irish catholic, lower middle class, my father was a steelworker. i played a lot of athletics. i was a rookie for the pittsburgh steelers, lasted two minutes, got cut and then went back and i got involved in a little theater group, in youngstown, the youngstown playhouse. i don't remember why or how. i think there was a girl i liked. and i was literally holding a spear and then cut to eventually i'm going to new york. i remember my dad, who was a laborer all of his life, he said you're going to do what? you just got cut pro football, now you're trying -- this is even longer odds. [laughter] >> i said, well, i can always come home. so anyway, i went to n yk. of course, i always loved movies. i was the kind of a guy, i would go to the movie when i was 12 years old and see it and then tell all my buddies in the neighborhood the movie. then they would go see it and say it wasn't that good. i would tell it better, i would embellish and everything. i was always a bit of a storyteller which lends itself to acting. i don't know why i just thought i could do it. tavis: it's been to your

we have an issue on the national interest, let this nation pay for it, as opposed to the united steelworkers. the second part of the question that is related, is that, when china got into the world trade organization -- which 15 of us were against, they had bilateral treaties. they have not lived up to their obligations to open their markets to us. they take the markets and the jobs from us. would you support the effort to revoke those -- this bilateral treaty that gives them such an unfair trading advantage? thank you. >> i would not be in favor of revoking the trade relationships that we have established with china. i have shown myself during the course of this year more than willing to enforce the trade agreements in a much more serious way. at times, i have been criticized for this. there was a case involved -- involving foreign tires. we said -- this was an example of where we have to put the foot down, and show that we are serious about enforcement. that caused the usual fuss at the international level, but this was the right thing to do. . that is a problem. it has to be confronted. s

the national interest, let the nation pay for it as opposed to the steel industry or the united steelworkers. and the second part of the question, related, is when china got into the world trade organization, 15 of us in this body opposed, there were bilateral treaties. and china has not lived up to its obligations to have its markets open to us but take our markets and take our jobs. would you support an effort to revise, perhaps even revoke those bilateral treaty which gives china such an unfair trade advantage? thank you. >> arlen, i would not be in favor of revoking the trade relationships that we've established with china. i have shown myself during the course of this year more than willing to enforce our trade agreements in a much more serious way. and at times i've been criticized for it. there was a case involving foreign tires that were being sent and i said this was an example of where we've got to put our foot down and show that we're serious about enforcement. and it caused the usual if fuss at the international level but it was the right thing to do. having said that, i also bel

lees and i were in gary, indiana, with the steelworkers at our rally. i went to cleveland. when you go to that part of the country you really feel the loss of jobs. you want to be sure. you want to do everything in your power to make sure that these jobs are real, that they are available and that we unleash them as quickly as possible. and so that gets us to the competitiveness issue, because it's not only in the united states where there is a lot eagerness to unleash a clean energy economy their camper those who have been to china recently, you can see it is happening there. and i want it to happen here. so that we are the leaders around the world and we really set the pace for how we move to a low carbon economy that takes us down a very different road, and that protects the planet. and all the planet systems and all the planets peoples in the process. so i want to thank you all for being here. i'm happy to sign any books if anybody wants me to, but more than anything, i want to thank all of you for the work that you are doing on behalf of the planet here because the poin

endorsing the bill, in addition to many of the major industries in america endorsing the bill, steelworkersorkers, communication workers and others we have tried to build a coalition that will be able to sustain the question of whether not we are helping or hurting american industry. over on the senate side, lyndsey is leading the effort to construct the coalition that can get 60 votes over there. and he is doing a brilliant job working with john kerry and senator lieberman to accomplish that goal. and, so we are actually looking forward to him as the leader, completing the legislation over there and he and i have been talking all along, and we had a couple of good conversations today, towards the final completion of legislation, but i don't think the whole wholes are inconsistent. to protect the american economy, because the global leader in new energy technologies, reduce the amount of pollution by 2% per year over the next 40 years or so, we'll backing imported oil and protecting the public health of our country, and i think we agree on the larger goals. we can sit down and work out the

endorsing the bill, in addition to many of the major industries in america endorsing the bill, the steelworkersaluminum workers come communications workers and others, we tried to build a coalition that will be able to sustain the question of whether or not we are helping or hurting american industry. over on the senate side, lindsey is leading the effort to construct the collision that can get 60 votes over there and he is doing a brilliant job working with john kerry and senator lieberman to accomplish that goal so we are actually looking forward to him as the leader completing the legislation over there and he and i have been talking all along and have a couple of good conversations today towards the final completion of legislation. but i don't think that the goals are inconsistent. it's to protect the american economy, because the global leader in new energy technologies, reduce the amount of pollution by two per cent per year over the next 40 years so while backing of imported oil and protecting the public health of the country and i think we agree on the lodge coals. we can sit down and w

issue on the national, let the nation pay for it as opposed to the steel industry or the united steelworkers. and the second part of the question related is when china got into the world trade organization, 15 of us in the body opposed. there were bilateral treaties and china has not lived up to its obligations to have its markets open to us, but take our markets and take our jobs. would you support an effort to revise perhaps even revoke those bilateral trading, which gives china such an unfair trade advantage? thank you. >> arlen, i would not be in favor of revoking the trade relationships that we've established with china. i have shown myself during the course of this year, more than willing to enforce our trade agreements at a much more serious way. and at times i've been criticized for it. there was a case involving foreign tires that were being sent in here and i said this was an example of where we've got to put our foot down and show that we are serious about enforcement and it caused the usual fuss at the international level, but it was the right thing to do. having said that, i als