sun" paper. they sued me, if your member. i call them the plaintiff. [laughter] i wrote an open letter to my 14-year-old. it got when i go to these college campuses, i have been to lots of jails in my life as a member of the legislature, congress, governor, i talked to lots of kids in jail. all of you kind of know this. i am not moralizing. i am not preaching, but when you talk to these kids month there is always to elements present almost always. i did not have a dad and i started with marijuana. in this letter, i said to my son , i went to college in the 1970's. i happened not to do it but i

had a lot of friends who did. a lot of friends who did it, it did not cost me any friends and a lot of my friends did it and still do it and they are functional adults and they are successful. i have been to a lot of these prisons, i have talked to a lot of these kids but some individuals cannot handle it. and my son, some of those kids look just like you. i hope that discussion has had -- is had in every family in this country. it is a state issue. if you listen to the scientists the stuff out there is more potent than he was 10 or 20 years ago. when we talk about decriminalization, legalization, the public safety aspects are clear. we tend to ignore the public health aspects.

of passage. if you think that is significant, ask folks in colorado today. thanks, everybody. godspeed. take care. >> the republican national lawyers association also heard from michael carbon. and more recent case which challenges insurance subsidies under the affordable care act. this is 30 minutes. >> i am word about this

introduction for two reasons, it is not entertaining or intellectually stimulating. this is literally the simplest case i have ever done, that anybody could ever do because the law is so clearly on our side in king versus are well. as you know, the relevant provision says that the subsidies for the aca exchanges are available on exchanges established by the state under section 1311. the obama iris leading -- waiting that language says that means it will be under section 1321. the issue is whether or not that is a state established exchange. this is not a complicated question at least for the non-legal mind. this would be relatively

straightforward. if this was a mortgage deduction case, no judge would say what are you talking about? it is because we are in this political maelstrom that people are taking this argument seriously. i will not bore you with walking through the various statutory nuances, but i will give you the basic pitch on the other side. you are ripping these words out of context. what an extra nearly on place. why would they ever put a tax credit in the tax code? so you cannot take this language very seriously and our response is normally tax credits are in the tax code. the only provision in the affordable care act is this section 36 b. the only provision that even discusses the subsidies for the exchanges or that limit them. all of the limits on when

subsidies are available are contained in 36 b. for example, it's quite clear if you bought insurance outside of an exchange you can't get the subsidy. and so everybody seems to understand that and it's not in the same provision and naturally of course this would be the place it would be. as to context, i can assure you we did not stand up for sprint court and say, please just focus myopic we on these words and ignore the statutory context and the purpose of the act. i think we should possibly 7000 times we employ you to look at the context of the overall lack because in each and every particular of the structure and purpose of the act, reinforces our argument. the most obvious contextual point is section 1311 of the act says states shall. this is in the act, state shall establish the exchange. so congress chose the strongest possible in which it could to convey the deep desire for the

states to create these exchanges. 36 b. tell you that there are no subsidies available unless the states create the exchange, and 1311 tell us you want, why would congress have done that. they did it because they need to provide -- creating these exchanges. the only one that would work would be saying if you don't do it then your citizens don't get the subsidies. this is not some novel invention of the aca. this is medicaid. this is likely how they get the states to participate in medicaid. they say they don't do what we want, your citizens won't get the medicaid. this was a key part as you of the aca went to greatly expand medicaid. my final boarding contextual point is, the government kept arguing that because section 1321 says if the states don't established exchanges, then hhs shall establish such exchange committee said such exchange.

and we are like this, they said such exchange. hhs will establish such exchange. but 36 b. turns on who establishes the exchange, whether it's the state you get the subsidy, if it's hhs you don't. if there's any ambiguity about when to use of words such whether they're trying to somehow magically transform hhs into the state, all you have to do is look at the context of the act and look at the provisions dealing with territories. territories are also required to authorize or establish such exchange. and immediately after they held them, it says and shall be treated as a state for these purposes. so we know that such does not connote that hhs or the territories are a state and we

know that congress does have a treat a nonstate entity as the state entity in the aca when it wanted to do so. so the argument on the other side we were taking hyper liberal myopic approach in getting this effect to the text of the statute. and while people like scalia might buy that argument, no serious person can buy the argument because after all they look at other manifestations of congressional intent, most obviously legislative history and there certainly is a fight between scalia and breyer on whether not clear text in the statute can be affected by contrary legislative history. and my point has always been however that debate is resolved

in it doesn't affect this case. because you can look through the blogs of legislative history surrounding the aca and you will and surrounding the aca and you will not see a single expression by anyone anywhere suggesting that subsidies are available on hhs established exchanges. so even look at any legal materials that any justice ever looked at any context that concern congressional intent here's what you arrive at. clear text saying subsidies are only available on state exchanges, clear text explaining why subsidies are only available there so they can incentivize states, and not a scintilla of history. so as i begin this, this is literally the easiest case that a federal court has ever entertained. the response again is, well, secret, congress didn't intend this and we know this because msnbc keeps telling us that congress didn't intend this. you and this is not only a legally relevant argued. it's difficult to hypothesize an in a argument that is more insulting.

nobody in the world wants to insult democratic majority that enacted the aca more than i do. and i and and but think about and and how insulting this is to them. these people english speaking in people sat down and wrote the words established on an exchange established by the states under section 1311. according to my opponent, they in didn't intend to convey that. they can't explain to you why a rational person who intended for subsidies to be available on federally established exchanges ever would've written down those and i will words, and more build words, and more and will will and will important they are saying not only do they consciously write down the opposite of what they intended it never even occur occurred to and them that somebody might in and intro but the word in intro but the word established by the state to meet established by the state. so they went to the entire legislative process and it didn't could anybody to say when we set state can we really meant hhs, for some goldberg reason but we did say the opposite of what we mean.

and you and i is in a. i will phone and in a letter and in so this was just a giant our mystery that existed throughout. this was some kind of scrivener's error. that's what the basis of the and in above. among the many problems with that, additional once i put in for is the phrase that appears 11 times in the aca. so it's not a scrivener's error. it's some kind of bizarre to read syndrome where -- [laughter] where they kept saying with the domain over and in over again -- tourette's syndrome. without any ability to control this. and so really what they're arguing that really what in everybody in the court room an everybody in the court room knew what they were argued was a and naked policy argument which is, look, 37 states have said no to the irs deal, not surprise lake since they gotten out nothing out of it for establishing the exchange, which

will means two-thirds of the states won't have the subsidies if you follow the rule of law. you if you follow the rule of law. will will and this is really really bad. and you and in addition to the and fact of course his policy you and arguments for the legislative branch, not the judicial branch, irs caused the problem. will if i arrested told the and if i arrested told the you states as the drafters of the act intended to only get the rest and you subsidy if you establish the exchange, they are just like medicaid they do in a and a and you are in a you a you will you and you would've established the exchanges. if you need that billions would have been deprived to their citizens, then they would have done something about it.

you done something about it. so not irs has caused this problem and they come into court and say, sorry, you can't change what we have created to our lawless action. you must perpetuate which to me is always like the criminal defendant who kills his parents and then pleads for mercy because he's an orphan, right? and he's the one who has create the problem but he nonetheless needs something. i don't know how this argument is going to be received. i've stopped making predicted a long time ago about how the court is going to be in any circumstances, particularly with respect to this act. i will identify two or three things that came up in argument that maybe it's of interest to in folks. an order inand in and the first one is justice kennedy did ask, well, if they

did condition the subsidies on thin green these exchange isn't that unconstitutionally coercive activity use of the funding power? the government has not made this argument. no state that has a stake in this argument is in front of the court. so i don't think, i certainly think justice kennedy is taking this argument very serious about it doesn't have the normal prerequisites for them to actually opine on the constitutional issue. in addition to the absence of any the absence of anyone arguing this or any entity with a stake in this in front of the court, he really, to find that this coercive, find this funding scheme is coerce would require them to return a previous decision on medicaid from just three years ago. because clearly there they did endorse a form of funding, i.e. you can condition all the medicaid funding on the states upping their eligibility requirements which is at least as coercive and is as at least problematic as anything involved here. and in the face of precisely the same kind of argument that you are receiving. the hospitals came in and said listen, if you don't, if you accept this argument and we don't get these medicaid funds spent we are going to go bankrupt. because of the deal in the aca was we get less money for serving poor people, low-income people at our hospitals and in exchange we were going to get all of these medicaid funds.

if we don't get where going to go bankrupt. i will point out 20 of the states have rejected the deal. the hospitals actually are doing fine but this is exactly the kind of argument that was bothering justice kennedy in terms of the insurance companies. the other practical point is that the states filed a briefing saying we're going to reject this exchange via regardless so the notion that it is unduly coercive strikes me as odd. i don't think therefore that justice kennedy can reach the constitutional question, but what a don't think the liberals who now embrace federalism for the first time understand is, if he does, this will result in the worst result for them that if we prevail on statutory portion. why? if he says condition medicaid funds, excuse me, conditioning subsidy on establishing the exchanges is no good, he's not going to say i am therefore going to extend subsidies to all 50 states.

is going to say no states get the subsidies because the deal was unconstitutional. how do i know that? because that's exactly what justice can be wrote in a dissenting opinion. he said if the medicaid medicaid deal is to coercive, the answer is not to let medicaid funds go without the condition. the answer is to eliminate the subsidies entirely. so in these circumstances people who were on the other side of the aisle who are taking part to justice kennedy's opinion should actually be quite worried. in that regard there is a mild form of the constitutional issue that might influence his decision but there's a candidate out there that if you can interpret a statute one way that doesn't raise constitutional issues by federal put it another way does, go with one that doesn't raise the constitutional issues.

that would be marshaled an argument to avoid the unconstitutional coercion point. but two statements that justice can be made at a couple of other points i think refute that that will happen to first of all in order to do that you need an unambiguous interpretation of statutory code with the question. justice kennedy was clear he didn't think there was any ambiguity about whether statesmen hhs. he also made and i think this is a key point, there's a basic separation of powers principle that you can't take money out of the federal treasury unless the custodians of perth, congress has expressly authorized the treasury to expand those monies. so we said therefore needs to be very clear that the subsidies were unavailable and you would lose, you've the government would lose ambiguity. if you think about that, he can't therefore say because there's ambiguity in the statute i am now going to expand

subsidies to all 50 states and congress was clearly imposing some kind of condition on it. in other words, he would be great if you'd separation of powers problem that he himself identified at the argument in order to solve the federalism concern. and the final point i did get to make in rebuttal was there's no winter for the statute doesn't raise a serious concern about infringing on state sovereignty. the government's version of the statute imposes a very serious federalism concern. why is that? the point i did make of course it's not just a question of subsidy. the employer mandate, the requirement that employers provide insurance for their employees is tied to the subsidy. in other words, if the employer doesn't have that obligation unless one of his employees goes out and reaches and gets one of the subsidies. so if these saying that no subsidies will be available in all 50 states that would extend the employer mandate to all 50 states automatically.

and the states would have no ability to veto it or as they would under our interpretation. what he would be saying is the federal government got the ability to tell states that they have to provide certain kind of health insurance benefits to their own employees which is the core principle of federalism that you really shouldn't be able to tell the state how to conduct their relations with her their own employees. so either way you interpret the statute raises serious questions. in light of all that, what i think might happen and why think would be a resolution that really would preserve justice kennedy's constitutional concerned would not affect the outcome of the case is to do what he's done in a number of other cases including under the voter rights act where he would join the proper statutory interpretation holding of the court but then write a separate brief saying this gives me great constitutional concerned and if and when the state wants to raise it, i will certainly entertain it.

other than that i'm not going to make any predictions about how the court is actually going to rule. these things always remind me of people are like chief justice roberts didn't say a lot during the argument, sort of like those old, is gorbachev looking to his left at the general? we're supposed to read tea leaves. i think it's generally a sucker's game. i think it's a suckers game in this context to try to discern these types of predictions about how the justices are going to be a. so my bottom line is, for the reason i've articulated i expect a nine to nothing victory in june to some of you saw the argument who are attending me have detected some skepticism by for the justices about my argument but nonetheless i think once they read the briefs and it said the plane landed in the statute this would be a very short hike page opinion.

[applause] [laughter] [applause] >> well, thank you, michael. since today's theme is the imperial presidency, i'm going to act in the early and we will extend lunch 10 minutes. >> mike, i was at the argument and i have to tell you, you did a fabulous job. i've seen a lot of arguments. i've never seen an assault by the liberals in any of the cases. but my question is this. justice didn't -- ginsburg let

you get out one good sentence. >> guess it was a good sense. before she brought up the issue of standing which is such a subtle issue that the government didn't even argument in their brief. in fact, the first time this was brought up once a month before i think on msnbc which -- my question is, i read that the liberals are desperate because they gauged how the other justices will were feeling about the case and were hoping they could bring up a standard issue that might dispose of the case without it being disposed of substantive ground. is my reading, do you think my

is off? >> i have to disagree with the premise. i just told you she was on my side. every judge including all the judges who ruled against us on the merits, it was a very vanilla case of stanley. -- standing. msnbc gets involved. there was really no serious issue about it. installation is almost doing me a favor i must say because i got, i think killed of the standing issue so it didn't come back and give it solicitor general verrilli was not giving them any solace. i think it was a nonissue. in terms of the vigor of the candidates changed a few points, there was literally the justices were not only interrupting my answers, they were interrupting their brethren's questions. it was a very hot bench and

unused to hostile questions. this one was maybe unique because for the first time i've ever seen chief justice roberts just on his own site, you get 10 more minutes. he gave us 10 more minutes because he knew it'd been impossible for us, for me to get any answers out. >> let me go to the dark side for a minute and just ask, if court somehow roles -- rules that the statute means what it doesn't say, are you able to discuss at all what you think that means for the loss of statutory interpretation of the future? speaker: well, if they continue to interpret statutes the way that you would have to interpret this statute to mean north means south, black means white, then will literally be no law in the united states, right? because it would be quite impossible for you to enact the

law that lines the judiciary or the executive agency to mean what it says and says what it means. i take solace in the fact that if we lose it will be only in this case, only for this act and they will revert to when they like the results to honest neutral interpretation of law. i think it really would be. there's a lot of obviously issues in terms of policy about, that divide people by policy obligations of the affordable care act at this case is about the rule of law. this case is about whether or not we're going to honestly and neutrally interpret an act of a coequal branch of whether we're going to let policy concerns profit. there was a very revealing exchange i think during the argument where justice scalia said to solicitor general verrilli, who by the way i thought did a fine job of arguing. he's a very able advocate that legitimate unrealistic because

-- but i thought he made a real mistake. he said his policy arguments are so convincing, well then with congress right across the street and they can fix. justice pashtun solicitor general really said, this congress? [laughter] which elicited this kind of snarky laughter but i was looking at chief justice roberts and some of the other justices, and the notion that the solicitor general of administration would say, your deference to congress turns to the composition of who is leading the congress, is extraordinary insulting, something the court is never going to take seriously, and i thought they were blanching at that notion. particularly since, my own prediction is this congress will actually take steps in the wake of our victory, numerous op-ed by senate and house leadership saying that there's a way to fix this come a better way to fix this thing but there is a way to fix it. i'm hoping that that assurance that eventually the law to mean what it says, won't result in these dire policy consequences

should be enough solace for them to do the right thing. >> one more. >> you mentioned that the chief justice gave both sides 10 more minutes but there was no other case scheduled for that day. did that mean they were anticipating they're going to give them more time? michael: no. but you're right. they had another argument scheduled. did you hear about this? the guy was complaining, pro se many non-representative, deployment.

they couldn't find him. he disappeared. so they accepted the case and then they said well, i guess he's not going to be here so they canceled the argument after that. >> she's got one more. >> assuming you win, a lot of people are going to lose subsidies. government subsidies. how do you see the applications of this playing 00:40:27 -- playing out for republicans and the future of obamacare? michael: right. so look, let's put this into a better perspective. they are going to lose subsidies to the notion these subsidies are essential to health care is a little exaggerated. these have been able except for the last 50 months. these people would be in exactly the same position would've been at the end of 2014 which was not exactly medieval time we saw sick people scattered across the sidewalks in d.c. and i say that because it's important recognize that nobody is arguing the absence of subsidies will drive up

insurance premiums. whether proponents are arguing other provisions of the act making insurance so expensive, these preexisting conditions that those will drive up insurance premiums and we need them, subsidies to offset them. go out and buy the kind of insurance you want. i think didn't think about going to buy insurance across state lines. if you live in new york you can go to utah and get a great deal. the point would be people who need to help are getting it in the same way under this republican alternative but they're getting it in a way that empowers the consumer to make the choice about the insurance that he or she likes best rather than listening to it hhs says

-- thanks best. my own view is that should be amenable to a consensus of ti think it will be difficult for he will be not getting the needed mungs and i think that is tough for him and if they can't reach a compromise, prior to this, president obama has been easy to say no. no. if we prevail in case. under his own present dicks, there won't be a employer mandate and he

will have a legacy. the president just saying no may not be available. it will be. people who think that low-income people should get subsidies and the affordable care act goes about it in the long way. [applause] . >> adam schiff is our guest. he talks about the iceice threat.

watch the interview on " newsmakers" on c-span. >> now icies and this army is very shaky. you can't undoe it. and going to have part thers with them. afghanistan, we have 10,000 troops and draw down and i would warn we will seem results. that army ises. >> this sunday, daniel bowl engineering. in iraq and afghanistan. sunday night.

house and sneat return next week. for more on that and other i teams we talk. >> the headline on one of your how different is the paths are they taking? >> >> they would add $40 billion. the senate proposes offsets by reduesing spend sing. the house has a different plan. the house would offset some

of that increase but possible that plan will be changed and will reprove. move. >> this oversees contingent . >> both budgets would the caps that are in law and that alaws $52 billion and to provide more money. they are using war funding funding for the war against terrorism. that funding is outs the caps. >> we covered the markups this week and the house markup and they worked out

difficulty over the spend ing. >> the plan from house leaders was to add a couple dill l billions dollars more. some of the defense are concerned that it will be offset and not have the money to spind. they are looking to mutting something if the rule which would remove the offset. >> a tweet, the ruling that may be ahead that could complicate the budget. >> >> the supreme could you

tell is expected to rule in june to the health subsidies. the go hegget disagrees are i will legal, the republicans wants to replace to subsidies. and through the process. so they will have budgets which are very jerning and will give give the plan to the supreme drk responding. >> how to the house and senate plans answer the plans for demrefpk spending? >> they don't. both plans keep nondomestic

spending and they and tax increases of tax breaks. the republicans plans do not increase. >> the appropriations chair, and absolutely like to see the caps lifted legislatively is that likely to happen? >> i think with a a locality of thelt so later in the year could reach agreement on another budget deal which would race the caps and you would have to pass a law to do that. >> the house and senate

finish their work, what's the deadline to get it out of congress? >> the deadline is april 15 for the house and nat to agree and they are slooting to meet that debt line. they could pass it. >> read more at kq diagnose. thanks for the update. >> talking to reportes about the economy.

this is an hour. >> thanks for coming. director of the until nick council and portfolio is energy policy. and graduated from horps from duke university and

yoins he ran both organizations. and challenging government roles. and you the chief. and o. mfment b.. brian is a nature i have from yale law school. and center for american progress and and age at the 1, was to help restructure general mortse. and so much for buy og

growing if i. and no fining ever filing of any kind to give us to see can yeah they say. we will email. to all the rofters. and as regular attend ease. seend me a significance hall and i will call it. start off by offering our guests to make opening comments. and with that. thanks for doing that. the floor is yours >>. a pleasure to be here. i will be brief. i wanted to give you a sense of how we are thinking of the state of the affairs.

as we think about our positions economically, we are in the -- we are in a moment we are sewing in the economic recovery. one of our questions is is how committee we see be to effective and increase economic growth. since the election, the president has had a president pretty strategy how to you who acommeef that objective and trying to push where he can tocks move the agendaa through

climate change, and also, in places like ma making mortgages affordable and taking to help americans save more money for retirement and you were going to see the president in that posture going forward. the other component is to lay out a broudvig of what it mipes a how we should move in this direction. and that is the president's budget speaking with and with vision with where we food to take the country.

what you have seen through this period three the new republican progress. you have seen the president defining the debate and the cock is responding to where the president is doing. we are looking for opportunities where we can work with congress. one of the thidges that the president is going to is where his brirets are and it is a question where the republic caven leadership can govern a work with democrats to get things done. so that's where where where we found ourselves in the

current mement. >> the frame that brian has offered. the president said in the 014 for the economy and off to a good start, 300,000 new jobs, importantly, that is 12 straight months and first time that has happened in the first 40 years. think about our fogs in the global economy. we continue to be the leader in research universities and r&d. we are the most productivity in the world and the wullverget and

energy. and that is a new source of competitive advantage and manufacturinger are in the u.s. there is much more work to be done. big focus on wages. stagnant wages. you will see these. we have fouf mile yoven job openings in the u.s., murks,000 are if he can jobs. and continued joth of our economy. and working with mayors to take advantage of new training models like boot camps that can get people

in yobs. we will continue to execute and some, we will have an update over the rule. right now, workers have to earn less than $23,000 to qualify for automatic overtime. that is too low. we will looks por the intersection of economics and get something done in a pipe way. the president is good for trade on america coon workes. i believe there is a growing consensus and the receive nue from business tax reform should fund

infrastructure. all of us agree in infrastructure and performing in the business tax road and it is a growing bipartisan interest . if we lift up and the economy is solid with we have a strong global interest. >> with's go around the table. mike and kevin. let me ask you about the biggest economic challenge janet yellen said that economic growth moderated

some what and keeping inflation too although low, waste the main run? >> i think that making sure that we are doing all we on the middle class. this is a decade's-old problem and several lenchers. it is good for our competitiveness. and minimum wage, 17 states moving forward to incrows the minimum wage sm we should continue to, as i talked about earlier, invest in principals that

work well-paying jobs. we are job training jobs and working with the local businesses and community climmings to ensure we are are ensuring well high paying. rrs in your opening remarks you talked about the president staying on offense and you got rules coming out today. other than that, what is left in terms. of of environmental climate? >> if you look at

greenhouse gas emissions and most of the actions are actions we can mf forward on through the executive space. the short answer is yes. yesterday, we anoipsed a goal, signing an executive order fl the federal government by 40% and actions associated with that where we are relouises actions. if you look forward, core to our agenda is the clean power plant which will reduce power prince.

we have a big opportunity to reduce a viable dreement. and met we have a lot more to do through rule makeing to both tightin down on energy waste and long tern incentive. >> in is a agenda that is in precepts and other foundational and environmental laws. if you look at the clean power plant, this is a rule that at its cores providing flex built to states.

9 straur of the law and the straur of the law is about stetting rates. and what you have seen outside of washington is how to be practicing maltic and creating plants. that is our focus and will remain our focus. >> first there has been a lot of attention on capitol hill about net neutrality. to come up with the rules. i wonder if you could come up with those regular rations and to start could

you comment on those and the f. c c. priest? rsh the president made his views known including a video. and the president's' president's known. >> congressman chaff and beginning of november and i want to say the white house has speaksed his kerns. and you have pressured the f.c.c.. >> the president to express his views. in terms of meetening with the chairman. i know that is a wide range

of views. >> you spoke of and other actions we should expect? >> we will continue to implement initiatives. 2 partnerships between local cities and rural areas with employers to fill the half million tech jobs. and we will continue to execute executive actions and roll out new executive actions. >> on the trade aagendaa. you said the president is

committed to this trade fast track and you talked about that. can you give me some sense of what the president is going to be doing it acknowledge what time he will be sheppeding on it. and what commitments how much tangible things. will he be touring roong the count try and husband remarks or is go to be like he has been doing -- is it on washington focused and very briefly. brian, you expect something

like a lot of room for rules on energy efficiency and methane. pipeline rules or more on this? . >> it is his top economic legislative priority and you you see that in the state of the union and full thrive throated in fade -- fair trade dreements. he is spending a lot of time in small groop meetings with the house and the senate, it is a cabinet effort.

so the secretary was in miami yesterday in trade. and they are talking about the benefits of trade. so is this on priority of the president and all of us who work with the president, all out effort to make sure thr sure there is an stunning. >> so with respect to meth anche, we have announced a goal of reducing methane emissions. the way we are going to achieve that is through the

regular lar tower actions. the e.p.a. proposing rules for new sources on methane which is something we anticipate will come for here in the next several months. this includes work throw u sd arch who is workic with the agency to reduce it. the over all the department of energy has a cadence of rulemakings to increase standards in buildings, appliances, and otherwise. you can expect that cadence to continue over the next two years.

this is a place we are looking to partner with the private sector because the truth is that by providing the right incentives this is a place where there is huge opportunity. i was with the president and a who's who of the fortune 500 yesterday when the white house made the announcement and you have everywhere from ge to hewlett-packard that only committing to work as contractors for the federal government but also setting greenhouse gas reduction plans and a lot of that is driven on the fact that it is low hanging fruit, short payoffs, two or three or four year returns. this is a place where by being smart how we partner we can leverage impact substantially.

reporter: you talked about offense through executive actions i was hoping you could give us some insight on how the executive actions come together. s some insight on how the executive actions come together. do you get the playbook on the offense? some of these like the greenhouse gas omissions are big executive order's, other things may be smaller bore regulations package together by the white house to give it more impact. in the fourth quarter of the clinton administration, there modesta. was project -- there was project modesta. is there a project dese, or project zients? jeff: there is a project zients, but i told you about it, i would have to kill you all. so it is a good question.

and part of this comes from leadership and direction from the top, and part of the tone of that the president said. -- set. many of you have heard this directly from him, but coming off the election and over the last couple of months was, you know, we are in the fourth quarter. a lot of games get set in the fourth quarter. that has resonated with me as a patriots fan. we need to be creative and stay at the effort to look for every reasonable and creative way to leverage the assets that we have to help make progress on these broad middle-class economic themes. so in practice the way that gets manifested is you have the white house policy council, one of

which jeff leads, and the domestic policy council. it is a collaborative effort working with agencies trying to identify if there places where we have not thought as creatively as we could. some of that is on rulemaking. the regulatory space. but some of it is on partnership. finding new ways to partner. and finding ways to -- the word bully pulpit is often thrown around, but this is also a thinking very concretely and hardheaded on how to use of platforms that the president and also the first lady have to drive progress. also this is a wide-ranging effort, and one that frankly the energy and enthusiasm around it is largely coming from the president himself. jeff: let me add a little to that. i agree with everything brian said. there is a clear message from the president to his old team -- whole team and his cabinet. in the fourth quarter, get as much done as we can. getting stuff done falls into

two broad categories when it comes to executive action. one is what we have already announced and executing against those initiatives. on monday and tuesday, we are holding sweat usa over at the national harbor. the president will be addressing a crowd of about 2500 including over 1200 overseas investors. this is about having companies pick the u.s. for their investments. this effort happen several years ago at commerce, and has now grown to the scale and has real results in facilitating investments in the u.s. so constant execution against executive actions that have already been announced is as important, if not more important, as new executive action. so we will continue to roll out new executive action, but the president is holding us to account on strong execution

of executive actions that have been announced over the past several years. kevin: [indiscernible] a couple of questions for each of you. one or two for each. fast-moving questions. for jeff, the labor department overtime standard. there has been some grumbling that the number you are looking at is not as big a number as the labor advocates would like. let's talk about what you are waiting against. i know you don't want to get out of it but what the trade-off you're looking at. i will save the tougher one for brian. one on autos. you were deeply involved in that, a great front page story in "the wall street journal" this week on mexico and the trade pacts. i would is winning new plants. -- how it is winning new plants. what can be done short of tba, what other practical steps could

help to bring these auto plants that are going to mexico, or elsewhere, back. and then on energy, of what potential in exports. do you think exports would create artificial shortages, or do you think oil export i need -- are needed. jeff: i'm not getting in the specifics of the world. at -- specifics of the rule. as i said it will come out in , the next few months. it is $23,000 for and salary workers. we think there is an opportunity to make a significant change there that will help many workers earn what they deserve. reporter: there's a trade-off in everything you do. . -- what are some of the things that you are waiting? -- weighing? jeff: i want to make sure workers are earning what they deserve. at the same time, that we

continue to have a competitive economy, in what is increasingly a global economy. the level is so outdated at this point, there is an opportunity to move significantly. brian: just briefly, on your two . i think reflecting on the american auto industry, it is really striking to me where the industry is today, given where we were in the winter and spring of 2009. even the optimist at that even back optimist -- optimists at that time weren't projecting either the pace at which job growth would return to the domestic auto industry or the pace at which the overall industry would recover. the second thing that people were not projecting, which probably goes to the competitive question you raised, is that in the last couple of years, we've seen something striking which is that the detroit three have actually gained market share.

against their foreign competitors in the united states. so, the up swing is not simply that we're back selling, you know, a little north of 16 million cars a year, when we were, when we bottomed out at just over nine million. it's also that these companies are finding ways to actually out-compete and take market share from their foreign competitors, which was something that was absolutely not -- which was something that was absolutely not conventional wisdom or prevailing wisdom and instead was a sort of slow march of losing market share for the american companies. i think the question going forward about how to keep the united states a competitive location for domestic manufacturing investment is broader than the auto industry alone. and it's an issue that we spend a lot of time on. we are seeing trends both in health care and energy and otherwise that have really helped change the game in terms of the competitive posture for

manufacturing domestically. i think that there's more that we can do. jeff mentioned select u.s.a. on monday. it's an incredible event and initiative where we are bringing foreign investment to choose the united states. there's also more that we can do, and usgr has been aggressive in enforcing trade agreements, which is an issue that's important in the auto space. i think that continued vigilance on the enforcement side is important as well. just very briefly on the energy side, we have not changed the longstanding policy with respect to crude oil exports. the changes we've seen in the industry over the past several years, increase in production, changes within the industry itself, raise a number of questions about where the

industry is overall. and we are looking at that and monitoring the industry constantly. but we don't have a change of policy with respect to that. and don't have anything else on that. jeff: to add a little data to the position we have in the global economy, due to these strategic innovations we have. productivity in our work force and now energy. we're the number one place to invest, when you poll global c.e.o.'s. and more than half of c.e.o.'s of manufacturing companies are looking to bring facilities or locate facilities here in the u.s. so that's part of why you have such strong interests in select u.s.a. next week. questioner: could you talk a little bit about the fiscal issues? it was clear this week from congress is that there are deep divisions in the republican party and there's a lot of chafing beneath the budget

control act caps on the defensive side but also on the domestic side. when people talk about a ryan-murray type deal, there's no patty murray, anymore. it's the white house. the white house is the democratic side. what are you doing to try to drive the republicans to the table before there's a crisis at the end of the year? and what are the prospects of some kind of settlement that would get the president his higher caps and satisfy the republicans on their deficit reduction? brian: there still is a patty murray. she's still a force to be reckoned with. i think overall on the fiscal side, and then to the specifics of the, you know, of the discretionary issues that you're raising, our hope, as we were moving into this budget season

was that the changes that we've seen in the economy and in our fiscal position would actually help move us beyond the fiscal -- the old fiscal debates of the last several years. part of what we were trying to do in our budget was acknowledge that our fiscal situation and our economic situation have changed in important ways. both in the near term, in terms of the rapid fiscal consolidation and deficit reduction we've seen, but also in the medium term, largely around the reduction in the rate of growth of health care costs continuing to step down, baseline estimates of deficits in the future. that's not to say that long-term fiscal challenges have been solved. but we are in a different position. unfortunately what we saw with the republican budget, what we saw was largely the same approach, prioritizing deficit reduction over shared growth

starting principally with tax cuts aimed at wealthier americans and then forcing very deep cuts in order to pay for those and hit the fiscal objectives. one of the things that's interesting in that context is this debate that's occurred around discretionary levels in particular. i think that the thing that we can do to most helpfully encourage the kind of deal that would be good for the economy and good for our national security is be very clear, both about where the president stands, and about how you could get from here to there. and so one of the reasons why, if you go back and look when the president announced his budget he was very clear when he went out and he said two things. he said, i will not accept a budget that locks in sequester going forward. and i will not accept breaking the linkage that was enshrined in the bipartisan murray-ryan

agreement between our national security and our economic security. he laid that as predicate and then put forward a budget that shows very concretely both how you could raise those caps and how you could pay for them. quite explicitly. it's all in there. we do not ascribe to the check -- chuck grassley theory that the right way to do budgets is to have very little wording there. i think that's the thing we can do to be most constructive. as you say, the republicans have a choice. we have done this now several times. they know where this play ends. and there is bipartisan support for coming together, recognizing that we can absolutely afford to invest in our economic security, invest in our national security, pay for it over the long-term, and we would be better off both economically and politically if we could get an agreement on that sooner rather than engage

in a whole bunch of brinksmanship where we know where that ends up. so i think what we can do is be clear, be specific. and have the president drawing those lines, not as a way of fomenting partisanship but as a way of trying to clearly indicate a path that, just to be clear, there are lots of republicans who support that path, just as there are lots of democrats. jeff: let me say one word about economy. if you look back across the last year or so, where we've had strong growth, it's been helped by the absence of brinksmanship, self-inflicted wounds, fiscal drama. in fact, if you plot consumer confidence or business confidence, the dips have generally been around things like government shutdown, so we hope, for the sake of the economy and the american businesses and american workers, that congress has learned that lesson.

and that under no situation do we head toward another self-inflicted wound on the economy. questioner: who do you think are your negotiating partners and are you reaching out already to them? brian: i think that republicans introduced their budget this week. the committee process yesterday, they're going to go through next week. and we have to see how that all plays itself out. there is still an open question, as you said, this debate within the republican party about whether they are actually going to fund defense at levels that are uniform military service would be devastating to our national security priorities. and so i think we need to see how that plays out over the course of the next week. we are and have been, over the course of the last several

weeks, engaged with members of congress, republicans and democrats, largely in that context around our budget and our budget proposal. but part of that was associated with what i was talking about before, which is wanting to make sure that people fully understand the approach that we're taking, and how we think we could find areas of compromise. questioner: i have a two-part question. the s.g.r. agreement that the house leaders are about to release. is this the framework you can live with or do you have any major concerns with? second question is, i'm curious what you make of the social security aspect in the house republican budget, it prohibits the reallocation of the disability fund to the retirement fund. is that something could you support on any level? if not, how do you believe this should be fixed, when it dips into the red next year? brian: on the first, as you say, it's about to be released and we

haven't seen the details. so we're -- we'll be better positioned to make an assessment once we've had a chance to do that. i think that as some of you know, but in our budget we laid out a proposal for a permanent s.g.r. fix. and have a number of proposals in that space in our budget. that's something that the president has been supportive of for several years. including doing it in a fiscally responsible way. but with respect to the details of this particular agreement, i think we really need to see what they are before we have a better sense of where we land. your second question, social security. so, the house provision was unconstructive and at odds with

how this issue has been addressed time and time again in a bipartisan manner. and we continue to believe that the right way to address this issue is consistent with what we proposed. and that we have always said, as many of you around this table know and have been reporting on for years, we have always said that we're open to having a conversation about social security reform more broadly. we have laid out a set of principles that would be important in the context of that conversation. but it is just not tenable to walk away from what has been a very clear, bipartisan approach to addressing the issue. so in terms of answering your question concretely, that's how we think this is going to need to get done.

questioner: \[inaudible] it's an internal debate among republicans. do you actually expect to play a role in the crafting of a republican budget? it seems at moment your fingerprints appear on it, it loses republican support. i'm curious whether the strategy that you're employing in this aggressive way that the president is talking about the economy and you're talking about your side of the budget, is more designed to set the predicate for vetoes that will come if and when legislation that's crafted out of the republican budget comes your way. brian: i think we're going to need to let this process play out a bit to know exactly -- it's impossible to project

forward on exactly how the mechanics will go. from our perspective, our goal is absolutely to get to an agreement that reflects the principles we've laid out. we've laid out a menu of policies that would enable you to get there. and there is bipartisan support to lift the defense caps, lift the nondefense caps and pay for it over 10 years. that's a blueprint where there's bipartisan support. so our hope, and our objective is for congress to come together around an agreement of that basic form and put it in place before we have to get into a situation where we're into brinksmanship, as jeff noted.

and again, hard for me to say exactly how that process might unfold, let's get through and see where the republican budget resolutions actually land. but i think that there's -- our posture is one of trying to encourage good faith conversations, good faith efforts to the there. -- to get there. and that's part of why we're trying to be clear, is to facilitate that sort of thing. the one thing that i would add is that the murray-ryan structure, this basic structure of lifting the caps on both sides, paying for it over a decade, is one that was both good economically, took off the table this constant set of brinksmanship, but was also -- worked politically. and there's a question out there that i think the republican leadership has to grapple with around do they look to find areas where there are areas of

bipartisan agreement and move to those in the first instance rather than getting backed into them? and, you know, on the d.h.s. funding side, you saw the instance of them getting backed into an outcome where sort of knew where that story was also going to end. i think there's a question in the budget context of whether we can get to that outcome on the front end, which would be, i think, better politically, but also most importantly it would be better economically. questioner: if the domestic caps are lifted, do you still have a problem with using -- kind of boosting the overseas contingencies operations funding to cover defense spending? brian: what i find interesting about the overseas contingency operation is that it's traditionally republicans who have had a problem with this and

have, i think, rightly referred to the inappropriate use of it as a slush fund. i think that one of the things that's important to understand with respect to funding for defense, is that providing some certainty, forward certainty, is vital to them being able to prepare to execute missions. so part of why when you hear the chairman of the joint chiefs or secretary of defense describe why it's not a viable solution is because it creates constant annual uncertainty around funding levels. so we don't think that that is an appropriate approach or that it solves the problem. and i frankly think that, as you've seen from the war, as lindsey graham called it between republicans, there is a

lot of discomfort on the republican side around using it as a mechanism as well. questioner: you used the phrase cadence of rulemaking. i wanted to ask about that in regard to the overtime rules. it's been a year since the president called for those. every time i check with the labor department, they push off the target date. some month into the future. why is it taking so long and in the fourth quarter do you need to pick up the cadence a little bit? jeff: we're a few months away from getting that out the door and that will leave plenty of time to fully implement the rule. questioner: why is it taking so long? jeff: you need the appropriate analysis to set the level and once the proposed rule is ready, it will be announced and that will be within the next few months.

questioner: i wanted to ask you about the rulemaking on existing coal fire plants. can you describe what the practical implications might be from the administration's vantage point to his efforts to enlist the help of governors to do that? to tie things up legally? and can you also describe your political analysis of it, is it smart politics for republicans to take a stand? brian: i think this is another example of the president leading, the president setting clear objectives and pushing the policy agenda and republicans being in a responsive, defensive posture. the truth of this rule is that as i mentioned before, this rule is grounded in providing states

flexibility to craft their own plans. and the environmental protection agency is working in a bipartisan, pragmatic way at the state level to help states understand the options and the opportunities. and this rule is not even a final rule. this rule is in the proposed stage. and they are working through that process. and you're seeing, across the country, very constructive and pragmatic efforts in states across the country. in fact, just yesterday the national governors association announced a convening of their authority, a convening of their tools to try to work with states and do workshops to help states understand how they can work within this rule, how they can comply with this rule. if you look at the states that are leading that effort, again

they are red states an blue -- and blue states and a part of this is a because there is incredible economic opportunity that states understand in driving the clean energy economy in these states. i think that, you know, from -- you know, so what you have is you have a republican leader in mitch mcconnell who is going way outside the bounds of his -- the position that he was elected to. and i think that we all would be better served if he and others spent less time trying to lecture states about what they should be doing, when they themselves are focused on looking at how they can operate in their own best interest and more time trying to actually get some constructive things done in

congress. like, for example, we could confirm a highly qualified attorney general nominee who has been sitting out there for more than 130 days. we're going to keep working on this exactly as we have. and i think that that's going to be the path forward on this one. questioner: your assessment is for the republican party, it is smart politics or not? brian: i think that addressing climate change and putting the united states on the forefront of a clean energy economy is good substance, first and foremost, because it's taking on one of the most important issues of our generation. and i think increasingly it is good politics as well. because, you know, states should be given the flexibility to decide how they want to craft plans to have cleaner air and cleaner water for their kids. and address the fact that, you know, that climate change

affects how exposed kids are to asthma and has other important effects. i think as the president said last week, when he was doing an interview with vice, eventually the republican party is going to have to change their position on this issue because the public opinion is moving on it. the posture of climate denial is one that is increasingly not acceptable because it is so at odds with the science. i think that most importantly this is a very important issue for our economy and for the health of our country and we're going to keep pushing forward because of that. >> we've got only about 2 1/2 minutes left.

there are seven people waiting. not everyone's going to get a question because i want to keep my deal with jen and end on time. michael warren, last question. questioner: how do more restrictive rules on hydraulic fracturing help economic growth? brian: we believe that in order to have a durable industry in the future, you need to strike an appropriate balance between protecting public health and safety. and allowing for responsible production. i think if you look at the rules that we will -- that the department of interior will put out later today, they appropriately strike that balance. and they are focused on pragmatic but very important steps like disclosing the fluids that are being used in the fracking process. that is a step that is very important for from a

transparency perspective, from a public safety perspective, but it also is important in terms of having a template that this industry can work from, given the degree of public concern and localized concern about the potential health and safety impacts. the last thing i would say about this is that these are rules for fracking on public lands. about 11% of the fracking that goes on in this country happens on public lands. this is the portion of this issue that we the federal government have an obligation to set rules of the road for. but ultimately this is an issue that is going to be decided in state capitols and localities, as well as with the industry. we feel comfortable that what we put out today reflects an approach to our obligation, to

balance those issues. but one of the things we're going it see going forward is a conversation that will play out across the country about where to strike that balance. >> i want to thank both of you for doing. this i want to apologize to my colleagues for not getting everyone in. hope you come back. thanks for doing it. >> fred burton discusses u.s. security issues. and after that, daniel mitchell talks the united states tax codes. >> "washington journal" live on

c-span. >> this weekend, the c-span cities tour has partnered to learn the life of columbus, g eorgia. >> this is an ironclad that was built here during the war. the oval shape is part of jackson. the particular rifle that we are firing today is one of the guns built specifically for the jackson. it was cast at the selma naval works in a selma, alabama. it was completed in 1785. there are only four ironclads from the civil war that we can study right now. the jackson is right here, this

is why the facility is here. it is first and foremost to tell the story of this particular ironclad. to tell people there were not just one or two ironclads, there were many. >> sunday afternoon at 2:00. and on c-span three. >> former maryland governor martin o'malley was in davenport. this is one of several events that the governor is attending in iowa. which traditionally hosts the nation's first presidential caucuses. [laughter]

>> thank you very very much. let us give it up for days. [laughter] [applause] >> dave, thank you very very much congressman. thank you for your leadership. i want to thank everyone for being here, to propel scott county into the future. i understand there is a big game tonight? go hawks! [applause] >> i ask you to refrain from shouting out the score. again, congressman, thank you for your introduction and your leadership. and congratulations on your

victory in a really tough year. we are lucky to have your leadership in washington. you will have no doubt have company from the great state of iowa in congress. [applause] >> i want to congratulate you on your selection of tom hart. he said it is not an affliction, we are both iris. h. thank you to the democrats for the invitation to be with all of you tonight. dr. maguire, thank you for your leadership of the state party. sometimes, there is a truth, it is not how low you go, it is how high you balance. [applause]

how high you bounce. so, tonight, i want to talk with all of you about a story of us about all of us, the story of baltimore, and the story of iowa iowa, the story of maryland, and the story of america. the story of us. and 200 years ago, in the war of 1812, the british had just taken washington, and had burned our public buildings to the ground. the capitol building and the white house. and the people of my home city could see the glow from the flames in the skies to our south. now we knew that they were coming for us. amidst the ashes of washington the commanding british general

at the time declared i am going to march on baltimore, and dine there. even then, we had great restaurants. in baltimore. [laughter] then he said, i am going to burn baltimore to the ground. our nation was not yet 40 years old. and think about it. the american dream was facing extinction. imagine what we felt at that moment. anger, fear, disbelief confidence shattered, trust gone. there are moments in the life of our country, and these are the defining moments, when it seems the american dream is hanging by a thread.

and yet, for america, there is always a yet. the final thread that holds us could just be the strongest. 50% of us in the city were immigrants. one out of five were african-americans of a very imperfect country. only a third of those defenders were free. but somehow together we transformed our loss. we transformed our despair. instead of digging graves, we dug trenches, and we built ramparts by the sea. against the shock and all of its day, the people of baltimore stood firm. all of us as we did tonight, now singing the star-spangled banner.

that giant flag foisted in defense over fort mchenry when the british gave up. as we sing that song, let us remember the colors of the actual star-spangled banner were stitched together by black and white hands. men's hands, hands of freedom, hands of bondage. the hands of a nation that is always growing and always evolving. and the threat i submit to you that held together the stars & stripes is the same that holds us together now. it is the thread of human dignity. [applause] the dignity of every person, the

dignity of home. the dignity of work. the dignity of neighbor helping neighbor so all of us can succeed. in other words, with our countries future hanging in the balance we stood as one and the american dream lived on. now fast forward. in 1999, there was a different battle unfolding on the streets of baltimore. and this time, honestly we were losing. when i decided to run for mayor that year, my city had allowed ourselves to become the most violent, most addicted, most abandoned city in america. and our biggest enemy wasn't the drug dealers or crack cocaine. it was a lack of belief, a culture of failures, countless excuses about how nothing would

work and why none of us should bother to try. so we set out to make our city , work again. to make the dream real again. and in our fight to survive, we brought for word a new way of governing, a new way of getting things done. as may or, i started setting goals with deadlines. what is the difference between a dream and a goal? a deadline. [laughter] instead of counting budget inputs, we started measuring the outputs of the actions we were taking. we started managing for results. we saw trash so we picked it up every day. we saw open air drug markets and we began to relentlessly close them down. and guess what? when the people of baltimore solve their government was working, they rallied.

too. [applause] and together, we put into action that most important belief that unites us, the belief that we are all in this together. that in our community there is no such thing as a spare american. over the next 10 years baltimore , went on to achieve the biggest reduction in crime of any major city in america. [applause] you see, in this battle, between our violent pasts, and are safer future, the future won. that future lives on. just seven years ago, it seemed like our entire economy was hanging by a thread.

didn't it? you watched the tv. he wondered how it can get worse. millions of people lost their jobs. we refused to give up. as a nation. and we elected a new president and barack obama to make the tough decisions, and that is what we are doing. [applause] the president provided leadership, and the states had to make choices of their own. unlike some other states, and maryland we did more, not less to make our children winners. in this challenging economy. we tossed aside the failed policies of the past, the trickle down economics, and we embraced the economics of

inclusion. we returned to the truth our parents and grandparents understood so well. in their hearts. the more a person learns, the more a person earns. a stronger middle class is not the consequence of economic growth. a stronger middle class is the cause of economic growth. [applause] in other words, we returned to the middle class economics that actually made america great. the commonsense economics that understands the more workers earn, the better customers businesses have, and the more our entire economy grows. we passed a living wage, the first to pass a living wage, and

we raised the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour. [applause] we make college more affordable for more people. in fact we froze college tuition , increases, zero increases for four years in a row. and by investing more rather than less, by partnering with teachers, we make our public schools the best in america five years in a row. [applause] economic participation means political participation. while other states were putting up barriers to keep people from voting, we made it easier for all people to cast their vote.

and we harnessed the power, as indeed iowa has, of renewable energy. to create new jobs in this new economy, while answering the moral challenge of climate change, to create stronger communities. and jobs. we took action to restore the health of the waters of our chesapeake bay, and we made maryland one of the top states for upward economic mobility. together, we maintain the highest median income in the nation. and together, maryland has created jobs at one of the fastest rate in our region. better choices, better results. we are americans. and we make these choices for the future of the dream we share and the dream that we have the privilege, if we so choose to pass on to our kids. when a family can send their children to a good school, and get a good education, the dream

is alive. when every family through hard work, they are hard work, and claim a seat at the table of american prosperity, that dream is alive. and none of these things happen by accident. they all happened by choice. our economy is the product of the choices that we make together. it doesn't blow in here off a polar vortex or across from the gulf stream. the choice to believe in one another, the power of the american dream, and our ability together to make it come true, our economy is the product of the choices we make. now here is the good news. , as a nation, we have achieved 60 months in a row of positive job growth. [applause]

there is no progress without a job. 60 months of consecutive month over month job growth. that is the good news. frankly as a party we haven't , done the job we need to do at talking about the good things we have done. but, the vast majority of us are working harder, only to watch our families fall for further -- fall further behind. and we have to acknowledge the work that remains undone. most are more worried than ever somehow that our children will not enjoy the quality of life that we have enjoyed. or a better quality of life and we have enjoyed. in other words there is a , pessimism that has penetrated into our consciousness as americans.

as a party, we need to recognize that. you have seen the look in your neighbor's eyes. and i have, too. for too many of us, the dream of things that could be and that once were seems to be slipping from our grasp. get this. 50 years ago, the nations largest employer was gm. and the average gm employee could pay for a year's tuition at a state university with two weeks of wages. americans are worried. and for good reason. for the last 12 years, wages have been going down, and not yet up. in fact last year, wall street , bonuses alone were double the combined earnings of every single american working for minimum

wage to take care of their family. and until we solve this problem, we cannot rest, not as a party and not as a people. our nations future is at stake. not long ago, the washington times ran a story with this headline. the headline said, "american dream is dead." well let me say to the pundits , writing these premature obituaries of the american dream, the american dream will never die on our watch because we choose to fight, and we intend to win. [applause] do you mean to tell me we can concentrate wealth in the hands of the few like we never have before, but we cannot eradicate childhood hunger?

in the united states of america? i don't buy it. are you telling me we can invest the driverless car but we can create a job that feeds a family or sends a kid to college? i don't accept that. and neither should you. this is not the american dream. this is not how our country is supposed to work. and this is not how our economy is supposed to work. we still have work to do, scott county. don't we? [applause] dr. mcguire, it is going to be up to the democratic party to finish the work. it is up to us to restore the american dream. it is up to us to finish the work that we have begun, to make our economy work for all of us again. you see, the tea party republican party is no longer

the republican party of years past. would that they were. once, there was a time when the republican party had leaders, a vision, foresight. compassion. lincoln asserted our unity. and our common humanity. eisenhower liberated europe and he built the nation's highway to unite us. now republicans dismiss science. now they fight against equality in any of its various forms, and education. they abhor health care. and any increase in the minimum wage. think about that. an entire party dedicated to keeping wages low for american

workers. what have we come to? they question vaccines and climate change. give them a few more weeks and they will be shunning copernicus. [laughter] here in iowa, house republicans are saying your state can't afford to invest in schools but they are willing to spend twice as much on a tax cut that would benefit the wealthy the most. this is exactly what the field of 2016 republican candidates are offering. to double down, on this failed economics of the past, where you concentrate wealth at the top and keep wages as low as you can for everybody else. what the heck kind of economy are they creating? their choices would give our children a future of last. they can offer that path if they like. we have better choices to make. making do with less is not an aspiration worthy of a great people or a great nation. we will not be, and we cannot be the first generation to leave our children with a future of less.

not for my kids, not for yours. [applause] we are americans. turn to your neighbor and tell them we are americans. go ahead. we are americans. [applause] we are americans, and we make our own destiny, not anybody else. and the future we choose is a future of liberty, justice, and opportunity for all. [applause] do me a favor. [applause]

now think for a second, close , your eyes if that helps. think about your parents and grandparents. picture their faces. they understood the essential truth to the american dream that we share. the stronger we make our country, the more she can get back to us. and to our children. and to our grandchildren. the poet laureate of the american dream, bruce springsteen, -- [laughter] [applause] bruce springsteen asked once, is a dream a lie if it don't come true, or is it something worse? when the american dream is denied, our hopes fade, and our

days unfold not in the light of possibility, but in the darkness of fear. to make the dream true again, we must fight for better wages for all workers so americans can support their families on what they earn. [applause] what does this mean? you know what it means. your parents and grandparents know what it means. raising the minimum wage. it means raising the threshold for overtime pay. and respecting the rights of all workers to organize and bargain collectively. [applause]

to make the dream come true, we must not allow another wall street meltdown to bring down the hard-working families of our country. we have a responsibility to put that repeat performance beyond the realm of the possible. by reinstating glass-steagall, and holding people accountable when they break the law. [applause] and to make the dream come true we have to embrace our clean energy future and recognize renewable inexhaustible sources of energy represents the biggest business opportunity for our country in a century. [applause] clean water and clean air. human right. clean water and clear air. these things are human rights,

and no generation has the ability or the right to deny these rights to future generations. to make the dream come true again we must expand social security benefits and not cut social security. [applause] and to make the dream come true we must invest more in education, not less, which means universal pre-k to help all of our children reach their god-given potential. [applause] closing achievement gaps, making college more affordable again for all. these are the choices we make as americans in every generation. and to make the dream true again, we must recognize that policies of economic inclusion and economic participation are policies that are good for women and