message on who we are and what we police. >> you just turned 75. happy birthday. how long will you say -- stay on the job? >> god will determine that. i have a lot of energy. i feel well. we have a great team. to go do something else now would be to walk out in the middle of the ball game. i told somebody recently that if you see me link and a box of flowers i am only thinking about it. >> no plans to retire. thank you for being with us. >> thank you. conversationed the with lori montgomery and jim kuhnhenn. is that them line chamber needs a front leader of

congress. i think one of the answers on becoming involved in primaries is kind of a manifestation of what their problem is. the fact that the congress and the house republican size of the congress is more conservative is not because the chamber has failed. that is just the consequence of how politics and demographics has worked out. they become involved in a way that changes that dynamic some way. in 2012 they were only involved in two primaries. one was a senate race in missouri. i think you will see more of that. .hey are trying to get voices they will listen to them. get more moderate voices. you saw his argument on the debt ceiling. it is an incredible threat to american business. it is a threat to his institution if the country goes into default.

whether the country will go into default is mainly a threat right now. it will more than likely get resolved. a lengthy talk of one creates economic hardships for his membership. that is what he is going to be doing. >> could you read between the lines? like to seey would the old fed chairman. he said he had taken a number of hits. muchnot think he gave us in terms of larry summers and janet yellin. is interesting that in terms of how we get he thinkse fall despite the ungovernable nature of the house right now that there are people led by paul ryan trying to find a commonsense path forward.

they're trying to shape the house by getting more involved in the primaries to show who we are and what we believe. it is really interesting. it seems a lot of people are getting frustrated by washington's inability to work. >> i think that is absolutely right. that putting some hope there is movement on immigration. i think that is a very optimistic view. i think congress will be totally overwhelmed. if they can move something in the house, more power to them. >> thank you for being with us on "newsmakers." >> thank you. >> there are all types of leaving. the most favorite is racial bullying.

philosophy is based almost solely and completely on the ona that they stand up for behalf of the victimized minority. it does not matter. if you are a minority there standing up for you. if we oppose the policy, the logic is we hate blacks, jews, gays, and women. that is the philosophy they tried out. >> then schapiro is today's in- depth guests. we will take your calls and guess life. john lewis will be here. the book club returns and december.

read the book and engaged on our facebook page and on twitter. >> now the afl-cio president talks about his organizations agenda. two successful -- potential successors to ben bernanke. he spoke to reporters at the crenshaw and -- christian science monitor breakfast for an 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. 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. 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 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. i have with me a special guest. -- came to the united states when she was eight 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 office. she is -- 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 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 with 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. 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, 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 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 the 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. 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. 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 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. 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 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 equates money with free speech 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 come together 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." 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 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. 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 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 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. 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. 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] will we ever see raises rise? 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 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, 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. all of those, all of that can 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. 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. it 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 [inaudible]

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 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 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. 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? >> 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 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. there were dozens of people from 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. 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 continued 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. keep 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 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. 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. he may come out and say i am in favor of enforcing full employment, as well as inflation. if he is insincere -- if he is 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. 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. [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 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 and 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 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 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. >> 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. 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. when people want 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 department's 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. how do you improve medications about the affordable care act? you came out on tuesday, and 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? >> if you have a republican in 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] to 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 vote, and whether they will pay any kind of dues? >> all of the government stuff

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. david frost has died. he is known for his series of television interviews in 1977 with richard nixon. he is the only person to have interviewed all six ridge prime ministers serving between 1964 and 2007.

-- all six british prime minister serving between 19 624 2007. he had recently been working for al jazeera international. he died of a heart attack last night, he was 74. secretary of state john kerry is on the sunday morning talk shows today, as cussing the situation in syria and the administration's response. here are some of what he said on meet the press, followed by kentucky senator rand paul, also on meet the press. >> the united states is strongest when the congress speaks with the president, when the american people are invested because we have had an appropriate setting of all of the facts. let me just add this morning that a very important recent development in the last 24 hours, we have learned through samples that were provided to the united states that have now been tested from worst -- from first responders and hair

samples and blood samples have tested positive for signatures of sarah and in -- of sarin. this case will build. i don't believe my former colleagues in the united states senate and house will turn their backs on all of our interests and the credibility of our country, on the norms with --pect to the enforcement adopted the chemical weapons convention. the congress has passed the syria accountability act. congress will recognize that and realize that with interest in our respect to iran, we are hoping for a diplomatic resolution for the standoff on the nuclear program. but if we do not iran will read what we cite do with this

convention and syria. israel,s -- likewise, turkey is at risk, the region is at risk. we believe that the congress of the united states will do what is responsible. sayhe one thing i would that i am proud of the president is coming to congress in a constitutional manner and asking for authorization. that is what he ran on, his policy was that no president should unilaterally go to war. i am proud he is sticking by it. -- john kerry whether or not he waffled on that and was not exact the concrete that they would. absolutely if congress votes this down we should not be involved in the syrian war. 50 --k it is at least the at least 50/50. >> he don't think this is a compelling case that has been made and that congress will

follow suit? >> in the house. i think the senate will rubberstamp what he wants. the house will be a much closer vote. of thecan listen to all sunday morning talk shows, beginning at about half an hour at noon eastern on c-span radio. also today, john boehner has invited members of the house to capitol hill for an in person with senioreeting administration officials. that is set for 2 p.m. eastern. the u.s. senate is scheduled to hear searing that hearings -- a scheduled for hearings on syria this week. john -- janet napolitano delivers her farewell speech as secretary, security preachy stepping down to become president of the university of california system, which includes ucla and the university of california at berkeley. from the national trust club, this is half an hour.

-- national press club, this is half an hour. good morning. for over four years, she has overseen the third-largest cabinet agency in the federal government with more than 240,000 employees across the country and around the world dedicated to keeping our nation safe, secure, and more resilient. these join me in welcoming secretary janet napolitano. [applause] >> hi. thank you.

good morning. thank you for joining us today and that like to thank the national press club for hosting us. i want to thank the men and women of dhs. in my 4.5 years as secretary, i have come to know many of these men and women, hear their stories, and see them perform important work of the department every day. getting to know them has been one of the most rewarding parts of being secretary and any success we have achieved flows directly from their dedication and service. i have also had the chance to engage partners across the homeland security enterprise, governors and mayors, police, firefighters and first responders and business and faith based community leaders. all are essential partners in the shared responsibility for homeland security.

i am grateful to have their strong support. the job of securing our nation is a large one. it requires us to enlist the talents and energies of people all across the united states. in that way, all of us are stakeholders in this department's work. all of us share in its ultimate success. together, we have faced many challenges these past 4.5 years. to list them all would take more time than we have today. among them was an h1ni flu pandemic that affected every state in our nation, the deepwater horizon oil spill which remains one of the worst environmental disasters in our history, and the threat of drug cartel violence along our southwest border. we also confronted numerous terrorist plots and threats, both international and homegrown, and a set of catastrophic natural disasters

that included hurricanes, floods, fires, and even an earthquake in washington, dc during my tenure as secretary, we've managed 325 federally declared disasters and issued more than 60 emergency declarations. in some cases, we provided state of local partners with assistance before the disaster even took lace. -- even took place. each of these challenges tested us in new ways. they presented new opportunities for us to learn, grow, and get better at what we do as a department and as a nation. they allowed us to build on the knowledge gained from spec -- past events and refine our approach as the threats changed

and their own understanding increased. looking back over the past 4.5 years, i can say that if there is one take away, one object lesson in core operating principle that i have learned and embraced as secretary, it's this -- in a world of evolving threats, the key to our success is the ability to be flexible and agile and adapt to changing circumstances on the ground whether that is across the globe or here at home. at dhs, to be flexible and agile means bidding forward-looking in our preparations, early and active in our engagement, nimble and our response, and resilient in our recovery. it means taking every necessary step to prepare for a range of potential outcomes and understanding that if things don't go according to plan or the unexpected occurs, we are ready and able to shift resources and adjust operations, learn from our mistakes, and put ourselves in a position to succeed in the future. being flexible and agile means acknowledging that we may not be able to stop all threats all the

time but we can and must be prepared to address them quickly when they happen, minimize the consequences, drop pragmatic lessons and emerge stronger and better. these are the most critical elements of our ability to meet our complex mission. i believe we are seeing that approach bear fruit in a profound positive way. today, i will talk about how we have made the department more flexible, agile, and adaptable and how that has led to a more integrated and effective response to terrorist threats, more prepared and resilient states, cities, and communities, and a more engaged public. i will give you a few examples to illustrate this point. as many of you know, dhs achieved an important milestone this year -- our 10th anniversary.

the nine/11 attack served as the impetus for the creation a decade ago and while it is not our only mission, and hensing our nation's ability to prevent, respond to, and recover from terrorist attacks remains our primary focus. too often, our country is reminded of this ongoing threat. on april 5 teen of this year, our nation suffered a serious and damaging terrorist attack and the boston marathon. like 9/11, the day began with clear and beautiful weather. like 9/11, by nightfall, we knew that innocent lives would be lost, hundreds more injured, many gravely, and one of our great american cities scarred by the blast of two improvised explosive devices. no two terrorist events are ever the same. methods and motivations differ but the pain and loss endured by the victims and their families is singular and in comparable.

the boston marathon attack was a despicable act of violence directed at a symbolic keys. the event that each year draws athletes and fans from all over the world. the perpetrators of that bombing, we saw the worst of humanity, cowardice, hatred, violence, and intolerance. on that day, and the days that followed, something else also emerged. the very best of humanity. communities banded to get her over silent vigils and a determination to be austin strong. -- boston strong. one thing i have learned to deal with is the importance of working closely and actively with partners at the state and local level. they bear the immediate runt of an attack. they are the first on the scene to respond. they know the needs and capabilities of their communities better than anyone.

when i became secretary, we made it a priority that states, cities, and communities have the tools am a training, and resources they need in a crisis. we have spent the last several years working toward that goal. across the country, we have supported stronger information sharing through state and local fusion centers where we have deployed dhs personnel and strengthened our analytic capabilities. we have trained law enforcement to recognize trends, tactics, behaviors, and other indicators of potential terrorist activities. we have provided federal knowledge regarding terrorism and other threats so it can be incorporated into state and local community-based efforts to prevent violence whether it is the result of violent criminals, extremists, or active shooters. we have improved the ability of local communities to respond to critical incidents including in the city of boston and the

commonwealth of massachusetts. for example, we provide homeland security grants to equip and train special response teams in improvised explosive device detection, prevention, response, and recovery. over the years, dhs has supported more than a dozen exercises in boston including a large mass casualty event involving hundreds of responders just last november. we supported the creation of the medical intelligence center, the only one of its kind in america, to enable information sharing across the austin medical community. -- austin medical community. the emergency -- boston medical community. the reaction after the attack

was not accidental. it was a product of years of training and investment in the link state and local capacity and the quick, orderly, focused, and comprehensive response by law enforcement, first responders, and the larger boston community on that day saved lives. immediate control over the scene by law enforcement and assistance from first responders and medical personnel helped triagew, it back you entry the fallen fallen and injured, a scenario they have practiced to ensure no one facility would be overwhelmed. citizens stepped up and played a critical role, it hearing for the wounded, donating blood, and submitting videos that helped identify the suspects -- a powerful reminder of the role the public lays in providing aid but also providing useful information. the reason why after i became secretary, i called for the creation and then expansion of the argument " if you see

something say something" campaign, expanding it to more than 250 states -- 250 cities nationwide to encourage the public to play an active role in reporting suspicious activity. without the selfless service of so many heroic individuals and first responders, the toll from the boston attack could have been far greater. this terrible tragedy could have been our worst. for me, the lesson is clear -- for every attack we experience, every threat we face, and every decent intelligence we come across, we learned. we assess our preparations and capabilities. we make changes. we become more flexible and -- in the actions we take and we get stronger and more nimble. the boston attack was not the only terrorist plot we confronted over the past 4.5 years. we dealt with the attempted christmas day coming aboard an airliner down for detroit. 20 10 air cargo threat as well as other plots that were effectively mitigated.

some more international in scope and origin like the christmas they plot was involved a nigerian citizen who purchased his ticket in ghama,. flew from legos to amsterdam and attended to ignite a bomb en route to america. from that attempted attack, we learned that relevant information possessed by u.s. customs and border protection needed to be available overseas at the last point of departure for the united states. we fixed that. we learned that our adversaries were moving to nonmetallic devices. we adapted our screening technology and tactics to counter that. and we learned that a single vulnerability in any part of the aviation system can make everyone connected to it vulnerable. since we don't control security at foreign airports, we have to work even more closely with international partners to raise the overall security of the system. we did that. shortly after the christmas day

plot, i launched a worldwide initiative to make these needed changes in close collaboration with our strongest allies. i am proud to say that i october of 2010, this effort led to 190 countries signing onto an historic agreement to improve aviation security, standards, and technology and information sharing. i have had the chance to visit many of those countries over the past 4.5 years. 40 in all across six continents however, our work did not end there. following the 20 10 air cargo threat which involved bombs hidden inside printer cartridges departing on international planes to the united states, we launched a second initiative to work with international partners and the private sector to ensure air cargo coming to the u.s. was effectively screened. we faced a threat, we responded, and we addressed the weaknesses in our systems.

while there is always more work to do, our aviation system is now stronger and more resilient. we have a far better idea who is seeking to or aircraft to the united states area and we have improved security measures at home and abroad to make sure we are focused on those who seek to do us harm. of course, not all threats result from terrorism or violent behavior. some come from mother nature and the impact can be just as severe if not more so. over the past 4.5 years, our nation has faced hundreds of disasters including hurricane irene which happens when multiple states were already doing with historic floods, making a bad situation even worse. we confronted deadly tornadoes in joplin, missouri, tuscaloosa, alabama, and moore, oklahoma. today, as we find ourselves every summer, we are fighting

devastating wildfires in the western states, particularly california. as with our counterterrorism efforts, we two important lessons from each of these events, most notably -- we built upon the lessons of hurricane katrina to put us in the best possible position to support the response to a major hurricane and make sure that response would be fast, flexible, and comprehensive. we understood the importance of pre- positioning mass quantities of assets before the storm so they will be quickly available to those in need. we recognize the value of early outreach to governors, mayors, and emergency managers so everyone knows the plan and how to execute. we incorporated rate assessed or declarations into our planning some localities would have the funds they need to make reparations and pay for overtime for police and first responders. we understood the role of

organizations like the red cross, the salvation army, and others who are so essential in providing support to survivors as well as federal partners like the department of defense. in short, we knew we needed to engage the whole community in all phases of emergency management. when hurricane sandy threatened the united states in late october, 2012, we had a plan, we had people in place, and we have resources at the ready. sandy was the most damaging storm to strike the united states since katrina which made landfall eight years ago just this week. sandy can assure and the most densely populated region of our country. it damaged or destroyed more than 650,000 homes costing more than it did billion dollars in losses and affecting 24 states. it's tropical storm force winds

could be felt for 1000 miles, blizzards hit north carolina and west virginia, and dumping up to three feet of snow and the storm's effects extended as far west as wisconsin. in all, sandy took more than 70 lives in the united states. sandy also affected some of our nation's key financial systems and left a large part of new york city without power for more than one week. our posture in the response to this epic storm was to lean forward in our preparations, surge assets and people into the disaster zones as quick as possible and streamline the system's to the victims and cut red tape and find solutions to problem's when they arose. before the storm hits, fema teams had and the floyd -- had been deployed are activated in several states. we supplied water, food, blankets and essential supplies at strategic locations along the

east coast and the president provided emergency declarations for 12 states freeing up federal resources. after the storm passed, fema sent teams into the impacted areas to set up disaster registration centers and conduct damage assessment. the coast guard immediately conducted search and rescue. for the first time, we activated the dhs surge capacity force and all -- an all volunteer corps that we created in 2011 to leverage the share talents and experiences and capabilities of employees from across the department. hundreds of employees from ths components like tsa came to new york and new jersey come many of them living on merchant marine vessels in new york harbor for weeks as they provided assistance to people and their families in the affected area. these and other dhs elements contributed to the strong, coordinated response to sandy. when we encountered a snag or

problem, we moved quickly to address it and come up with an appropriate solution. when fuel ships could not enter new york harbor because of debris in the water, we deployed the coast guard to clear a navigation channel. when fuel supplies began to run low, we waived the jones act to allow ships from other u.s. ports to bring in their supplies to increase fuel availability. similarly, when the utility struggle to get power back on, we worked with the defense department and are private sector partners to flight teams and assets from as far as california to help bring those systems back online. the collective response to sandy reflects an emergency management system that is swift and flexible, adaptable and united. it has made all the difference in our ability to speed resources to impacted areas, identify survivor needs, and

help communities recover and rebuild. that said, every disaster by nature is an imperfect and challenging event. we know there are still many who are putting their lives and communities back together after sandy. in any disaster or crisis, there are always challenges, problems arise, the unexpected happens. our work on the east coast is far from done. flexibility and agility are not only about being operational. sometimes, they are about establishing commonsense policies and priorities, using the resources you have. when i became secretary in 20 -- in 2009, 1 of my first actions was to ensure that we set the right priority for one of the departments most important missions -- protecting our borders and enforcing our immigration laws.

over the past 4.5 years, we have invested historic resources to prevent illegal cross-border activity area because of these investments and manpower and technology and infrastructure, our borders are now better staffed and better protected than at any time in our nations history. it illegal crossings have dropped to 40-year lows. we also set commonsense immigration priorities with a focus on criminals, national security and public safety threats, repeat offenders, and egregious emigration file -- immigration violators. last year, we remote more serious criminals from the unitta in our history. we strengthened our work to combat transnational criminal organizations including those that commit cyber crime and financial fraud, violate international property and prey upon human life. as part of our effort, we

dhsblished the dhs loop-- blue campaign to unify the departments work to fight the worldwide scourge of human trafficking. while important, we still need to make sure that future changes we needed to make further changes to create a more flexible, fair, and focused emigration system. we instructed our immigration agents and officers to use their discretion under current law to not pursue low priority immigration cases. like children brought to the united states illegally by their parents. children brought here for no fault of their own and you know no other country as their home. congress had a chance to give the so-called dreamers a way to ongress enacted --

unfortunately, that did not pass, despite strong bipartisan support. in june of last year, i used my discretion to create deferred childhood arrivals -- dca. it gives children a two-year provisional status to remain in the united states. in just its first year, over half a million individuals have requested defered action. and after a thorough review of each of those cases, including a background check, 430,000 have been approved, allowing these young people to continue to contribute to the country they call home. d.c. ca. it is indicative of our

necessity to build more flexibility into the system. i believe we are a stronger, more effective department ecause of these changes. i'm proud of how far we've come over the past four years. i'm proud to have played a role. it is capable and adaptable. when i look at the response to the boston marathon bombing, hurricane sandy, and many less well known incidents, i see the tremendous payoff for our nation's investments over the past decade. that's not to say our work is one.

far from it. my successor will most likely have a full plate on his or her hands. the best way perhaps for me to nd today is to give my successor a letter on what to expect. in this position you will see the need to forge strong relationships with all of our partners. to make sure ress d.h.s. has the resources it needs to meet our responsibilities to the american people. will you need to continue our work to move to a more risk-based, intelligence-driven security system. as we have done at our airports with programs like t.s.a. prechecks which expite known

travelers through security and customs. you will need to support science and technology research, building on the more than 2.2 billion dollars we have invested over the past 4.5 years to strengthen chemical, biological, raid logical, and nuclear security measures. you will need to continue to recapitalize the coast guard so it can meet its ever growing mission. you will need to continue to ensure that security, a key government lead of national significance. you will face new chenchens that we have -- challenges that we have begun to address but that need further attention. our country will, for example, at some point, face a major cyber-event that will have a serious effect on our lives, our economy, and the every day functioning of our society. while we have built systems, protections and a frame work to identify attacks and intrusion,

share information with the private sector and across the government and develop plans and capabilities to mitigate the damage, more must be done. you will also have to prepare for the increase in likelihood of more weather related events as the result of climate change and continue to respond to disasters in far-flung regions of the country that could occur t the same time. you must continue to integrate the department and lead it into its next stage of development and operation through challenging fiscal times including the ongoing impact of the sequester. large bottle of advil. someone said being the secretary of d.h.s. is the most thankless.

what you do here matters to the lives of people all across our great nation, and your decision affect them in direct intangible ways. first responders have equipment and training that a disaster trike of people that have lost everything are given food, shelter, and hope. and the thanks for that is not owed any single individual or cabinet secretary but to the 240,000 d.h.s. employees, many of whom work in tough conditions around the clock to accomplish our shared and noble mission,

and that includes some who have made the ultimate sacrifice for our country. they are the back bone of our nation's homeland security. and over the past 4 1/2 years it has been my great privilege to serve with them and to build a stronger and more flexible and more agile department of homeland security. i thank them, and i thank all of you. god bless you, and god bless the united states. thank you. [applause]

fpblgtsdz host: joining us is longtime >> we have learned through samples provided to the united states that have now been tested from first responders in east damascus and hair samples and blood samples have tested positive for signatures of sarin. so this case is building, and this case will build, and i don't believe that my former colleagues in the united states senate and the house will turn heir backs on all of our interests, on the credibility of our country, on the norms with respect to the enforcement of

the prohibition of the use of government weapons that have been in place since 1925. the congress adopted the chemical weapons convention. congress has passed the syria accountability act. i think congress will realize that our interests with respect to iran. we are hoping we have a diplomatic exclusion. -- solution. if we don't, i hope -- >> mr. -- >> likewise, israel is at risk, jordan and turkey are at risk. the region is at risk. we believe that the congress of the united states will do what s responsible. >> the one thing i would say i am proud of the president for is he is coming to congress and

asking for a constitutional authority p that's what he ran on. i'm proud he's sticking by t you ask john kerry if he will stick by the decision of congress, and i believe he waffled on that and wasn't exactly concrete that they would. absolutely if congress votes this down, we should not be involved in the syrian war. i think it is at least 50-50 whether the house will vote down involvement in the syrian war. > you think it is at least 50-50? you don't think it is a compelling case that has been made? >> in the house. i think the senate will rubber stamp what he wants, but i think the house will be i -- a much closer vote. >> both of those from today's "meet the press." you can listen to all the sunday shows on c-span radio. also today, house speaker john boehner has invited members of

the house to an in-person classified meeting with senior obama officials and it is set for 2:00 p.m. eastern. the senate is scheduled to hold hearings this week. c-span will cover those live. you can check our schedule to discover when that will happen. when congress returns we will have life coverage on the house and senate on c-span 2. >> reporters were briefed following the possible use of chemical weapons weapons in syria. he talked about the process including when the samples will be arriving. his is about half an hour. >> good morning, everyone.

the secretary general held a telephone call td with the head of the united nations mission to investigate allegations of the use of chemical weapons in the arab republic. he has just returned from the hague with the rest of his expert team and briefed the secretary general on the next status of the investigation process. all preparations for classifying the samples are progressing well. some folks will begin to be transferred to laboratories tomorrow. dr. borstrom told the secretary general that two syrian officials were observing the process. the whole process will be done strictly adhering to the highest established standards of verification recognized by the organization for the prohibition of chemical weapons. in light of the horrendous

magnitude of the event, the doctor asked them to expite the mission's analysis and analyze the samples without jeopardize the scientific timelines required for accurate analysis and to report the results to him as soon as possible. they discussed ways to further accelerate the process. the secretary general personally thanked the professor for his undertaking and for the performance of the team while in syria, in spite of the dangerous and difficult circumstances. i just want to update you a little on the humanitarian picture in syria. the u.n. is continuing its critical humanitarian work in syria where and when possible, as well as in neighboring countries. for example, the world food program targeted three million people with food aid in august, and last week it distributed rations for 10,000 people.

in light of the food chrises, the program sought to feed 235050,000 people in august. the world health organization has coordinated assistance to 3.7 million people in syria. the u.n. children's fund, unicef, has helped reach millions of children, and it has helped more than 10 million people in syria access drinking water. for its part, unhcr, and its partners have reached more than 1.5 million people with much needed supplies. of course there are many more people outside of syria and in neighboring countries receiving assistance. i also advise you that the secretary general spoke this morning with the foreign minister of france, mr. fabios, he will continue to stay in

touch with world leaders in the days to come. yes? -- is there a window or opportunity for the government to react? and what are they doing on that? inaudible] >> at this point i'm not sure of any full meeting. the secretary general did speak to the department, members of the security council already, and he did intend to speak to the non-permanent members of the security council in the days to

come. i think that will probably be on tuesday. we can give you more details when we get closer on that. with regard to your next question, i would say the secretary general took notes of the announcement by president obama yesterday on the referral to congress. i can tell you, he regards this as one aspect of an effort to achieve a broad-based international consensus on measures in response to any use of chemical weapons. use of chemical weapons will not be accepted under any circumstance, and there should be no impunity, and any perpetrators of such an horrific crime against humanity should be held accountable. the u.n. mission should be given an opportunity to succeed. the secretary general applauds he bravery of the team of u.n. personnel. finally, the secretary general reity rates the primary role of the security council of mean tange international peace and security, including in any case

where the use of chemical weapons is established. in such case, he believes the council should stand firm and united in agreeing on any weapons of chemical use. yes? >> does the secretary general plan to meet with either -- ident obama or the president putin? be on ther. sallstrom return trip? >> needless to say the president is likely to take place in any iscussions on the topics which would ordinarily be discussed. at this point i cannot say with whom the secretary general will be meeting. but of course they will be gathered there in st. petersburg

, the major leaders from the major countries from the world's industrialized economies in the world, and we'll keep you posted s we get closer to that. sellstrom? >> well, we have not said what the combination of that team will be. >> and you mentioned two syrian officials are acome anying the samples to ensure the samples are correct. why are there not two officials from the opposition? you didn't mention that, unless there are, acome anying that, to ensure the samples are accurate. condly, you mentioned the -- dr. sallstrom wants to get these

in as soon as possible without the es -- jeopardizing tests. the emergence of evidence -- >> i beg your pardon. i forgot to remind you about the microphone. >> sorry. thank you. first question -- i forgot. >> syrian officials. >> you mentioned syrian officials. ou didn't mention syrian officials watching out for the credibility of the samples. and the second, asking sellstrom to expite the results. do you see that there is a possibility of a convergence of peffed in the first two weeks, while congress is making this decision that we have, the result from the united nations? >> i wouldn't speculate on the latter part of your question. i would simply reiterate what we said.

the united nations mission is completely capable of establishing and parceling a critical manner the facts of any use of chemical evidence based on the evidence on the ground. we are not giving a timeline, despite various reports of different timelines. we are not giving a timeline. one of the reasons is precisely what i said early yes on and you picked up on it. the secretary general discussed with dr. sellstrom there are ways to accelerate this process while keeping in the scientific bounds that there are, including this hearing of the standards set down by the obcw, the organization for the prohibition of chemical weapons. which brings me to your first question. the secretary general's mechanism. so the guidelines from this procedure set out very clearly who should be there to oversee the chain of customer can i --

custody, and that is why there are two syrian officials there. that's where i would leave it. because the guidelines specify precisely what the mechanism should be to ensure the chain of custody. as i said, and i would repeat again, this is all being done strictly in adherence with the standards for verification. i'm coming to you. yes? >> the security general indicated -- you mentioned the security council should be united on that. >> i don't want to put words nto his mouth. ust listen to what i said, ok?

>> yesterday he addressed in a general letter, asking him to use his office in an order to prevent unilateral action against his country by any party, especially after what mr. obama has said. is there any reaction to that? what kind of actions do you expect? >> not at this point. let's just repeat what i've already said on numerous occasions, and the secretary general has said equally often, and that is that he would underscore the importance of the charter. as i said, the secretary general reity rates the primary role of the security council in maintaining and restoring international peace and ecurity.

it has been 10 days since the attack. are you confident -- >> let me repeat what i just said. yes, we are not specify identifying a timeline. we are simply saying it is being done as fast as it is possible to do within the scientific constraints. the secretary general is obviously very keen, as is the rest of the international community, that this should be done as swiftly as possible. but you need to be able to adhere to the standards so that the scientific process of verification is credible. and just to answer your point, when you said that the u.s. has announced the results, let me repeat the united nations mission is uniquely capable of establishing in an impartial and credible mooner -- manner, the facts of any use of congressmen chemical weapons based on weapons used on the ground, and that relates to chain of

custody. >> thank you, general. >> he will be briefing the security council once he hears from cain. does he intend to give the p-5 any further progress? what happened to that original suggestion in austria? >> he said he would be briefing the security council. that can be done in numerous forms. i just said, in addition with e discussions with the permanent five members, the secretary general intends to speak to the non-permanent 10 members in the coming days, probably on tuesday. it is, of course, for the security council itself to invite the secretary general to speak to them as one body. the secretary general is speak -- seeking to reach out to the member states. this is part of that process. >> he was very specific in austria. >> well, i'm being very specific

now. >> he was inaccurate then? >> no, not inaccurate. he said he was willing and ready to brief its security council. it is the security council to invite him to brief them. jameds. >> we know about the problem of the shooting incident when they were on the ground in syria. were there other problems? because secretary of state john kerry when he spoke said when the u.n. inspectors finally gained access, that access as we know, was restricted and controlled. did professor sellstrom report that that is the case? >> i can already say, regardless of what the secretary general sellstrom discussed this morning, that while in the country, the mission was able to access all locations it has identified as priority sites, and it was able to conduct the fact-finding activities it deemed necessary. the mission did that to overcome serious safety concerns. and as you just mentioned on one owe indication while traveling, the mission came under fire by

unknown assailants in a buffer area. >> this morning, as i'm sure you saw, the secretary very specifically talked about blood and hair samples. >> i said -- >> i understand you said it. our answer is that the u.n. is uniquely qualified -- >> uniquely capable. >> they obviously believe their lab has moved quickly on this. i understand if it is only in their does did i, it doesn't have the credibility to the world ads a whole. but it seems like their lab has moved pretty fast. are you saying their lab work is less than credible? have they shared this evidence at the up unthat the secretary general requested? i wanted to ask you to respond to, yesterday president obama said, quote, i am comfortable going forward without the approval of the security council -- council. what does the secretary general o a member state ignoring this uniquely capable entity and

announcing the results? >> i have already characterized the secretary general's thoughts on that last part of the equation. i don't intend to go back over hat. all i can do is repeat what i already said, that the united nations mission is uniquely capable of establishing in an impartial and critical manner the use of chemical weapons based on evidence collected from the ground. >> and has the u.s. shared any of this evidence that it has received with the u.n.? >> as we said, member states are encouraged to share information they may have with regard to alleged incidents. yes? >> the italian prime minister said repeatedly that any outside intervention in the syrian prizes by any power, unless it

happens under the umbrella, if you like, of the united nations, is likely to trigger a major conflict with war. is this the up unview? >> i don't really want to comment on every individual politician's and minister's comments on this around the world. we have repeatedly said there must be a political constitution solution to this crisis. that ultimately, the -- a military solution is not an option. at some point they will need -- there will need to be a political discussion solution. the sooner that can hatch happen, the better. >> two questions. you said that the oppositioning re not part of the observers monitoring the process but there are guidelines that specify what the mechanism should be and the

guideline was derived from the u.n. and the syrian government? >> the syrian government's mechanism have guidelines that encompass any investigation underneath that mechanism. the guidelines are online. also, the key part here is that this is all being done in the strictest adherence to the standards that exist for verification as laid down by the organization for the prohibition f chemicals. >> can i finish a second question? you say half the u.s. shares information that secretary kerry was sharing today on nbc? >> i don't know. i would simply say, member states are encouraged to provide information that they have. that's an important distinction.

>> i don't know who put these guidelines, but i mean, logic states that if two parties have a major stake in finding out which one of them has used chemical weapons and we have two officers from the syrian regime but we don't have -- >> officials. >> officials, i'm sorry. two officials from the syrian regime but we don't have anybody from the other party, other major state, since the united nations does not represent the opposition, shouldn't it have been whoever put these guidelines, and we don't know so far, has taken account of this? >> well, the secretary general's mechanism is something that, as i mentioned yesterday, der arrives from a general assembly resolution adhered to and ratified by the security council -- council. in any case, i don't need to tell you, being an expert in the region accident that there isn't

just one opposition group. i'm not quite sure how you would decide who would tag along. would leave it there. >> you said the secretary general condemns the use of chemical weapons by anyone under any circumstance. several months ago the russian federation submitted an 80-page eport on an incident at kan nal assal with very, very serious evidence that the opposition had been using chemical weapons. albeit primitive ones, but chemical weapons in that area. why has this report not been made public or available to the u.s. congress who may have to vote on issues? according to yesterday's huffington post there are questions of whether rebels

could have carried out the attack. >> can you please get to your question. >> why is this information not being made vibble available? >> as i understand it, the document which was submitted by the russian federation, is for the russian federation to make vailable to member states. the second thing is, we've repeatedly said, and i mentioned , the team is carrying out its investigation of this incident given the international community's interest in trying to find out what happened. we have also said that the team has given an undertaking to the syrian government that it will returnnto all pending

allegations. that includes kahn al-assal. so when it comes to a report that will encompass all of the allegations, this part will be addressed. yes? t-5he briefing timeline, if were on this, is there no invitation from any of the those interested parties to hear from angela cain? and do you -- >> bear in mind the secretary general traveling to st. petersberg, but there are other department officials who can obviously brief the council should they so wish.

to speak to the council. >> do you expect -- >> it would be unusual to comment on what the briefing would be if we decent know when the briefing would be. >> tuesday you mentioned. >> that's a meeting with the non-permanent members of the security council. given, as you pointed out, and i said, that the secretary general spoke to the permanent five members of the council. so there are other ways to be able to reach out to member tates. i think at some point it may be possible to elaborate on that. also, i think knees briefings are intended to help explain to the international community what the secretary general is doing and his interaction with the team and with the representative at the summit of affairs, for

example. >> he was supposed to speak to them after he -- >> please -- force >> why did that change occur? >> no. the secretary general has made clear that he is available and ready and willing to brief the ecurity council. as i said yesterday, the security general has reached out to the representative of obviously was a presence at the council. austrian oke to the representative, and who is, as of today, lucky man, the president of the council. >> would there be an update on the timing? >> i think we have said an awful

lot about the logistics of the timing. >> you haven't given us a timeline. >> for example, i did tell you today, if you were paying attention, that the samples would start the delivery to laboratories tomorrow. that's something i didn't say yesterday. i'm trying to help you here. is he leaving new york? >> tuesday. the third of september. >> and has russia shared information about the recent event? they said this is an isolated incident. have they shared any of their information with the s.g. or with the u.n.? >> i'm not aware of any such interaction along the lines you suggested, no. this will be the last question at the back. >> you mentioned that any use of chemical weapons will be held

accountable. what punishment will you establish, if the u.n. has power to establish punishment, if it is found they made chemical weapons. findderstand the u.n. will out if chemical weapons were used but not who did it. how will that play out at the end of the day, if it is found out chemical weapons were used? how will that work? >> well, as i said, the security council has the primary role in such matters in maintaining and restoring international peace and security, including in any case where chemical weapons have been used. therefore it would be for the security council to determine the -- determine. the secretary general is simply saying the council should stand firm and united on agreeing on methods to determine the use of chemical weapons. it would be for the council

itself to decide on any such measures, should it come to that point. >> would they then probably ask to find out who would have used them? >> i'm not going to prejudge what the council may or may not o. an extra last question. i'm being very generous this morning. >> thank you. whether germany did land a plane -- >> yes. my second has to do with -- it is a very interesting article, but the section about golf, it says, do you like to go golfing. he doesn't have a membership. he golfs with the ambassador of korea. some might say he either shows too much closeness to a country or even asks about the financial implications, even though admittedly, they may be small. what would you say about the

idea that undercuts the idea of impartiality? > i would say it is complete nonsense. he didn't mention if he played golf with other people. for example, the united kingdom representative. so he plays golf with any number of people, and i don't see anything wrong with that. that's a good way to -- >> syria? ran? eritrea? >> use of private clubs, i'm sure he'll play. thank you. [laughter] >> in about an hour and 15 minutes, house members will be briefed by senior obama administration officials about the situation in syria.

that is set for 2:00 p.m. eastern. point senate has also announced plans to hold hearings on the week.this the house and senate are expected to debate on this subject this week. all will be coffereds on the c-span networks. the country's civil war was one of the issue that came up during a town hall meeting. bill pascrell held it last week. we will show you that now. it is about two hours. [applause] >> thank you, plam. we have to be done by 8:30, so you have to cut me off. when you get to the questions, make your questions short and tell me to keep my mouth shut.

only short answers. ok. thank you for coming tonight. which do town meetings and we also have phone town meetings which have been successful. about but on the phone you can't get your hands around my neck. but people join in. we had 10,000 people last time we had a phone operation of the you can only get to about 35 or 40 questions. in fact, you get to more questions there than you do here. in fact, sometimes the questioner gets long-winded and the congressman is always long-winded. i want to thank joe ruch. where is the city manager? city manager? city manager, where are you? he helped put this together tonight. i want to give him a great round of applause. e have -- [applause]

a moment of silence for our -- the mayor, my good friend, mayor calabrise, and your dad, and we wish him the best of everything. he's been down, but you never keep a good man down. a moment of silence, prayer, celebration. t is all about life. i will speak for a while. then we will open up for questions. i prepared tonight as best as you can prepare for a town meeting. -- this is our section of

you know, our bargain for the most part. when i was preparing, this is not a sequence of issues i was going to bring up. ot at all. so tom, i hope you will give me license to move in whatever direction i can. 6 -- i want to talk about the hurricane, the storm. i want to talk about social security, health care, and whatever you want to talk about. but i'm going to go through the first topic tonight, because this is of urgency. nd that is the topic of syria. i want to start with that. his is serious business. i was listening to john mccain tonight, great american

statesman. he dalked about it extensively as to where we are at on this. there are americans that say we shouldn't do anything. i would assure you that when the president says he is convinced that the syrian government was chemical warfare against his own people and the president has vowed to provide us, we folks, information over the next two days, i would suggest to you that he needs to do that, and i would suggest to you that that means that we will not be going into syria in the next few days. the american people are not going to be bamboozled again as 99.were in 19 we're not going to do that. 001, rather.

it is a serious charge against anyone who uses chemical weapons. when people said in 2011, pascrell, you better be out front. i said i don't support who is on the ground. that's not the right place to go. first of all, we don't even know who the heck we're going to send weapons to. do you remember iraq and iran? those weapons were used against our brothers and sisters and our friends and our neighbors. so we have decidesed over the last -- shut your phones off, please. first of all, and more importantly, i want to introduce you to my wife that's here. e're only married r50 years.

they t know the weapons used. e don't know who is there. we know from lebanon, the hezbollah is now aiding the syrian government. this is a very tight network here. iran is helping syria. iraq doesn't know who they are helping. jordan is taking part of the million -- now close to 3 hundred hookup,000 refugees. ordan and turkey and lebanon are taking many of these refugees. four million people have been displaced. a million three are in other

countries. so this is a country that is foreign. most of the action in syria is down here near the capital of amascus. you look into lebanon and you look into syria. what a beautiful place in the world, if only more people could go there. unfortunately there is not peace in the area. so the road to damascus is pretty clear. they have good wine there, too, by the way. now, the northern part of syria is where the rebels made a tremendous amount of of progress in 2011 and 2012. and then, of course, the supplies were drained. what assad is attempting to

do is make this area safe for himself. but there is no question that hezbollah is involved. we're not just talking about syria now. we're talking about the peace in the valley. we're talking about peace in this whole area. now, we just came out of two skirmishes, two wars, with iraq and afghanistan. think about this. american people are filled up with debt. now, the question is, will we accept moving in a very physical way in helping out the rebels or the president made it very clear today, this is not about the rebels. this is not about assad. this is about what he has performed. this is all about chemical warfare, biological and chemical

waffer -- warfare. this is not about regime change. f we react as we did in 1998 and 1999 in kosovo when the serbs attacked and tried to push folks in kosovo out, i mean, that was a direct situation where we helped muslims against the christians. muslims in that area, many of them forgot about that. but we have to keep on reminding people. they were pushing the folks in kosovo, most of whom went to macedonia. most of whom went to macedonia. there were only supposed to be 0 or 12 or 20 ref knees.

the camp i went to, clinton sent a few of us over, there were 35,000 refugees. can you imagine that? in one refugee camp. they were treated so well that kosovo he people from stayed in macedonia after the war. we did that surgely, if you remember. not one american was lost. no boots on the ground. you are not going to see boots on the ground here. taste from the congress right now -- unless i'm misreading it -- but there is no taste to bring troops in to syria to get rid of assad. n t there is a taste to have a

accountability for assad's regime. they can deny it, but anybody can deny it. just like saddam hussein denied gassing the kurds in 1989. so you can deny it. the forensic people say, you want to ask us not to do anything physically, and now we ave the arab league who rs has condemned this action, which is good, so we cannot convince you diplomatcally. we made this mistake once before in the last 50 years. we do not want to act unilaterally. it will not solve any problems. the arab league has condemned this. the european community is with us. turkey is with us. jordan is with us. saudi arabia is with us.

the leadership here, they don't know what to do. they elected the president in iran, but they don't know which direction he's going. that may be a very hopeful sign. i look at it that way at this particular time. lebanon -- how many times has it been raut up over the last two or three decades? that point again. so hezbollah, the terrorist organization, is involved in syria right now. we have all these different organizations trying to get rid of assad. very have very little information as to who they are and where they are going. we might be going from the frying pan into the fire. that's the situation we have now in that area. you can see how closely all these countries are. so when you do something in one

place -- let's say we have a strategic bombing mission. let's say we go after a stockpile where we know where it is. we know where the stockpile of chemical weapons are in syria. just as we know where nuclear weapons are in pakistan. think about these things getting into the hands of the wrong people. we just have to think about that. so you don't make snaps -- snap decisions. even senator mccain said that. he said we're talking about our sons and our daughters all over again when you borough broach merican lines. the president had maze his decision, but he wants to talk

to the american people first. i think that is critical right now. of the less than 60% american people want us to do anything there. ultimately, that's what you need to do. we need -- we are not going to go into a new area and call it colonization. the french, the english they had miserable time at the end of colonization. tore africa apart. in our estimation, that colonization is evil. it is give. -- it is different. if we treat them all the same, we are making a big mistake. each of these cultures is different. you say well, they are all muslim countries. that's immaterial. they are different.

they have different cultures. the tribalism in one is not in another. they may have a monarchy. we saw the tribalism in afghanistan. we are not used to that. we don't understand that. we think of countries fighting countries. that, my friend. this is not about that. so i wanted to talk to you about this today, and hopefully you will have some questions later on, and i want you to direct your questions -- we can have five or 10 minutes of questions right now to start us off. ou know, lebanon right here is overrun with refugees. some americans say, why in the hell are we even talking about it? we have people that need to get

to work. that's true t we have to get leark for people that don't have it. yeah, that's true also. conundrum you ed are under in october when the debt limit runs out and we have to pay our bills? isn't that important? remember, if we keep on going the way we are that, going, 300 national parks will be closed by january 1. that may not matter to you or me, but it makes a lot of people, millions of people -- millions of people go to those national parks. some people want to live in those national parks because of the beauty of those national parks. but there are important issues. i thought this was significant enough that we start off with -- would anyone like to raise a question now? please make your questions short. we have so much to cover tonight.

es, sir? we have to go to the mic. there you go. go ahead, tom. make your questions short, plezz. >> good evening, mr. pascarell. i saw what you did on television with the armenian lady. here's what i -- >> did i do all right? >> you did excellent, by the way. w syria as a whole, many islamic countries are formed by sharia law. america doesn't have to push democracy on top of a theocracy. >> what is your question? >> my statement is we do not to be n involved in syria. we are not the world's police. ers not have to give sold lives. we had the worst domestic body

count in pearl harbor. don't -- >> no speeches, just give me questions. >> i'm a professional comedian. to any of my hecklers, i am running on an independent platform of bipartisan issues. mr. pascarell, i look forward to the rest of your town hall. >> thank you very much. why don't you sit down, i will address it. boy, that was a quick commercial. i just want to say this, when i take into consideration what tom said, i have to balance my thoughts in terms of those pictures that we saw and the evidence which are you about to see. so i'm saying to you, that's a tough decision. ou cannot walk away from it. chemical weapons is a very different situation. they are weapons of mass

destruction. and when chemical weapons are used, then it's a whole different ball game. so i understand what we're -- you're saying. i understand we don't want to get involved in other people's problems, but i am telling you, the whole middle east is involved in this, and there's more to it than meets the eye obviously. but thank you for the question. >> good evening, congressman. you may not remember, but we met when you were campaigning in the primary. >> oh, yes. and that house up in -- >> yes, exactly. and as i told you in person, again, i'll tell you that you and i are -- we're 108 degrees apart on almost all issues. >> i remember you telling me that. >> but thankfully you

anyway, with all due respect, and aside from your presentation on syria, i'd like to know from you in your opinion, what is the number one problem that is facing the united states, why you think that is the problem, and what is your proposal to help resolve it. >> i will respond to that now. the number one problem the united states has is economic sustainability. people don't have jobs. people have jobs that don't pay enough. what are we doing about it? what can we do? with the budget situation that we face. you are going to see a chart about how we are attacking the deficit. how would is very different than

a was a few years ago. we have a long ways to go. be careful about what you cut. you may resent it. you may be hurting the people you are trying to help. my biggest -- the number one priority, jobs. that is my number one priority. stop exporting jobs. let's make it in america. that may be a cliché, but i put proposals before the congress to make sure we can give incentives to corporations to bring joerg to bring jobs back. that is the most lamebrain thing i've ever heard. i fight that every day. a second priority, health care. it has so much to do with the economy. 60% of the jobs of small businesses, many went out of work because of health care. we had to do something. it was not sustainable. you over 40 million people do -- who do not have insurance.

we have to address it. is the health care bill the answer? there is no perfect legislation we've ever pass. i will tell you one thing, at least there was a plan to put in front of the american people. my job is to make sure it works, and change it where it doesn't work. next? i wrote it. who said that? i want to know who said that. i had to read it. i had no choice. [indiscernible] i'm on the health care committee, sir. she is speaking. go ahead. finish. [inaudible question] the federal government doesn't cover me.

>> so do we. >> i have it. sir, sir. let me respond to you before you sit down. most people are going to keep what they have. they have the choice to do that. [inaudible] get your facts straight and then ask the question. [applause] >> hello. i am from the peace vigil. my son is a marine currently. he has served twice in iraq. i certainly do not want him in another war.

question number one, i know we have met with you before by the is to you -- about the issue of afghanistan. what are you going to do to get us out of afghanistan before 2014? we want the troops out. i know there are a lot of people who want to speak. on the issue of iraq, there were weapons -- they were allegedly weapons of mass destruction. we went in with fake evidence, false evidence. >> what is your question? >> kids died looking for those weapons of mass destruction which didn't exist. if we go in surgically to serial, and blow up weapons, can

you imagine blowing up weapons that are lethal, searing gas? that makes no sense to me. the question on syria, will you pledge no going into serious, only diplomacy? >> i will not vote for boots on the ground in syria. when i say surgically, there is no question that collateral damage here, and collateral injuries is something that needs to be taken into consideration. i leave that to the generals in the field. i think they know what they are doing. you asked the question. can i respond? thank you. the question is, you saw what happened with the drone attacks. innocent people were killed. that happens. war is not pretty.

we want our troops out. nobody wants them out more than i do. i have seen it with my own two eyes. we are not going to be stupid. we are not going to leave our troops that we leave their vulnerable. that is what i'm concerned about. as quick as i want to withdraw, i believe that we should, i want to know if the afghans who want us out, maybe they don't, but the point is we are not staying. we are leaving. could we get up by the end of this year? i do not think so. midway through 2014 question mark that is an objective we can discuss. we are going to leave some people there. there is no question about it. i'm telling you honest. we do not know what is going to happen there. we do not know if they're going

to make peace with the afghan government. we do not have an idea. we are trying to do that right now. we can negotiate. >> make these questions about syria. >> in terms of syria, you mentioned the u.s. doesn't want to be put in a position of colonization. when did we ever colonize any part of the world? post-world war ii, we went to germany and england, and france, and the netherlands. >> i would consider that colonization. >> exactly. >> we went in. we help to rebuild the countries. and then we got up. i do want to ask a quick question about health care.

$716 billion is being cut from medicare to fund the affordable care act. i was like to know how congress is going to make up for this? >> the money that is being cut, this is not a partisan talent meeting. -- town meeting. we were being accused of taking money out of medicare. that is only deduced -- we reduced all of the advantages of medicare advantage, if you remember. we were paying more for in the general run of things then a patient. that is where the cuts were. they were not to anybody's benefit. [no audio]

>> go ahead. >> the affordable care act will be extremely expensive, as evidenced by companies laying people off. how are you going to make up for this with a $70 trillion debt? >> we think we can pay for -- do not leave the mike please. i would like to respond. we think we can come up with the money for health care changes. most people are going to go into a private insurance company, who

is going to have a plethora of possibilities to buy programs depending on your individual needs. number two, insurance companies have to spend 80% of their profits on us. no longer can you drop it to 50%, or 60%, when you're taking the profit and charging higher premiums. that is the law now. people have been returned money by their insurance companies. that was also in the affordable care act. is it going to be a perfect transition? is it going to be a perfect transition? i doubt it. i say to you, it is the best plan in town now.

we change social security. we change medicare over the years. that is what we will do with the health care. it is the law of the land. thank you. >> thank you. >> hello. i am here to ask you about the change -- cpi, in regard to seniors. >> i'm voting no on it. >> thank you. [applause] >> that was short and sweet. >> i am from new jersey. not really a question, but a comment about syria and the position. the u.s. is a great country. it is a religious country. >> the greatest country in the world. >> thing god for america.

we made a mistake and entering the world word -- world war ii too late. it is not a mistake we can afford to make ever, ever again. i believe the country is broke. we can't afford boots on the ground. >> our country is not broke. we have three times the economy, regardless of what we have been reading. this country is not on our knees. this country is not ready to collapse. anybody who told you that, tell them they do not know what they are talking about. what is your first and question mark >> allen. i didn't mean it that way. we are the biggest economy in the world. we can't afford another big war.

that is the point i was trying to make. we can't afford boots on the ground. if we can use your leadership and the leadership of the president to build up a coalition and former limited action where countries come together, not just unilaterally the u.s. going and doing things over there. that is going to put further strain on our budget and our deficit. >> i want to respond to what you said. we made a huge mistake in an -- and i rock and afghanistan. we cannot afford to do that anymore. it has debilitated our economy. it is one of many things that have debilitated it. let me say this. the cost needs to be taken into effect. we do not take into effect -- the war doesn't end when the last shot is fired.

we have so many soldiers, have come out of iraq and afghanistan with wounded minds. that is just as bad as a broken arm or a bullet. post radix stress disorder -- ptsd, the department of defense providing funds to get these people healed. we're not throwing these people into corners. we are a dressing it aggressively, bringing the family in to help them. 20% of those on the field after manic brain injury or post dramatic stress disorder. this is a shame we have to address. whenever we get into, the war doesn't end after the last shot. >> got help you make the right decision. this is tricky. we have to be wise. >> i always pray before every decision. >> thank you.

>> i try to pray before every decision. next, young lady? speak out. hold and talk into it. >> good evening. >> give us your question, please. my name is sue. [inaudible] i'm sorry if this issue is too small compared to syria. >> no issues too small. go ahead. i have to hear you to know how to respond. >> i have trouble [inaudible]

we had trouble. i wrote letters to our mayor. i wonder if i'm doing the right thing. >> my caseworkers, i'm going to have one of them respond to you. you are going to meet with them now. >> i meeting with them. >> who are you talking to? >> assad. >> you are doing the right thing if you're talking to him. >> thank you. i cannot be alone in this condition. >> i have to tell you this. we talk about these issues, nobody ever brings up the fact of the staff that work for every congressman in the united states. they work their fannies off. they work early in the morning. they work nights.

we had 8-9 here tonight. they work. you may say that that is sour grapes. we haven't had a raise in four years. they didn't have a raise in four years. i am telling you, i am very proud of our staff. of the subject they deal with, and how they help people day in and day out. so, you brought it to the right place. >> thank you. >> god bless you. next. >> is this working? i'm here on behalf of pda, progressive democrats of america. i have a letter to present to you. i'm going to summarize the legislation they recommend that you support. this is the 50th anniversary the king speech. the first is hr 1000, before

employment bill, which guarantees someone every -- everyone some kind of job. the voter empowerment act. it simplifies the voting process. the deadline for revocation of the e.r.a., and proposes an amendment to constitutions writing -- regarding the right to vote. the inclusive prosperity act, known as the financial regulation tasks, which would generate hundreds of billions of dollars, a quarter of a percent on wall street. that is basically the legislature. >> i'm familiar with most of them. the first one, i'm not so sure about. i want to read the piece of

legislation. the government has responsibility to your health and my health. the government does not have responsibility in terms of jobs. we have to go out and look for jobs. the government has responsibility in terms of providing incentives to business. that is important. or providing education so people can learn a job. or go on the job retraining programs are critical. tech schools are critical. community colleges are critical to this. i would not go so far as to say we have to guarantee a job for everybody in the country. i would say to the government has responsibility to provide work. don't forget, the number of jobs that have been created over the last four years, more jobs than the past seven years. the point is, where we are losing in that unemployed array, it is stubbornly not coming down

because what we have done in the public sector, where we have lost jobs on the federal level, state level, and local level. some people, some jobs need not exist. the point that i'm trying to make is that that is where we have fallen behind. i would -- >> the cta in the 70s, those were good programs. this is not the pda. when you had the debate in the primary, i met with you, spoke to after the debate. i confronted you and said if you win this primary, do you -- would you make a commitment you will join with the progressive caucus and become a member of the congressional progressive caucus. >> i do not agree with him on everything. i'm contemplating joining. i will tell you what is holding me back.

i am not so sure i should belong to any democratic party caucus. i think it divides our party. i would rather see us together and then go out as best we can as unified group. [applause] not everybody is going to march to the same drummer. i know that. you are looking at one of them. i told you i would contemplate it. i have been. i am talking to my closest friends in the congress. a great american patriot. he belongs to the caucus. he has not convinced me yet. we will talk again. next. >> i want to ask about syria. >> where you from? >> bayonne, new jersey.

>> ray to have you here. -- great to have you here. >> say we hit syria in the next couple of days. i ran says they might strike israel, who knows. has law -- has bullet, what is going to be the response? what is your opinion? >> any attack of iran on israel is an attack on the united states. i have -- i'm respected by the israeli community in jewish community, and the muslim community. and no i say it how it is. i am no one's lapdog. but, when you attack our

strongest ally in the region, it is an attack on the united states of america. that doesn't mean we're going to drop an atomic bomb. it does mean we're going to have to respond in a physical way. >> what about if i ran -- what if it is hezbollah and they use terrorist organization. and they use it to attack u.s. interest rate >> they are. and we are trying to do what we can without going to war with them. they are trying to destroy countries and destroy people. they have laid down their mantle. i do not think it is healthy for the united states. we can separate ourselves and isolate ourselves all we want. it is interesting when i read in

the peeper the other day that we had better think twice about -- we also think twice because we are going to shrink our possibilities concerning oil. with the person who wrote that, in the past four years, this country is not 60% but now 40% dependent on foreign oil. that is the law. that is the facts. people who do not know what they're talking about talk about oil, oil. the have no idea. we need to do alternative energy. we need to do natural gas. we need to do drilling in united states where it is appropriate. not the shores of new jersey, or maryland, or virginia. i will vote against every time if i have to. >> good evening.

you have a lot of weighty issues to talk about tonight. this is not one of them. congress has 18,000 members. our tax exemption is coming up before the joint commission on taxation. we're looking for your support to maintain credit union tax exemptions throughout. >> not every tax-exempt and is a loophole. let's get that straight. there are some i will fight for. we write the taxol. it is one of our major responsibilities. we write the trade bills. we write medicare. whatever changes in medicare. etc., etc.. we are now on the process of

looking at tax reform. we can come up with a system or form that is neutral. so no one's taxes have to be raised. but if you deal with deductions, that is a tax increase as far as i'm concerned. one of the things we talked about, the a section you are talking about. that is no different than the exception about charity contributions. that is a different than if you can take off your mortgage interest adoptions, which will kill new jersey for deal way with that deduction, or you can put on your federal income tax and deduct the state taxes that you pay. these are all under attack right now. what we should be attacking is the loopholes that exist in the

loss of that people can put their money offshore, see you when i have to pay more taxes. i want to fight that and he was much as i can to stop that immediately. i will do everything in my power. i am fighting to lower the corporate taxes. i want to lower corporate taxes. i came up with that six years ago. those are the things i'm concerned about. i certainly want to a pole -- they do a terrific job. they are the compensation we need. i'm on the legislation that will keep the deduction. >> which is why i'm here. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you. my name is michelle. i have one comment on the obamacare. the one-year delay that you mentioned for companies.

that was delayed for one year from the start date. the individual mandate still holds for people. in my opinion, that is a problem. when you look at the companies that are dropping coverage for spouses, there is now a subsidy for the congress staff. i think that is unfair. if it was so great, it would have been sped up. everybody would be delighted by. i cannot imagine that the government can run anything cheaper than the private market when the government has never done that before. >> medicare -- >> medicare is in debt. medicare is a huge debt. >> can i respond? >> yes. i'm just saying. >> thank you. it has been proven over and over again, since 1965.

medicare needs to change. that is not one of them. it has a low administrative costs. i have given you tonight ms. -- myths about the health care bill. i want you to take them home. these are the myths. come back to me, and we will discuss it. you got it. [inaudible] you behave yourself, i will buy you a beer. can you hear me back there? and helps i'm a loudmouth. the individual mandate is upheld

by the supreme court of the united states for the following reasons. i will be short. if we do not have everybody in, it doesn't work. that is a republican plan from 20 years ago. and 15 years ago. that is not a democratic plan. that was not proposed by the democratic party. that is exactly what the basis of the massachusetts plan. >> it doesn't matter whose party it is. >> that is why i said. that is a mandate. the supreme court has upheld the mandate. beginning october 1, we will decide, those were not covered by companies, those who don't have individual insurance, mostly healthy people who feel they do not need insurance, so why you forcing me to do this,

the point of the matter is, we do not want an insurance system that has only sick people in it, and the healthy people are out of it. it will not work. that is why our system work. this is not socialism. this is capitalism. how many insurance companies do think right insurance in the state of new jersey? very few. by the way, it is controlled by the state commissioner. in each day, how commissioners have different rules. is the only area. you can see your doctor. you can see your hospital. you cannot sue your insurance company. we have built a moat around them. >> you did have relief from [indiscernible] >> they are exempt. you cannot have any racketeering charges against insurance companies. >> it doesn't have to be racketeering.

i have gone through the appeals rosses. i know what it entails. i made the point. i'm not here to badger the issue. i do want to mention one other thing. it is sure. the scandals and the job situation, the irs. >> what about them? what's candles? -- scandals. the fraud that is in our benefit plans. this costs us a lot of money with taxes. the trust is broken. what do you propose to do to reestablish trust, so people do not feel that every time they turn around, it is another tax they can't afford, and it was

the way it was when i was a child growing up. >> no federal taxes have been increased over the last four years. none. number two, when we are talking about taxes, most people when you get down to it, are talking about local taxes. they have gone up tremendously. for a number of reasons. i'm not here to blame anybody. that is a fact of life. the scandals you talk about, we heard those here in front of my committee. not placenta of truth to those scandals. that is why the person who started the inquiry, congressman issa has dropped out of the scene. i cannot find it anymore. once you accuse somebody of something, and he downgraded the irs, i fight more than anyone else in the room. they are under the office of the

ways and means committee. i'm not going to code -- i'm not going to accuse them. there are a lot of hard workers there. we have the irs in our building. we talk to them all the time. we bring complaints to them all the time. when you talk about scandal, about a conspiracy to look at this group or that group, they are looking at everybody. you do not have the half of what they looked at. scandal is a easy were to throw round. -- scandal is an easy word to throw round. [inaudible] i do not claim to know her. we were not successful. next question. wax hello. -- >> hello. i am a retired postal worker. lex let's hear it for the postal

workers. >> do we want to keep six-day delivery? >> yes. my question concerns syria. during my lifetime, the great wars the u.s. is entered into, vietnam and iraq, we were led into by lies. the gulf of tonkin incident never happened, and there were no weapons of mass destruction. why do you not advocate a sane policy of no u.s. aggressive action in syria until the u.n. fact-finding committee issues its report? >> as i said, when i opened up, the u.n. has made a request to minute states -- to the united states that no physical action be taken until they have

finished their report by sunday of this week. from what i understand, and what i can say, that is being taken into consideration. i would hope that we would adhere to that. at few days is not going to matter here. the american people want to see the evidence. the american people deserve it. by the way, i'm a congressman. i would like to see the evidence. that is as far as i will go. i think it is a reasonable request. they delayed the beginning of the investigation, the bigger the more they delay it, less evidence would be sanctified. that is very critical and important. that evidence be captured, and identifiable, and it not be dissolved in the air so we can

find out where it came from. >> it is my understanding they have said yes to the u.n. investigative team. >> only after they held it up. >> and the tax came from the rebel controlled area. >> we do not know that. the guardian reported it, and the times reported it. i do not know that. i'm telling you that. yes sir. >> i have a question of -- two questions. you do not advocate federal tax. >> i have said we do not have a federal income tax increase in four years. that is what i said. some people had a decrease in taxes. >> [inaudible]

well, the payroll taxes we got down. that wasn't my idea. i voted against that. this is artie, head of my legislation. let's give him a hand. [applause] >> the bush tax cuts did expire for those making $450,000 a year. >> the reason why i mentioned taxes, they use a federal bill to increase the nation's tax -- munitions tax. >> that is our bill. the bill has to go through so many committees. >> in terms of where you stand.

>> the excise tax on ammunition and weapons has not been increases 1942 and 1951. i felt it was a good source to consider and look at four helping a police department. we can no longer rely on the cops bill. it is under attack every year. i got to uphold that source of revenue to help local communities. they're going bankrupt. i think that is i help. we have have law-enforcement. it is nice to talk nice things about law enforcement. i'm the cochair of the law enforcement and congress of the united states. it is my job not to pat the cops on the back.

but to protect them, and to strengthen them against those who want to harm them. [applause] >> isn't local law enforcement funded by local taxes? >> mostly. >> so, in december of 2012, the school shooting in connecticut. you were on the front lines of advocating more gun control. >> that is not true. i was on the front lines of ending gun violence. i'm not introducing legislation to take guns away from anybody except those who do not have the mental capacity to have it. we will never find out unless we have background checks. i support that. [applause]

>> you did vote for an assault weapons ban, the gun package. >> i introduced the assault weapons ban one i was at the state legislature. governor florio, i happen to be the mary at the time, we both wore bullet-proof vest. we're all entitled to our opinions. most of my friends belong to the nra. but we differ on certain issues. we do not differ very much on universal background checks. i'm fighting that one. i'm not giving up on that one. >> out of all the gun control bills introduced in congress,

since connecticut, can you name a single thing he could have prevented? >> of the bills we introduce? >> can you name any single bill that were introduce? >> the ban on muscle ovens was the ban on assault weapons was introduced. many of our police are outgunned. there is no need for canons in the street. there are no needs for bazookas in the street. people may say the is a free country. many of my friends do not believe it is a free country. they want to be able to get their weapons, to hunt and display. they want to have the antiques. i do not want to stop them. i will not accept that i do not

have the right to know, like we have the right to know who was coming into this country, and to his leaving it, simple point. i think we have a right to know a background check on those who like -- >> applicable to the tragedy -- >> my friend, i am answering your question. that would have helped, that piece of legislation would have helped the weapons away from terrorists and people who are not have the mental capacity who got out of jail. next. flex that was an answer. -- >> that wasn't an answer. [applause] >> i don't live in your district.

i want to comment on hr 3018. first, i want to clarify that the assault weapons ban in new jersey does not stop anyone from getting an a ar-15 or an ak-47. >> i wrote the legislation. there are some that are on the list. >> absolutely. >> you are not educating me on it. >> i'm just clarifying. with hr 3018, the 50% tax on ammo, i think it is interesting to add an excise tax to something that people rely on her personal protection. if you propose doing that for fire extinguishers or first aid kits, you'll be laughed out of the building. >> no one is suggesting that. i'm not left out of the building. >> no one is proposing that.

that is accepted to be a useful tool for defense of home property. especially useful when emergency services are at your house you. >> ask your question. >> my question is, how can you justify that when you expect gun owners to be training as much is possible to be proficient? i can't -- >> asked the question. if you already have the answer, why you ask me? >> this is a serious question for me. i do not have a lot of money. i try to become proficient in firearms. i cannot tell you how many times i could take a course or a safety course, but i cannot afford it because you have to provide your own ammunition. >> this legislation does exactly that read -- executive.

>> i couldn't find the whole bill. it hasn't been released through the budget offices. this is a serious question. >> mail him a copy of the bill. >> i want to know if you have considered the implications of making ammunitions or expensive for people who are trying to protect themselves. you can give as much money to the police as you want. i cannot guarantee them to be at your house when the stuff hits the fan. >> i would rather take the chance of it being out there, and better arm than the people who was a criminal. >> that has nothing to do with 3018. >> if you read 3018, we are talking about training people and educating. the money that is -- >> i want to be will to go to arrange. -- a range.

>> i've read the outline of the bill on your website. how can you justify making it more spencer for someone to go to the range and learn? >> what are the exceptions in the bill? >> law enforcement, anyone connected with the government. >> that is correct. >> i'm not connected with the government. >> we can look at other exceptions. i have a committee also. >> ok. thank you. >> next. >> good evening. i grew up here. and that being able to attend committee college as well. i've been here since i was six years old. being able to recite the pledge of allegiance. i have been able to -- i been

painful to be an american. unfortunately, in high school i found out that i am undocumented. i do not have legal status here. that is something i came across i didn't have much choice in what was happening in the matter. due to obama's deferred action, i am able to work legally. >> what is your question? >> my question, while we discuss immigration reform, will you stop militarizing our border with black hawk helicopters? myyou haven't been on website. we need to accept those people

who served in our armed forces and you you want to send those people back to port? you got the wrong guy. thank you for saying what you do and i'll be here when it's time. know the legislation i've been on of the ones i've stayed off. this cannot be a romantic journey. concerns.e real i have real concerns on the hp one visa. why should we be bringing in other people from other countries when we should be training our own people for this job? not marching in lockstep with anybody. >> thank you. i hope you don't let the democratic arty forget that. marcus gray >> i remember you. >> i'm here from the new jersey second amendment society. online about the

bill you recently introduced. have come up.ns thefirst one is since supreme court has already said poll taxes are illegal because voting is a constitutionally gunected right, why is a and ammo tax not legal for the same reason? --ond, how is taxing my ammo and i do one at a time? finish the question. >> was at the end of the first one? sir, this tax already exists. lawrecommending to assist enforcement that we raise that tax on the ammunition in the weapons. it already exists.

you said this is a new tax. it is already law. why don't you get rid of the personal and then? are you against that? >> 1776 -- >> are you against the law as it now exists? >> what are you doing about it? >> him coming here to ask you. >> i want to increase the taxes -- >> you are the congressman, i'm not. >> i want to increase the tax on ammunition and guns that already exists -- >> why do you think it's constitutional to tax something -- >> it has already been tested and it's constitutional. >> why?

>> i don't have the supreme court decision in front of me. you will have to read them. i will read them also. then we will discuss them. why issecond part was this going to reduce crime -- criminalsve don't buy ammo from the gun store i go to on route 17. >> they can buy them from a trunk anyplace. >> but they are not going to be paying the tax from that trunk. >> that's true. why should i be punished because he's a criminal? >> that's why we need never sold background checks. >> do you think there will be a background check on that trunk? >> that's the point. i have confiscated homemade shotguns made out of galvanized pipes. >> let's not get off your agenda. we will go to one item at a time. i'm saying a universal

background check is something that needs to be enforced and it's not being enforced because we don't have a lot great >> because we don't have a bill. >> it trying to get money for law enforcement. i told you what it is for. do i have the right to take it or does the government have rights to take weapons away from you? let's say this legislation became law tomorrow morning. will you have to give up and give your guns? >> no, sir. >> which are next question? >> the next question is series have been raised, putting a tax on ammo is a back door way to make people vote against him. >> that's really weird great >> why? >> my nra friends work for me. they are out there fighting for me whenever i run for election. they know where i stand. they happen to disagree with me. you cannot and i cannot be one issue people.

that's was destroying this country and dividing us. we don't have to degree -- we don't have to agree on everything. but if we are going to say one issue is the whole banana, you've got the wrong guy. >> i assure you i'm not a one issue person. >> that's good. thank you. >> which her name? >>my name is lisa. i am very happy to meet you. i have a question for you. i have the knowledge that you have a position supporting the single-payer. can you tell me what this is about please? >> we started looking at the single-payer option, like to put everyone in medicare.

we could never get nearly enough votes to pass this. many democrats were not supportive of it. what i do believe is that when i came forth with a public option with this fallback position, in the exchange have a government plan so it would be in competition with the private plans. we got no votes for that either. what we could get enough votes for is a mandated plan for business, and because everybody had to be in this or it doesn't work, that's a republican idea not a democratic idea. we wanted to make that competition robust so if you chose to go on the exchange to

see all of these different plans, you have to choose the one that is going to be most effective for you and most efficient for you and then you make your decision. that is why i ask you, i beg of you to read the articles that we gave you tonight. if you have questions, call the office. let us start that dialogue. >> i disagree with you on that point. the single payer bill is 30 pages. i can't read that. >> because something is shorter doesn't make it better. >> i think you are mistaken. i apologize for that. i must tell you this. if everyone can be informed, if you make it better and simple >> there weren't enough votes. read my lips. >> what is happening is that the single-payer is a democratic

idea. it has been on for many years. it didn't happen when obama proposed a health care plan. this has been around for 60 years. my question is to you as a democrat. what have you been doing all this time to not inform people. but go ahead. >> what happened that you as a democrat that you have not been informing everyone in your party to explain what single-payer is. let me tell you what it is. it is taking out the private insurance >> wait a minute, ma'am. i want to know what your question is. >> what have you personally been doing to inform your party why single-payer is better.

>> we were the ones that put the health care bill together in the subcommittee. i was on that subcommittee. we put that together. we looked at all the possible options and one of them was single-payer. i told you what the backup position was. there were not nearly enough votes. we could not even get it out of committee, mind you. we were the majority at that time. at is what i have done. when you question me >> i want to thank you for your support on single-payer because it makes a difference. >> would probably agree on a lot of stuff, but i don't agree with what you said. we have to compromise sometimes.

i can't have it all my way and you can't have it all your way, so we come to a compromise. >> i just want you to explain to your constituents. you say that you are in committee. we don't know what is happening inside their. >> what am i asking you as a congressman is to explain to us what makes the difference. >> if everything is a priority, nothing is a priority. right now i want to make the affordable care act workable. i haven't the time to look at adding through legislation for single-payer because i would be wasting my time right now. that doesn't mean i don't supported, but i am a little smarter than you think i look. so give me some credit for it.

>> you are very smart, mr. pascrell, you are. >> thank you. >> isn't this a beautiful country? come on! don't be so grumpy. what is your name? >> my name is barbara. i'm a member of local 100. i am also an executive board member. we represent thousands of workers in new jersey. regarding the aca, we believe that the companies are going to cut the hours so that the workers do not have insurance, which is going to cost them more money out-of-pocket. at this point in time in new jersey it is very expensive to live. if they have to pay for the own insurance they will not be able to live. there is no way they wil