president's desk but something to the house and perhaps conference is set up over the three days congress is not in between christmas and new year's and the conference report, conference report comes out late january. i'm not into the school people say if we don't get the whole thing done this year because election is next year, nothing will happen. politics are clear they will not change between now until we get into next year. if you get to october of next year, that's something else so there's still time to get this done and do it right. >> could you also say based on your local branches meetings with members, whether you think there's the majority right now

for some kind of path to citizenship like you described, whatever permtation it might end up being? >> i think if it's carefully crafted to certain border is security triggers,, yeah of the again, you're talking 118, 120, not majority right there. majority of the majority. but that's a lot of ifs i just gave you, depending on the trigger and i think it's important that people understand there are several steps to this. legalization, green cards. possibly provisional status throughout that depending on meet certain criteria in the citizenship at the very end. that could be long process to et to citizenship. but that's my gut reaction and when members come back in september, we will be going back and hustings in august and be ack gaging people's views.

>> randy, i just wonder on health care if there are still changes you think a shot making on the hill or through regulatory process and what those priorities might be? >> well, first of all, a little bit and came back, we did, we had a -- we a year long health care solutions council here which is comprised small and large employers, comprised of the pharmaceutical injury, hospitals and insurers and that's a group that you normally don't see in one room working on common solutions. we issued a report on our website, chambers health care solutions council report. it digs 65 exciting pages of technical changes to obama such ratingsps adjusting age delaying those. reading late at night rather then cam owe meal chamomile tea.

on the short term, going after the most obvious one is making -- trying to make the mandate rational by changing the definition of employer from 30 to 40. full-time employee from 30 to 40, which you know about. repealing employee mandate on our list. changing deductability of spending account rules. health care insurance taxes, several in there. medical advice and health insurance tax we continue to argue directly. and health care costs reasonably agenda.e are on our there's the low hanging fruit nd shoot for the moon. much wait, why shoot for the moon. five, six things to get done and those are the things they want to focus on. i do think report is worth reading. [laughter]

>> hi, i'm jerry from the buffalo news. mr. johnson we have a new labor secretary and i'm wondering if you have any thoughts or any concerns about what he will do in terms of regulation or enforcement or if he may be more abressive then his pred is sesser. and if so what the areas of concern that you have might be. >> i think that he's a very articulate guy and smart guy, secretary perez. we have some concerns along those lines. a lot of regulatory issues like persuader were held up pending confirmation and now lined up to come out. mr. perez was quite active in maryland as we understand it on independent contractor issues, who is an independent contractor and who's not. as marty well knows and i know, you guys know, that's a vague area sometimes. we have concerns he may push the envelope on that in trying to improperly classify independent contractors as employees. i think overall he's -- i don't

want to make comparisons to past secretaries but he's -- he's probably will not be -- probably not be -- not hesitant to go up to capitol hill and defend what he's -- what he's up to. up to is wrong word. what his agenda entails. we have concerns about it. i think -- again, regulatory aspects are one part of it. persuader reg i think is major concern to us. and what happens what happens below enforce the level we're going to attract that and working on report on e.e.o. ea, tracking eeoc and oftc enforcement policies and doing the same thing with the department of labor. best thing you can do is talk about what happened and try and show that to you guys in the press and paint a story that these are not based on reasonable objective evaluations in the cases. so the answer is yeah, wee concerned and watching and we will do what we can. >> we hope to be very cooperative and have good

relationship also. >> hi, good morning. can you hear me? >> ok, good. >> this morning president of the afl-cio has said he's been working with the administration in particular, the labor epartment to get tweaks to the law or get rules written in a way that will help unions adjust their concerns about multiemployer plans, health plans. d allow union members to possibly access, stay on those plans and possibly access the exchange! government subsidies. just wondering what you think about that, mr. trunk has said he's hopeful there will be some sort of solution reached. wondering what you think about that. >> i think i will answer that as vaguely as the question was posed. which was i'm not quite sure what he's talking about there

but in multiemployer plans, obviously, plulty trustee and between employers and employees so and unions typically trustees and employee side are unions, and look forward to try to work through a solution on there. i know there's an issue with regard to multiemployer plans interrelate with obama care and exchanges and thacts for some of the une union opposition but that might be an area we can work together on. >> hi, i'm michael rose with b.n.a. back in june i believe the house education and workforce committee had a hearing on two bills aimed at secret ballot representation elections and also the targeted bargaining units, small bargaining units. i was wondering if you're engaging on those at all? do you see a future for those bills? what do you see happen something >> yeah. i think you're referring to legislation that would reverse the specialty health care decision on microunions.

sure weerks strong supporters of those. we certainly thank congressman kline for moving those through to the floor. obviously, they're not bog to fluve the senate. nevertheless, they're good. the legislation to talk about it squaring offer to the issues rhetorically. it's long been on the union agenda since the regulation that the board called single sidebar beginning to focus on organizing smaller units because they're easier to organize. and slant a lot towards that purpose. that's what the specially health care decision is really all about. although it doesn't say that on its face. we support that legislation. tom shark retiring. maybe a shot after that. we worked closely on other issues but labor issues he's a tough nut to crack. many things, get through the

house and likely won't get through the senate. we hope that does -- we hope they at least send a cross the bow at the board they need to be somewhat careful moving on these issues because congress is in fact watching and house will hold oversight hearings on that kind of case law. >> all right. with that, thank you again for coming. i know we ran a little bit over. obviously, there's a lot of good information here. stay tuned, let us know if you have any questions, press line is 202-463-5682. hanks again. >> on the next "washington journal" michael hearst of the national journal discusses the latest developments from syria including what kind of role the u.s. and international community might play. after that "the wall street journal" reporter on the

upcoming battle between the house and congress over the debt limit. in mid-october the government will reach its $16.7 trillion debt ceiling and treasury secretary jack lew has urged congress to raise the limit as soon as possible. "washington journal" live every day 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> sunday on "newsmakers" our uest is tom done owe hue, -- donohue, u.s. chamber of commerce chairman and c.e.o. talking about immigration, taxes and health care law. 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. and janet napolitano is stepping down. she delivered her farewell speech at the national press club and we will show that to you at 11:35 a.m. eastern on -span.

>> one of the most fun times i ever had was, it was 2006 and it looked like democrats really were going to take over, take back over the house. it was looking pretty bad for republicans. vice president cheney's office lled and wanted to know if rothenberg can come over and have breakfast. we went over to the vice president's residence hn breakfast with him. i had met him before. but i didn't know him. it's unbelievable how much he knew about individual -- he had been to so many of these district over the years as one of the republican leaders of the house and this and that. but basically he was sort of asking us how bad is this? and we were saying, yeah, it's pretty bad. but that's kind of fun when you get to do that or talk to various caucuses on both sides. you kind of get a glimpse on the inside of the players. >> with more than 30 years as political amount itcht, charlie cook uncovered the trends by tracking every congressional

race since 1984. see the rest of this q & a interview sunday night at 8:00 on c-span. >> up next -- public health experts and beverage manufacturers testify about marking energy drinks to children. from the senate commerce committee, >> the senate -- >> the person at the witness tablebetter than anybody. anything? is to do that an exhibition or are you >> leto show -- you are? me explain to the witnesses and to the faithful audience. it is hard to get people around

here. what ays come down to single member is missing or not findable that everything stops. thathole room tries to get person -- find that person, that is the situation we are in now. votee is found, and does which i do not think is probable and then about to go back and do another vote to make your life even worse. however, senator durbin is here and senator blumenthal and senator markey is going to be here. what i want to do is because those three have been so incredible -- they have put out , the three of them. which is called, what is all the

buzz about? you understand what i mean about buzz, it is different. report and alls about targeting marketing to adolescents to things which should not be targeted or marketed to them. i will make my statement and then listen to my leader, richard durbin, who has been working very strongly as i indicated on this. i will turn to gavel over to senator blumenthal not because i want to, because the cap of him having the gavel -- the cult of them having the gavel -- thought of him having the gavel for something he has been presiding over is the proper thing to do and i will fade into the distance and you will forget you ever saw or heard me.

my statement. today's hearing is going to look at the product that has been growing very rapidly in popularity in the last few years. it is not the congress actually i am talking about but energy drinks. [laughter] while companies have aggressively marketed on television and social media and event sponsorships, health experts have been raising concerns and disturbing questions about these drinks. they are asking whether we should be letting our children drink energy drinks and whether or not companies should be able to market their products to children. to fairly basic questions. in the meantime, if you watch television, every other tv advertisement is about a car which is fine or about one of these drinks which is less fine. i think these are important questions and i will be listening to those were asking some of them.

here are two fat about energy drinks. as sales have increased thomas there has been a surge in emergency room visits associated ? through the first six month this year, poison control centers have received reports which involve children under the age of 18. these are two frightening statistics. medicalches and other experts have been saying that high levels of caffeine found in the joints may pose health risks -- in these shrinks may pose health risks and that is scary stuff. in fact, a recent clinical "rigorousates that review and analysis of the literature reveals that caffeine and other stimulants substances

containing energy drinks have no place in the diet of children ."d adolescents that is what we are here from pediatricians. the ama approved a resolution toorsing a band of marketing adolescents and teenagers. they do not do that often and they did on this. that brings us to the question before us, how are companies marketing energy drinks to younger people? what other techniques and are they listening to the medical experts who are worried about what future looks maybe doing to our kids? is there any talk back and memberso members -- 2 of this committee have been leading the way in examining the marketing practices of companies for a long time. i honored them for their work.

that investigation found while energy drink companies say they do not market to children, -- areents are brought targets of their practices and we know that. at yaleg experts university -- in high percentages relative to adult. for example, disturbingly many energy drinks are now sold at large, non-re-sellable containers holding to our three servants to encourage high- volume consumption in one sitting. clever, isn't it? two explored the nature and stand up to marketing efforts reaching children, the committee requested information from leaving energy drink companies about marketing practices there

which young audiences. the information we received from these companies along well publicly of global information supports the findings of , andors blumenthal, markey durbin that companies are using techniques highly appealing to teenagers to liberally appealing to teenagers. we note that some companies sponsor athletes as young as 13 or 14 years and made them a public face for the company. these young athletes are featured wearing the logos on the company's website and through social media channels. the question i want to get that is whether this is responsible, corporate behavior? today, we'll learn more about these issues from public health and marketing experts as well as several leading energy companies . in the next three weeks, the department of health and human services and other leading agencies are convening public

panels to review the health effects of these strengths. in my judgment, this problem is ofing out for that kind credible scientific review and i am glad it is happening in the immediate aftermath of this. pause and with the permission of senator blumenthal, i would like to call on senator richard durbin from illinois. >> thank you for much, mr. chairman. i would like to commend you chairman rockefeller for convening this hearing on this important issue. and i want to thank you for allowing me to make a statement. people ingo, most this room what not to heard of an energy drink. the times are changed. by some estimates, the sales has risen by 60% over the last five years. energy drinks are a common fixture in grocery stores,

vending machines. i would really challenge anybody in this room to go to their favorite gas station and he -- if it cannot reach an energy drink, i would be shocked. in illinois, they are as close to the register to consumer as possible. isthe sales have grown, so the alarming evidence they pose potential health risks. drink has grown to its current size because it targets adolescents. consuming large amounts of caffeine have serious effects such as seizures, heart arrhythmias, and even death. our audience -- in our artist today is wednesday tom the mother of a 14-year-old -- in is wendy, theoday

mother of a 14-year-old whose child died after drinking two large cans of energy drink. committed to the well-being of children and adolescents such as the american academy of pediatrics, ama, national federation of high school associations, and is he delay discouraged students from drinking -- ncaa discouraged students from drinking energy tricks. some say they have no place in the diet of children. said given journal the unknown levels of caffeine and other poorly additives in energy drinks there is significant risk associated with the consumption and may outweigh the benefits. warnings are at gold -- echoed that found between 2007 at 2011,

emergency room visits linked to emergency drinks doubled. in the first few months of this year, the american medical association have already 75 reports linked to energy drinks and over half involve children under the age of 18. many of the health concerns are due to the high levels of cap means and gradients to act as stimulants. the fda limits the level of caffeine in a soda to know more than 71 milligrams. 240 milligrams of caffeine in a 24 ounce can of monster energy drink. as we all know, most energy drinks are not sold in 12 ounce cans but 16, 24, and even 32 containers. these are 2 -- monster rock

star. just one of these kits contains 240 milligrams. are sold next to gatorade and soft drinks at one of these contains the same amount caffeine is more than seven candidates -- cans of soda. they are restricted and regulated. but this one can contains more and is for sale right next to it. some analysts -- some adolescents to sue more than one more24-hour -- consume ne in 24 hours. i was reading the label before the hearing.

many of these degrees have been used for years, energy drinks combine them at higher doses. energy drink companies urge people to throw it back, pounded down when it comes to their products and consume them before fiscal activity we enhance performance. as a result, younger and younger people are exposed to higher levels of stimulants in a short window of time and in new ways compared to how people consumed them. let's get to the issue marketing. across the board, makers of energy trunks consistently say they do not market the products to children. then you hear about the samples of energy trunks and being distributed were teenagers hang out -- sporting events, concerts , even as a key prep programs. you go to their websites as the makers sponsor athletes as a

young as 10 years of age. you cannot see this cover from where you are, but this is a publication called red bulletin put out by red bull that makes somebody's energy drinks. they are insisting they do not market to children but look at the cover was the it is a 12 year old boy. he is a motocross athlete. he has been signed by red bull to promote their products. you think he appeals to older people? it is to kids his own age. that is what it's all about. some of this, senator blumenthal and senator markey and senator rockefeller, we are all veterans of the tobacco wars and we fault in the same war. remember when they use a telescope we are not interested in kits -- remember when they said we are not interested in children? we know better.

we are getting the same runaround. they are openly advertising to kids and denying it. companies use highly efficient tools such as video games on their websites, social media on a flashy advertisement and to help with hydration and build muscle. see they market to children as sadly, it is working. according to a 20 level study, 35% eighth-graders recently consumed energy drinks and a 10% drink more than one a day. that is beingo sponsored by red -- monster. i think you can sit up there. -- see it up there. children aseatures young as seven years of age who won the local competition

sponsored by this company. it is hard to believe the claims of monsters, red oak, and rockstar that they do not market to children. when energy drink makers said they do not market to children, maybe they need to children under 12. this image shows marketing to children. i am deeply concerned about marketing to adolescents between the ages of 12 and 18. i've been through this battle before and we'll talk about tobacco. kid wanted to get fired up for a high school football team and what is local gas station and bought some of the stimulant pills, the poor kitty died from just taking pills you can buy over the counter at a gas station -- the died from just taking pills you can buy from over the counter at a gas station.

these companies know what they are doing. health experts have stated concerns about the health risks of highly caffeinated beverages. the inmate adopt a policy -- the ama adopted a policy. i have joined with senators to urge makers to adopt policies to prohibit or marketing to children under 18. hearing when it comes to energy drink and kits. -- children. to take the necessary steps to protect our children and adolescents. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. durbin for your presentation will stop -- presentation. call on senator thune.

>> i want to to buy for holding this hearing and want -- thank you for holding this hearing and extend 18 by to all the witnesses -- a thank you to all the witnesses. i heard what have 18. and while theely candor on the table. ensuring thaty helps of our children is a priority for all of us and so, we all take that responsibility very seriously. the energy drink industry is growing fast with the american souls reaching $8 billion in 2012. this rapid growth has contributed to closer scrutiny. concerns about the levels of caffeine and the possible effects on children and adolescents who consume these has printed several studies and investigations.

, wee it is appropriate should consider the broader context regarding caffeinated products. caffeine has been consumed for thousands of years and most of us on this committee take advantage of it once in a while and is found in beverages such as coffee and subjects. caffeine may be added to the intelligence and marshmallows i may have to wonder if our fascination has gone too far. so far witnesses will note that certain joint may have other stimulants and the combination raises additional concerns and i look forward to the witnesses discussions on this as well. most commonly sold energy drinks contain about half of the caffeine of a similarly sized cup of coffee. for example, a typical 16 can of energy drink contains cap thing -- cap been, a 60 pounds of

coffee from coffee house .ontains about 330 milligrams most healthy adults can consume about 400 milligrams a day for children between 45 and 85 milligrams a day depending on their weight. a few which challenge that children should not be consuming highly caffeinated energy drinks, so i look for to hearing the steps the companies are taking to ensure their products are safe and that efforts to ensure a are marketed appropriately. protecting the health of our children is important. it relies on the science, careful investigation, careful risk.tion of the health given the broader contest -- and seemsr context, it also appropriate that any discussion of scientific determination about safe levels should examine

products not just energy drinks. i hope the testimony put forward will be examined awfully -- thoughtfully. thank you for this hearing. .> can buy very much -- thank you very much. i asked for consent to places in the hearing record and i do not hear any objections. or what i have heard if there had been any. senator blumenthal, will you come forward and share a list of witnesses you have? and i am very proud of the work you have done. >> thank you very much for lumley to testify. -- for allowing me to testify.

>> i do like the witnesses to call ford if you would please, he is aeider. pediatrician here on behalf of the american academy of pediatrics. dr. jennifer harris, she is from yale university rudd center. dr. william spencer, he's a

legislator from new york. and he is originally from welch, virginia. sacks, the chairman of monster beverage costs -- corporation. ms. taylor is vice president and general manager of red bull north america. wyner, cfo for rockstar incorporated. dr. james coughlan, he is the president of coughlan and associates. you.lcome eache very grateful to you for being here today. this hearing is another step in the effort that senator durbin

and senator markey and i have led to call attention to the health risks associated with energy drinks. within my own involvement energy joins that combine a call .- alcohol with their product when i was attorney general, i led a group of my colleagues to successively urge the fda to ban alcoholic t -- drinks. that effort to call attention to the health risks involved in the marketing practices, europe heard them described here. i will have questions about them . and clearly we are concerned and i know the panel will address each of the witnesses -- will address these issues not only the health risks that result

from huge amounts of caffeine in these drinks that endanger particularly young people with problems ranging from cardiac arrest to liver and kidney damage and result in the of emergency room visits. that are related to energy drinks but also the marketing and promotion practices that involve as you have heard the use of adolescent athletes and sometimes children and promotions and pictures as well as websites and social media making use of children in videogames and other activities to appeal to children. preparation.a.t. and a variety of activities that seem very problematic. to go on am not going

at this point with what i think the panel will be discussing but simply to call attention to a number of areas that we think are important and are for this panel to assess. i would just finish this part of my statement by saying we really do a pill to the more -- appeale elements to the more responsible elements to set a model and provide the comple because voluntary science for example we be american beverage association standards and practices would be a good step. if further action is necessary thomas certainly we would consider it. i would like to thank both of my colleagues, senator durbin and senator markey for their work on this issue and most particularly, now senator markey for the report what is all the

buzz about which is been entered into the record. a very important and compelling document that we worked on together. i would like to ask senator markey if yes in remarks at the opening of our hearing. >> thank you and thank you for your work and senator rockefeller and senator thune for having this very important hearing here today. over the last few years, a class withverages popular teenagers known as energy drinks has taken the marketplace by storm. they promise to improve athletic performance and energy among better hydration, concentration, and enhance alertness collectively. and make consumers better at life, athletic. energy drinks have been linked to severe health effects.

between 2007 and 2011 month the number of emergency room this is linked to the consumption has doubled. this data is particularly troubling when examining the way in which companies market these beverages especially to teenagers. earlier this year, senator blumenthal, senator durbin, and a -- this issue for examination. and we believe the spotlight belongs on this issue. as you blumenthal referred to this report, what is all the buzz about? and this goes right to the heart of this issue, this focus on teenagers focused on younger people. senator durbin made references to smoking, it is right on the

money. it is exactly what is happening. we cannot kid ourselves about the direct correlation that exists between the marketing practices and the increased use by younger people of these beverages. we surveyed the practices of the makers of 14 of the most commonly sold energy drink brand including the three companies here today. our report found that while many of the products do not engage in traditional marketing through tv , print, and radio, they are very active in social media and sponsorship of sporting, music, and gaming events that promote brand recognition in a way that clearly appeals to young people and often promotes unhealthy consumption. these companies are adamant their market consists of adults but with their heavy use of promotion through facebook, instagram, twitter him and other teenage favorites, they are

marketing to every single teenager in this country. that is what this hearing is all about. senator blew the call and durbin and i are going -- blumenthal and durbin and i are going to the team to focus on this issue cuts would think there must be a dramatic change in the marketing purposes. thank you. >> let's begin with you dr. schneider and will go across the table. >> good afternoon. in thank you so much for inviting me to speak this afternoon. schneider dr. marcy and i am happy to provide testimony on part of the members of the american academy of pediatrics. anm a physician boarded pediatrics and the specialty of adolescent medicine. ofm incoming exec a member

this section of analyst a help. help --scent help -- health. we published a report to raise awareness of the danger of energy drink consumption on children and adolescents by educating pediatricians who could in turn educate parents and children's of the wrists of consuming -- of the risks of consuming energy drinks. there is confusion between energy drinks and sports drink cool -- drinks. energy drinks have no place in accordingof children to report. another area of concern is marketing played a significant role in the rising use and abuse . what distinguishes an energy drink is it contains caffeine, an addictive stimulant with the

many side effects. these include cardiac effects, elevated heart rate and blood pressure. sleep disturbances, anxiety, it theity, restlessness -- ability, restlessness, stomach secrete more fluid, people get dehydrated, and temperatures rise. energy drinks have been implicated in features and no stimulants restrict blood flow to the entire body include the heart and the brain and particularly the impact of the developing neurological system of a child or teenager is a great concern. children are also at risk for physical dependency and addiction and an act, and schoolchildren caffeine withdrawal has been shown for up to a week after the cessation of caffeine. energy juice contain other

stimulant substances such as whichun a -- guarana makes cap the more potent. other grades have negative effect -- ingredients have negative effects. and stomachausea aches. and another with rapid heartbeat. they are critically bringing consumers to be emergency room. increasedroom visits and they doubled from over 20,000and 2007 two over in 2011. almost half of them were among patients from 12-25. in addition, the poison center report skyrocketed.

energy drinks are reportedly consumed by 30%-50% of young adults aged her this afternoon that 80% of eighth-graders are using more than one a day. the public needs to fully understand the risk of addiction and death. -- labeling of energy trip energy drink plays a role full -- role. it in prices young people through social media -- entices you people do social media and it is very confusing. some labels delineate the number of caffeine and some of them lump the stimulus under an umbrella of an energy blend. this succession of energy drinks with sports and fiscal activities poses great risks. sportster and provide energy

through carbohydrates and electrolytes and replace the fuel loss for physical exertion. stimulant substances have no nutritive value. the put at least an risk of overheating, dehydration. as an adolescent medical specialist, i've encountered numerous errands -- parents who theirrged there's -- children to consume energy drinks. i would like to make the final recommendation. capping a energy drink should strongly be discouraged. children adolescence are not little adults, thereby these are growing and developing, their minds are growing. diet and a well-balanced are really that all young bodies need to perform their daily tasks and this message lease to be reinforced. risk,, given the health

public education is necessary. caffeine in combination with other stimulants is what makes these energy drinks a great concern was stop third, energy drinks ingredients should be clearly labeled and provide information on the curative total of all caffeine. fourth, given the rise in adverse effects associated with energy drinks, that include high doses of caffeine often in combination with other stimulants with unknown safety profiles, research is urgently needed. last month stronger federal guidance is needed. pleased.-- the aap is themately, policymakers and federal government should work together to advance and address the rising health and safety incidents associated with energy drinks.

it is an honor to provide testimony today on behalf of the aap. i will be happy to answer any questions you might have. >> thank you. you and members of the committee for providing me to participate in this important hearing on energy drinks and youth. my name is dr. jennifer harris and i am senior research scientist and director of marketing initiative at the center for food policy and obesity at yale university. i've been studying food marketing for the past 10 years and i also have an mba and 20 years of experience as a marketing executive and consultant. i will describe how energy drink company's reach and target teenagers and while beverage industry guidelines and do not address public health concerns and how companies could protect minors.

like to present my existing written testimony. in 2010, we study youth targeted drinks.g for sugary what we learned about energy drinks, the brands such as five hour energy shots and red bull spend more on advertising than any other category except soda and their tv advertisements also appear on teen targeted networks like mtv and adults well. in fact, teenagers see more energy drink ads than adults. all brands are active in social media that teenagers share virally with their friends including facebook, twitter, and youtube. red bull and monster energy are the number five and number 12 most popular brands on facebook. energy drink brands often promote teenage athletes and musicians and sponsor local

events where they provide free samples include to minors. arkansas --drinks are sold in convenience stores with special displays and minors can easily buy them without parents consent. we recently updated our marketing analysis and found these practices continue unabated and have become worse. new products are being advertised and several brands doubled their advertising spending in two years. in social media fans increased by 2-10 times. and salesry effective of most other beverage products have declined, energy drinks sales increased by 90% in 2012 reaching $8 billion. you have heard pediatricians are concerned and so our parents. three quarters of parents agree that energy drinks should not be marketed or sold to teenagers under 18.

the american beverage association and energy drink made fractures have responded to these concerns. today, you will probably hear from members of a panel that caffeine as safer for all ages and main factors comply with the guidelines for responsible labeling and marketing of energy drinks. but many energy drink manufacturers do not belong to withba and not all comply the guidelines. further, the fda has not determined the concentration of caffeine and the other stimulants and most energy germs are safe. you will probably also hear these companies do not market their products to children. but the only marketing bab guidelines specifically prohibit it advertising on children's television programming like nickelodeon and in elementary schools. the policy does not address advertising to children 12 years and older or most common types of energy drink marketing

including social media and sponsorships. the aba also suggests that energy germs not be marketed as spore strings -- energy drinks not be marketed as poor strings. -- sports drinks. you,xpressly encourage clearly more needs to be done. at a minimum, manufacturers should not advertise a media that is more likely to be seen by teenagers than adults. agethey should establish requirements to access digital content whenever possible. they should not engage in marketing include youtube videos as smart phone apps which appeal to teenagers. they should not distribute free samples to minors and they should comply with their own guidelines to not market energy drinks and sports drinks. a growth represent opportunity for energy drink company's. they are highly honorable to

influence especially when it erploits their pe relationships making them an easy target. if they continue to of faded the issue of marketing to teenagers, policymakers and attorneys general have the authority to establish and enforce restrictions on energy drink ingredients, labeling, retail placement, and sales to minors as such regulations would be widely supported by parents, the medical community to matt others that advocate for children's health. thank you and i look for to answer your questions. >> thank you. >> thank you. good afternoon. thank you for allowing me this opportunity to testify on the marketing and selling energy joins. i am dr. william spencer from

new york. i was elected to the legislature in 2011 and i am part of a legislative body that represents 1.5 million people. chair ofly serve as the legislature health committee and a member. the powerful energy drink industry generates over 70 billion does revenue a year and spends over $100 billion a year in advertising here in the united states. growing adverse effects related to energy drinks, the board requested that i look at potential avenues of legislative action. a poor public health message has become pervasive. recent advertisements that you mentioned include the the message-- and to children who are frugally over schedule and under constant

pressure to succeed to ignore it the body signals of hunger and use a stimulant instead. these beverages are marketed as a quick and easy way to relieve fatigue and enhance performance. the allusion of energy is caffeine acting as a stimulant to the central nervous system. these practices and messages are embedded throughout our children's lives. in sunday morning cartoons. over the years, we have seen that marketing has doubled recently as indicated by the report. 24/7 social media world, commercials direct and children have taken the power of control away from parents and made our children vulnerable to an industry with a cold and seductive message. i discovered that a level

playing field existed and most parents did not know about the dangers associated with ingesting energy drinks. in fact, many parents think energy drunks are a can -- drinks are akin to sport strings. i have witnessed a parent giving an energy drink to a ten-year old. there's been a lot of action around the world -- around the country as you indicate. banned the sale of energy drink in its schools indicating it made the children restless and unable to concentrate in class. reported byas been some of the other members a dramatic increase in emergency room visits. so far what i have reported is what i have read and heard, but i would like to share what i have personally seen.

inergy training companies sponsor local events for children as young as 10 years old and samples are being distributed to local theaters in my district to children standing in line as young as 12. energy drink displays are positioned next to video games local department stores. and most recently in the long memorial day, after our legislation was passed with site energy drink being distributed at a parade in new york. finally home and probably the most egregious act was the direct mail of energy drinks with a simple packet sent to one of my colleagues'16-year-old child. i believe in the importance of free commerce and the right of businesses to conduct business. but they cannot be allowed to

imperil the public especially our most honorable children. effort andhaustive soulful county, we passed the first in the nation modest regulation prohibiting the marketing of stimulant drinks to minors, distribution of stimulant drinks to minors in our county parks, and educational campaigns. this for me is about protecting our children. some children, as many as one in 100 have underlying heart -- heart defects that make them susceptible to conditions when exposed to even a recommended sample of energy drink. there are response will members in the industry that i have met with. they maysion, although

be responsible, there are a lot part ofrs who are not the american beverage association that may act on their own. what i am asking today is that if the products are labeled not children,d for use in then we should not allow them to be marketed to children. please consider restricting the marketing to children under 18 find these we can jokes are safe and not habit forming. thank you for this opportunity. >> thank you. >> a good afternoon, mr. chairman. my name is rightly sex and i'm the chairman and chief executive officer of monster beverage -- rodney sacks and i'm the chairman and chief executive officer of monster beverage.

to make sure it is a regulatory compliance for its intended use. overseen by to be our chief scientific officer at a major university which has been part of our team from the outset. we have extensively and continually analyzed the scientific literature relating to the safety of cap thing and egg -- caffeine and agrees in our products. cans havenine billion been sold and ingesting worldwide. the safety of caffeine and other ingredients in monster energy drink is well-established by overwhelming body a generally accepted scientific literature published by reputable third parties. chairman, the level of

caffeine in monster energy drink ounceut the caffeine per of coffee house brewed coffee. monster energy 16 ounce can which represents more than 80% of monster energy drinks sold contain approximately 160 milligrams of caffeine from all sources. a 16 ounce of coffee from starbucks contains approximately 300 milligrams among more than twice as much. dunkin' donuts, seattle's best all have more caffeine or accounts than monster. ando many iced coffees other cold coffee beverages. energy drinksf has not increased the consumption of caffeine by teenagers and young adults. nesting -- from the

usda, caffeine consumption has remained relatively stable over the past decade despite the introduction of energy drinks. these conclusions have been confirmed by subsequent research include a study commissioned by the fda in 2009, 2010 which aged 14-t young adults 21 do not consume high amounts of caffeine in the source of caffeine is mainly from coffee, soft drinks, and tea. thatted a prior survey only by 0.9% are regular energy drinkers. they said released this year by researchers at penn state university confirmed that coffee and sojourns are the most significant -- soft drinks are the most significant capital providers. while the company believes that

its products are safe for all consumers, the company does not market monster to children and has never done so. from our introduction in 2002, the company has included an advisory statement on every can recommended is not for children. it was the first energy drink opening to ever include such an advisory statement in its labeling. monster considers the demographic of consumers of energy journals to be young .dults primarily males its brand image is directed toward this population. the company does not open brand initiatives on young teenagers. undermine the credibility of the brand image and young adults. it has long been that companies policy -- company a process policy to not sell at k-12 schools. and to refrain from any marketing activities that target children at k-12 schools.

music,pany sponsors events to promote monster. motorsports which is aligned with the brand image such as nascar, supercross, one.ross, formula the primary demographic is adults, not children or young teenagers. for 2012, where the most significant commitments was to nascar which is a median viewership age of over 50. other sponsorships including action sports such as athletes that compete in the x games. the average age of viewers is in the early 30's. the company shares your commitment including children and teenagers. we strive to their responsible corporate citizen and will

believe our marketing practices reflect that. i appreciate that opportunity to be here before you today to discuss the safety of our products. thank you and i look forward to any questions you may have. >> thank you. mrs. taylor. chairman, rating members. my name is amy taylor. i've been with red bull for 14 years and responsible for the marketing strategy initiatives in north america. let me thank the committee to appear and testify today on behalf of red bull north america will stop -- america will stop first let me say about our product, red bull created the modern energy drink a europe in 1987 and launched the united states in 1997. red bull is sold and more than 165 companies. it is worth noting that our 8.4 ounce can contains 80 milligrams

of caffeine which despite perception is about the same amount in a couple of coffee. red bull is a small can product with 85% of our business comprised of sales and eight and 12 ounce cans. a long history of cooperation with legislative and regulatory bodies in order to ensure the lawful marketing excess consumption of our products. we are pleased the fda is looking into the sake of caffeine -- safety of caffeine. we are participating in the process and confident it will confirm that caffeine is safe for consumption even for teenagers. but with always marketed ourselves as the adult premium product category. practices have

evolved in the u.s. for strategic reasons. we made the decision in 2011 to focus our marketing more narrowly at the core demographic of 18-34-year-olds to leverage against competition. our position is reflected in our design, packaging, pricing, and core marketing messages as was the content, timing, and placement of our advertising. while we focus on adults, no copy can assure its marketing materials will only reach a particular arias and people may be attracted to them. yesterday, we submitted a letter to this committee which will not ask you to include in the record. but without objection. >> we are announcing for the first time voluntary commitments related to the label and marketing of our products. we make these commitments to provide more information to consumers so they can make informed choices to further differentiate our product as a

premium adult beverage. they are as follows. red bull will continue to label its drinks at conventional foods rather than dietary supplements and will declare the total cap been content on the label. we will not sell energy drink in excess of 80 milligrams or with more than 110 calories per 8.4 ounces. red bull will not encourage or condone the rapid consumption of energy drinks. our marketing will not say that more caffeine or larger sizes have a better or stronger effect. we will not make claims using underge targeted to those 18. nor will we buy advertising targeting and audiences with more than 35% of viewers are under the age of 18. will not feature child or teenager oriented characters.

market or sell is energy drink products and k-12 schools or other institutions responsible for this group. in the immediate vicinity within these of these places. red bull is also prepared to adopt to commitments. if others are willing to do the same. we will agree not to sell containers larger than 12 ounces and we will agree to report to the fda any adverse effects reported by consumers that are alleged to be associated with consumption of our products. we understand that childhood and teen obesity is a major public health challenge and it is attracting more and more attention. to the extent the sugar and caffeine are viewed as contributors to these problems among we are interested in being part of the solution include the entire industry. the sector is only a smart --

small part that must be a part of the solution. we believe that large can sizes are a primary contributor to the problem and we think this is an area that we along the industry can play a constructive role. in closing, it is relevant to note that in every age category including teenager and children, 93% of caffeine consumption comes from sources other than energy drinks. we are pleased to be here to participate in these discussions. red bull is proud of this commitments he is making today and enable consumers to make choices and different -- differentiate our product. thank you. >> thank you very much. >> good afternoon. >> you might want to turn on your -- push the button. >> thank you.

my name is janet whiner, on the cfo of rockstar. i am co-owner of the company. i think the committee for inviting us and i welcome the opportunity to discuss our commitment to the safety of our products the responsibility of our practices. i believe rockstar that has grown from him -- his idea -- an ambitious idea to an american story. a growing product category having sold more than 34 billion units in the united states. i would like to speak about rockstar commitment to safety. our commitment is the number one priority. the use and levels of caffeine within our energy drink formulation has been determined based on the consensus of an

independent, highly qualified panel led by a doctor at the university of texas to be recognized. , rockstar contains other ingredients that have determined to be consistent with fda guidance is safe for consumption. the expert panel commission has concluded 160 and the dreams or milligrams it has a lot less caffeine than the starbucks 0ouse blend which has 33 milligrams according to the starbucks website. it is important to keep in mind that so far as coffee and tea

rather than energy drinks are .he most significant it is one third of the amount of caffeine over 21. it has remained constant even as energy drinks again in popularity. further, the report found energy drinks contributed only a small portion of caffeine consumed by teenagers and the most significant for children age two as 14-17 wass well coffee, tea, and soft drinks. they likewise found that they were minor contributors and all age groups. greater detail,

two of the major sources, a july 2013 report commissioned by the american beverage association. they noticed the drug abuse warning net work, the dawn findings rely on extrapolated data associated with energy drinks. they have recently noted the authors paint an an accurate picture ignoring robust evidence that has for decades established the safety of caffeine's effects. the analysis of the report and submittedse have been

with my prepared statement to the committee. i would like to speak about the rockstar practices. the product labeling is as transparent and clearly defined us au sable. rockstar has for many years including the following information, vitamins, sugars, amino acids and the amount of total caffeine per for allas ability total recommended to pregnant or nursing women. of the warning label is attached at my statement to the committee. rockstar complies with fda regulations relating to consumable product and is part tothe commitment to safety report serious incidents that are allegedly be associated with

the consumption of rockstar. we have refrained from marketing to children under 12. in addition to clearly labeled consumer advisory, it is not recommended for children and we do not promote our products to children through the company website nor do we currently market or sell our products in k-12 schools. target image graphic -- the target demographic is 18-35. action sports, motorsports, and live bees give guns to target the 18-30 five age group. i wish to thank the chair and members of the committee for providing us with this opportunity to discuss our commitment to product safety and responsible marketing rack this is. i look forward to answering any questions you may have. >> thank you. mr. kaufman.

>> mr. chairman, ranking member family, my name is dr. -- >> is your microphone on? the want to thank committee. i am an independent consultant include toxicology with 25 years of experience. i have over 30 years experience on health and safety issues surrounding caffeine and campaign containing product and i currently serve as an invited planning committee for the workshop on caffeine safety that will be next monday and tuesday at the request of the fda commissioner. there are three things i would like to address to you today. caffeine is naturally present in tea,plants such as coffee,

cacao and yerba mate. the majority of mainstream drinks come tame comparable amounts of caffeine as the same size cup of coffee and only about half the cap in content compared to coffeehouse coffees. caffeine haves of been extensively researched for decades and the weight of the scientific evidence demonstrates a moderate intake is well tolerated and does not adversely affect general health outcomes. there is no adverse effect and no consistent evidence shows that caffeine causes or triggers cardiac arrhythmia even in consumers who have read existing arrhythmia. awever, caffeine does produce

very small elevation in systolic blood pressure which lasts only a few hours but it is limited to those people who do not regularly consume caffeine. understandortant to is that this effect on blood pressure is minimal or nonexistent after repeated caffeine ingestion. many long-term studies of caffeine consumption from various products, including coffee, have shown there is no increased risk for hypertension, arrhythmia, heart attacks, cardiovascular disease, or cause mortality as has been shown in a series of recent studies. the primary sources of caffeine tea, ands. are coffee, soft drinks, not energy drinks. despite the entry of energy drinks to the market place, the median intake over the age of 22 steady.tating --

this was determined in the study talking aboutrs that was published in 2010. it also showed that teens and young adults aged 14-21 have an average daily consumption of the about 100 milligrams caffeine which is approximately one third the amount of caffeine intake compared to adults in that study. this caffeine intake is primarily from coffee, tea, soft drinks and not energy drinks. ,n april of this year researchers presented a dietary intake survey which investigated caffeine consumption patterns in the u.s. population collected during 2010 and 2011 among 37,000 consumers of caffeinated beverages. results show that median daily about 165m all was milligrams for all age groups combined.

infeine intake was highest 50-60 four-year-olds and a level was 225 milligrams per day. milligrams per day for those under the age of six. the percentage of adolescent users was quite low, less than 10% and energy drinks were minor contributors to overall caffeine intake. in summary, i believe restrictions on the sale or promotion of energy drinks cannot be supported from a clinical or scientific point of view for three main reasons. from mainstream energy drinks represents one of many sources of caffeine and coffee, tea, and soft drinks collectively contribute the majority of caffeine in the u.s. diet. second, the caffeine content is comparable to and often less than what is found in various

coffee products. finally, caffeine intake has been established by decades of clinical and scientific research to be safe at levels found in commonly consumed beverages like coffee, tea, soft drinks, and energy drinks. thank you for your time. >> i want to begin with my questions and then ranking then senator markey. thank you all for being here again. we appreciate your taking the time. we have contrasting points of view here. i want to reiterate my thanks to senator rockefeller for giving us this opportunity to have the hearing and the beginning, not the end, of what has to be an open and honest discussion. i must say that i find the denial of marketing to children .o be difficult to accept ks does not mr. sach

market monster to children and has never done so. that claim has been made by the industry repeatedly, but the that and common sense show the marketing, promotion, pitches to kid have been opened, blatant, relentless. ite here and ask you about the monster army. on your own website, you say the monster army is monster energy's athlete development program to .upport athletes aged 13-21 athletes from all over the world are evaluated and invited in the program to represent the monster energy brand. and then on the monster army web page, the program is explained with the following statement.

most companies spend their money on ad agencies, billboards to try to tell you how good their product to our. sceneose to support the and our athlete. every athlete in the monster army is an important piece of the monster energy brand. recently, monster revised the age requirements to be 13-21, but in the past you sponsored athletes as young as six years old and i have displayed an example here. and an 11-year- old major in the monster army. except thing time your contention that monster has never marketed to children. i havest the size what seen, heard, and what most

people in america have seen and heard. >> i think the monster army program is exactly that. it's an athlete development program. children that you have shown, i don't have personal knowledge of, but they were there with the permission of their parents. we regard this as an opportunity to allow athletes to develop so that ultimately as a feeder system there is no organization for a feeder system in action sports. in this way, we work with athletes until they can develop and ultimately turn professional. we have over 90 athletes that have gone through the monster athlete system and turned professional. the current world champion and motocross started in the monster army. there encouraging development of athletes and we are developing our own team of athletes. ultimately, when they get

exposure is when they turn older and get exposure. the amount that we spend on this program, senator, is very little in relation to the overall marketing budget. children.market to this is a development program. does it reach young children? yes, it does. --h it change the age limit we did it change the age limit to 13 and above and we received a lot of irate program -- parents who viewed this as the opportunity to participate and develop in sports. >> you are saying that these 6, 7, 10, 11-year-olds are part of an athlete development program but the marketing is to 6, 10, and 11-year-olds. you whether in fact this

marketing is not intended to reach those young people. >> it's not intended to reach them in that sense. if you look at the website over the whole history, less than half a percent were under the age of 13. ours a handful compared to consumer base. it is simply not our focus. ultimately, this is an important development program that we use. tobacco company, and the analogy has been drawn to tobacco because tobacco in the same way had a feeder program, they did not use those words but they marketed to 6, 7, 11-year- olds because they wanted to develop smokers. if tobacco companies put a cigarette in the mouth or hands , theirof those children

denials of marketing to children would be laughed out of this building. i'm hard put to accept that whatever the percentage in terms of your investment in that marketing that it was unintended to reach young people of that age. only -- i can only repeat that our demographic as young adults. this is part of the way that we forlop the brand platform sporting and develop young athletes as they go through and eventually progressed to the levels where they do become professionals and start competing in major events. >> let me shift to a different area. you are aware that the american forrage association monster, rockstar, red low, you are all members -- red bull are all members.

energyd not promote drinks mixing with alcohol nor should they market them to counter the effects of alcohol consumption." should not promote them mixing and not market to counter the effects of alcohol consumption. product thatces a -- compared on its to a very popular alcoholic beverage, cuba libre. we are going to put up here these ads and promotions. on the website, there appears the following -- you probably cannot read it here, but it is there in smaller print.

as legend has it, a buzzed up cuban here is that he has been liberated and he holds up his and beaying, cuba libre, famous cocktail is born. we decided to make our own substituting our tried and true blend with alcohol and adding a squeeze of sweet wine. we know it sounds crazy, but don't knock it until you try it. you will love it because it's a new kind of buzz. violatethat marketing the american beverage association's standards? .> quite the opposite it is intended to be a nonalcoholic version of the drink to appeal to the consumer demographic. the storylines we use are lighthearted and

a way to communicate to our consumers but this is intended not to encourage consumption or drinking. it is intended to substitute. >> your intention is that this marketing tactic is a way of telling young people not to drink? not encourage the market of that particular drink for mixing at all. >> the glorification of cuba libre is a message that young people should stay away from alcohol? tonot to young people but our consumers including adults. this is how it is done. we show them how we do something that is fun and different. that is the intention. attention tol your rous line, renamed, the

anti-gravity line. we supercharged our monster energy base then injected it with my dress oxide for a unique texture and a -- injected it with nitrous oxide. will no "whip it" but it whip you good. you know it is slang for using a pressurized cannister to get nitrousinhaling the oxide. they're not really good for you. harm to youre central nervous system. other kinds of physical and emotional damage.

is that in any way related to the use of nitrous oxide or other drugs? >> again it is a lighthearted way of communicating. the marketing team would be more aware than i am but it is just intended to be light hearted. i don't believe it's encouraging anything. it says it will give you a good energy boost. saying and we're talking in the language of our consumers. it is not intended intended to mean anything other than that. but weime is expired will have at least one more round of questioning. i will yield to ranking member thune. >> mr. coughlin, they could frequently cite a report by the substance and mental health services organization stating the number of american emergency hospital visits involving energy between 2007 and

2011 to more than 20,000. i'm wondering how you interpret those findings. with that familiar report. it has been mentioned several times today. i don't believe that report because it is only a snapshot of emergency room visits. to see if there is any causal relationship between energy drinks and the reason that the at theual showed up emergency room. there are limitations up the report. when someone comes to the er, there is no notion of how much they drank including other products that may contain caffeine. who half of young adults reported for whatever reason to the emergency room, they

use ofy admitted to the alcohol and drugs of abuse. i think they probably underreported that when they arrived in the emergency room. snapshot, 20,000 during this time between 2007-2000 11, there were 136 million visits to so 20,000individuals is not a large number. i think there are limitations in this data that it just never seems to come out. >> let me direct this to representatives on the panel. the drink ingredients often include things other than caffeine which has been pointed out such as toronto -- guarana,

taurine, and vitamins. to do you test your products make sure there is no negative health impacts from them? >> i will take that question. rockstar has an independent expert panel that reviews are key ingredients and the levels and rockstar products, all of the beverages, and they conclude that the intended use of the ingredients after investigating using peer-reviewed scientific papers as a basis for their opinion, they investigate then and they say the use of the key ingredients alone or in combination in the rockstar safeages is recognized as based on scientific procedures established by the u.s. fda. torely upon our scientists that our product as safe. our numberfety is

one concern. >> any others who care to comment? ms. taylor? worth mentioning that there is no source of any other caffeine other than the caffeine itself. that there is mentioning. history and i would cite the european the european food safety authority, the rough equivalent of the u.s. fda completed a 10-year review and concluded that there was no sin or just the effect amongst the ingredients in red bull. >> when you develop and implement, there's a lot of discussion about who you are targeting without advertising. how do you ensure that they are not marketed to children? again, any of the drinks.

>> i will take the question. we look at the demographics to of the image of the brand. our principal platform where we spend well over half of the funds is on motorsports. it heny sport, whether passed the ball, baseball, foot wall, the audience is very wide. it is going to comprise children, teenagers. it will comprise older people, but we look at the demographic and we generally try to focus on the sports that are most appropriate for our target demographic. you cannot exclude other demographics. if you look at some of the sports that we sponsor, one sport that people sometimes cited as saying it's an action sport that skews younger, the

average age of the viewers of the x games is in their 30's. teenagersill have the at the event or watching the event, but that is how you generally try to do it. andcannot have a magic wand cut off anywhere whether it is actually viewing or what is on tv. to sportsy to get that really represent our brand lifestyle. i think it would be very difficult for us if we were to and young adults if we're to try to target target marketing on events that would primarily attractive to young teens or children. it would not work. there's no way you can exclude beer or do any of the alcohol companies exclude them when they advertise a normal sporting events. >> one issue was with regards to ae classification neither as

nutritional supplement or nutritional beverage. bull has already been classified as a traditional beverage, monster and rockstar switched from marketing as nutritional supplements to traditional beverages. i'm wondering why the change was made and what are the impacts of the change both with regards to the companies and to the consumers. >> i can answer that. in fall 2012, rockstar, for competitive reasons, decided was preferable to include a nutrition panel consistent with fda views and product reformulations. has sincenergy drink 2005 display the caffeine content per serving and per container on all of its beverages and will continue to do so. rockstar will continue to comply

with the adverse event reporting even though not required to do so, we volunteered to do so will -- going forward. we are very proud of our record in food safety. >> mr. sacks? >> yes, thank you. when we originally launched monster in 2002, we got advice and they saidneys they qualified to be labeled both as a supplement because they contain supplements that supplement the diet and also as a conventional food because the were as such. based on their advice, we elected to label them as dietary supplements. labelluded a warning right from the outset, as i indicated and we continue to do so. at that time, most of the other

energy drinks are also labeled thus supplements. in more years and recent years many of the energy drink labels have changed from the major beverage companies as well. towards the end of last year, there started to be a lot of things written in the press about the as a food. unfounded and s no basis for it because we felt our product was equally as a food. as the industry tended to move food we felt there was no purpose in staying a then notified we the f.d.a. and made the change. result in any 't change in formulations. we had a different type of label about consumption on our supplements. we elected to fall in line with industry. we provide the caffeine content

serving and per can and have label that it should be consumed responsibly and not recommended for children so it been a nonevent. expired.e has >> senator martin. >> thank you, senator. mrs. weiner your company has ndicated in testimony and previous letters that all of practices in intended to target individuals and that you follow american beverage not iation guidelines to promote them to children. is, does stion to you this individual who is shown in albums our facebook appear to be about your target demographic? >> are we looking at the child

skateboard and an energy drink? >> that's correct. that is not in your demographic, is it? >> no, he is really under 12. > he is wearing and holding rockstar branded paraphernalia can of rockstar energy drink at what appears to be a event. promoted your company has posted this on its facebook page with a tag rockstar fan for life. reason why we should not conclude that your company promoting its y products to children like there consumers for life like there facebook promotion says. them early, keep them for life. life.rockstar for makes a lot of sense to me as a marketing promotion. this is we not think not part of the corporate

promotion plan that you have? >> well, senator, first of all, this is a single instance huge amount of marketing campaigns but i will address this single photograph the following manner. it is highly likely that child parents.panied by his in today's society it is hard to imagine anyone permitting a with the degree of danger associated with children to g alone, it is difficult imagine any child under age 12th event.around alone at an >> this is just one of many found.s which we we will give all the examples so ou can see this is not an isolated instance but as a pattern of conduct in terms of as a way of n making these kids think of as rock stars for life. sacks, in your testimony and

your ast correspondence company as well says it doesn't children and stated that monster energy complies american beverage association guidelines that energy drink companies shouldn't market to children. i was listening to your conversation with doctor -- with senator blumenthal and making reference how the tobacco industry has a product problem. as a couple of thousand people from having smoked, has to findindustry new customers. out that turns replacing the customers is not if since statistically somebody has reached the age of

smoke has not decided to yet they are highly unlikely to tough oke so that is a marketing problem. customers are dying and new influenced after young kids to start is part of the marketing strategy. o my question is based upon what appears to be kind of a listening to arguments made about how hard it segment out these younger kids, that they are part of a we knowpulation but yet that is where a big part of these problems are. first question to you is, many of your products are i -- by third ut parties. re your distributors

from ctually bound promoting them to children? >> i don't think they are so.tractually bound to did they are independent companies and they follow their own rules they do i believe take into account our guidelines. into think they take account your guidelines. do you use your power as the this product which they sell to ensure that they follow the guidelines? i think that we do, we recently took steps to write to them nd to communicate to -- >> what is it that you tell them that you don't want them to do product?r >> we have asked them to not events o wants or local -- >> what is the penalty they pay kids?ey do market to >> ultimately there is a penalty that -- your company withdraw distribution of your product by

hese companies if they did market to children? >> well, we would have to look and look at you are a contractual rights. > you can create your own contractual rights so. if these third parties did children would you withdraw the product? would you be willing to put it contract? >> these are contracts that list on a long-term. how about any new contracts? with you agree for any new contracts that they would not be to be marketed to children? >> i think that in new ontracts we will look at discussing and putting in a clause going forward. do you actually know if these market to children or not? o you have that as information inside of your company? >> they were one of the we found they had done toso and we took steps

o let them know they should not. >> you say you do know what is the third party distributors and you are monitoring them to make sure hey are not marketing your product? >> we are more aware. dones not done as strictly in the pastment we are looking at trying to monitor it now. what is the re is penalty which a distributor would have? because they have a lower level f concern about your corporate reputati reputation. they are a step removed. hat would be the penalty, what would be the price they would have to pay? do you have any thoughts about going to be a warning? is a written warning and the way we could deal with it is not working at them to

provide funds for marketing and contributions to marketing which did all the you time. it require agree them -- to require them not to contractuallydren as part of receiving access to product for those companies to distribute? >> i would be favorably what we can do legally. i don't know what -- >> i'm talking about new olds on-- old ones. willing to include there would not be distribution? >> yes, i would. you?th >> our distributors are not permitted to market on our behalf. we do all of our marketing and sampling through you're field source. mrs. weiner. >> in all future contracts going seem to es this would be an agreeable clause. >> thank you. mr. chairman. mr. sacks and ask

mrs. weiner would you be willing commitments ame that red bull has made most the commitment not to excessive r condone or rapid consumption of energy drinks? the commitments that red bull has made. would you make the same commitment? >> if you would permit us to study the commitments. the ve just heard them for first time. >> let me ask that one not to excessive r condone or rapid consumption of energy drinks? that on't believe we do currently. >> so you would be willing to make that? it sounds like something we don'ten krpblg apid consumption so it would not represent a change for us. consequently i don't see that it would be an issue. so you do commit to it?

>> it does seem like it would be something we would do. sacks?. we have taken them and rooted them from our can and we would be prepared to make that commitment. >> would you each be willing to make the commitment that you will not say that larger sizes caffeine or higher -- ntrations of kf caffeine are better or have a effect?or stronger i'm quoting from the letter. >> that with seem on the face a reasonable commitment, yes. >> mr. sacks? >> i believe it would be need to e but i would look at it and look at our marketing because i don't high arily follow that concentration is necessarily not better. it all depends on the ultimate level of caffeine that is consumed. be prepared to

review it and look at it and see to on that d come request. that youyou all commit 11-year-oldssix or or in other words anyone under 8 in any of your marketing or promotion? commit to e we will not use anybody who is a child. commit believe we would to not use anybody under 18. e believe our product is safe for teenagers and there is no reason why teenagers should not part of being able to consume be athletes that perform. >> what about six-year-olds and 11-year-olds. >> i said that we would be prepared to commit to children. we consider children as 12 and under. rockstar always has been

committed to not recommended for we mean and by that under 12. according to our independent has reviewed hat the key ingredient -- use as 't and ad that 13-year-old appeal to a six and 7-year-old? agree with that, number one. >> you don't? >> no. >> mr. sacks? no, i don't. most of our teenage -- mrs. taylor? >> i don't think i could say appeals to a child but red bull has not and never children.et to we believe the consumption of nergy drinks to teens is safer but as a strategy we have chosen 8 to 34 as our target demographic and that to which we are committed. i think that is evident in our particularly the last two years. >> i want to say i welcome the taken and i u have don't have time took through

each of them asking mr. sacks mrs. weiner whether they would be willing to make that commitment. others. to some, not to i would ask you as part of your ritten response to some of the questions i will be putting in the record that you indicate willing to are commit to the same conditions bull escriptions that red has adopted in its communication to this committee. i recognize that you haven't had time to study them. commented that they manufacture and produce andr product in eight ounce 12 ounce cans. rockstar and others market their drinks in 16 ounce cans predominantly. two servings per can. the caffeine in rockstar is 160 and 240 milligrams per container. clear to make it very that a coffee house coffee

milligrams of caffeine in a 16 ounce container to the contain buy a shot and wonder up in that 16 ounce cup with 1,000 milligrams of coffee these nagers frequent coffee houses every day of the week. hey are some of the biggest consumers of these coffees. it is important for this to understand that the largest, according to this take the largest i were of caffeine by teenagers is not rom energy drinks and we feel that we have been un fairfairly we have beening -- democratenized in a -- we have demonized and if you are going to look at caffeine you have to look at caffeine coming -- teenagers s

has coffee and our panel reviewed the consumption patterns from the other data commission and according to peer reviewed articles their opinion they have no problem with persons 13 to 17 consuming the caffeine contained our product. >> this is an area where the a picture is word a thousand words. we have seen pictures here which we would never see a coffee retailer,er, a coffee coffee meaning the standard and don't want to single out brands but aw we don't see coff on skate boards or the ads we have seen today. argumented ad this nauseam nauseam. i'm just asking that you go through the red bull letter and in writing. i don't want to press you here,

unfair ifink would be you haven't will a chance to read the letter. going to mrs. taylor, would red bull be willing to make a labelment it would miss a on its product stating not consumers under 18 years old? not feel , we would that would be an appropriate move. we do have a label that reads it is not appropriate for children and we stand by that. >> which is why i'm asking about 18. >> the reason we would not our product as not proposed for those under 18. teens and teen consumption so we think it would send the wrong message. the other reason is we believe that we have the advantage of timing here in the sense the f.d.a. is getting ready to study of the safety of caffeine. if it were to conclude there was

about the consumption of caffeine by teens and if the fine ry of confer producing beverages would agree to limit the sale of their those under 18 then we would be part of that larger solution. a i suppose that would be conditional response. >> thank you. the considers -- and opportunity to respond to what you have heard so far. >> in looking at these drinks, big issue is that it is not caffeine, it is kf fine and other substances. the portion size. we know that it impacts on within y every system our child's body.

be okd be hard-pressed to with 12 versus 13 versus 14. is the ite picture eighth grade boys, they are 14 look old, some of them like they are six and some look wibeards. men are growing and the effect of caffeine on this addressed in a lot of the adult studies. there are many studies on adults the studies that really are far hildren and fewer and many more concerns because their other bodies have perform.ks to as part of looking at the health which fare of children included adolescents as part of hat, i think that it is really important to understand that caffeine ks contain and other substance the that

the caffeine so. even if it is labeled with the other at do components do to that number. that is why we look at it in a way.rent the other part of it is that all caffeinated substances are ddictive and i do not really believe any of us -- we can all deal with this to a certain adults but i don't think any of us really want to do anything addictive in terms children. the one thing i would like to ut in is there are kids that have a whole variety of medical issues. this is a substantial proportion that has been on grog that has things -- growing disorder tion deficit where they may already be on -- focus to folk in in school. they are at risk of taking one been ant they have medically prescribed in a dosage

we know what they are getting clear, it is a prescription and it is written with a certain number of but we know it those kids can use other it and es on top of there is concern about the health effects for this which is group, actually a growing group. the take -- home message from y perspective are that these drinks have more than caffeine that are n general, part of the real concern. we don't want kids using that ng that is addictive could possibly cause them to die. parents, i think, really mean well but the parents need education. i have had more than one opportunity where parents are giving their kids energy drinks. been on abc because parents are two to 4-year-olds they went on stage were giving their kids energy drinks.

don't think the parents were doing anything that they thought was wrong. parents that these thought they were giving their kids more energy. caffeine toxicity is looked at in milligram per kilogram. if you are little you weigh less. which 200 e 14 and pounds or 50 pounds. 12, 13tinguishing between and 14 is not so clear and education of not just -- it is just labeling. it is education. it is having label that for would say something is important here that i need to at this label and nderstand that my teenager, my child, maybe they should not be drinking it. so, number one, making labels in terms of what the ontent is and number two just making sure that the marketing,

there is a little bit of a hope ent strategy and my is that as people get more educated and we need more to look at further impact, which i think we are all 100% in agreement on the panel that that's something we want to see. but looking to say these drinks rom the view of the american kacademy of pediatrics should consumed by children and adolescents. >> thank you. to make a few comments on some of the marketing. about one is that if you take arketing 101 you will learn marketing is aspirational. so if you are showing an 8-year-old in an ad you are appealing to a 15 or 16-year-old who wants to be grown up. so, i think that that's one that if they nize are including 16-year-olds in

he ad they are appealing to younger kids. another thing is that we have a lot about they content control who sees their marketing. that is simply not true. or example, monster's website over-indexes for teens. means teens are more likely to visit there than the appealing to it is teens. we can see that with the data that i'm sure they have available. i would also like to say that other ways to not market to teens. for example, facebook, you could block anyone under 18 being able o access your facebook passengers. that is what companies do. cap'n crunch does nd it says it does not market to them so it is definitely

possible. the last thing i would like to we haven't talked at all about mobile marketing but that in here marketing is going the future. so, not only with kids be able this marketing on the internet, they will be able to access it on their phone and the company will be able to know that the child is going into store and can send them a message about an energy be k and that shouldn't allowed. and the companies can stop it if they want to. >> thank you very much. i have to leave to preside over the senate. i'm going to turn the to senator markey for his final round. i thank all the members of the panel for your informationand your and testimony. i'm sure we will be continuing

conversation and discussi discussion. i look forward to continuing our together. thank you so much. at the end of the hearing when markey is finished he will adjourn and the record will for n open for one week additional questions and responses. >> i thank the gentleman. we would pulled up some more rockstar. we will find more as we go along is hat you can see that it not just an isolated aberrati aberrational thing? >> may i respond? >> sure. >> i would like to say a couple .f things the word rockstar i want to tell you how we mean it. means somebody that is very successful and is a winner in life. accounting firm when we have an accountant that comes in and

does a great job we say you are rockstar meaning you have done a great job. >> my point is these are on your site. >> what i'm trying to do is the ifferentiation of the term rockstar. we are not encouraging the drinking of the product -- i appreciate it. >> in terms of the -- > you don't have to be dick tracy to figure out what the point of this is in terms of and ing a culture atmospheric, you know, much of ife is just monkey see, monkey do. if you create a culture where, you couldn't teach er anance from a bar stool. a father can't say drinking is bad with a drink in your hand on your ng these website as younger kids are surf that makes a culture it more likely that it is just

be of what you should thinking about doing. just say that -- >> if i may. was not isolated we have other examples. >> we are also promoted a life style. we are indicating we think young people should stay away from and be s things hysical, eat well, kiss, be engaged in physical sports. is not just pedaling car caffeine, it is creating a marketing culture consumption of a combination of stimulants that can have significant damaging the health of r children and adolescents. that is all we are talking about this nd having kids like on the website is helping to kind of culture. let me turn if i could to you,

schneider. red bull's testimony states the ompany is committed to promoting active and healthy lifestyle choices. instagram red bull suggests that people take a wash down with red bull and let the battle begin. so, to you, dr. schneider, do sleeping e taking pills and washing them down with energy drinks is a healthy life choice? >> no. no, but from my perspective i we as adults get so many different messages that are great and hopefully you would look at that and say that going to not what i'm do, you are responsible, you are ducated, you are responsible and you are going to look at it and it is not going to be what

you are going to do. and didn't look agent that, it is very impressionable. impressionable group of kids with a lot of buying power. primary d be my concern. >> so, would you agree, rs. taylor, with dr. sthaoeud it is not consistent with a healthy life style to talk about bull and sleeping bulls? >> it is should not have been messaged and that will be addressed. >> it is part of the culture. we are in this hearing dealing with that. be obviously to clear about the message from the committee. we just want it all to end. any more games of semantics to be played with regards to mixed messaging that's going on out there.

we want to make sure that it is that does protect young people. and by young people, we are all agreeing that we are talking about third team, 14, 15-year- olds. we are not protecting that they societyo most things in . we might be treating them as adolescence but in this society, we treat them as children and we understand why because they are still highly impressionable and creating this artificial line of 12 years old basically defies what dr. schneider was talking about which, amongst other things, is to create variations that can exist in 12 and 11- year-olds in terms of immaturity and their level of growth. do you want to add some and? >> of the also comes up in the research on kids and stimulants

is that it becomes the beginning of an addict if pattern so for me, looking at this, ict dev things things that are addictive on the same page. that is one thing that really appeals to kids and certainly we would not want to promote other potentially addict behaviors and that that would not be a good message. >> dr. spencer, do you want to get in on this? >> thank you. i think it's important to also realize that we have representatives here, major players in the industry, and every day there are minor players that are popping up not laying by the same rules. even if we could get the industry to come to sort of consensus, we still need a level playing field for all players to abide by. what are the most striking things that i hear when i had

hearings in my legislative chamber in suffolk county was the idea that these items are safe. be careful of the semantics in terms of the word safe and natural. look at caffeine. caffeine appears in nature, plants, and beings as a natural insecticide. to point of caffeine is prevent insects from eating the plants so we are taking something where its function is nature is to have a toxic impact and we use it in a human model and what i'm concerned about is thatwe steer testimony caffeine consumption has see aed stable but we massive increase in emergency room visits, although we can challenge some of those visits. when we see a number such as

tenfold going from 2005 until 2008, we hear twice going from 2008 two 2011. there's something going on here. it means that has been a shift from soda and coffee to energy drinks and i think that it if thatlogic to not believe there is not some sort of cause and effect relationship would we see this alarming trend. >> it is an alarming trend. thank you for that. it's pretty clear what we are talking about here are marketing practices by these companies and others. are clearly aimed at children and adolescents. what we are saying is -- stop it. we are saying stop it. we're basically trying to use these illustrations as a way of getting that message out. safeguardssee real

that are put in place and there we arembiguity that hearing from the industry including these outliers who will try to take advantage of any agreement that we reach to make sure that those kinds of safeguards are put in place. ms. taylor, your testimony says that red bull believes in teaching moderation in consumption. youris an instruction on nd the 20te, to poud ounce can. does that teach moderation when you say to "pound" 20 ounces? 85% of our sales are in the cans.counts and 12 ounce

additionally, it is not really appropriate for our positioning of the voice of our brand as a premium player and it's an excellent example of the nature of the commitments we are making today and drawing a clear line regarding language around consumption. i will admit this conversation casualsubject to band language, it takes some scrutiny to determine exactly what we are talking about here but this example as well as the one behind you are not on brand for red bull and are covered in the commitments we make today going forward. >> would you agree that it is ?ot a proper message to pound a 20 ounce can of red bull or any other product? >> i do not believe we have employed such language in any of our marketing. >> do you agree that it does not promote moderation that rapid consumption at the level of 20

ounces is not a good thing to be advocating? clicks yes. >> would each of you agree to remove any references that would be encouraging people to consume at a rapid rate of your energy drinks? i do not think we have such language but of course, yes. >> ok, let's keep moving forward. told your company commit putting social media restrictions in place of individuals under the age of 18 are not inundated with unhealthy promotion of your beverages while browsing social media sites? >> we would not believe that would be an appropriate message for us to send for a couple of different reasons. read bull is safe 14 consumption. our target demographic is 18-34 and we have been quite crisp about that since we made a strategic shift but the other reason is because we believe

there is nothing harmful on our social media sites for that age bracket and frankly it's quite positive and inspiring. now that we have made the public commitments we have made to date, the language you have pointed out will be changed and we will be crisp in our commitments today so to restrict the visitation of our site from the teen population would send the wrong message. important for us to know because we are looking at 13, 14, 15-year-olds a lot different than you are. a think they are still vulnerable target audience for any product and we don't view them the same way we view 18 and 19-year-olds. these kids are still in grammar school for the most part. it is just a completely different audience. commit to putting social media restrictions in place so that individuals under the age of 18 are not inundated

with unhealthy promotion of your beverages while browsing social media sites? >> we have a caveat where we under not to get involved. >> but not her team, 14, 15? we hear that these things are aspirational but i don't think people are looking at the other side of the coin which is that for the the new 60. this is a phrase you hear a lot amongst mature adults. my own dentist watches the x games and cannot get enough. point, the the independent panel has illustrated no issues to us or the consumption of our products safely. in combination, these key ingredients have been indicated as safe for the consumption of 13-17-year-olds. >> i know 60 is the new 40, but

having hit 60, i can just tell you, that's not accurate. [laughter] in the same way that 13 is not the new 18. there's a big efforts between a 13-year-old and an 18-year-old. to say that there is not is to say that a 40-year-old and a 60- year-old is the same and whether you like it or not, certain things just start to wear down a little bit more than you would like to. i like the ed markey 1.0. i wish i could get that guy back. 2.0 is in the majority in the senate, so that's a good thing. we are just honestly trying to be -- let's just be honest about this. a 13-year-old and an 18-year-old

are two different species in terms of their level of maturity and to just lump them all together and pretend that they don't belong with younger kids is just completely wrong. they are very impressionable. i continue to be a little bit dismayed by the willingness of the industry to lump the younger kids in with the older teenagers because that is really where i think the problem is and most people's minds and the industry concernious to the knowing that they are being targeted. this is the impressionable age when they are just trying to do what everyone else is doing. the target demographic is 18- 35. >> we are trying to help you help us to ensure that your marketing --

>> my point is to reassure you that we have taken the appropriate steps as a responsible company to investigate the ingredients with scientists that have assured us that it is 100 or set say for of 13-17.acket i want to reassure you. >> will you commit to going through the existing images on social media to erase any that appropriate unhealthy consumption any of these energy drinks? >> that's a big task. you want me to take on energy -- all of them? >> just yours. >> i would be pleased to do a review. >> ms. taylor. >> the commitments we are making today we take very seriously and we want to be able to measure ourselves. you would go through existing images on your social media to erase any that promote unhealthy consumption of your energy drink.

>> that would be consistent about our commitment to rapid and excessive so that is one we are making today. likes we would be happy to do that. place socialut in media restrictions so that those under 18 are not bombarded with instructions to rapidly or excessively consume your products? >> we do not currently suggest that people rapidly consume? >> of the answer is yes? from 13-90 five, do not rapidly -- >> ms. taylor? >> we will not include that messaging going forward. do so.ould also >> all three of the companies here today have stated in testimony and in previous communications that the company does not intend to promote two children. this question is for each of the

companies and please respond. no, will you commit to placing a label on your product indicating that it is not intended for children under the age of 16? >> no. >> ms. taylor? >> we are not prepared to make that commitment. >> mr. sacks? >> no. bindingyou use information to not allow distributors to give samples to children? >> we have trent -- contract in place that we would be unable to modify -- >> future contracts. bindingu put contractual language in future contracts prohibiting distributors and third-party entities from promoting, marketing, or sampling two

children? >> children 12 and under. it underd like to make 16. >> we could not agree to that. we would agree to children under 12. >> our distributors are not allowed to market your sample in our behalf. if the request is to make it legally binding, fine. >> distributors or people we contract with not allowed to third parties we don't know that they should not market or sample again to children but as defined as 12 and under. of the testimony today indicates that consumers are often confused in the marketplace on the differences drinks thatts contain electrolytes or rehydration and energy drinks that contain cap ian and other are purported to

improve athletic performance. in national collegiate athletic association and national federation of state high school associations have stated in letters to senator durbin, blumenthal, and to me that they advise their student-athletes to avoid energy drinks or other stimulants because they may be detrimental to the health of athletes and are not effect to forms of fuel or hydration. i ask for unanimous consent to enter those letters into the records. companies tothe answer as well, but would you agree the student athlete associations that energy during should not be promoted as sports drinks to improve athletic performance for youth? >> dr. harris? know byld also like to what they mean is not for morning them as sports drinks because almost all marketing is related to sports in some way.

>> dr. spencer. >> absolutely. >> mr. sacks. >> there is a distinction. we have a line of energy drinks called rehab that contain electrolytes that precisely the same levels that are contained in gatorade and power raid. there is a substantial body of science that confirms that caffeine up the levels we have in our product do not have a diuretic effect and do not .egate the fact of hydration we don't market as a sports those benefits. >> do you agree with the ncaa or the national federation of state and high school associations are as stated in letters to senator

durbin, myself, and senator blumenthal advising them to avoid other stimulants because they may be detrimental to the health of athletes? >> we don't have large amounts of electrolytes. >> i'm not sure what drinks they are referring to because we have a specific line that is different but everyone is entitled to their recommendations. however, we don't believe there are any concerns about our product being drunk by that demographic. 9 billion cans have been safely consumed in more than 90 countries around the world and anything that has been causally proven to be linked to our product but everyone is entitled to consume as they choose. >> were saying the groups are entitled to their opinion but that they are just wrong? >> they are entitled to their opinion. >> with the information i have in front of me, i would

disagree, but i would say if we were to give a statement on behalf of the company we would need to review that in greater detail to understand the claims and compare that to the science behind our product. >> i would respectfully request time to evaluate it and bring it to our science committee for peer review. >> i think it's important that we just divide this question between that which has obviously included in the product, the electrolytes that high school athletic of -- -- groups would support and others that do not have that kind of ingredient that is preferred. we need to divide the question and i would ask -- i will give each of you a chance in writing back to the committee to tell us if you would divide that question between the two types of drinks or multiple types of drinks that you might be marketing and i will come back to you, dr. harris, so you can make your comments on the issue

of what it is that we should be concerned about in terms of these products. >> my issue is with the that all of the associations with sports we have seen today and the marketing does imply that these products are good and enhance sports performance so i'm just trying to understand what the commitment is to not market these drinks as sports drinks. what that means. the question to them. what is your concern? lay out what it is that you were concerned that they may not be pledging to do that you would like them to do. is that energy drinks should not be consumed as a part of sports and that they become more dangerous when that happens. all of the sports sponsorships int these companies promote

my mind seem to be promoting these drinks as appropriate or sport so i just want to understand that more. divide the question in terms of the types of energy drinks that you are promoting that you think are consistent with the goals that young athletes should have and those that are of concern to these high school associations? mr. sacks? is no relationship between your marketing and supporting sports and promoting your drinks as being useful for those sports. every company promotes sports whether it is beer, coca-cola, pepsi, so i just don't get that. what they'reside, saying is flies in the face of all well-established literature and scientific research that these drinks should not be

consumed for sports or are in any way dangerous. everybody has studies over many years that these drinks do improve performance and there is no suggestion that these drinks are dangerous in those circumstances. we have had no evidence at all. over 50 billion energy drinks being consumed in these instances. the american beverage association says energy drink should not a marketed as orts drinks. -- as sports drinks. .> that was before we have the rehab line which contained electrolytes. that to, we believe

compare energy drinks to sports drinks like gatorade and power raid have electrolytes and that was the distinction they were trying to -- and powerade have electrolytes. >> do you agree with the american beverage association that energy drink should not be marketed as sports drinks? yes, our position as we do agree. we are a member of the aba. sports drinks by definition are defined as electrolyte beverages and hydrating. that is not appropriate for our positioning. as with monster and rockstar joining the aba after the rules were in place and there is only four companies that agreed to

them. i would like to point out that there is no fda or regulatory distinction between energy drinks and sports drinks. that's a business term, an industry term. it is not an accepted fda term. on drink products are clearly labeled with the caffeine content and there is no attempt to promote them as anything other than caffeine beverages. >> from our perspective, if you are members of the american beverage association these are voluntary guidelines, mr. sacks doesn't feel bound and that's helpful for us to understand because obviously if sidelines are voluntary but then individuals can make a decision it to abide by them then really does emphasize and underline the word voluntary so you question what the regime is that it shows that there is in fact compliance. >> those guidelines are

currently in flux and they would say they are not set in cement. they would confirm that those definitions are in flux. >> the guidelines -- the particular guidelines between energy drinks and sports because of the fact that it is an industry standard. it has nothing to do with the fda. it is a technical thing where you put something on a shelf. you put it with sports drinks or energy drinks. >> i appreciate there could be an ongoing discussion going on with regards to the standards. given the new members who have joined, but the old standards are clearly standards which they believed were accurate when they were put on the books. i'm going to bring the hearing to a close. i will just tell you this. we will be returning to this

subject. to verybe asking you strongly re-examine your policies especially as it comes to children. i'm not talking about the 18 and 19-year-olds. i'm talking about the younger what your policies are and what protections were putting in place because we will be revisiting this. we are going to be looking for real results to ensure that lines are being drawn. i would be urging each of our company witnesses when it comes to marketing to children and adolescents not to rely on semantics but to focus on safety

and to focus on those who are most impressionable and to make sure they are being put in place. you can prove that your actions are consistent with the protection of young people and we want to see them protected. i have to rush over to the senate floor and i thank all of our witnesses for the testimony. this hearing is adjourned. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

. . [inaudible discussions] >> in a moment, president obama and secretary of state john kerry talk about the situation in syria. then remarks from afl-cio president, richard trumka. and later, the u.s. chamber of commerce. >> president obama spoke this afternoon about the u.s.

response to syria's chemical weapons use earlier this month. he said he's still deciding what action his administration will take. the president made the comments while meeting with the estonia, lithuania , and -- this is 20 minutes. >> everybody all set up? obviously i'm grateful to have my fellow presidents here as well as the vice president. before i begin, i want to say a few words about the situation in syria. as you have seen, today we released our unclassified assessment detailing with high confidence that the syrian egime carried out a chemical weapons attack that killed well over a thousand people, including hundreds of children. this follows horrific images that shocked us all. this kind of attack is a

challenge to the world. we cannot accept a world where women and children and innocent civilians are gassed on a terrible scale. this kind of attack threatens our national security interests by violating well-established international norms against the use of chemical weapons, by further threatening friends and allies of ours in the region, like israel and turkey and jordan, and it increases the risk that chemical weapons will be used in the future and fall into the hands of terrorists who might use them against us. so i have said before and i meant what i said, that the world has an obligation to make sure that we maintain the norm against the use of chemical weapons. i have not made a final decision about various actions that might be taken to help enforce that orm.

but as i have already said, i have had a military and our team looked at a wide range of options. we have consulted with allies, we have consulted with congress, we have been in conversations with all the interested parties, and in no event are we considering any kind of military action that would involve boots on the ground, that would involve a long-term campaign, but we are looking at the possibility of a limited, narrow act that would help make sure that not only syria, but others around the world, understand that the international community cares about maintaining this chemical weapons ban and orm. we are not considering any

open-ended commitment. we are not considering any boots-on-the-ground approach. what we will do is consider options that need to narrow concern around chemical weapons, understanding there is not going to be a solely military solution to the conflict and tragedy taking place in syria. and i will continue to consult closely with congress in addition to the release of the unclassified document. we are providing a classified briefing to congressional staffs today and will offer that same classified briefing to members of congress, as well as our international partners. i will continue to provide updates to the american people s we get more information. with that, i want to welcome the presidents to the white house.

these countries that they represent all share a very deep tie to the united states, both as allies, and because of the people relations we have with these countries. i want to thank all the presidents who are here and their nations for all that they do to promote democracy, not only in their own country, but around the world. the baltics are among our most reliable allies in nato, and our commitment to their security is rock solid. our soldiers sacrificed together in afghanistan, and the baltic ports continue to support our troops as we transition the nato mission. today we will spend time talking about our shared commitments to the transatlantic trade and investment partnership negotiations, which will add jobs in the baltics and the united states. we are working on development assistance and projects, including building institutions and strengthening society in the

emerging democracies in eastern europe and central asia. we will obviously have discussions about our nato relationship and the security concerns that we share together. so again, i have had occasions to meet with all three presidents on a wide variety of ettings. and a wide variety of summits. they have been outstanding friends of the united states. we are proud of them. i want to thank each of them for their leadership. we know how far estonia, latvia, and as a way to have come in the - estonia, latvia, and lithuania have come in the past decades, so i want to give each of these leaders an opportunity to say a few words. >> again, i would like to begin by thanking president obama for inviting us here.

we have quite grateful to the and you personally for your leadership and support. the main issue on our agenda today is global and regional security and the question on everyone's mind is the situation in syria. for estonia, the use of chemical weapons is deplorable. the attack demands a response. violations cannot be overlooked. when it comes to our security, we appreciate the commitment the united states has shown to our region and europe as a whole, and we attach great importance to continued u.s. engagement in european security. the transatlantic security link is unique and enduring, as are the common values that underpin it. we take our responsibility to our common defense seriously. we will remain committed to nato's mission in afghanistan. we have spent 2% of our gdp on defense. we believe in maintaining a strong transatlantic link in other areas, such as trade,

cyber, and energy security. i look forward to exchanging views, as i look forward to discussing what we can do together internationally to promote our common values, democracy, human rights, rule of law. we already cooperate in countries that lie to the east nd the south of us, ukraine, moldova, georgia, tunisia as well, to name a few. i'm sure that this global operation aimed at helping countries transition from authoritarian to democratic rule will be expanded in the uture. recently we have heard a lot of talk about pivot zfment. -- pivots. today we are on the verge of a new rebalancing of the u.s. focus, this time to the nordic baltic region, our region being one of the most secure, stable, and prosperous in europe. we are proud to be part of it, proud of the partnership we have with the united states here, just as we are proud of our

alliance and enduring friendship f the american people. >> i would like to emphasize that in security, we're talking about economic security, and also on energy security. the united states plays a very serious role. we are open to have nato as a center of excellence for energy security, and with the united states, for nuclear security. this is important because we are on the borders of nato with other not-so-secure regions, and the involvement of the united states is so important for our region. as the country in which resides today the european union's council, we are engaged in starting negotiations on an agreement between the united states and european union, and i'm happy that we got one thing and now we are waiting for a

second one, and i think it is generational challenges and opportunities for all of us for the united states and europe to move past these kinds of relations and to have very efficient outcomes. we would hope we will be able to do this. together with the military, new challenges, we are trying to battle new economic challenges together with the cyber challenges, which we're facing all the time. i want to say that everything, every day practically we see this aggressiveness, and new forms of challenges our region is facing. i can also confirm that nordic and baltic cooperation is a new henomenon, a unique phenomenon in europe,

which is very much reliable, and you can comment on that as being strategic partners for the united states. >> it is important for the american people -- indiscernible] it was 15 years ago when the baltic-american charter was signed, a dramatic moment for us, we are thankful to you during your presidential time. the u.s. led military exercises in the baltic recently. also to afghanistan --

indiscernible] of course we see the future together at the same time being very active in europe. we are working and thank you for supporting us to become members. our thought was to look for new possibilities in europe and using past experience, and also to seek partnerships, which is particularly important in relations with afghanistan. to deliver this country --

[indiscenrnible] lastly -- but at the same time, we felt much more at having this good neighbors set forward and such partners as the u.s., we can move forward quietly, and today's meeting is a demonstration -- of the united states in the baltics. thank you. >> on syria -- [indiscernible [

>> thank you. >> thank you so much. >> we are still in the planning process, and obviously in consultations with congress as well as the international community are very important. my preference obviously would have been the international community already acted forcefully, but what we have seen, so far at least, is an incapacity at this point for the security council to move forward in the face of a clear violation f international norms. i recognize that all of us, here

in the united states, in great britain, and many parts of the world, there is a certain weariness given afghanistan, a certain weariness given suspicion of any military action post-iraq, and i appreciate that. on the other hand, it is important for us to recognize that when over a thousand people are killed, including hundreds of innocent children through the use of a weapon that 98% or 99% of humanity says should not be used even in war and there is no action, then we are sending a signal that that international norm does not mean much. and that is a dangerous thing to our national security. obviously, if and when we make a decision to respond, there are a whole host of considerations

that i have to take into account in terms of how effective it is and given the kinds of options we are looking at, it would be very limited and would not involve a long-term commitment or a major operation. e are confident we can provide congress all the information and get all the input that they need, and we are very mindful of that, and we can have serious conversations with our allies and friends around the world about this, but ultimately we do not want the world to be paralyzed. and frankly, part of the challenge we end up with here is that a lot of people think something should be done, but nobody wants to do it. and that is not an unusual situation, and that is part of what allows over time the erosion of these kinds of international provisions unless

somebody says no. when the world says we are not going to use chemical weapons, we mean it, and it would be tempting to leave to others to do it. and i think i have shown consistently and said consistently my strong preference for multilateral ction whenever possible. but it is not in the national security interests of the united states to ignore clear violations of these kinds of international norms. the reason is because there are a whole host of international norms that are important to us. we have currently rules in place dealing with the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. we have international norms that have been violated by certain countries, and united nations has put sanctions in place, but if there is a sense that over

time nobody is willing actually to enforce them, then people do not take them seriously. i am very clear that the world generally is more wary. certainly, the united states has one through over a decade of the american people understandably want us to be focused on the business of rebuilding our economy here and putting people back to work. and i assure you nobody ends up being more war weary than me. but what i wls believe is that part of -- what i also believe is that part of our obligation as a leader in the world is when you have a

regime that is willing to use weapons that are prohibited by international norms on their own people, including children, that hey are held to account. > thank you all. >> secretary of state john kerry also spoke from the state department. this is 20 minutes. >> president obama has spent

many days consulting with congress and talking with leaders around the world about the situation in syria. last night the president asked all of us on his national security team to consult with the leaders of congress as well. including the leadership of the congressional national security committees. he asked us to consult about what we know regarding the horrific chemical weapons attack in the damascus suburbs last week. i will tell you are someone who has spent three decades in the united states congress, i know that consultation is the right way for a president to approach a decision of when and how and f to use military force. it's important to ask the tough questions and get the tough answers before taking action. not just afterwards. and i believe, as president obama does, that it is also

important to discuss this directly with the american eople. that is our responsibility. to talk with the citizens who have entrusted all of us in the administration and in the congress with the responsibility for their security. that is why this morning's release of our government's unclassified estimate of what took place in syria is so important. his findings are as clear as they are compelling. i am not asking you to take my word for it. read for yourself, everyone, those listening, all of you, read for yourselves the evidence from thousands of sources, evidence that is already available. read for yourselves the verdict reached by our intelligence community about the chemical eapons attack, the assad regime

inflicted on the opposition and on operation controlled neighborhoods in the damascus suburbs in the early morning of august 21. our intelligence community has carefully reviewed and rewritten you to information regarding this attack. nd i will tell you it has done so more than mindful of the iraq xperience. we will not repeat that moment. we have taken unprecedented steps to declassify and make facts available to people who can judge for themselves. but still, in order to protect sources and methods, some of what we know will only be released to members of congress, the representatives of the american people. that means some things we do know we can't talk about publicly. so what do we know we can talk about?

well, we know the assad regime has the largest chemical weapons program in the entire middle east. we know that the regime has used those weapons multiple times this year. and has used them on a smaller scale, but used them against its own people, including not very far from when the attack happened on wednesday. we know that the regime was specifically determined to rid the damascus suburbs of the opposition and it was frustrated it had not succeeded in doing so. we know for three days before the attack, the syrian regime's chemical weapons personnel were on the ground in the area making preparations. and we know the syrian regime elements were told to prepare for the attack by putting on gas

masks and taking precautions associated with chemical weapons. we know these were specific instructions. we know where the rockets were aunched from and at what time. we know where they landed and when. we know rockets came only from regime-controlled areas and went only to opposition-contested neighborhoods. and we know, as does the world, 90 minutes later all hell broke loose in the social media. with our own eyes we have seen thousands of reports from 11 separate sites in damascus, all of them show and report victims with breathing difficulties, people twitching with spasms, coughing, rapid heartbeats, foaming at the mouth. unconsciousness. death.

and we know it was ordinary syrian citizens who reported all of these horrors. just as important, we know what the doctors and the nurses who treated them did not report. not a scratch, not a shrapnel wound, not a gunshot wound. we saw rows of dead wind up in urial shrouds. white linen unstained by a single drop of blood. instead of being tucked safely in their beds at home, we saw children lying side-by-side, sprawled on a hospital floor. all of them dead from assad's gas and surrounded by parents and grandparents who had suffered the same fate.

the united states government knows at least 1429 syrians were killed in this attack, including at least 426 children. even the first responders, the doctors, nurses who try to save them, they became victims themselves. we saw them gasping for air. terrified their own lives were in danger. this is the indiscriminate, inconceivable horror of chemical weapons. this is what assad did to his own people. we also know many disturbing details about the aftermath. we know a senior official, who knew about the attack, confirmed that chemical weapons were used by the regime. reviewed the impact and actually was afraid they would be discovered.

we know this. and we know what they did next. i personally called the foreign minister and i said to him, if your nation has nothing to hide, let the united nations in immediately and give the inspectors the unfettered access so they have the opportunity to tell your story. instead, for four days they shelled the neighborhoods in order to destroy evidence, bombarding block after block at a rate four times higher they had over the previous 10 ays. and when the u.n. inspectors finally gaped access, that access as we now know, was restricted and controlled. in all of these things i have listed, in all of these things that we know, all of them, the

american intelligence community has high confidence, high confidence. this is common sense. this is evidence. these are facts. the primary question is really no longer what do we know. the question is what do we, we collectively, what are we going to do about it? as previous storms in history have gathered when unspeakable crimes were within our power to stop them, we have been warned against the temptations of looking the other way. history is full of leaders who have warned against inaction and indifference and especially against silence when it mattered ost. our choices had grave consequences and are choice today has great consequences. it matters that 100 years ago in

response to the horror and inhumanity of world war i the civilized world agreed chemical weapons should never be used again. that was the world's resolve then, and that began nearly a century of effort to begin a clear red line for the international community. it matters today we are working as an international community to rid the world of the worst weapons. that is why we signed agreements like the stark treaty, the chemical weapons convention, which more than 180 countries, including iran, iraq, and lebanon have signed on to. it matters to our security and he security of our allies. it matters to israel. it matters to our friends, jordan, turkey, lebanon. all of whom live a stiff breeze way from damascus.

it matters to all of them where the syrian chemical weapons are and if unchecked they can cause greater damage and destruction o those friends. and it matters deeply to the credibility and the future interests of the united states of america and our allies. it matters because a lot of other countries whose policies challenge these international norms are watching. they are watching. they want to see whether the united states and our friends mean what we say. it is directly related to our credibility and whether countries still believe the united states when it says something. they are watching to see us syria can get away with it. because maybe they too can put the world at risk. make no mistake, in an increasingly complicated world of sectarian and religious

extremist violence, what we choose to do or not to do matters in real ways to our own security. some cite the risk of doing this. we need to ask, what is the risk of doing nothing? it matters because if we choose o live in a world where a thug d a murderer like bashar al-assad can kill thousands of his own people with impunity, even after the united states and other allies said no, and in the world does nothing about it, there will be no end to the test of our resolve and the dangers that will flow from those others who believe they can do as they will. this matters also beyond the limits of syria's borders. it's about whether iran will now

feel emboldened in the absence of action to obtain nuclear weapons. it's about hezbollah and north korea and every other terrorist group or dictator that might contemplate the use of weapons of mass destruction. will they remember the assad regime was stopped from those weapons? current or future use? or will they remember that the world stood aside and created impunity? our concern is not just about some far off land, oceans away. that is not what this is about. our concern with the cause of the defenseless people of syria is about choices that would directly affect our role in the world and our interest in the world. it is also profoundly about who we are. e are the united states of america. we are the country that has tried, not always successfully,

always tried to honor a set of universal values around which we have organized our lives and our aspirations. this crime against conscious, this crime against humanity, his crime against the most fundamental principles of international community, against the norm of the international community, this matters to us and it matters to who we are and it matters to leadership and our credibility in the world. it matters if nothing is done. it matters if the world speaks out in condemnation and then nothing happens. america should feel confident and gratified we are not alone in our condemnation and we are not alone in our will to do something about it and to act. the world is speaking out. many friends stand ready to respond. the arab league pledged "to hol fundamental principles of to the syrian regime fully responsible for this crime."

the organization for islamic cooperation said we needed "to hold the syrian government legally and morally accountable for this heinous crime." turkey said there is no doubt the regime is responsible. our oldest ally the french said the regime "committed this vile action and it is an outrage to use weapons that the community has banned for the last 90 years in all international conventions." the australian prime minister said he did no want history to record we were "a party to turning such a blind eye." so now that we know what we know, the question is what will

we do? let me emphasize, president obama, we believe in the united nations. we have great respect for the inspectors who endured regime gunfire and instructions to their investigation. but as ban ki-moon has said again and again the un's nvestigation will not affirm who used these chemical weapons. that is not the mandate of the investigation. they will only affirm whether such weapons were used. by the definition of their own mandate, the u.n. can't tell us anything we have not shared with you this afternoon or that we on't already know. and because of the guaranteed

russian obstructionism of any action through the u.n. security council, the u.n. can't galvanize the world to act as a should. so let me be clear, we will continue talking to the congress, talking to our allies, and talking to the american eople. president obama will ensure united states of america makes our own decisions on our own timelines based on our values and our interests. we know that after a decade of conflict the american people are tired of war. believe me, i am too. fatigue does not absolve us of ur responsibility. just longing for peace does not bring it about. history will judge us all harshly if we turn to a blind eye to a dictator's use of weapons of mass destruction, against all common understanding of decency.

these things we do know. we also know we have a president who does what he says he will do. and he has said very clearly whatever decision he makes in syria will bear no resemblance to afghanistan, iraq, or even libya. it will not involve any boots on the ground. it won't be open-ended. it will not assume responsibility for a civil war that is already well underway. the president has been clear -- any action will be limited in response to ensure the use of chemical weapons is held accountable. and ultimately, ultimately we are committed. we remain committed. we believe it is the primary objective, to have a diplomatic process that can resolve this through negotiation. because we know there is no ultimate military solution.

it has to be political. t has to happen at the negotiating table. we are deeply committed to getting there. so that is what we know. that is what the leaders of congress now know. that is what the american people need to know. that is at the core of the decisions that must now be made for the security of our country and for the promise of a planet where the most heinous weapons must never again be used against the most vulnerable people. thank you. thank you. thank you. thank you.

>> house speaker john boehner's office issued a statement. >> again, that's from a spokesman in house summer john boehner's office. another statement, saying in part, by carl levin, senate armed services committee chairman, "the us -- united states should not undertake a kinetic strike before the u.n.

inspectors complete their work and that the impact of such a strike would be weakened if it does not have the support of the gulf states." >> the arc of the moral universe may bend toward justice, but it doesn't bend on its own. to secure the gains this country has made requires constant

individual lance, not complacency. whether it is by challenging those that evect new barriers or ensuring the scales of justice are equal for all and not just a pipeline from underfunded schools to over-crowded jails. it requires individual lens. [applause] >> from wednesday, the 50th anniversary of the march on washington, starting saturday morning at 10:00 eastern. ive sunday on c-span2, ben shapiro. talks to chard trumka

reporters at this christian science monitor breakfast for an hour. >> here we go. i'm dave cook from "the mop tore." thank you for coming. our guest is richard trumka, president of the afl-cio. he has brought a guest that he will introduce. he grew up in pennsylvania and followed his father and grandfather into the minds. -- mines. he worked his way through penn state and earned a law degree from villanova. in 1982, he was elected president of the united mine workers of america.

he was -- it was a job not without risks. i read that he and his wife were married in a small private ceremony after a threat on his life wanted a large public wedding to be canceled. he survived and went on to serve three terms as president, and brought the united mine workers into the afl-cio. in 1995, he ran to be secretary-treasurer of the afl-cio and became the youngest person to hold that position where he served for 15 years. he was elected president in eptember 2009. so much for biography, now to the portion of our program. we are on the record. no live blogging or tweeting while the breakfast is underway. there is no emming -- there is no embargo when the session is over. c-span and fox have agreed not to use video of the session for at least one hour after the session. no live blogging or s you heard me say,

if you would like to ask a question -- ad nauseum, do the traditional thing. opening comment, then questions from around the table. with that, thanks for being here. >> first of all, thanks for posting. i want to thank the christian science monitor for this. i think this is my fifth time. i have enjoyed it very much each time. i want to thank each one of you for coming. i appreciate it very much. have a special guest with me. she came to the united states when she was 8 year years old. she came from bolivia. at the age of 16, after completing an emerging leaders program, she became the vice president of the latin american student association and furthered her involvement by organizing the first-ever dream summit in arlington county where she spoke out publicly about her

undocumented status. she has been instrumental in the dream movement all along and she wrote a beautiful column that -- poem that i have framed in my ffice. it so affected me. she has lived through a number of things. she is one of the people who lived through the fear of having your parents disappear. in fact, one day her dad didn't come home. he had been detained and her parents, her sister, two sisters, siblings and her mother ere terrified. she had to work through all of that. just another example of why our policy cannot allow families to be divided and have the threat of that division hanging over their head on a daily basis so

they live in constant fear and anxiety. she is with us today. i want to thank her for being with me, but more importantly, he courage you have sown and -- the courage you have shown and the leadership you have shown in the dreamers movement. thank you for that. i will try to be relatively brief. i will make a few comments and then we can open everything up for questions. we are about to embark on labor day. that is an incredible -- we are going to celebrate the incredible contributions of america's working people across the country. there will be over 200 plants, -- events, labor day events that we're aware of, labor day events ranging from breakfast parades to festivals and concerts.

we celebrate through the sweat and sacrifice and innovation of working people that built this country. aking up every day, fix it when it's broke, make it run right, and put it to bed every night. unfortunately, there is still a group of people out there that will be on the job on labor day. it will be business as usual. they keep trying to get to the american dream but it has been elusive. as it has been in the country in general. the oecd did a study in 2005 other industrialized countries. we were 13 when it came to upward mobility. i'm sure that has dropped since then because of the recession and whatnot. we still have most americans working harder and longer. their wages are still stagnated. the job creation we see is primarily in the low-wage

ndustry. we still have the exploitation of aspiring citizens who are forced to work in unsafe conditions. that is where we find ourselves. in a week or so, we will be heading to the afl-cio convention and our convention offers us a time quite frankly to take some ready bold and decisive action to answer the challenges of working people in he unions today and in the future. we look at it as a time not for business as usual because of the challenges and changes that working people are facing. those challenges offer us great opportunities. we are taking a serious look at

where we need to go, not just for labor but all of us who believe in a rising future of shared prosperity. this convention will be our most innovative and most diverse in history. a very exciting time, we are opening up doors to our progressive allies in the community. international guests and labor activists, academics, young people, senior citizens, everybody has gotten a chance to come in and participate in the build up to this convention. we have to change ourselves to meet the changing needs of workers right now. we will have over 40 action sessions that will be led by people from around the united states and around the world. so we can talk about strategy, what we need to do to change and how we can work together more effectively. uite frank way, this is a very

exciting time for us because i think the first time where we have brought in only progressive groups together. let's think together, strategize together, plan together. ultimately, let's execute the plans together. we are pretty excited about it. next week, it will start next sunday and go sunday, monday, tuesday, wednesday. we are excited about that. so while we are celebrating what we have earned on labor day, afterwards we are going to be fighting for what we have earned rom here on out. i will leave it with that. >> that was a wonderful conclusion. a couple bits of follow-up to a fascinating interview that you did with our colleague susan. you told her that the labor movement today is in crisis. and there are obviously a variety of statistics to his -- to support that. can you -- have you try and

solve the crisis, would you be illing to give us your view, a brief view of what caused the crisis? >> i think it is a multitude of hings. first, i will point the finger at us. i don't think that we kept pace with the changing economy and the change in environment, both economic and political environments. i think that we did not keep pace, particularly with young people. i think there needs and the type of economy they will be facing are significantly different than the needs of 25, 30, 40 years ago. i don't think we kept pace with that. we are beginning to reverse hat.

so some of it is internal. much of it is external. you have employers who will take advantage of every loophole to prevent people from having a voice on the job. you have political parties that see us as the last line of defense and they have come after us at the federal level, the state level, at the local level and every level that they can. the fact that the supreme court equates money with free speech and that has allowed corporations to dominate policy and politics in the united tates. to the danger of democracy. all of those things i think have come together and put us in the state that we are. >> let me ask you one other. want to ask you about the affordable care act. to quote something you said to

susanne, you said that in giving with the affordable care act, "we made some stupid mistakes." in july, as you know, the teamsters and united food workers sent a letter sending -- saying the act will "shatter our hard-earned health benefits and destroy the foundation of the 40 hour workweek that is the backbone of the american middle class." do you believe with that conclusion? >> let me talk about health care more broadly. the health care system in the united states is broken. it was broken and continues to and extends to be broken. we pay twice as much for health

care as a nation and our results are half as effective as other nations. we have millions of people that work hard every day and weren't getting the health care that they deserve. they should have, i believe as a matter of right. every other industrialized country figured out a way to do it and we hadn't. the system needed to be changed. the affordable care act is a major step in the right direction. i said yes, we made some mistakes along the way. i will outline a couple of those. one, when we did away with the public option. that to me was a mistake. we have 90 some percent of our health care markets in this country considered highly concentrated. that means they either have one or possibly two bank competitors in that market. we needed something to break that up, to create a real sense of competition. the other mistake that we made is, we took away government's

power to use its buying power to drive than the price of prescription drugs. every other country in the world does that. we statutorily gave that up and frankly, got very little in return for it. nonetheless, the act is a major step in the right direction because it brings health care to a lot of people. it still needs to be tweaked to make health care affordable to more people, not to less people. >> to follow up on that, an increasing number of local unions have spoken about the health care law. i am wondering if you had any progress getting that change. have you gotten any assurance from the administration that they will seriously look at changing that? >> you are talking about national unions or local unions? >> national unions, but an increasing number of even local ones are complaining. >> we have been working with the administration to find solutions to what i think are inadvertent holes in the act.

when the act was put together, it wasn't thought completely through. so we worked on a daily basis. i am hopeful that we will get something done in the near future. >> so they haven't told you know? >> now. we are working to try to solve the problems just like they try to solve problems with employers, with small business, large business, different groups. we are working as well to fix the problems. >> can you tell us about other options? the options to change it? some of the alternatives, how would it work? >> i can tell you until we have it done. everything we are talking about is a moving target. i can't say one thing, you reported, and tomorrow it is obsolete.

we are working on a daily basis. >> we have a new labor secretary. tell me what you are expecting from him and what you think his top priorities ought to be. >> first of all, i think tom is going to make an outstanding labor secretary. all we want him to do is to enforce the law and protect workers rights. that is the charge that he has. i have every reason to believe given his history and what he has done what he was in other positions that he would do that. i think he will do that. i think he will work to try to create safe and healthy places. i think he will work to try to correct some of the misclassification that are out there. i think he will work to couples create jobs -- to help us create jobs.

>> do you think he will be hampered by the fact that he went through a difficult confirmation process? >> no. i think he is now the secretary of labor. it ultimately worked out and the vote was -- he got confirmed. once you are confirmed, you are confirmed. it is like the president. if you win a 50 point election, you are the president. >> can you tell us about your position on the keystone pipeline and how that might strain alliances with environmental groups? >> anytime you're bringing together a coalition you're going to have places where you disagree and where you agree. what we are trying to do is create a process where we have the ability to sit down and talk about those things and we can minimize. if we disagree, we go our separate ways, but what we don't want to happen is that when we disagree, it shatters the relationship.

the other thing that we don't want is i don't want it to continue to be my issues and your issues. that doesn't get us anywhere. those issues are seamless. i support your issues, you support my issues. so that we can change the economy and make it a shared prosperity it really does work or everyone. if you look at what has happened to the economy in the past, 60% of all income gains have gone to the top one percent. over the last decade, almost 100% of all income gains have gone to the top one percent. the trend has been more and more to go to the top one percent. none of us, none of the

progressive groups are large or capable enough to make change so hat we can have shared prosperity. it is going to take all of us. that is what we are trying to do. bring everybody together and i am not going to let one issue or two issues where we agree or don't agree to shatter that. the ultimate thing is an economy that works for everyone where we have shared prosperity and people at the bottom of the spectrum can actually get ahead as well. >> do you worry about the loss of focus when asked about -- if you are doing things now -- >> doing what?

more health care, more pensions? that is topical today. we are still fighting the same fight. fight. i don't worry about the lack of focus. the is the focus. >> thank you. your predecessor was involved in union politics in a big way, targeting those he felt were key. when the democrats swept wisconsin on a tidal wave graded by the unions, my question is, is that kind of approach, targeting those still on the agenda today? can we say that governor snyder of michigan and governor walker of wisconsin would be top targets? >> well, look.

we still are going to hold everybody accountable. that is politicians of both parties. obviously, those who have proven to be hostile towards the interests of working people are going to get heightened focus. some of those governors that you talked about, you could add several more. they're going to get -- from ohio, several others. they have been hostile towards working people. or, have done hostile towards democracy itself. they're going to get hot and -- they're going to get heightened focus. the capability to play in 50 states. we will play in as many areas as we can. obviously, the senate is important. we will do, we will build a side -- we will build a firewall around the senate. the house is very important because on things like immigration, immigration reform,

the only thing standing between us and immigration reform is john boehner and the house republicans. they will get heightened focus. we are going to be playing significantly in the states where the battles are being -- where the battles are taking place. we'll be playing in every one of those places. we will play in states where probably we haven't played a significant role as we should. texas will be one of them. >> you will be behind wendy davis. >> will be in texas in a bigger way. >> you mentioned secretary perez

and your expectations. if you're looking at -- to join a fight instances that he will face that tell us about how we will proceed. what are you looking for. >> and he is being helpful now. he's in the middle of the talk on health care. he is the one solving the problems we have in health care. very important, very instrumental. we will see what he does on classification, and misclassification. wage. vailing

hings like that. he has his record. his record shows he has been willing to stand up and support working people. we believe he will continue to do that. i think he will be more aggressive. i think he will be more focused. his background is such that he understands a little more effectively how to enforce laws and how to run a large agency. the department of labor is very large. i think he has his experience, and his history will serve him well in this job and allow him to be a very effective secretary of labor, and make sure that the workplaces of americans are more safe and healthy. > wages, growth. [inaudible] will we ever see raises rise? more competition again? >> there are several answers to he has his record. his record shows he has been willing to stand up and support working people. we believe he will continue to do that. i think he will be more aggressive. i think he will be more focused. his background is such that he understands a little more effectively how to enforce laws that. first of all, the minimum wage is very important for any nation. most nations have them. if you increase the minimum wage and index for inflation, right now our minimum wage would be 10:30 5 -- $10.35. if you go back to the march on

washington, if they got in the race, it would be over $13 right now. it would be higher than where it is. i think that is important. the other thing is, they have used newcomers in this country to drive down wages. they had no rights. no bargaining power. i think when 11 million people come out of the shadows and become citizens, then they will have more rights and they'll be able to get a better share, and

enforce the rights of they have. we find significant numbers of instances where workers actually work for a time and get stiffed, et no wages. they have no way to enforce their rights. hey get misclassified. that is important. immigration laws are important to raising those wages. collective bargaining is important. at least, we have a functioning immigration laws are important to raising those wages. collective bargaining is important. at least, we have a functioning mlrb. collective bargaining can help bring up those wages. if you look at the advantage of -- latinos that have a union make significantly more than those that do not have a union working in the same job in industry. they have more rights. collective bargaining can bring those up. all of those, all of that can happen. it must happen. that is the area today. women talk about immigration reform, the chamber of commerce will squeal about the shortage of workers out there. we cannot find workers. all along, if you can find workers those wages should be popping up.

they haven't been. that would indicate that there is no shortage. i think that is why the decision on who becomes the next fed secretary is so important. the head of the fed has two jobs. one, to fight inflation. two, to seek full employment. although it back to the 1970's, they said they would no longer concerned themselves with full employment. t has been the policy with every fed leader under every president. this next person is going to have a decision to make. the two candidates, they have slightly different positions on those things. the candidate that can convince the american public, at least the president, that they are going to pursue with equal vigor both of the charges, that should

be the candidate that becomes the next fed secretary. >> do you want to come out with ms. yellen now? >> history which indicate that she is for a much more balanced approach. thus, a better approach than larry. larry summers has not yet declared on that recently. he has before. i think if he continues to say we're only going to deal with inflation, then we would not support that. that has been corrosive to the country. and bad for the economy. >> we are going to go next to jim. >> you got to my first question. you are saying you have more confidence in janet yellen as a person who would pursue the policy you think would be better. > we haven't declared.

i would say this. if you look at the history of making the right decisions, and a balanced approach, history leans towards her. >> you mentioned a couple of times. what should secretary perez do on that issue? >> i think he was doing a good job on misclassification. i think that he will continue that an accelerated. putting the resources necessary to get that done. it is so corrosive to people's livelihood and wages. i think he will be fairly aggressive on that. >> he will be more aggressive. anything specific mib happening on that issue? >> more resources and enforcement. it is such a broad area. it is a difficult to detect it. there were such a gap. i think secretaries police released that gap. i think he will continue that and move it up further. michael? >> you mentioned texas. i want to ask you a question

about taxes. can you tell me what you mean by texas being in your crosshairs coming up? >> i cannot hear you. >> what are you planning to making an issue of in texas? why focus on texas? what specifically do you think needs to be made there? >> texas is a large state. texas -- a majority minority state. minorities are denied effectively the voice they should be entitled to. >> i cannot hear you. >> what are you planning to

making an issue of in texas? why focus on texas? what specifically do you think needs to be made there? >> texas is a large state. texas -- a majority minority state. minorities are denied effectively the voice they should be entitled to. i also think that there needs to be more union people in the state of texas. we are going to give that a try. we think that people in texas, with the wages and the conditions they face, they are anxious. we have not given them the proper attention that it deserves.

we will be giving it attention in the future. we are very dismayed there is only one state in the nation that doesn't have a fire code. only one state in the nation that prohibits its counties from having a fire code. that will be texas. that is troubling for workers. my background is in health and safety. my first job was chairman of the health and safety committee. the fact that there are no fire cobs -- fire codes jeopardizes workers in that state. >> governor perry, they have made their case a showcase for how economy can grow with little information -- with little intervention from the government. their philosophy is, jobs grow better when there is less regulation. i wanted to get a sense from you if you found that to be a problematic law. >> if you look at the quality of jobs, the quality of the education, the number of things, that hasn't been true. if you leave employers to their own devices, worksites get nasty. the lack of regulation works to the detriment of a lot of people. hen, if you feel that aside,

onion aside,l that texas gets a lot of federal aid. they can say we do not let anything happen because they do. when it is used, getting government out of the way as used as a laws a fair at the work place that results in high incidence of injuries and fatalities. i think they have gone way beyond the pale of credibility when making that argument. >> >> going back to your point about the progressive groups. ho are the groups that are getting together, organizing for ction? where do they fit in? > we had in the lead up -- let

me explain how we used to do things. in the past, we'll put together committees and they would meet three days before the election. then we would be on the convention. we would go to the convention and we would have 12-15 speeches. then more resolutions. that would go on until the end of the convention. the speeches would stop. about six months ago, we started putting together three main committees. one that was going to look at political growth and action. one that would look at labor's voice in the economy, and one that would look at community artnerships.

he first dealing with new ways to organize so we could try. it is time for us to open this rocess up. we put on those committees people from a number of progressive allies. there were dozens of people from the naacp to community groups. tudent groups. we brought in young people, we brought in senior citizens. we brought in academics. we brought in rank-and-file.

we said, look, tell us we need to be. we are not one to tell you what we are. tell us what you think we need to be to meet the challenges, and to be able to rise to the occasion to change the system. and create prosperity for everybody. to get you what you have earned. and, we also have whispering sessions. al in the field, thousands of people came to those listening sessions from everywhere. union people, old people, young people. immigrants, people from all over the groups, and people from not progressive groups came to those. we did that in person. we did it online. we did a blind survey. we had chats, where we had different recognized leaders, like bob rice led one. these chats online. anybody who wanted to come in could come in. anybody. many of you came into those chats. to talk about what we were doing. we created this open process. we kept it going. when you get to the convention, unlike in the past, we are going to have a bunch of speeches. this convention is only going to

have three major speakers. we are going to have for. but because of what happened in brazil, couldn't come. we are going to have three major speakers. for, if you include me. hree major speakers. we are going to have the president, elizabeth warren, and tom perez. those are going to be the speakers. and we're going to have 40-some action sessions, where convention breaks. we going to these action sessions and we talk in detail about specific problems, specific ideas, specific new ways to do things so that we can educate people on the strategy, mobilize them, and they will go back to their areas, and ontinued that education.

also, unlike past conventions, the end of the convention is the beginning. not the end of anything. we are going to keep those committees in place. those committees are going to continue to monitor what we're doing in those areas. areas that we talked about. changes we agreed to make. look at the effect of them. if they are being effective, we can push them farther. if they are not, we can move into something else. eep those committees and those progressive groups and place so that we are continually talking. somebody asked me before -- >> i was asking about what you thought in the organizing or action groups. what you think of them. >> i do not know whether they are coming or not. i do not know that. i can give you that. i do not know who is registered. >> what you think of the organization was created?

talking about the goals of mobilization. >> i do not really want to talk about them. that is his organization. i would talk about labor, and what we're trying to do. the president is doing a lot of stuff. i'm sure it is very good. i'm sure there are numerous nstances where we would work together. but they are not going to be the dominating or deciding factor. this is going to be -- i started to get to a point, when i talk about having got to the crisis. here is what we used to do. we would have a problem, we would say here is our plan for the problem. we would go to our friends and say here is our plan, come join ur plan. sometimes they would. sometimes they wouldn't. then, after the crisis was over, and the issue was over, everything went away. it was transactional. what we're trying to change now is, here is a problem.

we do not have the solution. let us all talk about, create the solution and the strategy. then let us execute that solution together? they are part of the plan, aggregation, and not just brought on after we think we have provided all the answers. >> thank you for doing this. going back to the fed rates. you made it clear he would prefer to see jenna lay on -- you made it clear he would prefer to see janet yellen. what is most worrying about his background? is it the regulation, or his commitment to the unemployment mandate that is most concerning? >> we'll be involved whenever the proper time is. there is nothing to fight right now. he has not been named or nominated. e may come out and say i am in

avor of enforcing full employment, as well as inflation. if he is insincere -- if he is sincere about that, that is a different story. until we get all the facts, i'm not going to make a decision and declare right here. if you look at history, that is what i was trying to do. if you look at history, hood would think would be the best that job, to date, i think you now who that would be. one, she has been balanced in her approach forever. not just last week. forever. she has been right on predicting what would happen in the economy. those are important factors. they should be considered. >> we're going to try and squeeze in more before we end. >> i want to follow-up on a point you made on the affordable

care act. can you respond specifically to the suggestion -- the suggestion of the 40 hour work week. >> here is what we saw. this is from "the post." well, i am not going to talk about those papers. however, if you read -- just last friday, they were two major articles we talked about. how employers are trying to plan their future by creating a workforce that gets 29.5 hours or less a week so they do not have to pay health care. that is obviously something that no one is intending. no one intended for an act to be the result of people working fewer hours of eight enough to pay for health care. that is of amenities to be addressed. is that an issue? yes. it is an issue. we will continue to work on it. of course, we would. >> back to the end of july, the bankruptcy of june choi it -- the bankruptcy of detroit. there was an interesting paragraph saying confusion our media assistance. we have not seen that. detroit has faded away from the conversation in washington.

have you been working on that with the ministration? do you think something is forthcoming? what would that -- what is key here, what would that systems entail? the fed can lead to detroit? more infrastructure grants go to the city. try to be as specific as possible as what the federal solution would be. >> we do not have time to wade through all that be specific. 30 seconds or less. let me talk about bankruptcy in able get to as much of your question as we can. there are two instances over the last couple of months where there has been abuse of the bankruptcy laws. take the one dealing with people nd minerals. peabody coal has been in the industry for 100 years. they became a staple. they became stand alone back in 1970. what do they do? peabody and arch get all of the legacy costs from a all those hundred years. the create this coal company called patriot. they put all most all of the legacy costs into patriot. knowing that it cannot survive. it cannot bear it. the first time there is a blip in the price, the declare bankruptcy, saying we are getting rid of all of these health care and pension costs for these workers. we cannot afford it. of course they can't. it was a fraud to begin with. the first thing the bankruptcy court is doing in that circumstance is voided contract. all the shareholders out there, all of the debtors are happy. the bondholders think that if the workers take a haircut, that is more than they get. everyone around the table gets to push the haircut on the workers. take that -- that is a danger to everybody. that is a danger to everybody in this room.

your health care, after you are retired, could be done away with the same way. that is an abuse of the ankruptcy law. detroit is where a city doesn't. you know the average pensions are? $19,000. not outrageous. not outrageous at all. i would like to see some of the ceos live on $90,000 a year. let's assume you can negotiate in good faith if you give a voyage increases for health care and pensions when you retire, and then they say we were just kidding.

peabody and arch get all of the legacy costs from a all those hundred years. the create this coal company called patriot. they put all most all of the legacy costs into patriot. knowing that it cannot survive. it cannot bear it. the first time there is a blip in the price, the declare bankruptcy, saying we are getting rid of all of these health care and pension costs for these workers. we cannot afford it. of course they can't. it was a fraud to begin ith. the first thing the bankruptcy court is doing in that

circumstance is voided contract. all the shareholders out there, all of the debtors are happy. the bondholders think that if the workers take a haircut, that is more than they get. everyone around the table gets to push the haircut on the workers. take that -- that is a danger to everybody. that is a danger to everybody in this room. your health care, after you are retired, could be done away with the same way. that is an abuse of the bankruptcy law. detroit is where a city doesn't. you know the average pensions are? $19,000. not outrageous. not outrageous at all. i would like to see some of the ceos live on $90,000 a year. let's assume you can negotiate in good faith if you give a

voyage increases for health care and pensions when you retire, and then they say we were just kidding. we are taking those away from you again. that is an abuse of the bankruptcy law. i just looked at -- we build of the banks. we bailed out the banks, didn't we? that was their doing. they got there because of their over-reaching and their greed. i just saw in today's literature that the six top banks have paid $103 billion in legal costs. more than they have paid in total dividends to all their share holders. anybody outraged by that? anybody?

more a legal costs than dividends to shareholders. 130 -- 103 billion dollars. think about how many jobs can be created. how many kids do go to school. how many schools can be improved. 103 billion dollars. but we don't see that. the system is broken. that bankruptcy system definitely needs to be changed. we said there are numerous ways that you could help detroit. numerous ways. we will explore all of them. are we? yes, we are. while it may not be in the press again, on the front page, we haven't stopped fighting that. we will not stop fighting that. it will be in the trenches fighting that until there is a fair resolution for the workers and the people of detroit. it doesn't matter about the headlines. it matters about their lives. they have been shattered, broken, and promises made should be promises kept. >> my question is, the city

council asked about it would raise the minimum wage from a 25 -- from a dollars $.25. d.c. city council recently passed a bill that would change the minimum wage from $8.25 an hour to $12.25 an hour. do you have any advice on that? >> yeah. sign the bill. it is a great piece of legislation. i don't know how many people live here in the d.c. area. how many of you can live on 12.50 an hour? how many of you can live on $12 and $.50 an hour? it is a process. $12 50 since in our isn't outrageous. it is behind schedule to where it ought to be. you want to sign the bill. mark? >> fast food workers are walking up. to what extent are workers like the fast food workers going to be the future of the labor

movement? >> i think that it is a sign of things to come. it is sort of the vanguard of a change in the economy. it is not just fast food workers. you see taxicab drivers in new york city doing the same thing. you seem home care workers trying to get a voice. there is some growing momentum around the country with different groups of workers that have said we have enough -- we have had enough. the economy doesn't work for s. if you ask the average american, the vast majority of americans believe in it. that the economy ought to work for everyone. what you are saying is the vanguard of more to come, unless the economy starts to really work with decent standard of living and benefits. >> can i play devil's advocate? i was reading if he's getting ready for this that does it would be hard for labor unions in service, in terms of the economics. t is a tough proposition for