tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN September 1, 2016 6:00pm-8:01pm EDT
c-span continues on the road to the white house. for will be a present democrats, republicans, and independents. >> we are going to win with education. we are going to win with the second amendment. >> ahead, live coverage of the presidential and vice president shall debates on c-span, the c-span radio app, and c-span.org. monday, september 26 is the first presidential debate live from hofstra university in new york. then vice president shall candidates governor mike pence and senator tim kaine debate. on sunday october ninth, washington university in st. louis hosts of the second presidential debate, leading up to the third and final debate between hillary clinton and donald trump taking place at the university of nevada las vegas on october 19. live coverage of the
presidential and vice debates on c-span. watch live or anytime on demand at c-span.org. >> here is a look at the primetime schedule on c-span networks. starting at 8:00 p.m., a preview of some of the major congressional issues the house and senate will debate when they return from recess. withspan2's book tv authors who have written about u.s. presidents. on c-span3, american history tv with events and programs on world war i. ♪ >> c-span's "washington journal," live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. up friday, mark krikorian, executive director at the center for immigration studies, will join us to discuss donald trump's immigration
speech and how the political landscape and its potential impact on the 2016 election. then lawrence michelle will talk about a new report put out by ae institute that found weekly teacher pay was 17% lower than that of comparable workers. he will also discuss with the findings may not only for teachers in the u.s. but also for students. be sure to watch "washington journal" beginning at 7:00 a.m. friday morning. join the discussion. >> next, the u.s. chamber of commerce holding its annual labor day briefing. topics included overtime regulations rules, entitlement programs, and immigration policy. this is 50 minutes. >> in years past, my predecessor would describe the economy with terms such as "weak,"
"underperforming," and "anemic." need a new term, because the economy has gone from whichever of those terms you prefer to something less. there was a story in the paper of record for the town on sunday, a very good story, about to thests' reaction prospects that the federal reserve would be tightening monetary policy, and the author wrote that the concern over raising the was causing concern among liberal policy experts and a fragile economy. is" a good term to describe the state of the u.s. economy. we were growing in the low 2%
range when it was described as "anemic." that may be a little bit optimistic. i have a one dollar liberty gold coin, and you will notice the coin has two sides to it, as most points do. wherever one side goes, the other side goes. inimilar phenomena happens economic statistics. the bureau of economic analysis provides the estimate for gdp, and that is what we tend to focus on. they also provide an estimate of gdi, grossed a mystic income. these numbers are supposed to be equivalent in theory. perfectly, butk they do track pretty well. the blue line is gdi. the red line is gdp. they are supposed to track each
other very closely. there's a group of economists whose study why they don't track each other closely, and the reason i go through all of that atbecause a while gdp grew , gdi grew at 0.5%. sometimes a economists average .he two to get an average if you follow that procedure, we've gone from the low twos to .76%. that is an anemic recovery. one of the goals of economic policy is to get the economy's potential to grow more rapidly and to get the economy itself to approach its potential as quickly as possible. you might think of that as being the median and long-term policy goals. we haven't been doing too well on either score.
this is a useful chart, i find. of gray bars reflect periods recession. the red line reflects the cbo's projection of potential gdp if we were performing up to snuff, and the blue line reflects where we are. when you have a recession, the actual gdp dips below the potential and comes back very quickly. even in the deepest of recessions, we come back very quickly. what happens is the fed will take away the punch paul, as they say, raise interest rates, and slow things down, but the two lines always track very closely. you notice that hasn't happened very -- hasn't happened after the last recession. as you extend out in the forecast, it's years before we get back to potential. economic policy on this score is
not faring very well. the two lines were supposed to have come together. instead, what we have is two lines approaching each other slowly, and you will notice the main reason they are approaching each other slowly is the measure of the economy's potential has estimatesdeceive you this year potential gdp grew only 1.7% -- has slowed. the cbo estimates this year potential gdp grew only 1.7%. economic policy has so degraded our long-term potential. is approaching actual. that is not what you call good economic policy. the immediate reason, the most detectable reason why the economy is doing so poorly, why we have shifted to this fragile economy, frankly is business investment. businesses have substantial excess capacity, not enough potential for growth, not enough hope for future growth, so
business investment has fallen off significantly. in the last reporters quarters, real gross private domestic investment fell at 2.3% annualized, 3.3% annualized, and 9.7% annualized. all three are negative and larger than the quarter before. are not investing because they do not have a lot of hope for the future of the economy. they are investing as they need to but not enough to expand, not enough to expand capacity, not enough to get the economy going, and that trend is accelerating. that is why the economy is doing so poorly. if you are going to have higher potential, you need greater business investment. another way to look at all of that, especially the potential .ide, is labor productivity the dark line at the bottom,
zero, that is where labor productivity is not growing. equivalent of the mendoza line. if you follow baseball, you know the mendoza line is basically batting .20 zero or less, and if you're batting at .20 zero, your career is probably not long pure that is the mendoza line for productivity. we have been well below it for quite some time. expression of the poor outcome of economic policy. that's another expression of the fact that something is really going wrong in our economy. reason,ers, for some their productivity is not expanding. what we have here is something going on in government policy that is impeding the ability of .he market to operate properly that is causing employers to hire workers who aren't productive and producing expanding capacity.
doesn't expand the economy's capacity to produce. what ever it is, labor productivity is not doing well at all. despite all of that, despite the fragile economy and poor labor productivity, there is something of an enigma or a conundrum going on. job gains are far stronger than what you would expect in that kind of a fragile economic environment. economy has a tightening labor market, strengthening labor market. it's not strong by any means. it's not what is necessary to get the economy back up to potential output, but it is doing better than you would expect from just about any other indicator we have in the economy. averagingjob gains 186,000. that is much stronger than you
would expect given the gdp, and the way you square that circle is labor productivity. the unemployment rate -- the standard unemployment rate is somewhere near%, where economists would consider full employment, and yet we have well into the eighth year of the recovery and expansion a federal reserve that has normalized interest rates to the tune of 25-point basis point increase in the federal funds rate. the fed is playing into the narrative that the economy is weak, despite the unemployment numbers, and a hint is in the alternative measure that economists 25-point sometimes .u -- series, which includes sometimes point to, the u-6
series. this alternative series is much higher. it is always much higher, but the gap is much greater than normal. that is giving you some sense of where this weakness in the economy is. you might think of it as being an economy where we have two tracks in the labor market. we have the folks who are in the workforce who are working and sometimes leave voluntarily or involuntarily and are able to find a job, and we have the folks who are being left behind, the folks who dropped out of the work force and would like to get back in. they are working marginally attached to the workforce and want to be working full-time but can't find a full-time job. you've got two populations, one which is doing reasonably well in terms of employment, and those being left behind, and that is what our fragile economy is leaving us. the other surprising aspect of all of this, if you will,'s
labor compensation is finally growing after not growing for years. labor compensation, hourly compensation grew at 2.6% over the last 12 months. with inflation at 1%, you are getting some real growth in labor compensation. what you have here is an economy where labor markets are tightening some, the economy normalize monetary policy but the labor markets are strengthening as the economy is quite fragile. this is an odd circumstance to be thankful for this kind of job growth. i wonder how much longer we can expect that to continue, not just because we will not have employees to draw from the unemployed pool but because there will not be enough strength to justify the hiring going forward. one or two things has to happen. either the economy have to pick up for reasons we could not now anticipate or job growth has to
ok. mr. foster: there is one kind of room. mr. johnson: think god. god.ank i could do it on my fax machine. in the past i have talked about a lot of the benefits employers have provided on labor day, and i will spend a little more time on that. it tends not to be exciting news but in a time of election rhetoric when employers are not doing enough for their employees and more mandates etc., it is important to lay the case out. i will spend some time on it. it is perhaps not exciting headlines but the fact it is not exciting is not news. i still think it is worth talking about. let's go through the numbers. employers are not doing so much so it is worth talking about. $9.7 trillion in total compensation, these are not
chamber numbers. we are taking these from government sources, wages and salaries, $7.9 trillion on unemployed benefits, 20% total compensation. this is not chump change, it drives the economy. and health benefits. this data is from 2014, some might say it has changed. we are going with the best we've got. the older data is better -- 175 million americans received health insurance from employment-based coverage. it does include states and local government employers but private sector data is very impressive. according to the kaiser family foundation, 150 million americans received coverage from employer-sponsored health care. remember keep in mind this is , not benefits mandated under the law, these are things the employers are doing largely on a voluntary basis, it is something that needs to be recognized. retirement benefits, big money.
$232.1 billion of retirement income benefits, including benefit and dc plans. and dc contributions alone are $175 billion in employer contributions to those 401(k) plans that i am sure you are familiar with. and defined contribution 92.5 million participants, that includes active participants and retirees, 80% of employees who have access to defined contribution plans utilize those and that means 12% don't. we need to get 12% eliminated and get to 100%, but overall 66% of all workers in the country have access to defined contribution plans. benefits insurance another good example.
, paid leave, what is the big topic of the day in the presidential campaign? it is that we need more paid leave in this country. it needs to be mandated by the government. over 3 quarters of employees in the private sector have paid time off, 91% are full-time. and no, it is not limited to each company, small and medium-sized businesses paid -- businesses offer paid time off as a figure they indicate. you might say, how much? it is true, these are not necessarily plans that are 12 weeks off or anything else. but it is some number of paid time off. it does not cover plans like informal arrangements between employer and employees -- hey, i need some time off, and you can make time off later. life insurance in the private sector, a little bit more in large employers but offered by even smaller employers. so ok, that is what employers
are doing for their workers. now we will talk about charitable giving. $18.45 billion in 2014. here at the chamber we have a foundation, we give awards to corporate citizens who step up to the plate in this area. and for those that are listening, and i did -- don't mean to exclude anybody, they were picked out from united -- from many united healthcare, , 87% of executives, 430,000 hours. annually the company gives $60 million to support charitable work around the world. in 2010, the walmart foundation fighting hunger together a $2 , billion commitment. this is important with so much talk about immigration. a bilingual initiative to help children find success coupland life increasing 2 million charge and teachers and award 73 million nonprofit organizations.
ge developing future and education programs that help ensure americans graduate career ready with a 10,000 educators with 1500 business leaders and 1.3 million students. so, i want to switch or change gears here and i hope that you are keeping jd's comments in mind in terms of the slowing or lack of growth in this economy and ask yourself, why? well you might say no canard of , employers, they are overly regulated and it has an effect on their ability to expand. it is true and i'm afraid we have seen this because regulations have benefits to justify burdens, but we see a disproportionate amount from this administration. so let's look at what you have already, 178,000 pages of rules already in the code of federal regulations.
i know that most of us in this room don't have to comply with regulations. we have lawyers to do it and we are lucky. this is like one page out of 178,000 pages employers and businesses have to deal with. now the cfr increased 20,000 pages since these are pages of 2009. regulations that doesn't even include a preambles and anyone who has to deal with this area , knows you can't just read regulations. you have to read the entire preamble to a regulation which is often 10 times as long as the regulation itself. so you can take this number into really multiply it by 10 when you think of that stuff that employers have to deal with, understand what they have to do. total cost, outside expertise, $1.9 trillion in 2015 up from $1.2 trillion, which is an increase of $700 billion.
administrationry issues regulations, whether it is democrat or republican. regulationsadded under the administration since 2009 which costs $100 million or more. i have got this, if you have a list of all these regulations, if i stood up it would go from here to the floor. separatedt the -- we the wheat from the chaff on 88 affordable care act, 14 others so far, and it does include the poster which we challenged in court but took a lot of time and money to evaluate the ruling litigation to get it repealed. now look, a lot of the angst in the employer community is
overregulation but also case law. none of the figures i went through actually calculate in the case law coming out of the national labor relations board and solutions the deal with successor employment. when we look at the regulatory burden, you need to remember, that is not including the case law is coming out of the agencies that of course have to deal with -- the board sets most of this for setting the principles and it does not have to go through any cost-cutting analysis. below this pyramid is all sorts of guidance and interpretive policies coming out of the agency that we do not usually get a chance to comment on and that almost almost belies what regulatory burden is. now, we went through the new labor department regulations and
added them up. the economists did. not a fun job, i can tell you. but we added them up and according to the government's own calculations what they , estimated these regulations cost, $9.5 billion. that is not ours, that is there -- that is their amount. and of course in our view when we look at these things a lot of these costs are lowballed. i chose 10 of them to give you examples of what employers have to face, the government's own calculations -- $3.7 billion, $677.9 million, the initial year, 245.1 million -- many of you are familiar with this, -- $200ive action
million, honestly i just picked these, but you could go on. these are the kind of costs which does have an impact on hiring growth and workers. i won't spend a lot of time on this but the fact of the matter is the department of labor the torah silly -- notoriously lowballed the cost of the regulation. this is the persuader rule, people who got to organizing campaigns have to worry about. that is ridiculous. everybody that has any sort of with employees, they are related to organizing and have to comply with this. but if you don't comply you have to read the regulations to see that you do not comply with it. all of that costs money.
figure $89with the million, more than the department of labor but i can tell you the case came out of the federal district court in texas, in which they roundly trashed the department of labor noted that thed regulation was effective to its core. this regulation is held up with an injunction and we will see where that goes. the point here on cost is that it is an interesting decision, i have about 150 pages but the , judge looked at cost estimates and said they were badly off. the famous overtime regulation that came out. dol estimated $67.9 million, we billion -- that is a big differentiation. but dol estimates it will take a manager 5 minutes a week to
manage those employees who are eligible for overtime and estimated that at 60 hours, $60 an hour salary. we looked at that and surveyed our members who are out there in the real world and found a better estimate was 30 minutes a week because dol excludes things , like overhead. the overhead concept we take out of standard procurement policy which this government has bought into. now look regulations have , benefits and i talked about costs. employers are concerned about cost. but we also recognize you have to have regulations, tailored the best way possible. and the fact is in this area, i would say the agency overestimates benefits and underestimates costs. and if they measure them at all, it is interesting, 40 dol rules
came out in 2009 and they did not measure benefits. despite the cost of $1.9 billion. so turning to substance, benefits are in the eye of the beholder. i think many of you know the blacklisting regulation came out recently and this is the regulation that says if you are a federal contractor you have 2 -- you have to report your so-called violations to the government and they will look at those to see if they are eligible for contract and you can find violations in a lowball smallesting the initial indications by agency at the end of this which is a violation even if the employer has another case in the quarter. -- we have long argued a similar regulation that came out under
clinton that unions are , interested in this because they can use it as leverage to force companies to agree to other things by filing frivolous charges that threaten the company's eligibility for federal contracts. that can't be true. a gore spokesman said that he was interested in the clinton version of this regulation it helped the units organize but the latest reiteration that came out of the teamsters, this came out and it demonstrates what we have been saying for many years. this is a tactic recommended to teamsters in a collective-bargaining agreement, we are two weeks through the strike and the company shows no sign of striking a fair labor agreement. that is your prerogative. and six charges over companies to provide information and interrogation on that line. they indicated you are recommending complaints on four charges.
you say that the nlrb is toothless but you are apparently unaware that the rules of the game have been changed. under a new order issued by the president, a federal contractor that incurred similar labor laws must report them to federal contracting agencies to face the prospect of losing these contracts. this corporation has a federal contract in hundreds of millions, do you want to jeopardize the pot of gold to save a few hundred dollars in the union contract? so the bottom line is this is an organizing tactic or in this , case putting pressure on an employer at the collective-bargaining table , which really borders on extortion by threatening to jeopardize these frivolous cases and the eligibility for federal contract. it is black and white, we have been saying it for years and there it is. closing on this part, i will say these regulations are incredibly complex. it gives you some indication.
and it gives 60 days to comment, the agencies develop these, why these agencies were not allowed to have time and got to the members to see whether to impact his is on understandable, except they do not want to hear what we want to tell them. we do the best job to go out to our members and we ask for an extension and that is that. regard to policy. moving on. but that gives you an idea of what we have on economic growth in this country. on immigration and health care and labor, in the labor area we have got the right, you can count on us -- 99.95. overtime is highly likely. the big eeo one compensation collection effort is now over at omb and we are heavily involved
in that. let me turn to immigration. this is the hot topic of the day with mr. trump. the timber has long been involved with immigration reform and we have been for over a decade. we are looking at border security, stronger procedures for employers, legalization of the undocumented. many on the health and unlike a position on that. and provided certain procedures are gone through, and by the way that spending bill, despite what mr. trump and others may say , it is as far away from amnesty as you can imagine. and worker programs, it is important for employers to meet the needs that they have when they can't find domestic workers, but also to take the pressure off the borders, so that the job -- no longer exists. this is a platform that works together for both economic benefits of the country and also to augment a border security. i know mr. trump yesterday, we
have a chapter and information on her website, we have a 60 page white paper on our position on immigration reform and we discuss about these overseers -- over stayers. and we look forward to working with whoever will be in the white house and hopefully we can get a good regional bill through early next year. and i am glad to take questions on the issue. there are many permutations. i will leave it at that. i think on healthcare, we, of course, are involved with commenting on the ryan paper on health care reform and i think i -- the big issue right now is protecting the employer-based system. we have several priorities. forink they will come back three weeks and who knows what will happen. of course, we have several bites at the aca, which we think would approve the legislation overall. we do not believe outright
repeal is in the cards, but we will try to work for improvement. and on pension reform, pension issues i will just mention that we were disappointed with the position of the treasury to deny relief of the teamsters central states fund, but we hope congress will not revisit the bipartisan reform act that congressman kline and congress man miller on a bipartisan basis developed two years ago in order to allow plans to seek relief when they are in extreme distress. if those plans can't get relief they will go bankrupt and probably the tax payers will be left holding the bag. and i think i am about five minutes over, so questions? we will now open it up for questions.
i ask that when you get the microphone you announce your name and what organization you are with. >> this is for randy. on the overregulation issue, i'm wondering how important it is for you guys to maintain republican majority in the senate to address that issue and no matter what happens, how difficult is it to address that issue on immigration issues with the divided government? mr. foster: well, that's a big question. both parts. i think it's safe to say that republicans by and large are more favorable to our position on the galatian then democrats but not exclusively. mr. johnson: it would be helpful for the senate to retain republican for various reasons and one is oversight hearings of agencies alone when the issue misplaced regulations, but also in terms of trying to move things out of the congressional
review act, we need to hold the majority leader position as a republican. now, you run up against the issues of relief, what happens if you have someone in the white house veto that anyway, but my view of these things, you get then teed up and you move them along as far japan and if -- along as far as you can and if anything else you try to get , a revision in the preparation . that the president or whoever can to veto their clots of things wind up on the cutting room floor, but you hope your issues remain in the bill. obviously the house staying republican is a backstop to many antibusiness initiatives that might arise out of a democrat white house. i will say it. it is important to maintain that. on immigration, i think we had more than most do understand we votes in the house last time around on sound
immigration package that was comprehensive. i think there is room to revisit that no matter what happens in the white house this time around. or in the senate or house. it is a bipartisan issue more so than people would think given -- would think, given what happened last year and the failure of the house to take up the senate bill. >> ok. >> this is for randy. a couple of questions. dll recently, i guess it was irs , opened a way for more states do have state sponsored plans for small employers. do you think if clinton is elected, you will see that become a federal law and do you see this opening a move that will encourage more states to adapt these plans? mr. johnson: you know, i think it's a tough issue because i think we recognize that we have
a problem in this country with the inability of many people to save for their retirement, particularly low income and we have 4o1k plans and they are shrinking. in some ways the states are trying to fill that gap, though we are concerned about state activity along those lines that begins in eroding preemption. >> why? mr. foster: because preemption is important to our members who are in the pension and health-care areas, and states not getting into that area and so we have always been concerned gbout the routing -- erodin that firewall. ande are taking that down we have expressed caution that they move slowly in this area. on the other hand, i think were also sympathetic at the chamber to the fact that we have to
resolve this problem of people being able to save in the lower income areas for retirement because it's a huge crisis coming down the tracks at us. we have many internal discussions about that issue. i can tell you that. >> next question. this will be shocking if we don't have a number of questions. all right. >> sarah ferriss from the hill. i was wondering if you could elaborate on the changes that you would support for the aca given as you said the chances for repeal are not the greatest for the next couple of years. mr. johnson: it is no secret we support repeal and cadillac tax. we support repeal of the employer mandate, but if repeal is not in the cards at least lowering the threshold from 30 to 40. we support repeal of the medical device tax in the healthcare tax. so, that's four of them right there for you. we have got a long list that we
would be glad to share with you. i think we are concerned about some efforts by republicans and others to put a, to attack the current exclusion of healthcare benefits from taxation. but i think we have had or done a good job about negotiating with them on the hill and their recognition that they need to go slowly in that area. >> hello. andrew from tax analyst. to taxesike to shift for a minute. i saw the chamber of commerce put out a statement in relation to that apple stated investigation, the 13 billion dollar euro find and talked about how it gave the perception that american companies were being targeted. going on the hill for the last
few months and treasury is also talking about the possibility of invoking section 891 to attack, or to respond to this commission -- discrimination against european companies in european citizens. i wonder what the chambers take -- chamber's take on that is. mr. foster: we have not looked at the 891 issue to this point. we do have to look at what responses would be appropriate. what the eu has done with respect to apple is extraordinary. they are clearly targeting us -- u.s. companies, although they also target european companies, companiesultinational operating in europe are particularly inept of sorting through complex tax laws and that as shareholders is something we should applaud.
but there is such a thing is going too far in trying to address that and we think that's what the eu has infected on and -- has effectively done in threatening to run roughshod over sovereign tax law and that in fact is what the irish are upset about and many in europe are upset about that from different finance ministries as they consider the implications of what that eu has done. is not a just about ireland and apple. it's about every sovereign tax authority in europe and they all know it and they have to imagine what the world will look like if this is allowed to continue. so, it's a very serious issue. we are going to have to respond. we do appreciate the administration's strong pushback on this matter. it is very helpful and rare that we are able to work with the administration on a matter like this and we appreciate it. it's a very serious issue. it's not just about apple. it's about precedent, sovereignty of national tax authorities, so we take it very
seriously. >> thank you. any other questions? one in the back right there. >> hello. rachel with an side health policy. -- with inside health policy. i'm curious how you see the health sector playing into economic growth over the next year. and i am also curious how the outcome of the presidential and congressional elections will affect how you lobby for the aca changes you want in the next couple of years. mr. foster: the aca and economic growth, let's face it we are facing a situation now where the way the insurance market is responding to the aca and the failure of young healthy people to sign up leading to losses in , insurance and insurance with pride -- mr. johnson: with ac market exchanges survive and if they don't how will that impact the economy.
i think it would be a interruption and uncertainty in that answered he would be negative. decisionsrs will make they will have to make and if they cannot make a reasonable profit will withdraw. is the government really capable of stepping in any way are not that will make sense? not sure. it's one of those unknowns out there and does it really lead to a single-payer system or does it lead the opposite way which is a very deep rethinking of the aca entirely? i see could go either way. the whole thing goes to disruption and means maybe it should be repealed and start over. that would be huge. a lot of our members have adopted to the aca in many ways, and now let's go to single-payer. what to single-payer mean? doesn't really mean english type system where doctor themselves worked for the government, which i think a lot of people have in their head or more of a medicare type arrangement where the doctor still remain in the
private sector, but are reimbursed by the government? all i am saying is it's 20 or 18% of the economy is driven by healthcare. anything that is a huge disruption in that area will have a negative impact on the economy. as far as the election goes, a -- obviously who gets into the white house hillary will not , sign massive changes to the aca. whatever gets through congress or if there is a filibuster will , get vetoed by her. when she testified she is quite actually spent on issues. we actually moved for a repeal of the aca and disrupt the entire sort of existing process? i guess we have to wait and see. i think there are plenty of things in the ryan task force that the employer community supports and there are some things in there we don't support , but that if there is a willingness to move forward with improvements to the aca, there is bipartisan basis to do that. no matter who wins the senate,
democrat or republican who keeps the house or who's in the white house, i guess the big unknown is will trump feel he actually has to move to repeal because he said that on the campaign trail or something halfway in between. >> good morning. i am with the ap. i would like to ask you about immigration. given the proposals from the two candidates we already know, i wanted to ask you how optimistic you are that the next administration will be able to pass a reform after so many years and why will you be optimistic or not? if you could please elaborate on your expectations. mr. foster: --
mr. johnson: i have to keep coming to work with a smile, so i'm optimistic. i am optimistic. i'm an optimistic guy, but we have had conversations in the house and senate that i think no matter who wins the white house we can get things done and it is not just border security. i think the key is timing border security, while other things , it will be dependent on a certain parts of border security being implemented. i know you have heard that before, probably, but the question is what are the triggers and are they the kind of triggers that can be ignored and othere definitive , things kick in, but there are some things on the edges that deal with enforcement. nothing that is strictly related to enforcement, well, over the top enforcement or kicking people out of the country. by the way, the touch and release, the touchback and release we were negotiating that , back in 2007. it is interesting to see these
ideas come back. we used to call it the greyhound solution also where everyone gets a greyhound down to mexico and they stay there three days and then they come back. there's a lot of reasons that's unworkable, but we will negotiate it. despite the rhetoric we saw last night i think there is room to , get some decent legislation done. i'm not going to tell you what would be the senate bill. we will have to find something about these visa overstays. i'm proud to say in our chamber we have a section in their about these overstays in recognizing the problem. we don't come up with any huge solutions, but we had suggestions. everyone recognizes status quo really can't be sustained, so we have to move afford it has to be -- move forward and it have to be more than just enforcement. >> you do not need to get into specifics, but what would be the areas -- you said it would not
only be border security, what other areas? mr. johnson: i've testified on the hill many times on employment verification and we support that. we negotiated that with chamber members, but we would need, nothing will get out of the senate without steps to legalize the undocumented who are here now. it would be tight steps. there would be a probationary status. i think the question, i'm not an -- not going to say where the chamber is on citizenship versus the right to stay here and work , that is one that could break a long jam. of course, the children of those who are legalized here to work would be citizens. we would never cross that bridge last year. i think it's a negotiating point that is out there. as you know, a span of temporary worker program was a huge issue last year and i don't equate -- don't think we quite explained it as well as we can explain a worker program, but it
also comments on border security. are they all part of one big train with little boxcars behind each one? probably. >> any other questions? last chance. ok, if that is the case we will end on that positive immigration note and thank you all so much for coming. we really appreciated it and hope you got a lot out of hearing for these two experts. if you have any follow-up questions, do not hesitate to contact the press office. thank you. >> here is a look at the primetime schedule. eastern -- at 8:00 p.m. eastern, a look at the congress fall preview. withn c-span2, book to be others who have written about u.s. presidents. and on c-span3, american history tv with programs on world war i. ♪ >> the washington journal, live
every day with news, policy issues impacting you. on friday morning, the executive director of the center for immigration studies will join us to discuss donald trump's speech this week and how the immigration issue is affecting the political landscape and its impact on the election. and then the president of the economic policy institute will talk about a new report put out by the institute that found that weekly teacher pay was 70% lower than that of copper bowl workers. we will also discuss with the findings mean, not only for teachers in the u.s., but also for students. be sure to watch the washington journal, 7:00 eastern friday morning. join the discussion. ,> earlier today, the afl-cio richard trumka spoke to reporters on the role of the labor movement and the 2016
presidential election. he also talked about the trans-pacific partnership and his organization's efforts to elect hillary clinton. this is 50 minutes. >> we are going to have some people join us. thank you for joining us. our guest today is richard trumka, president of the afl-cio. we thank him for coming back. he grew up in the pennsylvania area and followed his father and grandfather into the mines. he worked his way through penn state university and earned a law degree in 1974. in 1982, at age 33 he was
elected president of the united mine workers of america, the end -- the youngest person in history to hold the position. he served three terms as president and brought the mine workers into the afl-cio. in he ran to be 1995, secretary-treasurer of the afl-cio and became the young hold that position , which he served for 15 years. he was elected as president of the afl-cio in september 2009 and reelected in 2013. in august, he became a grandfather for the first time. that ends the biographical portion. now onto breakfast mechanics. let me begin by noting that many -- to help you curb the selfie urge, we will have a portion for
journalists as soon as the breakfast ends. if you would like to ask a question, send a signal and i will call on you with the time we have available. we want to offer the guest an opportunity to make comments. we appreciate him come in, knowing that his voice is not the best this morning and he came anyway. thank you for doing this. let me thank you and the christian science monitor for putting the breakfast on. and let me thank everybody for being here and wish everybody a happy labor day. because labor day is a time that we reflect on the couple achievements of america's working people. we strive every day to achieve the american dream. we honor working families by supporting candidates who support us. and we are looking for and
voting for a better life. this cycle has been a major part of setting the fair market this election. we established the agenda in 2015. we shaped the primary debate and the platform, the convention, and our fundamental belief that economic rules and america should be fundamentally rewritten to drive the election outcome and the 2017 agenda. hillary clinton is with us and we are with her. she is out to change america, not manage it. and after she wins we will put -- or we will work together to move forward and adding trail days -- traded deals based on economic rules.
we have been a major part of exposing donald trump. we started early and often to reveal his true nature. he is unfit to be president. and that he would tear america apart. we are driving the largest election program in union history, the most comprehensive and sophisticated program in history. we look forward to this election season and furthering debate on how we change the rules of the economy. and create an economy of shared prosperity for everybody. i will leave it at that. and i will open it up. maggie.e go to and paul to start. just a question about the union movement, in a recent speech, you said america is tilting
toward unionism. the most recent statistics from the labor department show membership unchanged from the year before, so what would you site as the sign that america is tilting toward unionism? would point to the number of places where we are organizing and the different types of places, from universities, two people like -- likeaces like uber, places texas, florida and north carolina where we have been organizing successfully. and point to the fact that young people in growing numbers, not only respect unions, but now they see them as an answer to a problem and they are starting to support unions more and more. and i would also point to the debate we have had the last two years in the election, talking about the issues that the
working people have been pushing for the last 10-15 years, we are making progress there and i think we are winning that debate. >> so to follow up, it may not be seen yet with the statistics, but you are looking at -- how would you describe it? mr. trumka: we are seeing activity and places way of not before. we are relentless at the state level, 20 some state level legislatures continue to attack us, but we are winning more of those and in fact, we have seen in the past, we are garnering more support and we are organizing. more unions are starting to get serious about organizing and they are joining together and organizing together to create a synergy we have not seen before. >> let me ask you another question. mr. trumka: the generalized support of unions in the country is higher than it has been in years. >> let me ask you another
question and we will move to my colleagues, what lessons or message is there for the labor movement with the rise of donald trump and do you expect whatever happens in the election that donald trump will be a major political force after the election? look, america has been building towards a crossroads for 10-15 years. we are now at that crossroads. and the choice is clear. we will either go forward or backwards. accelerated the day of reckoning in two different ways. on one hand, his candidacy has exposed the worst of republican greed, bigotry and arrogance. it is something the party leadership has worked for years to put lipstick on. on the other hand, donald trump
spoke of the political process and the genuine pain and anger of suffering has shown through. i want to see the fault line that has been revealed. there is no denying the facts and there is no way to hide from the facts. in this context, workers have become a dominant force in shaping the election. >> we will start with maggie. where are you? you are. >> i was wondering, do you think the fallout -- mr. trumka: can you speak up? >> do you think the fallout from 2, the bill in north carolina, do you think it will have an impact on the upcoming election? 2?hb >> yes.
mr. trumka: will it have an impact? they tried to create fear and division, issues that create fear and division have been the staple of republican candidates for years. it is not going to be successful . it will not be the issue that will carry. people sit around the kitchen table and they talk about issues that matter to them. economic issues, job security issues, health care issues, so i have yet to have had a worker in the field say to make him a what you think about the bathroom issue? i have not heard that. it is an issue that needs to be debated, it is in issue we can deal with, but it will not control the election. >> can i have a follow-up? mr. trumka: sure. >> i've been speaking to people in north carolina, they say that
cost $200,000 worth of employment in just charlotte, said you have any statewide production as to what the union workers have lost due to this hb 2? mr. trumka: we can get that. i do not have those figures. >> thank you. jersey morning, in new you are starting to see rivalry trades and building the other private sector unions and public sector unions. chris christie and others have exploited that. kristi was able to win statewide by partly convincing working people in the private sector that they were being forced to fund people in the public sector, the cwa, who have had better -- than they have ever
had. do you see that as being exploited in other states where they are trying to peel a part onehe unity by pitting union against another, public versus private? mr. trumka: they tried it that for many years and it was not successful, in the obama election. and whatbout workers is in their best interest. we have always had issues because of the different sectors , but we are able to reconcile the issues ourselves and we end up being stronger because of it. does it worry you that the sitting president, the the teachersccuse union of bribing legislators? he accused the teachers union of attempting to bribe legislators with conservations in a fight
over a pension bill. i mean, that does not seem like you are able to convince people. and they are fighting with each other. mr. trumka: citizens united has allowed people to bribe politicians with money coming do you think that the koch brothers using $1 billion has any effect on politicians? needsk the system overhauled and i think that the citizens united was probably the worst decision of the supreme court ever made and it needs to be revisited. there are so many differences among working people, we are not homogeneous, but when it comes to voting the best interests that is what they will do. they will vote on their best interest. we will do that with this election and we will do it at the state level and we are going for stateway, to vote
senators. >> we will go to mike from the hill. thank you for joining us. one thing i have been looking at, the trans-pacific partnership. i know that the -- your organization as opposed to tpp . . i wanted to ask you, what specifically you are doing or the union is doing on the ground to fight that and how confident you are that you will be able to i guess be part of the agreement? not havea: tpp does the support of the american people and there is no support in the house or the senate to pass tpp. we will continue to educate our members and they will keep asking their candidates to ,eclare now where they will be and where they will be in a lame-duck session.
we do not think it will come up because the votes are not there. >> can i do a follow-up? mr. trumka: we are putting people in place after election day so we can continue to mobilize and rally around that very issue. >> can i do a follow-up? according to a reporter at politico, politico had a story yesterday saying, what has quickly become the conventional wisdom of sanders and trump was upheld by widespread opposition to new trade deals, up to 28 house them across the targeted by organized labor and the base for supporting fasttrack -- this is not the 28th that either skated to the challenge or did not get one at all. true thattent is it folks that are not with you on trade are not paying a penalty?
think,mka: i do not except for one of the 28 come in and of the other 27 have been endorsed by unions. they still have a general election to go through and they will face the election and chips will fall where they may. many of those, including debbie watson has talked about not voting for tpp. said they will have to declare. and then the it but total will decide -- and then the -- and then the elect oral will decide. i think if they say it is against -- and they are against it, it will help in the election. i think the american people will see tpp for what it is, a bad trade deal. good for corporations, but that for america. >> thank you. questiontwo-part
related to the question i asked you to years ago today. mr. trumka: i am glad you remember it, john. [laughter] asked you tome, i laborhe major targets of in the midterm elections for the u.s. senate and you went on and not only named them, you talked about states where you thought labor would make gains, in particular texas. and he talked about wendy davis's candidacy at the time. my question is twofold, can you name the top targets of labor that will win the senate? i presume you think democrats will win. mr. trumka: i do. >> can you tell me the state such as texas that you named two years ago, where you think there will be unexpected gains this year?
perhaps mr. trumka: north carolina. mr. trumka:-- perhaps north carolina. mr. trumka: pennsylvania, ohio, nevada, and florida. >> so you mean hold for nevada. mr. trumka: yes. >> you are talking senate races. mr. trumka: yes. yes. >> good. >> and in the unexpected? north carolina, georgia? mr. trumka: perhaps. we are more focused on it that you are one states, pennsylvania, ohio, nevada and florida and missouri. focused on we are the governor's race in missouri, primarily. as well as the down ballot races. we are focused on the presidential election, the senate election, and down ballot races.
and house and senate races in those states. >> will democrats win the house? mr. trumka: it depends on the presidential election. we will make gains, and we will see how many seats, those will be determined on how big the win is in the presidential election. >> thank you for being here. [indiscernible] >> we have a republican candidate that is questionable on trade deals, speaking out on , so do you view that as a positive for the labor movement or a threat to the labor movement in that it could peel away voters that would otherwise agree with your views? mr. trumka: politicians on the same side as us we think of as a positive thing. about trump has talked
being against trade deals and it is laughable. he has a history for being for every trade deal that has ever existed and he outsources every product he has. but he has seen the political part -- par with that issue and the opportunists that he is, he jumps on board. now we have every major presidential candidate tpp against -- candidate against tpp , it does not meet the needs of the american public or worker. so i think we do not see that as a threat at all, we see him as a flawed -- not being sincere about the support, and if he is, we will take of the support. >> call from the washington examiner. 2 questions.ns --
what is it like being a grand granddad? mr. trumka: it has had a dramatic effect on me. it really did. saw my grandchild, i was in the hospital when he was born. and i held him -- it really gave me a moment for pause. it sort of made me look at what i do and give new meaning to what i do. we are not just fighting for ourselves, we are fighting for him, for that generation and the generation that comes after. so it gives you a different sense, a renewed sense of importance about what the country is, what kind of country it is, what it stands for and what my grandson is going to inherit in the process. aside from the fact that i
cannot stop smiling every time i think about him or look at him, i get that renewed sense of why we do what we do and what we are doing this for. >> the other question is a little bit different. you had issues with president obama, so what would be the difference between a clinton white house and in obama white house? what will she deliver that he has not? mr. trumka: president obama has been a good president for working people. if you look at the number of people and the quality of people he has appointed to important positions, whether it is at the department of labor, the head of those arenlrb, quality people. he has appointed great judges, people that will be hard-working people. americahe corporate side. he has done a good job.
i think probably the difference will be, she will listen a little bit earlier and a little but more carefully than the president did. talking to open to people before decisions are made. she is wider on scope. i think she will get to things earlier in the decision-making process. [indiscernible] >> i think it is wonderful. mr. trumka: we will be partners in rewriting the economy, because i think there is probably 2 things that are clear right now -- the country wants new economic rules. i think that is clear from everything going on, the debate and everything else did and the second thing -- everything else.
and the second thing, this is not just a remake of what we have seen to date. and an economy that continues to work for >> michael lewis from bloomberg. >> i was wondering if you talk about the columbia diversity issue regarding graduate assistants. convincing that population that things are -- not a traditional union contingent. hadley balance out union works with whom -- how do we balance out which union works with whom. >> we have a project where you can register under article 21 and you can say, here is my organizing plan. here are the resources i will use. i should get exclusive the tape
here and here. -- exclusivity here and here. it prevents a lot of the fighting. there will still be some of that. convinceen easy to grad assistants who have been exploited for years. this is not new. we have organized grad assistants years ago. then when university decided they should challenge that and they delayed it for 5-6 years. that is why you have the backup at cornell and other universities along the line. those gates will open up. those people understand that they need a voice as an employee. yet they are students, but their employees and as an employee, you need a voice so they don't get continued -- continue to get exploited. it is an easy sell. >> a little bit earlier you
the states where your priorities are. the data in pennsylvania, those of the two that you mentioned. about the way you will get involved in those races? >> we have a large membership in pennsylvania. one out of five voters will come from the union household. when out of six in nevada. we have three different kinds of campaigns and the states. we have a labor-labor campaign. labor and paid campaign where they talk to members and nonmembers. and we have a paid canvas campaign for the talk to people who were not even members. but they are working people. hit several different levels.
they will be getting mail aggressively every week from here until the election from us. from the locals and the national union as well. they will get worksite visits what we will talk to them about issue after issue. giving them information. they will "calls commodore knocks -- phone calls, door knocks. we will probably have over 100,000 volunteers in the six states that will do fun things, , doornocks -- phone banks knocks or a combination of those. and we have unions doing the exact same thing with their membership on the ground. getting them information that .hey need probably the most aggressive campaign we have had in several decades. >> the national journal. >> good morning. a follow-up on some of your comments about hillary clinton and judges.
she has said out of the gate one of the things she wants to $275 billion be infrastructure package. i want to know if you have been in any discussion with the campaign or the transition team about how specifically that package should be structured. if obama isestion, not a lame-duck, -- john kerry is not a lame duck, would you consider -- merrick garland is not a lame duck, would you consider him be nominated by hillary clinton? what he said. look at donald-- trump's economic package and said the country would lose 3.5 million jobs under donald trump's economic program. he also graded hers and said we
would gain 10 million. this is movie business credit rating system. -- moody business credit rating system. it would be the largest infrastructure bill since world war ii. is anfrastructure atrophy. we have talked about policy. we will continue to talk about policy. not just to the election, but after the transition and into the new administration. we will be working as partners. >> does that mean you have offered some specific ideas for infrastructure for the compose all --the proposal? >> we have those publicly out. yes. [indiscernible]
would you talk about your tier one presidential -- you talk about that a couple months ago. i wonder if you would see any point in the election after the -- another clinton campaign is going in and buying advertising space in arizona where based on the tenor of what you are hearing and you could add to the state and the opportunity that you did not have but for the rhetoric. >> there is no question that he gives us ample ammunition. thing each dayew based on what he says. was prettyyesterday conspiracy. he doubled down on all the policies that he talked about in the past. he went to mexico and talk like john wayne last night, that he acted like winnie the pooh when he was in mexico.
[laughter] even raised who would pay for the wall. it tells you that he is not serious about it. continue to use what he says to educate our members. there probably about where we were with barack obama and the election. the more we get to members with information, the better off we will get. we will continue to do that straight through election day. there be a lot of persuasion and we will convert the last 10 days to focusing. >> on the same question. message seemshis to resonate with some union
voters. what is it about that appeal that he had has --he has? >> he has tapped into anger and frustration that is out there. he has done that successfully. hen you look at the policy, just says just trust me on the deals -- details. every employer we have ever me,ain with has said trust you don't need to worry about the details, every time we trust them, we find out that the details are what hangs you. everybody knows this, our members are increasingly discovering and coming to the realization that he is a fraud. he is an opportunist. he throws a whopper every five minutes according to fact checkers. they just a believe him. they don't believe him on trade
because he does exactly the opposite of what he says should be done. they don't believe him when he says he is going to be good for workers because our wages are too high. he thinks [indiscernible] would be a great treasury secretary and these are all things are members know are not good things. my dad used to say that he was born at night but not last night. our members are the same way. anger,u scrape away the his reality show becomes our reality. you think some folks in unions who were on board with him, they see him as a fraud? >> i think there is no question about that. the number of people supporting him is less and less. >> usa today. >> thank you.
back to the senate race. you mentioned ohio. behind portman in the polls. a couple of democratic groups have reduced their advertising. ochs have reduced their advertising. what you think is happening there? are you concerned about his chances? >> i think the topic of -- top of the typical -- ticket will help. ted needs to be more aggressive right now. portman was for the trade agreement in the pretense he is against tpp. and there are a number of other issues he would be bad. we need to see more of that in the upcoming weeks. >> do you think strickland has not done a good enough job of being aggressive? >> i think all of us have not
done a good enough job of being aggressive. if there was one thing -- if you were to give hillary clinton advice and there is one thing you would tell her to do differently, what would it be? >> to do differently? >> to say or do. think she has run a pretty solid campaign. thing that does one is extremely important and i wish more politician did, she listens. she's a good listener which i think is very important. i think if i was going to tell her anything, i would say, let people see you. i have known her personally for 30 years and i have seen her in
spotlight and out of the spotlight. she is a very smart, tough, intelligent lady. she is also a warm person. especially when you get past the camera and light. i tell her to let a little bit more of that shine through. >> do you trust her on tpp? are you confident she is going to make your changes? -- serious changes? >> i have no doubt in my mind. i have looked her squarely in the eye and we have talked about tpp. i've known her for 30 years and there has never been one time where hillary clinton has given me her word on anything that she did not follow through on.
i have absolute trust she will follow through on that. >> anybody else? >> washington post. i would to follow up on that merrick garland question. -- want to follow up on the merrick garland question. if that does not happen, would you urgently put into renominate him once she is in office? they have gotten so far out on a limb and it created such a mess out of this and they sent -- set such a bad precedent for the country. he probably can't backtrack now.
as far as afterwards, we will see. i'm not willing to commit at this time to go forward on it. we will see. >> anyone else? what does that have to do with mandatory arbitration clauses? with --played out playing out with lawsuits. >> commercial cases? >> i'm talking about sexual harassment cases. in mandatory arbitration clauses .re not a new issue for labor a lot of discussion about whether they should be legal. that -- of giving up rights for the court. the supreme court eventually have to decide it?
any thoughts on whether we will likely see action? after getting a night justice, he will probably see action. -- you will probably see action. the supreme court does tend to try to reconcile splits in jurisdictions. the primary issue becomes, is it the contract? did you voluntarily agree to it? this is such a difference in power between the employer and employee at that point that you can't say this was entered in good-faith. most of the time, you have to say probably was not because the holds the upper hand. if you want the job, you must take this clause. you will probably see some of them struck down because of that. >> anybody else? >> it also takes more to waive your rights.
it has to be a specific waiver. some of those clauses don't have anything about waivers. those that do, is it fairly entered into? >> we have exhausted the senate. are there any particular targets? >> exhausted by the senate. [laughter] >> any targets in the house you would like to take out? >> where do i start? [laughter] you have an element in the house that is just corrosive. they cared little about the problems or the country, they cared more about ideology. they did not listen to their own leadership. those people are not responsible legislatures and the electorate should look at them carefully. whotry to put somebody in is responsible. that does not meet someone who
agrees with me all the time. that means somebody who looks at the problems of the country and says something those problems should come first before ideology or blowing up the system. some are more interested in blowing up the system then they are solving problems. quite quicklyrise to the candidacy of donald trump. i don't want to start naming right now. >> huffington post. then the national journal. [indiscernible] knocking on doors talking to people about donald trump. on saidt or he knocked he voted twice for obama if he was going to vote for donald trump. the candidate said he comes across that quite a bit.
thate who say they feel the democratic party has not done much for them to raise their wages and they would rather see someone come in and blow things up. i wonder what you would take it back i who feels like a party has not helped him and what do you say to members who may feel the same way? >> i think there's some legitimacy to that. workers have felt that nobody is listening to them. not democrats, not republicans. i think you would have a tougher time making the case this time around. if you look at the democratic platform, it is probably the most progressive platform we have seen since fdr. it has been good. debate,been shaping the shaping the platform. when you give those members the facts about, ok, here is a guy who thinks the wages are too high. do you think the wages are too high?
i have done survey after survey and no working yet has had their wages are too high. [laughter] when they say, what do you think about right to work, will that help? absolutely no. when you talk about outsourcing and the things they have done, they start to come back across the bridge. they are angry. they are frustrated and he tapped into that. he will make things worse because he is doubling down on the very policies that got us here. he is not some kind of revolutionary when it comes to economics. he does not want to rewrite the rules in favor of working people. inwants to write the rules favor of rich people like himself to benefit himself. when you tell people that, they start to come back across the bridge. we have focus groups with them, we have met them in numerous different positions. you're going to have some people like that. we don't get to select our
members. the employer hires them and we get them after the employer hires them. working people generally vote in their best interest. place -- iname about the same place in this election when obama ran. on election day, we overwhelmingly voted in favor of him. that same thing will happen for hillary clinton. >> and followed to the follow-up -- a follow-up to the follow-up on garland. is there any reason why you were not flatly saying that clinton should renominate him if he is not considered in the lame-duck? why are you not simply recommending that hillary clinton renominate him? what do i gain from that? is it better for me to have an
option? there may be somebody better. i think you would make a great judge. there could be somebody better. if somebody better comes along, we will support them. it also, when they notice not a certainty, then actually vote on actually- they may vote on the guy. >> looking past the election, if things go where they look like they are now which is a big if, italy clinton wins and eight -- hillary clinton wins and the in republican control, people think it will be difficult to get anything done in congress. what do you foresee as happening in the first year or so of the potential clinton administration? what can labor do to push for your priorities?
>> the first thing you will see is the structure bill -- infrastructure bill pushed through. they can't oppose that. if they do, it is to their peril. that they getg is a chance to define who they are. if you put things out that are good for the country, they will solve the problems and their next election the the apple will be taken away from them. theave to try to solve problems of the country or they will be obstructionist. if they continue to do that, they do it at their peril. a showdown on how to fund the government. is there anything in particular that you are concerned about popping and their or would like there or would like
to see? >> the republicans have a not -- rider afterding in rider. they say no funding for them to do this. we will be guarding against that. they had 13 of them the last time. we'd be told 13 back. beat all 13 back. we will be pushing for infrastructure and education and workforce development. help for manufacturing so that we can get the economy back running again. >> two more. the comment about the infrastructure bill. would that be the problem they fell into in 2009 with the first thing on the bucket list was the stimulus bill. we had people like mccarthy say
people oppose everything barack obama did. because of the nature of the infrastructure bill, well one might argue that the need for the stimulus bill was more viable than if i would not be -- >> the bill you recalled to get past. -- passed. provisionsuple of that were probably not in the best interest of the country. the fact that the money had to have been spent in the year major that none of the big projects that were really important to a lot of people to get started. you had to do a bunch of small projects. that negated the effect. they can try that. we are not good to do a stimulus bill. i can tell you something, there will be a rebellion against
them. the american public is sick of a do-nothing congress. one that obstructs everything that happens. mitch mcconnell let the count of the bag -- cat out of the bag. he said our job is to make sure he does not get a second term. we go to stop everything he does. and he did. but who'd paid the price --who paid the price? the country. i think people are that up with that. fed upill try to put -- with that. they will try to put lipstick on the. but the american public are smart. you either fix it or you don't. they don't care whether was some it or not, that stop they just know it did not get fixed they may try that. i think it will get there. we will put every pressure we can to make sure he gets there.
we will let everybody in the world, every worker know who is obstructing it and he was helping it. then there will be -- and who is helping it. then it will be a discussion -- decision. >> we may be on the verge of inaugurating our first woman president. the union world if you see any differences in how women lead versus men laid -- lead? >> women are by nature more collaborative. they bring people together more naturally than men do. that theymen believed have to have all the answers and not having the answer is essentially embarrassing and women' don't believe that. i secretary of treasury naturally collaborative, brings people together, good listener. she listens to what people has to say -- have to say and then
makes a sharp decision. that is what the country needs. somebody who can ask a bring the country together and listen. listening is important. even if i disagree, you may have some kernel of knowledge or wisdom or a grain of the solution that can be built upon. i applaud hillary because i think she is outstanding at listening. i think your tendency is to listen first and then talk as opposed to talk first and then listen. and i think that is a significant difference with women. i think in many ways women are tougher. >> house so? >> they have to be. -- >> how so? >> they have to be. the system has been rigged for years. once have come up have really
had to fight hard. with hillary clinton, she have c.do a+ work to get a movementt is the union or business, they get judged by a higher standard. if they do not show compassion -- do show compassion, it is a sign of weakness. men do it, it is a sign of strength. i think it is an unfair double standard. women deserve better. >> thank you very much for doing this. i appreciate your comments. >> thank you, everybody. happy labor day. >> that you. -- thank you.
>> for campaign 2016, c-span continues on the road to the white house. be a president for democrats, republicans, and independence. >> we're going to win with education, we are going to win with the second amendment. >> i had, live coverage of the presidential and vice presidential debates on c-span, the c-span radio app, and c-span.org. monday, september 26 is the first presidential debate. 4, viceay, october presidential candidate mike eence and senator tim kain debate. 9, the secondober presidential debate. leading up to the final debate between hillary clinton and donald trump taking place at the university of nevada las vegas on october 19. live coverage of the presidential and vice presidential debate on c-span. listen live on the free c-span
radio app or watch live at c-span.org. >> along the gulf coast of florida today, feeling some of the effects of hurricane hermine before it heads up the coast of the carolinas. it will be taking a path here at themiami herald up to carolinas over the next couple of days. first landfall in florida and 11 years.n about the congresswoman from the area illing some-- f sandbags in her district. tweet that she has shared. it has a link to find places to go ahead and fill your own sandbanks --