if you could identify both who you are and what outlet you are with, that would also be appreciated. without further ado, tom donohue. >> good morning again, everyone. his morning. this is just getting started. >> well, good morning again, everyone. and, you know, a few minutes ago, most of you were there, i delivered the chamber's annual state of american business address in the next room. and if you missed it, there's a copy of the speech on your place. joining me to answer questions today as a bit of a change is marty regalia, our senior vice

president and chief economist. where is bruce johnston? well, bruce can't be with us this time. he was so engaged and busy in what he was doing, he ruptured his appendix. and he's doing very well. he's on the mend. you'll see him here next time, and you'll be able to talk to him in the next few days. but he sends his best and has challenged marty to do as well as he could. we'll see. there are also a number of our senior advisers here who can help us -- our staff guys -- can help us with any questions that get particularly complicated. you know, as i said in the speech, the chamber believes that the american economy is improving and that it's gaining momentum. we expect, as i said, growth to accelerate to about 3% by the end of this year. but doesn't mean at all that we're out of the woods.

21 million americans are still unemployed, underployed or stopped looking for work. american workers have not seen substantial increases in pay in recent years. obamacare, dodd-frank and other laws and regulations still creating a lot of uncertainty. our challenge now is to keep and expand the growth we have finally ae chiefed to create millions of jobs we still badly need and to extend those benefits and opportunities of the recovery to all americans. and, you know, the issue is how do you do this? first, by passing trade promotion authority and then moving forward on the free trade agreements that we have underway. second by accelerating the energy revolution with millions and millions of americans to work. and it's bringing manufacturing back to the u.s. and if you ask me some questions about that, we have a lot of things to tell you.

and the passage of common sense immigration reform will clearly add jobs. it won't at all take away jobs. it'll provide a lot of innovation and investment. monetizing the regulatory system and informing government process, that's an ongoing issue, but i think we can make some progress there. and getting our fiscal house in order is absolutely critical to us. by the way, you heard me talk about all that entitlement stuff. there's a series of charts on your place that make it crystal clear. they're not our charts. they're charts provided by the government of the united states of america. we have to also address the flaws in obamacare. it's a mass itax bill, a massive rules and regulation system. a lot of people are wondering how to get the health care. we're going to talk about that.

we're not going to get rid that have bill. so we have to devise ways to make it work. let me drive this point home. and i said this inside, there's a lot we can do to make a bigger pie and put more people to work. but if we don't get real serious about the millions of young people that we're leaving out of the system, if you can't read and you can't comprehend, if you can't write and you can't communicate, and if you can't count and you can't deal with some modest technology, you can't work. and we -- many of the jobs we had before are not available yet. now. we have taken 44% of the jobs out of manufacturing, and we'll get more. they're gone. we don't need them. we have computer technology and robotics and engineering and supply-chain management.

all of that means you have to be educated if you want to go to work here. so before i take your questions, just one other point, you may have noticed there are going on some elections, and you may have noticed that we plan to be involved. we've started preparing for 2014 on election day 2012. and we strengthened this institution. we have put more people in the field, we have strengthened many, many of the visions of the chamber. we're prepared for this election. we're focusing intently on candidate selection. early involvement in the primaries is where we're going. early voting we're dealing, positively shaping races right from the begin. you know, we won in alabama, thank god, but there's a lot more to come. and our response to this will be very significant. and having said all of that, i'll be very happy to take all

your questions -- whoops. remember, i told you a couple of times before i even knew the answer i made it up. i'll give it to the marty or one of the other. who's first. why don't we go right here on the aisle. yes. >> hi, this is jessica with modern health care. could you just be a little more specific about the fixes to the health care, the health care taxes, the medical device tax? the delay, it's already delayed for the mandate, how much longer? >> the issues here are in four or five buckets. the tax and expense issues are very significant. second, the questions of -- remember, everybody was going -- and by the way, i'm not playing a political game here. i'm talking about what we have

to deal with. one of the reason all the costs are going up is all the requirements that must be in every plan. now if anybody ever thought that we could fundamentally tell the health insurance people, or whoever's running even the government, that you could provide all those things at the same cost, no way to do that. and the individual mandate and the -- and the corporate mandate, each one of them come with very significant challenges that we didn't know were going to be there. and so when you put all this together, people are now getting plans that say, hey, now you're deductible has got to be bigger, your co-pay has got to be bigger, and you're limited on which doctors you can go to and which hospitals and so on. and why is that? it's because of all the requirements. and so i'm not so sure it's a matter of taking a, you know, a

sisser ises a si sor and cutting out whole segments of the obamacare process, it's what the requirements are, who's paying for it, how do i get my health care? i was talking to -- this is a bad idea to always go to personal things. i was talking to my daughter-in-law last night who was told -- they belong to kaiser -- they'll be at least -- she wanted to change an address -- it'll be at least a month before they can do that because they have so many backed up issues. and i think what we have to do is delay whatever we have to delay for short periods of time where we look these things over, go through all the stuff serve talking about, keep what works fix what we can fix and get rid of some things that might not fit. now i'm being a little broad in those comments, but you know exactly what i'm talking about. and we would be very happy

afterwards to have all the people sit down and talk to you. the bottom line is the way the system is now, it's not the computers that are problems because you can fix problems in computers, it's what you're putting in it. okay. go ahead. >> hi, abc. you said 2014 is the year for immigration reform. can you outline what you plan to do either differently or the same from 2013 to actually get things done this year? >> 2013 we liked. you know, we made a deal in the senate. we did that with the cooperative basis with the afl-cio and lots of other people. and then we started working in the house where i believe we have received very positive response. 485 people, not just a hundred of them, and we brought in 600 people to one group, we brought in faith-based and -- and folks

from all sorts of social activities, you know, people, community leaders. we're going to -- and we brought business people in who see opportunities to create jobs and to bring companies here. we may not be otherwise bringing here. and what we're going to do is a lot more of the same. and we're going to do it back home as well. and you see my own view, i think democrats and republicans alike would like to go home and run for office with something they got done that's significant. and i believe we're two-thirds of the way there. i've been encouraged by a lot of the noise and soundings out of the house. and i'm not discouraged -- every now and then wake up in the morning and see a story about some reason it's not going to work. 435 people have to go home and run for office, and i think we're going to get this done. yep? >> hi, andrew ackerman with the

wall street journal. you said on the regulatory side that you wanted changes to the dodd-frank law, and i was wondering on what specific parts you don't think are workable and what might be changed or what you might push to be changed. >> i think there's a little history here. you had this dodd-frank legislation was written in a hurry and written by people that were mad. and written by people that didn't want to have responsibility for why it happened. and -- and so we have been at this now for almost three years. and we have been -- had made great success in negotiations with the sec and the other agencies. we have had great success in the courts. our real concern now is, you know, more than half of those rules three years into this deal haven't been done.

so what we're trying to do is bring common sense to this. to -- we have all the issues on corporate governance, that's one bunch, we're working on those. we've had all the issues on the requirements on the financial institutions, and now we're in a sort of a difficult area. we're looking at insurance companies and other investment groups, by some of these regulators are being treated like banks when they don't do anything of the things that banks do. we have got -- we have got the volcker rule now. which bit way, remember what happened, five agencies collectively set up a whole series of questions and sent them out to everybody who is being affected or might be affected. they took back all the responses. they didn't send out a proposed rule then, they just sent a rule out and said this is what it's going to be.

well, where we are there, because this -- this originally, the volcker rule was originally snended for the large financial institutions to raise the question about what investment they could do with their own funds and so on, and now it appears that it affects every small mid-size bank and financial institution in the country. i'll let marty talk to you about that in a second. but the bottom line is we have to sort our way threw this. some of the dodd-frank stuff's fine. some of it, as i said, was written in a hurry. and we're going to have to sort it out. the basic issue is you want to get a mortgage. and your brother-in-law who has a small company wants to be able to get a loan. and people want to be able to invest their funds and plan for their retirement. and if you go to every bank in this country and you have five regulatory agencies living there

with one of them telling let's get the money back and lock it in the safe, and the other saying let's get the money out and lend it. this is a very complicated time. we'll be working on that. marty? >> the access to capital for small businesses is at primary concern. health care is there, they have to deal with it. but they don't know if they can get the capital to operate the business. the dodd-frank rules and the fed in the allocation in the system is a brand new ball game. we want clarification on where it's going, how to administer it. the fed is very good with banks and they're very good at kind of looking at the world through a central banker's eyes. but they really have to develop a different view to determine what is the best allocation, the best flow of capital. where should they intercede because there's an excessive risk, and where should they let

the free market innovate and two in that direction? i think that's one area where we watch very closely on the implementati implementation. >> and we have a lot of new people at the fed. i worry that marty would go and run the fed. but we're glad to keep him. >> just aside from adjusting the contours of the volcker rule, is there specific legislation you are going to push for to eliminate portions of dodd-frank that haven't been implemented yet? >> i think i'd stay tuned on that. >> kevin hall. i'll try to get a question with a marty angle in there. you talked about income inequality, and it sounded like you were calling into question in your state of the business the concept. i think you said opportunity, not outcome, is what you're after. how would you assess outcome since the whole debate on income

inequality is because it's skewed. you have several republican candidates, paul ryan, rand paul, pushing things, we're going to hear from marco rubio today. it's resonating with republicans as well. where would you see the areas you would focus on? >> i think you have the short-term issues and the long-term issues and they're both important. i really believe that there are great opportunities to drive this economy forward in the short-term. the energy revolution, which we all see and appreciate, the question that this administration in their second term has become very, very aggressive, and i congratulate them on the trade side, which will create a good deal of economic growth and opportunity. the reality that -- that we --

we are finally facing up to the fact that there are many, many job opportunities if -- if -- if we can get the government to -- to help make it happen. and that's, you know, as i said, energy, trade, the whole question of investment and where it's going. so i think we're going in the right direction, right? and now what's happening, and the reason you're going to see three speech this is week and what i said on the question of opportunity or inequality, is because the white house has chosen, it appears to us, to make this their approach over the next year. and i think the real problem, if there is an inequality, is the -- the economy has -- the recession was over in 2009, and we have been sitting on our heels since then because the

view across the street is that more government programs are going to create more jobs. our view is more freedom for the job creators is going to create more jobs. and that means dealing with some of the regulation issues, clearly dealing with the questions of capital markets, and how can we get capital into the hands of the people that will create jobs using the energy situation to move forward capitalizing really big-time on the questions of what an immigration policy would do, and on and on. that's it. in the long run, though, in the long run, if we don't do something about the nation's education policy, if we don't do something about our job training after that, i -- i think we've got a real problem. you know, the core standards simply say three things, they

say, okay, here's the deal. if you want to go to college, this is what you have to do. if you want to go into a community college and learn a skill, this is what you have to do, and if you want to just go get a job, this is what you have to do. and i'm telling you right now that we're leaving 30% of the people in a position, maybe more, where they just don't qualify for any of that, and if that keeps going for a long period of time, that is denying people opportunity. that is creating inequality, and that's something this country ought to do something about. oh, by the way, it all takes money, and we need to deal with entitlements, because entitlements are going to eat all the money. i'll listen to them, but i'll get them all. >> it was clear from your speech, mr. donahue that trade is important for the chamber this year. i was wondering what you think is the likelihood for the trade promotion authority, and signals

from the white house that the president is willing to expend the kind of political capital that is going to be necessary to get it through congress. thanks. >> the trade promotion authority will pass. it will be introduced sometime in the near future. it will pass. take a while to do it. it will have a little debate. it's the one thing that puts the congress in the game. and they're going to want to do this. and by the way, why all this trade? 95% of the people you want to sell something to don't live in this country. next? right there. >> -- as a retirement crisis, and if so, what should the federal government and they do? >> the first retirement crisis is the entitlement programs are going to bankrupt this country if we don't do something about it. and i believe there are going to be so many people retiring, it will create lots of new industries, by the way, that's

good, but we're going to have to look at the implications and what adjustments, not taking these things away, that we can make that'll make it palatable for those that are retiring and for those that have to pay. and you heard me at the end of the speech, this is the first time that we're basically calling on the young to pay for the old and we need to think our way through that. next. okay. >> thank you. ben with national journal. you mentioned the support for energy exports broadly. is the chamber looking to lift the ban of the export of crude oil and will that be a lobbying focus for the chamber this year? >> the re strikss we were put in on the oil crisis, when cars were lined up to get to gas stations around the block. marty and i are old enough to remember that, maybe he isn't.

and we need to take another look at those restrictions. obviously we want to use the energy at home first, but, you know, we don't restrict people from exporting airplanes we make, or exporting food products we produce or exporting technology. there are a few things you can't export. but i think it's important to look at energy as the next great american revolution that has the potential to help us on national security, oil and energy independence. to do it in a way that has extraordinary environmental benefits. and i think you'll see us negotiating and working our way through that during this year. >> doesn't sound -- >> oh, i want to lift the ban. i just want to get it done in a reasonable sequence and i think everybody would be happy with getting the -- it's not going to happen overnight, but it's going to happen. all right, go ahead.

>> rich with fox business network. a couple of questions, first, do you think congress should extend extended unemployment benefits, and be secondly, when you say you want to play in the primaries, how much do you want to play and pro-business candidate, is that anti-tea party? >> okay, let me start the first one. i think congress will extend it. they'll look for ways to pay for some of it. and even the president's chief economic -- the head of the council of economic advisers believes that the extended use of unemployment -- the kind of unemployment insurance we talk about does not help create jobs as well. and marty has a word on that. but my view is we'll pass -- find a way to keep it going for a while. you can't talk out of both sides of your mouth. keep it going until we start to create jobs. now starting to create jobs, so

shouldn't be put in for a long time. you want to say something about that? >> just quickly, on the issue of urn employment insurance, minimum wage, we are seeing a more disparate income destruction, but not as bad as the statistics show. when you adjust and use the right statistics, you see a much less onerous shift. so there's something that has to be done. but use the right number if you're going to affect the right cause and fix. secondly, you can do short-term redistributions to affect the distribution after the fact, and if you're going to do that, then the earned income tax credit are the best way to go, not minimum wage. and extending unemployment insurance is not likely to help the distribution in any kind of long-term sense at all. and finally, if you want to fix the problem, virtually everybody that's studied it has come back

to the education, training and skills and providing the opportunity for people to get on the band wagon and advance and move up. i think when you get into the whole distribution issue and the unemployment insurance, minimum wage and those kind of issues, you have to define the problem properly. decide if it's short-term, redistributive fixes, the symptomic relief, or cure the problem. we and thomas focused on trying to cure the problem. in order to do that, it is education, training and human capital. and virtually all the economic studies show that. >> with all the unemployment we have right now, we could hire a million and a half people in the manufacturing business if we have the people with skimlls. we have to get them. we will be involved in the election and the primaries. right now -- open seats or

whatever they happen to be. for the fundamental reason, the people that run have a chance of winning. we should get the very best candidate representing both parties for the purpose of ending up with the best result. we -- we probably now have a good half a dozen places that we're looking at in open seats and in primaries where people are trying to challenge -- particular lly long-serving and smart-voting people. and we'll be there in both the house and the senate. now you asked about the tea party, let me make my -- if you're resting a minute, wake up. i have a very, very clear view about this. when the tea party first came out with who they were and what they believed, they talked about things that the chamber very much supports. sensible tax policy, they talked

about reasonable -- reasonable control of federal costs, they talked about trade, the opportunity to create jobs and all of that stuff was pretty good. and then we had a lot of people that came along that had different views, and they tried to hitch their wagon to the tea party engine. and those were the people that wanted not to pay the federal debt and to shut down the government and to take more radical approaches to trying to get where we all to get where w wanted to get. i think they're well-intentioned people, except when they get to washington they won't believe what we believe they need do, so why should we help them get here and help protect the people who are here. don't line me up as attack the tea party, because i'm not. >> tom, it's brian with bloomberg news. can you say specifically what

elections you'll be focusing on and will tea party candidates be among those that you just mentioned? >> the first answer is no because what am i sending a lot of announcements out for? stay tuned, news when you see it. will tea party candidates -- i just segmented between the original -- i'm not trying to be difficult. this is a place i got to be very careful. i want -- you know, if -- i know a whole lot of tea party folks. if a lot of them are running, i'm going to support them. the question is who are we talking about when we absolutely get there? and what do they want to do? people that walk into the -- announce i'm going to run for the house or senate, my idea is to burn down -- i'm hyperbolizing, my idea is to burn down the town, i won't support them. people who believe in the things we talked about will likely to get our support. one little refinement there, if

we have somebody that is an 85%, 95% voter with the chamber, we're certainly going to support them over a challenger. >> sir, sir, this is kevin baum from cnn. following up on that point, you are also entertaining supporting challengers to incumbents who have not been supportive of the tea party versus just supporting people who have been supportive of the tea party? >> take the tea party out of that question, say will we support folks that challenge people we think vote wrong and have not been helpful? sounds like a good idea. >> so are you committing to do that or are you looking at it. >> sounds like a good idea. yeah? >> jim with a.p.. >> nice to see you. >> regarding the upcoming debt ceiling debate, you said the nation cannot default on its debts, you also said there's a

demand to address entitlements, do you see dealing with entitlements as a precondition of that debt ceiling debate, or do you see it moving on a separate track? i had a follow up. >> that was a good question. we'll have a debate on the debt. so we did a little research. and round numbers, you know, in the last 30 years, we had 50 -- over 50 deals where they had go out and fix the debt. and in more -- more than half of those it became a debate among the house and the senate and the administration. and, they ended up more than half of those deals where they made some accommodation on spending or taxing, or other issues. even the president of the united states who doesn't believe there should be any discussion about it voted against the debt ceiling increase about something

he felt very strongly about when he was a senator, dealt with iraq war, i think. but the point is, you have to start out -- there is going to be a discussion on this issue, and the implications of spending, taxing, budgeting, expanding the economy and all of that as a part of what are we going to do about the debt? i do not believe we will default on the debt. i do not believe we will close the government. i believe we will move forward on this deal and find an amicable way to get it done. >> as you know -- >> he -- >> entitlement reform is a difficult thing to accomplish. do you think it -- they can come to some time of agreement? >> i will tell you where i am on entitlement reform. they may put a couple of dollars in there to say they're doing it entitlement reform will not get done in a serious way for a couple of years yet. we have to own up to this.

we have go and have a conversation with the american people. we don't want to scare them. we want to explain to them what the reality is. what it means to them and their children. find a way do it energy is part of that. the one thing i say is that sometime between now and we make a deal somebody will make a decision. are we going to use the energy or are we not going use it? if we're not going to use it, you have a real problem. i don't think in the next deal that we'll have great debate about entitlements. so maybe a little fix there, but when you look at the total numbers, it will be very small. >> thank you. >> hi, katie o'donnell, cq. do you think tax reform is at all possible this year? would you support what some lawmakers have said which is the only feasible option, to separate out corporate reform? or do you think that punishes small business owners? >> what happened the last tax deal, which was at the end of

2012, is we -- we came up with an agreement to go forward -- the congress did. but the sub-s and llc folks got hurt. and i don't think anybody's of the mood to go do that again. would you think? >> no. in fact, we have tax principles that our board has adopted that call for comprehensive reform. so -- >> now, can i answer your first question? the answer is no. i don't think -- i think -- by the way, there could be -- they could be this tax or that tax or something dealing with issues that come up. i don't think you'll get comprehensive tax reform in this election year. >> hi, doug palmer with politico. you just said you were confident that trade promotion authority would pass this year. i wondered are you at all

concerned that some tea party conservative republicans might be inclined to vote against the legislation because they would want to deny president obama a victory? do you see that as a big impediment to its passage? and should it fail, are you worried that that would have a chilling effect on the trade agreements that the administration is trying to conclude? essentially making it impossible to conclude those agreements? >> well, the last part was exactly right. if you don't have at some point tpa, the people we're negotiating with are not going to agree to a deal without the understanding of how the congress will participate. by the way, you mentioned am i worried about others going against it. not particularly because i have been astounded to hear my colleagues tell me there are a whole lot of people in that category that are coming out very much in support of it. look, it's going to -- you know, when will they send it up?

send it up today? tomorrow? next week? how long we discuss it. it will take a little while. but we'll get it. the votes are there. we'll get that done. i'm doing this one right here. go ahead. what's the point in being up here if i can't -- >> i'm from the business times. [inaudible question] as you know many foreign countries come to america to seek u.s. investment, but now that the time that come that you want to show that the u.s. its n attractive investment destination.

in south asia they are interested in investing into america. can you shed some light on how america is, despite national debt, despite deficits, that america is still a safe investment heaven? >> the question is basically why is america still the safe investment, the favorable investment place it is despite our economic circumstances. i thought about that a lot and i talked to people around the world on it. if you just open the paper, any day you turn through it, there are a lot of problems around the world. very concerning, and if you want to put your money someplace, you would probably put them in some of those places. probably want to put it someplace where it's safe, where it can be profitable, and where it will be protected. i think america meets that point. >> you got strong growth. you got a stable currency.

a strong currency. your investment is going to retain if it's a good investment. it's going to retain its value. it's not going to lose it returning it to the home currency. you have a situation, we have a strong court system. we protect property rights, and we protect the right to earn a legitimate profit. that makes the u.s. the primary destination for capital in the world today. >> see why he probably should have run the fed? where we going? i'll do this. go ahead. i'll get you if you speak up. >> my name is karen thurmur with the financial times publication foreign direct investment. my question actually is similar to his, but a little different. i knows there a lot of promotion for fdi both here and abroad. i'm wondering if you can tell me what the appetite u.s. companies have for foreign expansion?

i'm not just talking about the big mega companies, but mid size and such. >> first of all, marty might have a word on this, too. first of all, the -- 95% of the people we want to sell something to, as i said before, don't live in the united states. so there is a lot of appetite in small, medium-size and large companies who sell abroad. and therefore that includes some investment abroad because in a lot of places to sell it behooves you to make investments there, open plants do that sort of thing. and i think -- i think the appetite is strong, but there's one issue -- they're getting much more selective. if you sit down at a board meeting or in a senior staff meeting or you sit down with the two partners in a small company and you say we have x dollars to

invest, this product or this service to sell, where will we do that? you draw a line don't middle of the page, you say the ones on the left side look like places we ought to think about. all the ones on the right side, let's not go there. let's not go there because they may take our intellectual capital and not treat us well. let's not go there because our currency won't be safe, whatever it happens to be. so i believe we have the same excitement and even more attitude for trade and investment around the world, but in a much more selective basis. >> the big companies have always understood the value of selling abroad and feeding the markets abroad. we're finding the smaller companies, it's a more daunting task. it's complicated. it's complex. and many of them have done it, in the past. chamber has had a program here for years called trade routes where we go into the smaller companies in areas around the country and try to help them

with their trade issues. so they become more involved. i think one of the areas in our tax reform principles is clearly that we have to have international competitiveness in the tax code in order to foster more of that. because it creates good jobs at home. it creates income flow at home. it makes for more stable corporations, it makes for stronger economic growth in general. so we espouse it. we push it. we try to help those not now doing it get into it in a bigger wa way. >> john with cq. how would you like to see medicare changed to ease burdens on the young? >> that is a -- something we're talking a great deal about. talking a lot of people about it. think there are three or four issues.

first of all, medicare costs are unbelievable for a lot of reasons. we have to find ways to provide the services that medicare provides with three or four changes. you're probably going to have to do something a little more on the copays. you have to look very carefully, you know. we had a great program that helped us on the pharmaceuticals, which is a huge issue. how are you going to do that? it's about costs and delivery systems. and it's really about intelligent use by the medicare participants of the system. by the way, it's also about -- i hate to say this, because this is always everybody's argument how you fix government spending. they say get rid of the waste, afraid and abuse. there is a good deal of fraud in the medicare system. not by our every-day retirees.

there are a whole series of things to work on. the real thing that will be looked at is medicaid. that's growing faster than others. i will tell everybody and take the last question. over against that wall on this side there are a whole lot of really smart people that know about trade, know about energy, know about medicare, medicaid, health care, they know about legal reform, they know it all. and i told them to come down here, they would learn something from you. after we finish, if you want to ask them what our views are, they're a lot smarter than i am. it's one of our rules around here is we don't hire people who don't know it better than marty and i know it. the last question is -- >> tom, andy sullivan with voters. you mentioned education reform. i'd like to hear more about what specifically you think needs to happen. do state and local governments need to spend more? do we need to make it easier for charter schools to open up should there be vouchers to

allow public school students to attend private schools? what other things need to happen? >> first of all, we paint or k through 12 schools through the same brush when we talk about it. you know, there are a lot of k through 12 schools in this country where our kids get great educations. tremendous educations. and they come out and they go to good colleges, or they come out and they go to good crafts, service industries, or they come out and just get a job. but they can read, right, calculate, think about things, know something about the world. they got a great education. the real question -- i'd like to change your question is what will we do about that 30%, whatever the number, 40% that are disadvantaged? that are -- they lack equal opportunity because of those schools.

and when you look at those schools, it's sort of like anything else we do. it's like running your business. it's leadership. it's quality people. it's a clear set of objectives. it's a way of measuring what we're doing. you know, the question about money, we spend more money on education than we ever did and more anybody ever did. we need to spend it smartly. i think charter schools bring something to the party. i think, you know, having some sets of standards. look, the core standards don't tell you how you have to teach people. they tell you what these kids have to come out of your school learning. i think the how is there. whether it was the republican education department or whether it's democrats or whether it's -- though the union issues are a little different amongst those what we have to do are pretty clear. what i'd like people to focus ia

black and white deal. we have a lot of good ones, let's see what they're doing. we're anxious on working on that. if we can get everybody first mad and then concerned about this on a specific number -- not only the whole system, that we can begin to make progress. look, thank you very much for your patience. thanks for coming to do this all the time. we appreciate your coverage during the year. those folks will be happy to talk to you. if you really want to know what's going to go on in the fed, ask marty. thank you.

>> president obama's pick to be inspector general of the wasland security committee questioned about border security. >> another aspect of this i would like for you to look at is the metrics with which we measure border security. before this committee, the , secretary ofrson homeland security testified that because apprehensions were down, that meant that our border was more secure. we know now that because of the economic recovery primarily, apprehensions are up. does that mean there for that our border is less secure? obviously we do not have metrics to determine the degree of border security that we have, and i think it's pretty logical to argue that if we do not have

a secure border, that sooner or later, someone who wants to commit an act of terrorism will come across the border that is not secure. i think it falls directly into the issue of national security, the issue of security of our border. by the way, our commerce and trade with mexico is dramatically increase. we've got a good government in theco now, in my view, but estimate of the people i know who are living and working on the border anywhere near the adequate security of our border that would be necessary to be able to ensure to our citizens that they have a sense of security and ability to prevent another attack on the united states of america. i would like to hear your response to that.

as you indicate, it is a magnet for organized crime, for human trafficking, and all sorts of criminal hager. , amy review of the materials lot of money is spent to secure the southwest border. it is important to have metrics to understand whether or not we are getting what we ask for are what we are spending our money on. i am happy to take a look at if thesue and see inspector general if confirmed can add to that analysis. >> i hope you will, because a rather extraordinary thing happened in the confirmation of the new secretary of homeland security, and that is he refused to give this committee or me are

members of this committee the metrics that are required to comply with the law that we passed of 90% effective control of our border, probably one of the first outcomes of the so- called nuclear option, because under previous situations, i would have insisted on receiving that information, which i think is a legitimate request by leadss of congress, which me almost not to have come to this hearing today or any other that the secretary of homeland security is present, because if he refuses to give fundamental information that is necessary for me to represent the people of my state, as far as border security is concerned, we have made a mockery of the

advise and consent. i say to my good friend again the chairman, i'm deeply disappointed that he would not insist that i received that fundamental information, and it will affect the degree of ability to or the work together. thank you. >> let me say in response to those last comments, i am eager to see the department and the secretary provide the information you have requested. i expect we'll hear from him with anas the secretary offer to discuss how to go about providing that information. i would encourage you to be receptive. entirecan watch the atring in our video library

www.c-span.org. span, we bring public affairs events from washington directly to you, putting you in the room at congressional event,s am a white house briefings and conferences, and offering complete gavel-to-gavel coverage of the u.s. house, all as a public service of private industry. we are c-span, created by the cable tv industry 34 years ago and funded by your local cable or satellite provider. now you can watch us in h d. vermont governor howard dean talks about the federal budget and the 2016 presidential elections. he ran for president in the 2004 democratic primary and has served as party chairman. the washington center for internships and academic events hosted -- hosted this event.

>> you didn't even say anything at and you are getting applause. welcomeust give a warm and thanks to governor howard dean for joining us today for our discussions and exploring bipartisan solutions seminar. we are looking at three topics in the seminar, as you know, budget, financing the american an energyigration, policy. perhaps the most fundamental issue is the one we're about to discuss right now, financing the american dream. unless we have the resources, how can we possibly enact all a seachange -- policy change? governor dean is a well-known, respected figure in american chairman of the democratic national committee where he and lamented the 50 .tate strategy

he was a six term governor of vermont where he was actually known as a conservative democrat on fiscal issues, which ties in directly to what we discussed today, and former presidential candidate of 2004. before he entered the world of politics, he was practicing physician. he currently is a contributor on national television regularly, the founder of the democracy for america organization and serves on the board of the national democratic institute. he is also a senior presidential .ellow it is my great pleasure to introduce governor dean. >> thank you. >> don't believe a word anyone

says after saying you are an expert. not that i would ever challenge that. i work at hofstra as a study for the residency. we call her the general first because she taught at west point and secondly because everything runs like clockwork with everything she does and i appreciate it. i'm going to try not to talk more than half an hour at the most but i do want to talk about politics in general first. i want to give you a 30,000 foot over there you -- overview of what's going on. this is not difficult. the problem is the will to compromise. that's where the difficult art is. what i want to talk to you about is a generational divide that's happening. to set the stage for this, if

you look back at our generation, essentially your parents, if you look back at the generation we came in through the 1960's in the country changed radically in ways that you cannot imagine. unlike the relationship you had with your parents through the most part were you talk to back and forth in your shared values and even musical taste, unlike with your parents through the that kind of relationship we could not have got. we loved and respected our parents but they did not understand us at all. we really did set out to develop a new country, a new culture in many ways, and we did. it was not so easily done. our parents went through the great war, world war ii. they came back having seen horrors and they had fought for

their country and wanted nothing more but to settle down and live a decent life where hard work was recorded where they could simply raise kids and have a family. they were very different than we were. there was a war going on in that generation. literally. at one point, as many of you who may remember who have read american history, unarmed students on kansas state were demonstrating against the war and there were demonstrations over years on college campuses partially because of the universal draft. and the national guard killed four unarmed students. that was really, i think, the final straw in the separation of generations. no generation is the same across the board. there were plenty of conservative kids and they certainly did not have a lot of

sympathy on what was going on in college campuses but it divided our generation from our parents. the reason i talk about all of this is because it is the seeds of what you are seeing now in congress. the so-called difference between people who had a wide view of inclusion, which was my end of the political spectrum, and

to speak of. i was around when there really was a left. right now there's a thought that there were people out of the edge -- i'm trying to be polite because this is on c-span. people who did not. people who had grown up in a different way, many of them in places where they fell secure, usually small towns where they knew everybody and were brought i grew up when there really was a left and they were the ones who are crazy. they were way out there using all of this rhetoric about bringing down the government. they did not know this but there was a physics graduate student that had nothing to do with war. the crazy stuff was going on and the left. this idea in washington is awas

problem, there are extremes on the left and on the right that won't get together? that is just nonsense. there are very strong differences of opinion and there are people that are really locked in. but this has a happy ending, i think. fast forward, we are still having those battles that we had starting in the 60s and 70s. along comes your generation. i already talked about the difference in parenting styles. you in a different way than we were parroted. we are pretty frank with each other about all kinds of things who wouldn't think about talking to our parents about. we share a lot of values. , for want of a better word, it was progressive in those days. but it was really the mainstream of the generation.

and so what we left your generation with was a set of ideas. ideals, it at the was a fascinating divide. if you look at the ideals of moregeneration, you are financially conservative than the democratic party. your more libertarian. you are less sympathetic with the labor movement than the democratically oriented liberal folks in my generation. but you are also inclusive. there is a difference between what you are, inclusive, and what we are, which is tolerant. toleratingbout different kinds of people. i was a big preponderance of the civil rights movement. african-american roommates which was incredibly unusual at that time. and we learned a lot from each

other and we are still really close to this day. if you had told us in the year that martin luther king was that theted, democratic national convention blew up in demonstrations of what would be called the police riot that we would have a black president after our freshman year, we would have thought you were crazy. it was powered by your generation because we didn't grow up with people that were different. i didn't know any african- americans before a went to college. in silos even though we believed in the notion of equality. on the other hand, you have grown up with people of every immigration status, religion, race, sexual orientation. and you all date each other. in aave grown up generation -- we don't have to worry about diversity. racism is never dead, we still

have to worry about those things. but you take for granted the friendships with different kinds of people. the fact that you take advantage of those friendships and understand and have learned more than we could ever imagine, that has rebuilt the way that you think about this country. it is the most diverse country on the face of the earth and for the first time, we have a multicultural generation. i do have friends that are conservative. it may not be a multicultural, but it is a multiethnic culture and is an extraordinary thing. multiethnic culture in the history of the united states as a generation, it is the first multiethnic generation in the world because of the internet.

the ability you have to connect with people all over the world and be friends with people all over the world. you have traveled, certainly, far more than we did. but what you have done is build a worldwide multiethnic generation. it's the first one in the history of mankind. it's an extraordinary thing. our values are not exactly the same. our values for inclusion are the same. i am on the right and of the spectrum about money. i don't believe in irresponsible tax cuts but i do believe we have to balance the budget. most governors, when you get to be the governor, there is no right-wing or left-wing economics, just academics that don't have a lot of actual experience doing it. to be prettynd

moderate fiscally when you govern. but our generation fought. generation, a fundamental difference of values, it is not the core values of what you believe about human beings, it has been established partly inherited from us and build on your own using the fact that you grew up in a multiethnic situation and because you have this unbelievable tool that has given more people individual powers since the printing press was invented over 500 years ago. individual has more power with the internet. i will end up with how we will find compromise in the budget, you will be glad to know. but i will set the stage for what is going on in washington. you have this ability to bypass politics.

warbecause of the culture in my generation and because you are a multiethnic generation, you approach the world differently. will fight to death over these things like gay rights and abortion and all these things until we are in senior housing. but you don't fight over things like that. we focus on the 20% things that we disagree with and fight like hell. you focus on what you agree with and find common ground. when i was running the dnc, i happen to be a christian and i know something about the bible. i went to school where you had to go to church twice every day. the chief of staff of the democratic party was a pentecostal minister. nobody on the right is going to believe this, but it is true.

her father was a big civil rights activist and was still alive. we had discussions about religion because most evangelicals don't vote democratic. we wonder why. there are people that believed you could put the words jesus actually said in the bible in red letters. that, it'su look at pretty much caring about poor people, caring about outcasts, the parable of the samaritan and so on. i said, why is it that we can't talk to evangelicals? if you look at the words of -- we did a poll. we called evangelical christians across the country. this is probably almost 10 years ago.

we found a few were over 55, your big issues were antiabortion and anti-gay rights. those were really big deals. if you were under 35 and evangelical, the thing you care the most about was poverty, climate change, and at the time it was dark for. i looked at the polling data and i said, if you pull secular activists, their number one priority would be poverty and number two would be climate change. is, it isf the matter less about ideological bandwidth. you don't have a right or a left. you have a lot of people willing to focus on the kinds of facts like that. they are going like that to the

democrats in our generation, they are there to work with you on stuff that you care about if you are a secular activist. i made up for want of a better way of describing what a lot of people in your generation are like. you can find common ground and you know that. the polarization went all the way back to the civil rights movement in the vietnam war. why do i give you this circuitous course of the history of your generation? the reason there was compromise in washington has nothing to do with these difficult issues. the issues are always difficult. it is really easy to compromise about numbers. it would be easy if people wanted to to say, you think there should be more tax cuts. you think there should be a rewrite of the corporate tax code and we need more help for homeless people. get as muchoing to

help for homeless people as we would like and you will get some tax cuts would rather not give you. it's not very hard. there is always a middle ground when you're talking about numbers. the problem is the ideology. is, you have upended the united states. you're 24 years old, you elected barack obama to the united states. that was a start for a lot of people in this country. the majority of the people in this country, we are going to be like california. there will be no majority. there will be no one in the majority. your generation is taking over and if you don't think you have taken over, you have already elected your first president. , and thest turnout only time in my lifetime where more young people turned out

than older people. it was the 2000 election. and barack obama got 98% of the african-american vote and the huge percent ability to vote. this enormousd turnout of people in your generation. everybody said that human beings want change but they never want as much as they tell people they want and it scared the daylights out of a lot of people. along comes this terrible recession or the president inherited this terrible recession. if you lose a job, you will have a really hard time getting another one. people were scared and one of the ways they react is anger. politicians catering to the worst instincts that they often do on both sides and catering to the anger you see on the right.

a group that feels they are no longer in the position of and they they once had are in economically significant trouble. they react by clinging to what they know and resisting change. that is not about the tea party. people have done that for as long as there has been a human race. along comes your generation. things are going to be different. washington doesn't matter nearly as much as it used to. washington has always been behind the times. there have been presidents that made huge changes but the vast majority doesn't happen that way. it starts someplace like silicon valley. there are lots of places that change has started and most of

it is the grassroots and goes did notal security start -- franklin roosevelt did not say let's do social security. the real depression started much earlier when the stock market collapsed in the agricultural sector because they were not able to get financing. a lot of what would now be conservative states like kansas, that is where social security started. old people had nothing and when they couldn't work anymore, they died because they had no way of supporting themselves. that, sawoosevelt saw some states that had it and said, let's do this nationally. most changes start in the grassroots and they come to washington.

faster.ge is so much my favorite quote about democracy as winston churchill. democracy is the worst systematics -- is the worst system of all except for every other. people will give up their rights in favor of stability and that is not a good idea because you don't always get the dictator that you like. is why it is important to put up with the system that drives us crazy because as weston churchill said, it will turn out in the long run to be better than any others. example andyou an then i will shut up and take your questions. a few years ago, you may remember this or not. a few years ago, the bank of america decided to have a five

dollar charge on their debit cards once a month. your generation doesn't use cash. i was appalled to have him pull out a debit card for three dollars and $.99. i could not believe that. you guys don't do it. fine. inre was a young graduate the firstnd, generation of her family that went to college. she was outraged. money and have any here comes bank of america raising her debit card and it costs $60 a year just on privilege of using a debit card. there was a platform that was put together, inspired by people

that knew something about my campaign which is when your age togetherided to come and take over my campaign. change.org. a ton of really successful campaigns. up and sayple sign we will take our money out of bank of america. she gets calls from the manager and the president of the bank. young lady, you don't understand. i understand i pay for the privilege of having your card. finally, bank of america says they will get rid of the debit card fee. have runation would around the white house with tickets. youwhite house said that have the choice between the

long-haired kids and the lobbyists giving us this money. nothing would have happened. a few days after, this is the bonehead corporate move of that year. hours roughly. maybe it was a couple weeks in,r bank of america caved verizon decides they will charge people to dollars extra if you pay your bill online. it was a crazy business decision because it is cheaper for them to have the bill online. they were taking advantage of the idea that if we just charge you two dollars a month, you won't do anything about it. most of you will just say ok. back to change and it's another position.

verizon lasted two days and rescinded their fee. the reason i bring mace things up is because you have the kind of political power we could not dream of. we were organizing and having marches. to cut their hair and make a run. a difference because lyndon johnson decided not to run again. all you have to do is go online. education is being revolutionized in the inner cities of this country and washington has almost nothing to do with it. movements like teach for america and the charter school movement. i don't think they are all good but i think the ones that are make a big difference. we are talking about kids that could not graduate before

because there wasn't a decent school to teach them. nobody cared. it is not being changed perfectly. can read about scandals and charter schools but for the most part there are a lot more kids with better opportunities because of that that has almost nothing to do with washington. it is about local stuff, a young woman who is not so young anymore -- she will be mad if she sees this on c-span. andraised tons of money they do it in india and china and argentina. your age group fills the ranks for teacher america and takes the hardest years of your life. it is really hard. i said, it is not fair to drop all these untrained kids. he said, there are a lot of

faults with it. the charter schools are started by tsa graduates. you are not demonstrating in the streets. that doesn't do much demonstrating in the streets. there is some of that. occupy wall street was a lot of my generation. you get things done because you don't wait for the political process to do it. we might go down to the city council. find 5000 or 500,000 people that agree with you. when we wanted to start a venture, you could do capital and you guys do crowd funding now. what congress is trying to do is catch up with the revolution. it is getting further and further ahead of him. how does this all end up. this ends up when you take power.

actually serving on capitol hill and some organizations, it is going to happen because we will eventually age out. ess to thisme finiten process going on. stop.tuff is going to there isn't the patience for polarization and a treat people the way they treat each other. you don't disagree that way. i know that because i teach at three different universities and there are kids like you all the time. we think you are too polite and sometimes gloss over things that need to be talked about but it is an alternative to us that i think is badly needed in this country.

the compromises and the bipartisanship will happen. i hate to be too partisan about this. the democratic party changed, we were the party of -- i forgot which republican said this, but amnesty and something else. starting with nixon, the republicans made a lot of heyday making the democratic party into the hardy of long-haired people that didn't go to work and dodge the draft. today, the republicans have this problem. the people that don't respect women's rights. that's not true, but that is their caricature. that is how we got branded. they are branded that way now. this election in 2016 is important.

are alreadyans struggling with how to appeal to their generation. they were get you if willing to talk about libertarian economics because you are more libertarian and more fiscally conservative than the left wing of the democratic party. they can't get you as long as they talk about gay rights and abortion rights because those are your friends. you will not throw your friends under the bus for the sake of the pocket book. seen people called on this kind of stuff and you are not going to do it. they know they've got to stop talking about those issues but they made a deal with the devil in 1968. only wants the party to talk about those issues but it is getting smaller every single day. if they use a third presidential election in 2016, i think they are going to retool itself and

compete again. for you. the way to compete for you is to work together, stop the fire throwing, the flame throwing. and actually get something done. that is what it will take for your generation. barack obama was talking about bringing people together. him not to count on that when you get there. they will be ruthless and do whatever it takes. he did not believe me, i don't think. when people in your party are talking about the fact that you are muslim and born in kenya, there is something wrong with this picture. a lot of republicans i respect and like do not talk like that and do not believe that stuff. trying to undo the bargain they made with the far

right that will do anything and say anything. , theynow in order to win have to appeal to you in that way. the compromises are not difficult for the most part erie it there are some that are very difficult to figure out the compromise on abortion. that is a hard one. but budgets are particularly easy. you just have to have the will to get the deal done. ronald reagan and tip o'neill figured out how to shore up social security. and need hereal their parties like the compromise and it worked. it postpone the day of reckoning for social security for a long time. we are lacking the will to compromise. i said very little change comes from washington.

you guys are making change in your communities all the time and you are trying lots of different things. the things that work you're going to spread and you are setting a tone for the future of politics that will make it easier for these guys to do their job as soon as they figure out that they have the start paying attention to your values and not just hope they can talk about student loans. thatf the great things is you are not very subject interest group politics. tonereally matters is the and the possibility and the hope for the future. the last thing i want to say before i close because i was asked to talk about it is the discussion of inequality. i come to the discussion not as a democrat or as somebody that think the poor have to get a better deal in life. i think that's true.

but the reason is not because i am a bleeding heart. i probably am, but not because of that. this is an exceptional country. americans are better than anybody else. but this is an extraordinary country. it goes back to the documents that founded this country. if you look at what happened at late 1700s ande early 1800s, what america did was raise the bar in terms of the expectations of the time about how we would treat each other as human beings and about how the government was to treat ordinary citizens. in 1776 and the reframing of the constitution. was done in those articles and the declaration was to set a

new philosophical standard which became the standard of the world about human beings should treat each other. and what the translation of that we attracted the brightest and best from all over the world. it takes a lot of nerve to get up and leave what you know and come to a country where you can't speak the language and you hope that your children will do better than you. that is really gutsy. it is because of the framework and the hope in the constitution and the declaration of independence. the core belief in america that has made us an exceptional country is that if you work hard enough, you can succeed and your success is not limited.

everyone knows that luck plays a role but the core thing we are taught is if you work hard enough, you can be a success. the bottom 80% as not seen a wage increase. it's not about poor people. the bottom 80% adjusted for inflation. theink that is great for top 20%. i don't begrudge anybody making money. but if you say that it doesn't work, you hard you can't get ahead and it will be harder to figure out your kids education, that is a spike into the heart of the american dream. we have to fix this problem, not because of the things that democrats care about but because it is the core of what america is about. other countries that don't have these opportunities, that is what is at stake.

is annot a philosophy, it opportunity to continue to be the beacon of hope. that, the issue settled, we have to make sure there is equal opportunity economically. that does not exist today. that is the real debate we will solve when we talk about income inequality. paymentsabout transfer or minimum wage, although we need those. it has to be about real opportunity. one of the things is the opportunity to fail. what bill hayek said is that in

capitalism, you have to be able to fail. we have a system that still, the banks and institutions are so big that we can't allow them to fail. there is no penalty for screwing up in the capitalist system. that is one of the things that will have to be fixed. if you want people accountable in their actions, it's not just the law. there have to be economic penalties. folks and wall street have exempted themselves. that is a big problem in a society that relies on equal opportunity for everybody. thanks very much. [applause] i am happy to take questions and comments if we have them. >> please come up. navarro.e is ryan

had mentioned the election in 2016 and i was wondering in the event that you were to run for president again, what would be the top three issues on your agenda? >> i am supporting hillary, so i am not planning on running but thank you. i think number one is income inequality. number two is the financial situation. wehave too much debt and can't continue to accumulate this kind of debt. i think my views on how to deal with it will be different from others. have always believed that we ought to have a universal health care system and i think we made some progress towards that but we have a lot of work to do. >> [inaudible]

there we go. i was wondering, in light of the recent budget deal, do you believe the anger that is characterized a lot of the budget has dissipated or will it be a continuing factor? >> the anger in congress is not dissipated. it is 80 members. i think the speaker has been pretty clear he is not willing to be blackmailed and pushed around anymore. that was the really important victory with the budget deal that we can have republicans and democrats talking to each other. turns out the budget deal was not that big a deal but it was a big deal they could agree on something.

the problem here is what is and how muchen leverage will they be permitted to have. to workelosi will have with democratic votes. she's going to have to move her caucus towards the middle. can be think there enough republican votes to ensure a deal. it is not because everybody is having a moment. .hey continue to cater to anger those forces have begun to be overcome by the leadership. >> i appreciated your insight that when he said people that

are scared react with fear. what can be done to address some of the fears that you mentioned and open up more bipartisan discussion? the only way is to get people used to different circumstances. i was the first government to sign a civil unions bill. i had to wear a bullet-proof vest the summer i campaigned after that. and that was civil unions. there are still a number of people opposed to same-sex marriage, but there is no chance they could've passed marriage in 2000. things change very rapidly. especially your generation that doesn't seem to have any problem with same-sex marriage at all.

the way you overcome fear is people get used to a different situation. the other way they overcome fear is by doing better economically. it is important so people can go back to not just worrying about their pocketbooks but they can worry about other kids can do in school and if they make sure they get to college. fear thent level of being out on your bud and never able to work again. people in the last four years were older but had older kids at home that have legitimate fears of never being able to work again because of the combination of turnover and age. you overcome fear by getting to know each other and getting to trust each other and work with each other.

this is a human emotion. look at south sudan. irresponsible politicians cater and it is harder to keep people together. you certainly see this in america. you have a new country that throws off the shackles of what they thought was an oppressive government and they dissolved in fear because politicians have their own agendas and went out for each other. the way you combat fear is have leadership committed to keeping the country together and make sure people have the opportunity to get to know each other. and have an economy that doesn't threaten the livelihood of their children.

>> take you for being here. you emphasized the importance of the internet. one person can influence the world by simply posting something on the internet. do you find that there are any negatives to this generational change the size the idea that the internet can make things happen faster than the political world can keep up? resize yourways generation with videogames and i find that is not accurate. it is mostly people my age that never worked out their own problems. of course there are criticisms. your human beings. you will not do everything right. say, wheni did not you're looking at a generation -- you can't brand a whole

generation of 40 million people or however you want to slice the pie. makes allp 15 or 20% the difference. i'm not talking about people that went to stanford or yale or somewhere else. it comes from all over the place. most people in washington did not go to the ivy league. can say bad things about it if i want to. it is still pretty much a meritocracy in this country. number isn by the that it is where the people in leadership roles are taking the generation. that is the real difference. of course there are going to be that you don't want to use as an example. will be people doing incredibly important things.

at the product of the generation and the direction it is going, i think it is unbelievably positive. my biggest gripe about the generation is something i know can't be fixed and probably shouldn't be fixed. we will go right at each other on issues. if someone is a muslim and somebody is a christian, they will argue and hopefully listen to each other. enough think there is discussion about gender relationships and gender inequity. i think people avoid having that discussion. i don't think there's enough discussion about race. we had all those discussions. i think the reason you don't have those, you need to have those, but secondary to what you really need to do which is to heal the wounds of my generation.

did i have no apologies for. we were the core of the civil rights movement. generation has the things they can be proud of. where i am age rooting for you because we're turning it over to you now. that is about opening you will do the things we did not do right and he will fix them. i'm not very critical of your generation, but i find some things that i wish there was this or that. i think america and the world are at a very good time. i will leave you with a quote was one of the kids from career square that i have come to know and keep up with. i talked to him from time to

time. ,ith all that they go through getting rid of mubarak and then , i said to him, don't you get discouraged about what is happening? and he said, i do. but they can't stop us in the long run. they dress like us, they talk like us, we can do business with them. and he said this is a worldwide movement. it's not about egypt or the middle east. our generation will not put up with authoritarianism anymore. about not going to fight it anymore and we will work on this together. i think that is pretty terrific.

>> i'm glad were doing ok. i was wondering how you think we can strengthen the economic recovery. >> where do we start? i think we are in economic recovery in the issue is not so much the economic recovery. we are clearly doing better. of problem is the inequality the distribution of the fruits of the recovery. there will be some transfer payments. there is a safety net. this is where the republicans are right. you do have to refurbish the economy. make work pay.

it is a drag on entrepreneurship. it is a little of both sides that actually makes the most sense. we have got to do better on exports. i think we can. free trade is generally good unless it infringes upon sovereignty like equal rights and the ability to have strong environmental protection. free trade agreements are not a bad thing, just be careful how you put them into effect. tradelly speaking, global helps political and economic stability. at this particular point, i

think the deficit is a problem but i don't think it should be brought down to drastically. great hero is ben bernanke who has taken a lot of flak but understood unlike what the europeans were doing with austerity, he primed the hell out of the pump and using quantitative easing. it probably saved us. as we begin to recover, you have to worry about the things people objected to in the first place. the timing was wrong, not their ideas. you reduce that slowly because we don't want a tremendous amount of inflation. is, there is no perfect solution to this. it's not unfettered capitalism because then you get 2008 again. the solution is to let capitalism work as long as it is fair as possible.

that is where the political debate is. is no question that capitalism is the best system you can have. outproblem is when it gets of control like all human systems do. you have to figure out how to make that work. it is not a very satisfying answer but it's really complicated stuff. >> for the past year, i've heard about america having the biggest debt problem in the world. and i have heard about helping the homeless and cutting taxes at the same time. i always hear the democrats like and createney problems. but yesterday, i heard a gentleman called grover norquist, country --

>> speaking of creating problems. [laughter] >> he called my country socialistic. but we don't have the big debt problem. i am laughing because it is amazing how ignorant americans are about europe. netherlands had a conservative governor for quite some time. he probably doesn't know that. >> he doesn't know much. but which party is the biggest problem for the debt problem right now? >> both parties are a problem. spend too muchto and republicans want to cut taxes for people that don't need it. sheet asat the balance a profit and loss statement. you can increase debt in two ways. you can spend money you can't pay for.

, butepublicans cut taxes they won't cut programs. it is no difference from a balance sheet point of view. on people atnd it the top of the income bracket. you have to have reasonable and thoughtful policies. it is not true that america has the biggest debt problem in the world. we are around 60%. 65%. european countries are in general higher. we do have a problem and we don't want it to get worse. it will take us time to turn the ship around. we have to do it in a long-term way and thoughtful way.

it is probably the best way to deliver. economics, we have a huge issue and a big problem. the things that barack obama has done well although it has created a stir is we try not to lecture other countries is much as we used to. i think grover is a little behind the curve. when america sells its own problems, we can lecture everybody else how they behave. i think obama gets that and the relationship between europe and the united states has changed. he says obama -- they say obama has forgotten us. i say that is a good thing.

we don't have to worry about you and you can take care of your own problems. you should be equal partners and we should not be telling you what to do all the time. that is eventually a very good thing for the united states and europe. i think we are working on that aspect. >> i am kind of going off of what you said with the generation being the movers and shakers towards change while having open america with resolving issues like inequality and gay rights and poverty. do you believe that the more conservative party will, in the future, be shifting and refocusing their ideas to be more appealing to the younger liberal generation? i think they had a problem that they made a deal.

it is better for the country to have two strong parties rather than the one that is reasonably dominant. like to do that but tell me where i get the 35% of the vote. it is not so easy to turn on a dime. the smart people in the republican party know that they have the change. any gift people like todd akin and richard murdoch running for the send -- they said outrageous is that what they stand for? democrats are too quick to put that on the tv and say that is the republican party. until the republicans are ready to cast them aside like bill clinton cast aside the left -- the far left of the democratic

party. the difference between europe and our system is we build coalitions before the elections and they build them after. maybe we should have five or six parties. but we don't. and for the republicans or the democrats, we had to retool. for that to happen is not so easy. the leadership finally says we are tired of losing which is why i am really hoping for a democratic victory. we will make these tough decisions and retool our message. we are going to make these changes. i think it is going on right now. you should never believe anything that is written in washington. staff and nobody pays attention anyway.

but there is tension in the party and there is smart leadership. they understand they cannot be sunk by the far right that are so unreasonable and appear to your generation to be so far away from anything you're remotely interested in. it is not a long-term winning strategy and they know it and are trying to fix it. long time they have depended on that wing of the party. terrificnpr with the conservative republican from minnesota in the 90s. they had someone from the tea party running against a guy in texas. this guy in texas has a 100% conservative record. every time, the most conservative rating organization says are you with us, he says yes. that is the problem the

republicans have. in a republican primary, she can win. we went through this again in the 70s and 80s. we sorted it out and i think we are back in business pretty well. it is a struggle to turn around a party in a country like the united states where there are huge demographic changes and people being left behind. that is what the republican party has got to deal with right now. thank you. saidnator marco rubio wednesday that the federal government needs to make changes in order to help the poorest americans climb out of poverty. his remarks are next on c-span. a conversation with california congresswoman barbara lee on poverty and income. and later, a discussion on health care costs.

>> the new country of south sedan was created in 2011 after 20 years of civil war. tomorrow morning, a senate panel will get an update on the continuing violence after rebel forces rejected a government plan to restart peace talks. usaid officials will testify before the senate foreign relations committee. , the head ofday the national guard bureau will be at the national press club talking about budget cuts. >> if i were to identify as a -- the single most important challenge to overcome muslims, the notion that diversity is just as available to muslims. the reason we are here today is because of this incarnation that i read somewhere it is not only

a historical but anti-historical because it denies centuries of islamic the elegy and tradition. hundreds of years of diversity and the idea that to be a muslim, you have to follow it in a very limited and short time. as americanjourney muslims have to be about clerics to be told by that speak for us that islam and its ideals is the seventh century reality. whore americans and muslims needed islam of the 21st century. >> being muslim in america, part of book tv this weekend on c- span two. and online, we will be discussing the liberty amendments.

read the book and join the conversation and click on book club to enter the chapter. senator marco rubio talks about income, poverty, and education. he spoke on the 50th anniversary of president lyndon johnson's war on poverty speech. this is 45 minutes. >> thank you for hosting this today. thank you for being here today. i am honored and privileged to have the opportunity to do this. girlsher was one of seven whose parents often went to bed hungry at night so that the children would not have to. and wentne years old to work at a local restaurant, about the same age as my oldest son is now. people,ts, like most

were raised in a country where they felt trapped by the circumstances of their birth. 90 miles away, there was a country where through hard work and perseverance, anyone can get ahead. they came here. they came here with virtually nothing. the first years were difficult. they worked long hours but they kept on. over time, their lives improved. they never became rich or famous. but my parents lived the american dream. happiness was not about becoming wealthy. it was finding work that paid a livable wage and a happy family life. being able to give their kids the chance to do anything they wanted. my parents story of everyday people that were given the chance to work their way into a

better life is a common story in america. it is a defining national characteristic rooted in the principal at the core of our nation's birth that every single human being has a god-given right to live freely and pursue happiness. beenhis conviction has riven to be far more than a line in the founding documents. it has become the defining value of us as a nation and as a people. america apart and has attracted people from every corner of the earth. refused tothat accept the stagnant ways of the old world came here and brought their ideas and dreams and finally free from the restraints of the old world, they helped build the most prosperous nation in human history. are still a country where you can earn a better life. americansajority of

live lives much better than their parents. and we are rightfully troubled because many of our people are still caught in what seems to be a pervasive and unending financial struggle. it bothers us because we are united by the belief that every american deserves the equal opportunity to achieve success.