the basis of what we accused him of having failed on. are we going to have -- >> if i just play off of what peter jay shared, we are in the dim x craddock said going to experience in 2008. we are going to get a radical tea party equivalent that is going to really clamor for just straight opposition. .. beyond out the president-elect

focuses in on deportations and some of the social issues but i think it's going to be difficult for democrats to come to the table on the flipside at the president-elect says an agenda on tax reform, et cetera i think does create, and the speaker on our side allows us to be part of that conversation. i actually think it sets a different tone. we are, those of us who are willing to think it's better for us to be sitting at the table and participate in these conversations as opposed to just yelling at the door, we are going to deal the heat as much as the republicans did eight years ago. >> congressman? >> there is something so precious wanted it without a lot of executive orders that the current president has put in play. you're going to see rescinded or modified, whether it's the u.s. overtime rules, carbon girls, what have you.

we will have little to say over that. you may have a bigger say over that it actually your input might be very interesting. he made a lot of business decisions based on what you thought was going to happen, and this could change radically, if that's good for you or not. on the actual party side as was mentioned there will be a reconciliation bill. it only takes 51 votes in the senate. probably coming out early primary date with health care. that's the only reconciliation bill allowed this year year after that every vote takes come and visit will take 60 votes. to my colleagues point on the house side, there's a least 40 maybe more freedom caucus members that are not interested in governing. they're interested in ideology. i think what all of us in know labels is all about. that will require speaker right to work hopefully with some of the no labels democrats that it would across the aisle.

that some producers as you well know. the name of the game is leadership, oftentimes reward lockstep behavior and punish people that actually will step out for the greater good of the country. it's a problem and it's a discussion i know this group has had. the super pac announcement earlier will hopefully be a sign that some of us that are willing to step up. i think there's a lot of great bills, the appropriation bills will become more bipartisan as a result of that. that committee has had a history of working bipartisanly. i'm on energy and commerce. we've got a great in my opinion new chairman. we have a great ranking member. i think the will be some bipartisan opportunities. i think there's an opportunity with his relatively blank sheet of paper whether it's the president, the congress, house, senate, democrat, republican, for no labels to step in with some comments and rodney peele items that senator daines just outlined that we could do quite a bit of work on. i think it's exciting new times.

>> congressman talked about the threshold in the senate. there are some things that can be moved through reconciliation with only 50 votes. there's limits on what can be moved. you can't create new programs. most things do require 60, and senator manchin, that would mean that you're looking at seven or eight democrats that need to come over for most big things to get done. you are on the leadership team with senator schumer. what other conversations you're having about where you often work together early next year? >> on the leadership team are taking up one side of it trying to bring it back to the middle. and chuck asked me to death and i was pleased to be able to do that. and i look at all of us. this is a big change. we have a big change in a country. with every change comes opportunity. i look at an opportunity get something done. i'm pleased to be helping my colleagues here and i think everybody here knows that i'll

do whatever i can to help my country. i think that no labels is going to play a tremendous part in whether we been successful in the next two to four years. you will find very quickly which we were going to go. the 60 rule, that was senator burr, my predecessor, i didn't vote for the nuclear option. i thought it would destroy the function, the purpose of the senate, and i was one of the few democrats who wouldn't go along with that. i understand where my republicans are right now. they will say fine, you've given this, we will use it will begin. that make sense, i understand that. we have to be careful how we go down this road because if we do use the nuclear option and i'll give a perfect example. if we have a supreme court nominee and one thing we're able to talk, nuclear option the supreme court. let's see some a democrat

friends just hunker down and say no, no, and hello. we have a pretty good person you. not even giving him a fair shot at what are going to do? those types of things i'm hoping we can avoid that and getting this function that we been. i can tell you speaking from a moderate centrist democrats, some of us are more concerned than others but from that wing of the party will look at everything we can to work with president-elect trump to make it successful. to make it work. if we disagree we will disagree and are respectfully but also input and i would say that. if we are thrown the ac from the beginning, affordable tract, obamacare, whatever you want to call it out of my colleagues would say fine, we are going to repair this with this it would be much easier if you say we're going to do this and we're going to take it to a prepared to work out the differences. there's going to be people on my

said about where we met six years right now, 60 votes to repeal it and you're not giving us any alternate. i think it is the repair on first touch on the first of i think there's a pathway forward if we work together. if we don't we will take some heartfelt and back into the stomach. the other thing of recommend is this. get your financial house in order. as the previous governor when i went to the governorship i went to wall street to find out what they thought about the state of west virginia. once they laid out to b me thaty challenges, i came back and took on financial reform. i had to get to finance his of west virginia sold enough to do the things i wanted to do. and i've said this. in public office if people trust us with the money, they will trust us with anything.

they will trust us to make the changes and to policy changes. but he can't trust the person taking care of your finances or their own finances, they will not give you the benefit of the doubt on the good policy changes to i would recommend to our new president-elect let's get this financial is back in order. we will make some good changes that would be great for this changers -- that would be good for this country. >> this is a question for you. senator manchin to talk about affordable care act and the way that might get refashioned. what is your sense about that is going to happen? do you think it will be repealed and replaced a couple of years later or will those be done it once? >> which is senator? >> either of you. >> i think constructive for to look at history and if we step back and think about the go forward plan with the affordable care act. the comments about the need for bipartisan solutions, you go back to years of 2009 and 10 when the democratic party came to town.

after arlen specter switched swd over, they have 60 votes in the senate. there were only 178 republicans in the house. not only with a dancing on the grave of the republican party, they were scattering the ashes at that point. who would have thought we would cq today with the current makeup of washington based on how the world looks in nine in 10? unfortunately when the affordable care act moved through congress it was with zero bipartisan support. it was a very, very partisan legislation. if we watched i would argue the pullback on that over the last two years it out to be a very telling to us today as we go forward as a think about the replacement plan now for obamacare. and i think the repeal will likely happen through some kind of a consideration vehicle. that's probably a high probability i would usher. but replacement will have to be bipartisan or we will face perhaps at our own peril a different political landscape that will pullback because i

think the american people said something very, very strongly, -- [inaudible] as a country to get something done. and first of all we can't -- [inaudible] replacement in the senate. it takes 60 votes. we are going to need joe manchin and college to work with us on this to get to 60. if we do that we will have a replacement i think it will stand the test of time. >> senator blunt come any thousand? >> i think it will be easier to get 60 votes on replacement. i'm going to come back to the plural of that once there is an understanding where we are now has got to change the everybody really knows that this system is not working. everybody a slightly different reasons why they think it didn't work. probably the biggest reason it did work was one side decided they wanted to take the entire structure on themselves, which would be a mistake for us to do.

but i do think that we will move forward, announced they were going to head in another direction. there's some discussion whether they would be a two-year window or a three, but we don't need to do all of that in one -- there will not be a 1570 page republican bill that replaced the 2700 page bill that we're moving away from. i see that coming a piece at a time, things that 60 republicans -- 60 most of the senate and a majority of the house can support. and i would envision taking those things off the table, starting almost immediately, there's a provision i sponsored in the house when i was still in the house 26 and where you can stay on your parents insurance until you are 26. i was the only person filed that do. i was glad to see it added. there seems to be a universal sense that's one of the things you want to maintain going forward. no reason to wait three years is a you're going to do that you

can get 60 senators and the majority of house members, okay, this is one of the pieces are building our health care system back then we want to sustain. but i do think we are going to see the elimination of the old system on a date certain on what will be close to a partisan vote. i hate that because it creates an ownership opportunity of a really difficult managed system that i would think republicans would want to try to avoid that ownership. >> as somebody who's in the body recently and you're now looking at from outside, how do you see it evolving? >> yes. i think the points that are being made are very practical, and i think there is a way forward for both parties to have an input on what you keep now, then what do you put on the table for discussion in a bipartisan way to go forward. and i would say the biggest problem of this bill was a

prescriptive mess of it. the insurance companies are bailing out because the prescription of always in the 2700 pages was so, it means you to take a one size fits all program and if he didn't do that then you going to go into the government system with, beginning to have a government only program. but if you go and have a bipartisan committee look at how you can take out the requirements that they take a one-size-fits-all solution, and put more flexibility in it so that it's not congress time to write every single person's health care plan, then i think you could make real progress on bringing insurance companies back in, bringing corporate coverage back in. and then that leaves a much smaller group that you can serve

better if you would go forward with less prescription and more flexibility. >> if this unfolds the way to describing how the democrats respond? >> number one, there's a political pressure on republicans to quote repeal and follow through on the promise. we all know about that is kind of meaningless because what happens the day after? what i really think is our job, those of us in congress in the first 100 days is to try to give some definition to what the scope of the problem is. and health care there are three elements. what is the insurance reforms. in fact, it's a tremendous provision had leading our kids stay until age 26. letting people get access to insurance if they have a preexisting condition. trump is for that and letting you stay uninsured if you have a chronic condition where you hit the cap, you don't get thrown out on the street.

that's one. that's has implications on how we paid for. the second is medicaid expansion. that really has made access to health care significant and a lot of republican governors have accepted that. somehow been. the third issue that is just killing us in red states and blue states is the cost of health care. some of the reasons are what senator hutchison said. what i would hope is that all of us would say look we have to deal with this cost of health care. in some cases it's a broken market. in some cases there's too much regulation. in some cases it might be litigation. if we gave some definition to it, there's a common benefit if we start trying to bring down the cost of health care. it is killing our companies are trying to protect the workers. our state budgets, we like and interest company. that's an area where did he give us some definition and we say you have some proposals, we've got some, and the objective is not to throw people off of health care. the objective is to get more

efficient health care. i think we can make some progress. the same an infrastructure. we are all for infrastructure. trump is a builder. we need it. but it's got to be paid for. the worry i have is we will come up with some infrastructure plan that will blow a hole in the deficit new see a lot of democrats raising questions about that. so how do we deal with infrastructure with a payment mechanism? can we agree that it's a mutual challenge? >> the perfect storm is basically that a change in, from the presidency and about changes in congress but next year 2017 all states get hit with the full bill. the fed has been supplementing 10% for every state. in west virginia, it's a couple hundred million dollars. they don't have the budget. we are 300 short right now. states we face with picking up this 10% are it will be a perfect storm hitting. they want this done, this done at this done.

cut the cost and because their budgets will be working, putting budgets together for the end of 2017-2018 and they are facing that state is facing that. the importance of the states voice as you think about the go forward plan. the term overly prescriptive. beginning to look for a broader thought process and bringing in states. i've been on the phone with our newly elected commissioner of insurance practices. we've got to work with our states more effectively. i think mike pence can help bring the voices will angel as a former governor. governor manchin come here from governor huntsman. the import of our states voice. >> let me just say, i know on my side of the out their very opposed to block grants for medicaid. as a former governor, i noticed in the money but you can tell me how a washington has been.

i never did subscribe to the. i think we can design something that helps my state more to find exactly what i had to work with. i can't sit in every hole you have an hole you have an eye to fit in the sole get this reversed the. mary knows exactly what we're talking about and the things we fight everyday. we are 50 states and we're all different. so that has some appeal. [applause] >> but where are we going to find a lot of common ground is going to be in the economic area. i mean, we will disagree respectfully amongst ourselves with aspects of health care bill of albany to fix and don't need to fix, but the area i think what we can all agree is the economy. creating new jobs, high-paying jobs for a lot of folks. president campaigned heavily on that particularly in rural america. he won big in rural america. i think there's great opportunities in agriculture and forestry, fishing. and you products, a lot of working men and women want to work on that are not just solar

and wind. i think there's some great opportunities from a lot of folks in this room to rally around and think all of us could rally around, quite frankly that would put people back to work in a real serious way. and, frankly, empower and i think get people feeling better about themselves and whether countries going to that should be a big focus. it's about making sure people work with one another, respect the fact we come from different parts of this country but we all want to see everyone in america succeed no matter if you're from the city, from the farm, at who has an opportunity. i think that's something we should all of focus on in the first 100 days to make sure that civic outcome, solid outcome bipartisan outcome we can get going forward. >> there was this broad message that the president-elect had about putting america first. let's not forget, senator sanders tap into that on the left as well with his message is putting america first.

we allowed that to guide us in our conversation. that is where the public is right now. they want us to focus in on putting the country first. so whether it's infrastructure, whether it's health care, we ought to be guided by that. and focus inward for a while. >> thank you very much. that's any on a high note. so that concludes the panel. we could just give a round of applause to our senators and members who are up here. [applause] >> that went by fast. >> thank you very much for joining us. let me get you the details on where you are all going to next. which i'm not sure about. everybody is staying in a. that makes it easy. stay in your seats. ♪ ♪

>> ladies and gentlemen, please welcome the executive chairman of the board of directors of hud companies would he hunt. [applause] thank you and thank you for being here today. the developed world is approaching 10 years of no growth, low growth. at the same time a little polarization has led to gridlock and inability to deal with our low growth, no growth world, ability to make the decisions, the hard decisions that it takes to create wealth, kept out of business and high growth. also more recently this political climate has created the growth of populist parties in a number of areas of the developed world. at least when i put on my ceo hat that raises the question of risk management, we've got the risk of self-destructive

decision-making. talk about this, nobody can talk about is better than former british prime minister tony blair to be moderated by gillian. thank you. [applause] ♪ >> good afternoon. is this working? not yet. fantastic. it is now. good afternoon, everybody. i come from the financial times. i run our edit your coverage across the americas region, and i'm absolutely delighted to be part of this today because i was there was some of you may be feeling about the media, i heard the comment earlier this morning, are absolutely committed to providing fair, credible and informed coverage of what is going on, not just for our un-american region but around the world.

i'm sure many of you are feeling right now that you have lived through a political earthquake in the last month. are living through a political earthquake. well, i've got news for you. britain got here first, or their first. because as you all moment there was an earthquake earlier this summer in the uk in relation to the brexit vote. and it's an earthquake that is still continuing. there's just been a new vote on the leader of the opposition labor party and the hard left, jeremy corbyn, has been reinstated with a big majority. and the earthquakes are continuing across europe. ufo placing the result of the italian referendum on sunday which indicated quite decisively that the italian people like the american people, like the british people are voting

against the establishment. there are more votes looming next year in the netherlands, france and germany. of course, we have the austrian vote which is more establishment but still right now we have want the establishment result and three antiestablishment results. so i can't think of a better person to tell us what is going on, not just in america, but to put this into an international context and perhaps even offer some of vice for the man who is now heading to the white house, the man tony blair, the man who's in charge of uk politics for a long time and did not simply run the uk but tried to set a new type of politics, a new political center. but before i start the questions i want to quickly start with the protocol question. our american friends in the audience often have the mistaken impression that we are very, very status conscious and very

formal and public because it all world watched downton abbey. [laughter] and if any of you have ever been on a platform and the uk will know that it is 100% wrong because there is nothing that shocks a british audience more than to use a title, particularly a previous title i. so my first question is, do you want to be american today and beat mr. prime minister, arguing to be british and the tony? we can take a vote on it. >> nope. i think it's time to be tony. what i found when first left office was that people in america continue to address you as prime minister. the british media had a field day with it saying that this guy is so incapable of understand he has left the job. [laughter] as i said to them, scrap this big they became that i was so depressed i couldn't hear the word prime minister. feeling a sense of this bond and

see so tony is fine. >> would artificially divided by common language. tony, how do you explain the series of extraordinary political upsets that we've seen this year? if we ignore austria for a moment, apology to any austrians, if we ignore austria for a moment, this years been absently shocking and, frankly, could well continue that way. >> yes. there's a lot i think we started trying to figure out because undoubtedly we are in the news political situations, which has got in your bellies a lot of danger to the. britain has taken a huge decision, and there's no doubt in my mind that something different is going on in politics. having said that i think it's very important to emphasize several things. the first is populism is not new.

concern about immigration is a new pair our member at least, giunta member, the 1960s when politicians warning about the ways of black immigration come in the uk. this would produce rivers of blood. immigration is not a new topic. globalization is not new. it affects them is look at the changes and bring in the 1980s, there will coal mining community and still communities that shut down. so what is new i think two things. first of all i think post financial crisis and with all the change in the world people are insecure and anxious. they see their community and society changing around them. and there is an immense amount of anger that we don't seem to be able to provide for people in the way they wish. there's no doubt about that anger. secondly, am i personally think social media itself is a

revolutionary phenomenon. i think it changes everything. it changes to the way politics works. >> do you tweet? >> not voluntarily. [laughter] >> i think so that the president-elect does, but anyway. >> by the way, and you see how it is used and its remarkable but it's a new phenomena. is also interlaced with traditional media. financial times, this is a little aloof from all of this but in the sense -- >> i'll take that as a couple but. >> for example, when i was first printed in 1997 the bbc nightly news has an audience around 12 million people. that was like one conversation in the country. today the figure is just over 2 million. this is a big, big change in the way politics is conducted and when information flows. so i think parts of this that are very new, parts of the that

are not new but i've actually convinced the only way to confront the anger is to provide the answers. that's why a strong sentiment among my is only way to do that we need a center that is not a flabby, wishy-washy. we need something strong and must do it that is providing answers to the challenges people face. >> you were very tactful as a politician figure wearing a tie that is a nice mix of red and blue. a perfect mix of red and blue. so your tie is wonderfully centrist. but when you were in office, he tried to create a supposed new vision of politics which perhaps we should explain to the audience, it was called the new wave, a third way which is time to be if you like a centrist left agenda. you were trying very hard to get me on the right and left.

some people might see the development of politics in the intervening period since he left office as essentially a sign that attempt failed. what we have today in the uk is essentially a very left wing left party, a right wing right party, and the center that has collapsed. >> yes. i know that there is a tendency to say that the reason why the defeats are happening should relate to those who achieve victory, and i think, i actually what i worked on this i worked with president clinton here, and we had a goes around europe. but what's very important, i always say this because people say we can't go back to the third way type of politics. i say distinguished policies which are good for one time with a philosophy that, in fact, is

good for most kinds. i think it is good for this time. what we had at that point and in my view, at the center has to be captured is we the center, forward momentum. we were not the guardians of the status quo. you said austria was an exception but it's an exception in the sense that the green party candidate beat the kind of neo-nazi candidate or the far right candidate. it's not a victory for the old type of politics but the two centrist parties were nowhere in that election. so i think there's no doubt at all what people feel is the center has not been providing that dynamism and that leadership going forward. if you take the case of europe, i mean, i'm passionate about the reason why europe is in its present predicament. it's because it's not reforming. it's not changing. you only have to look at the way that the euro zone prevailed,

have produced these agonizing situations with countries when what is required is profound structural reforms, fiscal stimulus and monitor policy that allies itself with those two factors. that's what the center should be provided but we are not in europe at the moment. >> you know it's a very different political were bloomwood all looking to austria as a beacon of hope. [laughter] >> anyone here austrian? no. so we are safe. but in terms of what advice, i get asked you know what advice you'd give donald trump but unlike before that, what advice would you like to get the people here in this room? i think what you have here is basically a self leftist audience that for the most part probably kind of agrees with you. you are preaching sorted to the converted.

if you had to tease out the top three points that you think they're going in this room should he did, what would they be? >> first of all i don't really offer advice. i offer friendship and partnership because i think no labels is a great concept. i love the whole idea. i just was listening to the discussion previously about health care and infrastructure and finance. i was just thinking out and integrating the a discussion about practical solutions. i don't offer advice but think the challenge is for us are the following. i think along with economics we don't understand the issues of culture and identity. people, take european situation. it is not irrational to worry about immigration. i am pro-immigration to i believe britain is a better

country because we have waves of immigrants that come into. i think london, forgive me, the greatest and most vibrant city in the world, precisely because of the contributions of a broad range of people from different cultures and races and faiths. but i think we have to accept that people will only put aside prejudice if they think there are rules. when people see their communities changing they weren't about that. culture edited is extremely important secondly we have to do with the fact with globalization. not just in terms of trade the technology also. there will be many communities affected by this. i think they have got to know we are not indifferent to their plight, that we are prepared to get alongside them and help them through these issues. and certainly we need to understand this is the moment,

there's a paradox actions that i see in politics today. at one level people are getting more and more positive and effect is very often paralysis or things don't happen because of partisanship. on the other hand, i think one of the reasons why people elected all top is because the actual so this is we are going to fix it. just drive through and get it done. i think what we have to be is in the center, we have to have strong solutions. they have got to be solutions that will make change. one of my passions what is in government after government is education. and education policy. we need to educate the broad mass of people well. we need to educate and not just in the conventional sense but in terms of skills and training an aptitude for a changed world. this is can we need a revolution

in this area in order to be effective. these are things i think we need to be addressing. we need also the absolute plot about it. politics is, you know, i used to discuss politics with a famous soccer coach in the uk. he had a great psychology about soccer and about working with people and about strategy and the difference doing strategy and tactics. you know, i was having a discussion and he said to me once, he said so we've got the best strikers, the best goal scorers in the premier league and we have a great team. i said yes. he said no. a great team, the best strikers in the best defense. which is obvious when you think about it. the point is come if you are fighting this populism, there's

a part of politics we have to be smart enough and capable enough to keep your flanks protected. so if you got people worried about extremism, you've got a pulse on extremism. it's got to go to the heart of the problem of extremism. if the public in today's world the instances at all the issues of what they call political correctness, stand in the way of solutions, they will march you down. so part of this also frankly is about making sure the center is not just dynamic, stronger before but has its flanks were ill be playing defense properly protected. >> so for key lessons. one, recognize that cultural identity matters. the honest about globalization and, in fact, three, have strong policies, don't get wishy-washy. and number four, think of

soccer, not football and think about your defenses. what i want to ask you about, actual ask you briefly, if you were donald trump walking into the white house in january -- >> this is an unlikely hypothesis on many levels. >> i get paid to think of unlikely hypotheses. what would you opening speech say? >> i think the issue, it's interesting having that discussion before. the issue is whether he's just going to focus on getting the most practical solution for getting things done. that's what happens, then he's never going, the country will move forward. i think like the people who are speaking on the panel before, it was interesting hearing the democrats. let's wait and see. let's wait and see what happens. mayors no doubt part of all this is about making change and a sense of movement forward.

this is definitely i think what people wanted to see and not just america but elsewhere. when it comes to things like infrastructure and so one. there is a real need for it but have you got a practical plan and can you break through the list of bureaucracy? one of the other things by the way i think, for the center is the essential com is how do we redesign government itself? this is something we over the years engaged with. for example, if you take, i mean government and a broader sense. i mean for example, if you take in our case at least, things like public services are education, health care. i think we're often not asking the right questions. nevermind providing the answers. technology alone is going to be potentially could have a transformative effect in a way government works and the way public services is delivered come in the way we reduce some the cost and burden of the public sector.

if i was back in politics, certainly i am not -- >> would you like to be? >> nope. [laughter] >> are you sure? >> sure enough. sure enough to be sure at this moment anyway. [laughter] so i think if i was back, i would be trying to drop also what are the questions that we need to answer. certainly something like the uk health care system. i would be looking at redesigning it, taking account of the changes, the technology can bring about in our world. really it's, i think if people feel that the center ground is the place where people come together and work together to get things done in the interest of the country, i think most people respond to that. it's also important to realize these things, your election was close, in america.

brags it was 52-48. it wasn't like 75-25. there's a lot of people out there who, you know, are still capable of being persuaded. >> i'm going to turn to the audience and just a moment but before you do while you're thinking of questions, given that we have three potentially crucial elections next year in the netherlands where a nationalist to secure the most popular person, and friends where the person is writing very high. and in germany where the indeed an essential it angela merkel is in trouble, do you think there is a chance that the euro zone could break up? >> i think it won't because i think despite all the problems of the euro zone and i think it was designed flaws in it, and i

think the thought of breaking apart and going back to individual currencies is too great. and when greece was in crisis, if you think of the pain that the greeks have suffered into economic adjustment, it's more than frankly, i don't know what would've been in britain facing those types of cuts in spending or you here, but it's interesting, whenever it comes to the point, the greeks don't want to go back passionate and in whatever people say i would think it's unlikely the italians would want to go back and so on. i don't think europe will break up but we are in uncharted waters and are very dangerous things. i think europe, this issue is to do with migration culture and identity. we've got to look at the position of france. it's not surprising given what french have been through over the past couple of years, that

these issues are powerful. you are not going to succeed in a french election unless you're showing pashtun and less you are addressing the issues of culture and integration, parts of the muslim community being a part of the rest of the community. and if you're welcoming in waves of migration from the middle east and particularly syria, you are going to have securities concerns about that. it would be bizarre if he didn't. so any politician is going to fight to win an election in the circumstances is going to have to have their policy absolutely in a position which as i say is not in any way compromising with prejudice or disrespect for human values, but understand you've got a country that feels insecure and part of it angry. >> the hot new phrase, european

circles not so much brexit but frexit. but anyway, we can turn to the idea stuff for a few minutes of questions. i think there are some microphones around. it would be courteous but not compulsory to identify yourself, and please keep the question extremely short because i can already see several hands waiting. >> thank you. how would you deal with the challenges of expectations that are short-term and yet challenges are so structural and long-term? for example, really the only way to deal with the technology disruption of is through education and retraining. and yet the expectation of change, how do you deal with that?

>> that's a very, very good question. i think you obvious have to be able to explain to people and the value of long-term structural reform, but at the same time i think you've got to the people in the immediate sense. so i think, sometimes policies are of a generic in nature but sometimes you need specifically to identify the communities that are going to be most affected by change and go with a package that is directed to that community. but what you can't do is simplicity to them look, i know life is terrible in the short term, but wait 20 years and it will be better. that's not an election winning -- [laughter] so i think it's partly around that, but also, here's what i think it's very important to look at how government itself changes. i think if you're asking

everyone else to cope with change and people feel government is not changing, they are saying you are not having to change the i'm having to change. i think that's also very important. >> any more questions? question right at the very back. >> this inclination to go towards strongmen and get things done, what are the applications for civil liberties and civil rights? >> i think one of the most, when we're looking at what's not be and what is new. what is new and what is very, very troubling to me is that if you look at the analysis that has just been done of support for democracy and democratic countries, i mean, some of these figures are to me quite shocking. physical and french reason why think over 30% of the french people doubted whether democracy was the right system. that's a large number of people.

so this strong man type of authoritarian figure, this is one of the reasons why, for example, president putin is admired and parts of european politics. it's interesting how many people reference that quite openly in a way that i think 10 years ago they really would not have spoken like that. so this comes back to my mind, i think there is a real risk that we forget what liberal democratic values are about. and we just, we don't understand that these values are absolutely fundamental to the human condition improving. but i think it all comes back to what is going to be the alternative to the strong man? and the alternative to the strong man can't be a weak center. it can be a strong center that

is obedient to the basic democratic values but is nonetheless showing how consistent with those things could be made to move. this strong man idea, and you see this round the world to, take the president of the philippines. a classic example. strongman type politics. but why lex why when you talk to ordinary filipinos will they, away from the camera as it were, away from the public arena give some support. i don't how long that lasts but why? has for years they were not getting with the problem of crime and drugs and a feeling that the system wasn't working for the ordinary person. and this is where the social media aspect of this is also very important. today, people know or think they know about the world. and they get, they break into

sort of self conforming groups that almost, they share the same opinion, they reinforce the same opinion, and they become very angry about the way the world because they don't see politics as a difficult business way, having to grind out results in take difficult decisions. they see it just in terms of instantaneous like or dislike. this is why, the answer in my view, is the center, if you want to push away and defeat this type of strongman politics, the senate has got to be strong and vibrant and dynamic. otherwise you will find the situation where people say, this is most acute among some people by the way, well, i have particular adherence to democracy. i just want the job done. if this guy says he can get the job done, let's get him elected.

>> tweet that. [laughter] >> any more questions? we have a question right in the front, i think. do you have a microphone? i think you'll have to be, sadly, the last one. >> immigration is very important to all countries, but canada has a way of accepting immigrants but being able to bring immigrants that are going to integrate into country and are going to be efficient in industries and whatever, wherever they are needed. the immigration of people that don't integrate, and very often impose their way of life on the

british. there's no question that they're going to bring and a lot of anger. >> to state the obvious, britain and canada have one big difference. the law in canada. there's a big space. but your point about immigration is actually write. the thing is that we've got to be very, there's just been a report published on this i think today in the uk. i think we've also got, it is what people expect the conversation that the problem of integration we have is with a part, let me choose my words carefully, with a part of our muslim community. now with all the laws of the all the laws of the committee but is not really with the indian community or other communities. so i think the best, this is were i think, this isn't the only we did with these problems.

you put the models on the table and work it out and deal with it. it's when we can't, appear to hesitate india with, that you get the problem i think. so you actually write and that is the way. this center was a mighty when people come into your country from diverse cultures and diversity a think as a strength not a weakness for a nation that you have to be very, very clear. you have to say here is the space of diversity. people practice their own faith in their own way according to the own religion, and religious conscience, and that's great. but here is the common space. here is the space where we agreed we all share these values. respected democracy, respect the rights of women, respect for the law. respect for the basic freedoms of our country. i think in europe today you could galvanize support around those principles, but if it

becomes a situation where people are either pro-immigrant or anti-immigrant, that is in my view, a dangerous situation. because you lose the ability to create the necessary space that people hold in common so that integration happens and that people feel equal citizens of a country because they actually all share that common space. this is the only way it will work, in my view,. >> thank you. given that, this entire day is about celebrating common space in every sense, looking for, championing it and upholding it, that's a fantastic now depend on. thank you on behalf of all of us offering your insights, being an insider outsider can sometimes be a very valuable perspective to have the. and in the meantime, prime minister, tony, i look forward to the day when you start tweaking voluntarily.

so thank you. [applause] and ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ >> ladies and gentlemen, please welcome that chairman, john.

♪ >> good afternoon, everybody. thanks for being here today. i had the distinct pleasure of introducing an interesting panel of state and local elected officials. i think we are all aware that the vast majority of public services be delivered in this country at the state and local level. they educate our kids preparing for the 21st century. they protect our citizens with police and fire departments. they develop and maintain infrastructure. one of our big ideas is, that has a lot of bipartisan support, is infrastructure. these people, this is where the rubber literally meets the road. so in joe manchin's remarks, he made mention of the fact when he

was governor, financial condition was important. these leaders have to operate without the prodigious ostentatious printing press that legislators in this town have to print money, to find things. they have to live within budgets. they have to pay attention to bond ratings. they have to maintain pension funds, make them solvent and viable. and so that requires of them to collaborate. that requires them to collaborate with the business community and with the city councils, with legislators. so i think if we move forward with this infrastructure bill, our infrastructure initiative, we need to give a listen to these people. because they know how to do these things. son going to introduce, we have one sitting governor and one former governor, former

governorthis team todd whitman is going to moderate this panel. i've known christine for a long time. i of the pleasure of working with her, her husband, her late husband. and then had the pleasure of knowing mike rawlings, mayor of dallas, and just met mike korda, the mayor of oakland the city. we also joining us the mayor of arkansas, esa hutchins center. so without further ado i'm going to turn it over to christine. ♪ ♪ >> okay. first of all let me just say it's governor hutchison. it would surprise his data no there was one mayor the entire

-- and the other thing i would just like to note is in the introduction you didn't hear our orgy after any names. that's significant because as a governor or as a mayor, whether you're republican or democrat really doesn't matter all that much. you have to deliver programs that work for everyone other citizens. all of them, republicans, democrats, independents, what ever they are. and you do have to deliver those things. ..

nothing against the neighbors. particularly when we have a mayor who is the chairman of the conference of mayors, too. not just any mayor, anymore. go ahead. >> i think about no labels, first i believe in the convictions of the two parties, multiple parties, convictions important but whenever you look at trying to accomplish things and i'm deleted that president-elect has but infrastructure front and center on things to get done. this is a specific area we can set aside differences and say we agree and fine out ways to get this done. an essential need for our

country, we should not just think about highways. highways is the most significant. we think about the highway trust fund. you also have to look at water projects, we have a grand prairie project to alleviate the loss of water but bit an stymy in terms of the flow of money, an example of where we made an investment but don't have enough money to complete the project. that another wear -- area of projects. we're looking at investment for the private sector, the public sector, and the opportunities also for foreign direct investment whenever it's

appropriate. and i look at china, which is a subject of very controversy the days, but we obtained a $1 billion investment from china into a bioproducts mill in south arkansas. a huge investment that creates jobs, and so it is the foreign relationships as well as our federal government relationship, the private sector relationship, all of those taken together, allows us to succeed. we have one of the largest new steel facilities being built. almost completed in eastern arkansas. big river steel. that was an opportunity that we had our teachers retirement fund invest in. when you're a small state you have to rely upon a whole irene fa -- arena of investment opportunities for big infrastructure projects whether they're private sector driven or public projects as well.

so we did a highway improvement plan in arkansas that was bipartisan, that we just passed in special session of the legislature that creates $1 billion in new money for highways in arkansas, combines federal money and state money combined. so we're moving forward and there's incredible excitement among the states because we'll have an administration that health care, more flexibility had to be given to the states. whenever you're talking about infrastructure, it's a strong partnership to get the job done. so we're sitting on pins and needles to see how this develops. i want to end with one thing. served in congress in the 1990s and in 2000 i joined the george w. bush administration; when i was in congress we were able to set aside differences and accomplish some great things.

the last time we actually had a balanced budget in our nation. and we need to get back to that. but i think there's opportunities that now we can work together, from whatever political persuasion to get some things done, particularly infrastructure, but has to start out -- any bipartisanship starts out with a process. you build the framework for an initiative by working with the other party from the very beginning. if bipartisanship is not, this is our idea, can we get your support. that's not true bipartisanship. so i hope we can move in the area of infrastructure with a bipartisan outcome so we can do something great and take advantage of this opportunity. >> thank you, you are now the head of the conference on mayors and that's was fairly contentious election.

how does that -- how that that been reflected at the conference and what do you see from your fellow mayors as far as what they expect and need and want to see going forward here in washington? >> i think like most of the country there was a 24-48 hour period where people were just stunned at what happened. i was enthused that the mayor that contacted me were saying, it's over. majors know about elections. when it's over you try to hit the reset button and say, what do we do now? so we're trying to have a conversation with the president-elect and hear more about his ideas for infrastructure. the need is real. the nation's mayors know the streets and the bridges and the airports and the water systems are in dire need, and the water systems i think are really something that doesn't get enough attention. in large oohs coast cities,

largely there are billions of dollars of deferred maintenance underground, where politicians didn't really seal any political advantage to fixing it because no one would know if you fixed it or not. the deferred maintenance builds up and it's just going to be an issue we'll be handing off to the next generation and our grandchild if we don't into something about and it the nation's mayors would like to work with the administration on addressing that issue. one final word we'll be taking to the president-elect trump is that there has been talk amongst candidates and amongst actually the sit can president, about removing the tax exempt status from municipal bonds, and that would drastically cute into the dollars we're able to build in. five to ten percent of projects would no longer able to be constructed. so that's really important to us

the tax-free status remain. >> mayor rawlings, what do you see also the hope, as the concern, what do you want to feel that's getting accomplished -- that's no magic to the first 100 days. everybody has kind of picked that out of the time frame for some reason. it's a round number. but for getting these things done it takes a longer time. what are you looking for from the perspective of dallas and a city with a lot of challenges but has overcome of them and is growing at a rapid pace. >> well, i hope nobody screws it up for us. that's the first place. because we are on a run. we are creating more jobs than anybody else in the nation, and our revenues are going at a rapid rates and our property values. so, it's good. and i think hopefully the reason i believe -- one of the reasons

i believe is that we are very centrist city. a blue city in a red state. a very red state. and that makes us very practical. and i believe that -- i'm a democrat but i believe staying in the middle of the road does two things. first of all, i think it is really responsive to taxpayers. i think that's what taxpayers want. they want things to happen, and they don't care about ideology. they care about results. and so when you bring people together, things actually happen. they're happier. also, when you're in the middle of the road you can go faster. >> everybody gets out of your way. >> don't run off the road. and i think we can make a lot more progress. so i'm very enthusiastic about this movement because i believe it is the next wave of what is going to be happening in

america, and we can find common ground on infrastructure. infrastructure, not an do we need it, it's really what we were all elected to do, and that's build for the long-term. building for the long-term for america is a challenge, but it's that and education. that's going to take care of us. then lastly in infrastructure is the return we'll get on the investment. when we do this right, not 0 only are jobs created but property values go up. businesses move, businesses grow, and that is the way you drive it. so, it's not only just an investment because things are decrepit but it's making things happen. you're talking about water. so i join the u.s. council of mayors we have a few cities in the nation that have wood pipes. >> new york city. >> wood pipes. >> when lincoln was president.

>> you got to be kidding me. >> goes back a year or two. >> so i think we're on the right path. keep it simple. get in the middle of the road, make it happen, and i think we can make some progress. >> no question that i think the message is that right behind what no labels is all about. what i'd like to do, because i think it's much more informative and useful, is to open it up to questions from the audience. actually right now. we can brim this gap a little bit. there's a lot more we can talk aboutment i'm struck when we talk infrastructure. any need on the definition of infrastructure for internet improvement? >> no question. >> infrastructure is another area was we try to tease out a more focused potential agenda for congresses? >> that's a good example of where there's so many silos. you look at internet access which is critically important in rural areas of the country 0, and you have the department of

agriculture engaged in is, the fcc engaged in this, and we have to make sure that's highly coordinated. and then the private sector has to drive it as well. but we have a number of initiatives in arkansas, first getting 100% to our schools, and then -- which will have by the middle of next year, and then we want to make sure it gets to our communities. but this is a very significant and should be included in infrastructure, probably right at the top of the list. >> governor, one of the big issues we all agree in americaer is the gap between the haves and the have nots and in the information aim that gap has got to be closed. we don't have to bring down the haves. we have to bring up the have nots, and to really -- wouldn't be wonderful in the 21st 21st century to make that the -- to have protected trump to -- president trump to be the eisenhower of the digital world.

>> i agree. it -- it affects our schools, our libraries, affects people's everyday life. how many of us didn't bring our phone that that's attached to the internet. in the last ten years it has become so overly viable in our lives that it's going to be included as part of this. it's just a little bit different because it's largely private sector driven on the marketplace, but so are utilities and other projects. >> one last question and the privilege of the chair. we talked -- we have not talked here but it's been discussed a lot about taxes. are there particular taxes from your perspective as governor and as mayors the first ones you'd like to see addressed. >> in terms of federal policy, the idea of being able to reshore some of the money from major corporations that's been overseas, and utilize some of that returned investment for infrastructure.

that has merit. that's an example of tax reform that president obama talked about, but obviously pret trump looks at that as well. so that's one we ought to be able to get quick agreement on. let's do that. let's get that money being brought back, stimulate the economy and use a portion of it for infrastructure. >> i am in a weird place because texas' tax policies are pretty good. no personal income tax or commercial income tax. so, we are pretty simple in that way. i think we should make -- as a democrat i still think we should be simpler. i'll echo the point, we can talk about infrastructure. we take away that -- those tax-free bonds status, it's going to hurt infrastructure in a major way. so we have to watch out for unexpected consequences. >> i think we need tax reform to create jobs but the tax system

as it exists today, a little like the healthcare industry. if we were going to start from scratch, neither would like anything like this. and every time we try to address it we just kind of tweak it. and i don't think we make it simpler or better. and i don't envy anyone trying to take on either one of those challenges because the outside noise that comes in every time you try to address change in either entities is enormous. i don't believe we're going to move the economy at two, three, four percent without significant tax change. >> okay. questions from the floor. hard to see -- we have a question here. is there a mic? a mic over here? there. >> ken lipper. i'd like to know whether you would favor identifying single infrastructure projects in each of your states that would be

critical to the existence of your economy versus this kind of general expenditure across all the water mains and all of the internet infrastructure, or whatever. is there a single project that your state that is absolutely on the highest priority? whatever the cost. a dam, or whatever. for example, in new york state and new jersey, we have what the call -- the gateway tunnel. all the freight in the northeast and all amtrak trans to in the northeast and to the middle atlantic states would come to a halt in a few years with we don't spend $30 billion to rebuild it. so, with the help of the port authority and the states and now half of it from the federal government, that is now the highest priority project.

would you favor that kind of approach where you identify the 50 most critical projects as the priority, given that you have finite amount of money available, or do you feel we have to have a very broad, shot gun kind of approach politically to use this finite amount of money. thank you. >> go ahead, mayor. >> look, i don't think it should be shotgun. i think we've got to be very thoughtful how we approach it. i would go for the 50 -- the 50th largeet cities as eye posed to state, okay? because that's where people are living today, and so it's prioritize that. really think what should happen, though, is a commission should be set up and we should really run the numbers on all the infrastructure projects and understand the critical needs of

them and the return on the investment and make it very transparent for everybody so it's not ashe get as little piece of candy at christmas, because we won't make the biggest return on that investment. that's my thought. >> well, in 2009, the stimulus package came out and mayors collectively asked for a significant part of the dollars to be funneled straight to the cities to get the project done. at the end of the day the projects went the way most of them do and that to the states. when it was all said and done the nation's cities didn't get their share of the needs. the needs seemed to by applied to the rural area, regardless of which sector of the truck -- the infrastructure your talking. it you want to have the biggest impact the cities need a larger, specific share of the funding steam. we can use the cbdg formula to make sure some of the money goes

straight to the cities so mayors and city councils can direct today the most urgent needed. it's a problem if you're in washington to figure out the most important needs, and local governments are going to be able to do that more specifically. so there's a role for states and cities in this, but if we have the funding streams the same way we did in 2009, i fear it won't have the impact that people perceive it's going to have on the front end. >> governor. >> you have to be able to hit a broader range of infrastructure needs. we need to have a more consistent federal policy in terms of highway funding. that's one side. a coordination for expansion of broadband access across the country. we need to have the water projects. we need all of those, so you've got to be able to cover a broad range of infrastructure but it would be good to have a super

project list and you have special attention to needs neglected in our country. i'd be happy if we could list the top ones here in arkansas, and, yes, there is a specific list of priorities. it would be different in the cities? i think there's probably a lot more agreement, one of our projects would be a bridge across the arkansas river. i-49 bridge. that helps cities, helps the cities, buff it's a state priority project. so there's a lot of coalesce sense on what the projects would be. >> just adding to that, one of the important things in whatever happens is to allow as much decisionmaking to come down on the priorities to the states and at the cities. rather than have the federal government try to do it. think back to the days, a different area, the ability to come together to make things

work and then how the flexibility made a real difference in states and that was welfare reform ebb when we had bill clinton as president and gingrich was in control of the congress and i was part of the governors who who would immediate over that. took is the tries to get a bill the president was sign but there was sufficient flexibility that the states were able to meet the needs of their various -- so the key in any infrastructure is going to be, i believe, yes, you need to have that top list, so that people can have a level of confidence that there is going to be return on investment, even if it's not dollar return but people return and improvement in people's quality of lives, but you also need to let the states and the cities have a certain amount of flexibility to really direct it where they feel the need is -- >> governor, i think there's a role for competetive grant and

we say here's what we can do but this is what we need the federal government to do. so there's partnership. so we have some skin in the game and not just asking for a handout. we're will tolling participate in funding. >> question over here. >> i'm a big supporter -- i'm from new york. i'm a big supporter of infrastructure investment, but i'm also concerned that with our national debt at a level that is higher than at any time since world war ii, relative to the economy, how are we going to pay for this? and we often talk about, well, use a portion of that money that repatriated from overseas. the truth i we can use all of

that money that's repatriated from overseas and that will only address a fraction of the infrastructure we're talking being. so we need to think of other ways. there have been a number of suggestions of using the private enterprise to fund at least a part of the infrastructure needs we have. have you looked at some of these proposals and do you have any interest in them? >> absolutely. the projects i've mentioned, i believe we can do it with a public/private partnership. we create a revenue stream and then you utilize the private sector to accelerate the development of the project and that one of the really key deficiencies we have in our infrastructure now, there's too long of a time frame, costs good up, there's inefficiencies effid you don't get the benefit of

economic growth, so if you're going to bid to the federal government, saying we can put the project together, it should be timely and partnership with the private sector and those that can be shovel ready the quickest and have the greatest economic impact should be the ones that move forward. agree with your point about the federal debt, so we got to cop send trait on growing the -- concentrate on grow the economy. in arkansas we about down to 3 about 8% unemployment rate. and economic growth solves a host of problems and if we can use the infrastructure invest that spurs the economy on, that will reap big benefits in terms of the national debt as well. >> i went to a conference at the white house where mayors were introduced to sovereign wealth

funds, large pension funds, and i realized there were trillions of dollars, trillions, okay? sitting thon the sidelines, wanting to invest in the united states. and we can't figure out how to talk to them and put these deals together. and probably one of the most important things that secretary of treasury or commerce could help us figure out how to do that. what gets in the way is ideology because people run on this notion that we don't want to privatize something, and there's different models on both ends, but i agree with the governor that a -- we need to figure out how to get that money working here in the united states, and it doesn't have to come through washington. >> i agree. we'd love to have more public/private partnerships,

however, the issue generally isn't an access to capital. we have really good bond rating. we can borrow all the money we want but we have to pay it back. that's the problem. in my case a very conservative electorate that isn't fired up about taxes or what they perceive might be a tax, and so i think more creative solutions on how we're going to generate revenue from the construction. there are the ways that we can have tax credits address the jobs that are created by the construction of the infrastructure, could somehow that be regenerated back into the revenue stream? i think there's got to be some creative tools out there because seems like it's a win-win for everybody to invest mow money but as log as we rely on taxpayers to pay the entire freight, it's going to be hard to invest enough money to build our way out of it. >> one way in the book. i can't see, so i -- >> please.

>> go for it. >> john whitmore with pedestrians.org. hough is the way your cities and states changed the way it approaches transportation over the last ten or 20 years, and has federal policy helped you make those changes or do they need to do changes at the federal level to help you make the changes? >> i'll take it on first. it has changed. first of all, congress did away with earmarks and the consistent infusion of special project money has been diminished from the federal level and so you're seeing the states and local governments pick up greater part of the load. you couldn't wait on earmark money. was it going to happen. so if you're going to create that growth, create that infrastructure, the highways, you had to figure out a way to do it on your own. we have had a bond issue, lad a

cent state wide increase elm voters supported that because they see the benefit from it. there are two changes i would like to see. a new federal highway bill that has new funding sources so it's more robust, so there's a consistency in funding and then we have to look at the speed of projects. it is distressing to me it takes so long from approval to delivery and breaking ground on it, and i think a lot of that has to do with federal redistributions and federal policy and not providing the states enough flexibility. those two things to me should be addressed. >> i'm pleased with the republican governor. he stepped up in a major way in his campaign and shed we into be in the highway building business and we hadn't been, and so we got a statewide referendum

passed and now we're on the move again. i do believe, when we say transportation, for a city, especially, that we have to think outside the dots a little bit and not just big highways. we have to focus on mass transportation, have a project underway, high-speed rail between dallas and houston that it will be privately funds, and ways we can do that, and so i would hope that gets part of the dialogue a little bit more. so, i do think we're making progress at the state level. >> i also agree we're making progress, but on the transportation side, and figuring out ways to fund it, in oklahoma we have gotten a long ways just out of simple penny on the dollar sales tax, passed a series of initiatives we tell the voters how long the tax is going to raft and how much and

what we'll do with the money. they've have passed every one of these, and we have gone out and built projects like convention centers and parks, we built 75 schools. we built water projects, sports arenas, but the citizens seem to like the idea that the tax is going to go away unless they approve it to pay for something else, and they also like the idea we do a pay as you go philosophy so there's no debt. takes us a little longer to build the projects but with no debt, very conservative climate like oklahoma we can get the initiatives passed. >> we have time for only one more question and has to be -- the answers have to be brief. >> all right. >> you mentioned both water systems and the internet, which i agree completely with. my company does a lot of work

weapon system work, and it's something that's hardware, and i was just wondering mainly for the mayors, seems to me that the water systems that are also hooked up to the internet, are incredibly at risk for people being able to go in and hack those systems and then direct the equipment to do something you want want it to otherwise do. and all the companies awork with and that are highly classified, have enormous amounts of cyber attacks on them. i just was wondering you thoughts were about the safety of the systems now and what needed to be done in order to enhance that safety, because that's -- as we invest in both of those it's something we need to address. >> i think it's a vulnerability none of us want to talk too much about because we don't know. you don't know what cyber terrorism can look like, and you

talk about water supplies and other things. don't forget the autonomous vehicle is right around the corner and those are susceptible to reprogramming by someone with devious ideas. >> i just add something to that right after 9/11 one thing we did at epa is to get the targets hardened in the water system. we worked very closely with the water affiliates, the associations, and they took steps to harden. thes a targets and have been constantly upgrading and watching, but it's a game every time you put up a barrier the bad guys figure it out. far more concerning to me is chemical site security. the area we have not been able to get consensus and we don't need the chemical site security, and texas is an example. at this point we're out of time. have to keep us on schedule bit i want to thank a fabulous panel.

>> thank you. >> thank you. >> ladies and gentlemen, has this not been fabulous? give it up. give it up. >> so, we have had a great day so far. would you agree? would you agree? so we have heard from every level. we heard from elected officials, whether they be mayors, governors, we got the international tease with tony blair. we see how that guy got elected, right? pretty charming. what do you think about today? have some input for me and ryan? ryan is our chief strategist. i brought him out here so you could give it between the eyes. >> anybody have any caughts they want to share before we go -- our next step is going to the melon auditorium, leaving in extend or eight minutes. an important meeting health 40

or so member offered congress, an opportunity for us to cement a lot of what we talked about this weekend, which is the creation of this problem-solvers caucus. that can work together, vote together, and ultimately even be protected. does anybody have any questions about what we're about to do? no? the buss will be out front. it will be over there for an hour and a half. >> so let me give some instructions about the buses. we don't want you to go there just out. when you go out to main hallway you go right and that's an exit of the back of the hotel and go up the ramp. there's no assigned seats. you can get on any bus. when you get off aft mellon, make sure you take everything with you because you might be getting on a difference bus returning. make sense? okay. so don't leave just yet, but -- >> does anybody have any thoughts to share before we walk over? any kind of --

[inaudible question] >> -- has to do with the agenda at the mellon hall. do you plan to focus on infrastructure or are you going to get into the issues of trade and trade policy and some of the other topics which early this morning we touched on? >> going to be some policy but the lyon's share will be talking about what this problem solvers caucus can be, and where they're going to focus. you might imagine whatever comes up first on the docket next year, president-elect trump, may have a lot to say about that. the question is, with this emerging group, what's coming down the pike they can be constructive and piggy back on and offer some suggestions. one thing they made themselves want to take a stand on. this is an opportunity for all of you to speak directly to some

of the members to get a citizen about what it is really going to be. any other questions? >> all right. ready for us to head toward the buses. everybody have -- to the main hallway, take a right, go out the exit, up the ramp. please be sure to take all of your belongings. >> you all also -- sasha gave you permission to go to the bathroom. that is something you need -- >> that's a good thing. >> yes. [inaudible conversations] >> we'll have this and more of the no labels conference with lawmakers and the first 100 days of at the trump presidency and former prime minister tony blair's remarks available today in the video library at c-span.org. and we have more on the

presidential campaign live at 8:00 eastern on c-an3. a look back at the presidential debate. along with the co-chairs of the commission on presidential debates. also, journalists marvin calp. live at 8:00 eastern on c-span3. >> follow the transplantation signatures of government -- transition of government on c-span as president-elect donald trump selects his cabinet and the republicans and democrats prepare for the next congress. we'll take you to key events as they happen without interruption. watch lime on c-span and watch on demand on c-span.org or watch on the free c-span radio app. >> an gill fill more was the first first laid you to work out the home, teaches at a high school.

maimy pink was market ode as a color and stores sold clip-on bangs to kim. jacqueline kennedy was responsible for the creation of the white house historical association and nancy reagan saw her name mistaken ily on the black list of suspected communist sympathizers. she appeales to screen actors guild head reagan for help and later became his wife. this are in "first ladies." the book make as a great gift for the holidays. giving readers a look into the personal lives of every first lady in american history, stories of fascinating women and how they legacies resonate today. share the stores of america's first ladies for the holidays. first ladies in paper back, now available at your favorite book seller and also as an ebook.

>> georgetown university law proper paul ohm is law keeping up with technology? >> it's trying but it's hard to keep up with technology, so we have different areas of the law, constitutionat law, statutory law, but at the end of the day, the shifts, the changes, the different ways we communicated, the same things that befuddle the average american has begun to also confuse lawyers and the legal system and judges, and kind of disruptive and profound ways. >> host: is it because technology is changing so-so quickly or because law is -- >> guest: it's a little of both. law is an ancient tradition, an ancient set of disciplines but at the same time law has also managed to keep up with tectonic

shifts and all sorts of things in society, and technology is the latest challenge. and so there's always going to be kind of a give and take when it comes to rapidly changing things, and an old institution like the law, but it's trying, and i think it will all work out in end but the growing pains will be difficult. >> host: what's an example today that we're facing? >> guest: the fourth amendment. we think about the -- again, at this point, centuries-old guarantee in the constitution that unreasonable searches and seize sures shall not occur without a warrant. so the question is how does something like that apply to cell phones, apply to e-mail accounts, and again, it's a great measure of how fast things change that the law is just figuring out those two examples, cell phones and e-mail, and it may be figuring that out just

about the two are not as important in our daily lives, and so there's just this built-in delay that the law suffers from, and it's hard to keep up with the latest shifts. >> host: this week on the communicators we're talking by georgetown university professor paul ohm and also the faculty director for that university's center on privacy and technology, also joining our conversation is dustin volt of reuters, who covers cyber and surveillance. >> thank you for being here professor. how is this issue of knowledge of technology affecting government prosecutors, government lawyers, who have to deal with cyber criminals, have to use cybermeans to pure suv the criminal. is the thwarting criminal investigations. >> guest: i should get a little biographical. i am a computer scientist by training, and after i graduated from law school i became a criminal prosecutor at the justice department. so was in the commuter crime and

intellectual property section, and it's funny because now i'm such an old man that this was really a half generation ago where we were just beginning to deal with hackers and viruses, and also sorts of emerging challenges online, and at the time, and probably more so today, it was really a challenge to kind of figure out how to take these very old tools we had and adapt them to something as new as computer hacking. so it is a constant struggle of reeducation and trying to keep up. >> host: sos is part of the problem is lawyers who go to law school and then go into government aren't science and math mat tall in nature, they would go to engineering schoolings and not coming at this from a disadvantage and do we need to focus on retraining them more? is that the solution. >> guest: both halves of what yaw said are true. we could stand to have more

techies in law schools and in law and then policy, propagating throughout the system. really, the dream is the person who is genuinely and legitimately well-trained in both disciplines. but it's just a simple matter of numbers. we're not going to get there. and so one thing i've been thinking a lot about, this is my post prosecutor days -- what can i as a legal educator do to bring along people who start with very little and in the case of law school, nothing, to make them at least do no harm, but even better to be competent and successful navigating the intersection. >> host: so, georgetown you have a class sort of helps these law students, teaching then coding basics, talking about issues. can you talk more about that and is this something we should make mandatory in law school, torts or criminal procedure, forcing students to learn criminal cyberlaw. >> guest: certainly be good for

my long-term employment aspects. but have several coreses but i'll focus on one. i'd been teaching at the university of colorado before george town, and at georgetown i had this kind of crazy idea that i could take my programming knowledge and use it to kind of education lawyers, and again, with the heavy emphasis on the people who know very little, and turns out in law school there are lot of people who are new law school because they made life choices that have pushed them away from technology. so there's a lot of people. so the court we created is called computer programming for lawyers, and it's an intensive three hours a week, really, really deep dive into the nuts and bolts of computer programming, but seen through a legal lens. and it's just been a kind of painful but also fantastic experience, both thinking about what does it mean to teach a

lawyer technical skills like this, and at the same time, just understanding and appreciating the pent-up demand. so let me tell you a quick stackal story. we offered this course for the first time in mid-november of last year, and you have to understand new law school, mid-november, students are thinking thinking of nothing else but final examples exams and we saie to register by the start of the spring semester. by december 18th, i think it was, we had 120 students clamoring to get into the class. and it was a class we set aside 17 seats for. and so it was just beyond my wildest expectations. >> host: right. so, in your assessment, given the focus on training and education, is that enough to fill this gap? i mean, is this problem getting worse because technology is backing so more pervasive or you confident we might see some progress?

>> guest: i can make some pretty concrete predictions about where legal education will go and where lawyers will go it's harder to make predictions about where technology will go. so if we assume we're going to continue on this kind of radical growth rate where fundamental technologies seem to shift every five or six years, then i think we can keep up. i think that not only is it going to be useful and important to educate lawyers before they become lawyers, but i also think we are going to have some advantages generationally so i have 11-year-old twins. they know about as much programming as my law student does at the end of my course, and i think they're not an unusual story. i think a lot of kids like that will grow up to be law students and then lawyers as a real advantage. >> host: is its important from the aspect that lawyers need to know programming just as maybe a liability lawyer needs to know

how a car is built. >> guest: there is some of that. that's a great analogy, intending nearing matters a lot in some disciplines other. example is economic and statistics. and so a generation ago there weren't many lawyers who understood statistics much less used it in their daily lives. today if you're a tort line lawyer, an agency lawyer, you have to know how to not only kind of understand economic analysis but marshal the tools. >> host: what about the justice attend are department that dustin referred to earlier. >> guest: it's funny there have been effort ted federal government for a long time, i think there are in two different categories the first is similar that would i'm doing, let's teach everybody, and so even back in the dark ages when i was at the justice department are, we had a small unit, we all tended to be pretty technical

and had a lot of courses, a lot of training. the second thing you see a lot -- and particularly outside the justice department, is just the import-export model. so we invite a computer scientist to spend two years ago a government agency, and hopefully while they're there they'll built something and help hires' permanent staff, so to be more specific i worked at the federal trade commission for one year recently. and they have a program where i have a chief technologist, a small unit that grows every day, that really is made up of kind of hybrid lawyer technologists, and so both of those kind of teach a man to fish, and hire fishermen, guess, would be the metaphor. they both are happening and they're both, i think, vitally important but also both a little different to scale up. you're always going to have that issue. how can you continue to teach

incoming lawyers, established lawyers who have been around, how can you ever keep up with the sites of the work force. >> host: you mentioned also that you're almost to a point of do no harm. has there been harm done when it comes to technology and the law? >> guest: there are lots of stories that people have told about -- for example, at the government hacking. is very much in the news, something i have thought about in my research, so now you have government investigators and crime fighters for the first time kind of using tools of the trade that we used to associate with criminals. and they do this in large part because encryption makes it difficult to use conventional methods to do surveillance. so here's the challenge. the challenge is you have an fbi agent who is championing at the bit to use some very knew and

exotic vulnerability to complete and break into someone's phone. have no doubt that the fbi -- these are not lawyers they're engineers by training. their fbi is teaching that person what they need to know to do cheer job. what about the prosecutor with who has to go to the judge and explain what they're trying to do. so have recent examples where document are documents have come to light that suggest that the prosecutor on that particular case probably didn't go through the kind of training that i was talking bat few minutes ago, and either willfully or most likely entirely incidentally, misrepped what the technology did, confused the judge about what the technology did, and at the end of the day, that really is going to kind of have repercussions for civil rights and civil liberty us. >> host: and i private? >> guest: absolutely. if you send out something like thing, indistinguishable from a

virus and you send it to an anonymous person online, the odds are high that person is not going to be in your jurisdiction. so, the thing you send out from virginia may go to california, may go to alaska, may go to eastern europe, and there have been documented cases where the judge has signed the warranted knowing full well they don't have the authority to sign a warrant to search eastern europe because they weren't clear about the fact this thing pat's to slip the boundaries of their jurisdiction. so, yes, there's a kind after rules violation there we should worry about and also an underlying privacy story that we should worry about. make that's too much power for a particular prosecutor or judge, but without understanding the technology that's not even surfaces until later. >> host: does this knowledge gap or confusion among loft officials, prosecutors, judges -- are we seeing evidence of this having policy implications how we are applying this law or decisions being made

by thefish? i think of the san bernardino case, apple and the fbi and trying to get into an encrypted final. technical minded people say this effort by the the fbi is born out of a lack of understanding. >> guest: i want to be clear, and this will allow me to be somewhat controversial. at least out of the mainstream with apple and the fbi in particular. what i've been describing so far in this conversation has been the main. the masses of prosecutors and how difficult it is to teach them the technology they need. there are elite pockets within the federal government where this isn't a problem at all, where they hire technical people, give them the resources they need, and they train them up to be quite sophisticated, and sure i'm biased but i think the unit i was at the justice department fits win that

category. so what does that ha of the do with the apple and the fbi? apple and the fbi to me, at least -- and renal minds can differ -- probably reflected the failure of many different things but i'm not sure it was a story of lack of technical sophistication. if you look at what the fbi asked apple to do, it actually was a pretty sophisticated ask. if you look at the with a they responded to objections from the encryption community, sure, they disagreed with that community, but i don't think it's accurate to say they fundamentally misunderstood what the crip tolling years were telling them. it's a devilish problem and one on which reasonable minds can differ. >> was the law keir? >> guest: one of the big problems was the law was old. so you have a very old, very

broad law that the justice department -- again, quite aggressively, was trying to use in a very new set of circumstances. and so that is the reason why i think a judge reasonably could have said, you're asking for too much. but what i'm trying to push back on is the critique that the fbi doesn't understand. they had no idea what was going on. i think -- i think we all regret that we didn't get to see this play out in the courts. it would have been fascinating to see what the judge did. but i think at the end of the day the judge had the technical consultation it needed and it really was left with a very difficult legal question, at the end of the day. >> host: have any of these cases played out to the supreme court? >> guest: sure. numerous cases where the court has kind of had to really delve into technical specificity and i'm not talking about patent law. i'm not an expert where they

have to do it routinely but if we can confine ourselves to surveillance and privacy and speech, i can think back in my own lifetime as a lawyer, to 2001, in a landmark case called aclu very reno, about attempts to restrict what children could get on this new thing called the world wide web, are relatively new. in that opinion i remember as a younge lawyer i thought it was so funny that the supreme court in binding precedent, said these web sites and everything was in quotes, of course -- -- have these things called hyper links and hyper links tend to be blue, and i remember thinking, that is a great example of knowing enough to hurt you. to be dangerous. because i guess it was probably technically accurate but completely superfluous, then connelling to 14 you heal a case called riley v. california which asks the question when the

police arrest you on the side of the road are they allowed to open up your fine the say way they'll can go out there are through your pockets and you have chief justice roberts writing a very sophisticatedded technically savvy opinion that i think most of the technology is exactly right, so i look at how far that instance constitution -- talk about slow-moving institutions, has come in 13 years so even the supreme court has it win them to keep up with the times. just mike take 14 years. >> host: what about the congress. >> guest: congress is hilt or miss. some members of congress are really sophisticated. some less so. one thing that i have really noticed is -- and this is so commandplace, to be obvious, a lot of it depends on, is the member of congress committed to hiring the right staff, and the zero sum world of staff are the willing to allocate a person or

half a person to one who really understands the technology, and i'm sure i haven't met all of the hill staffers who are serious technologists but i bet i've met most of them and there aren't enough there should be more. don't think our elected representatives need to be techies but they should hire them. >> host: how much was this problem finding enough talent in the justice or in congress, enough technologists, is that from the salary gap problem that people can work in silicon valley and make hundreds of thousands of dollars instead of giving a few years to government service. >> guest: i think almost anyone in the workplace has faced a del him half. you want a web site and you have to pay that person the same salary you pay the manager. it is and the government faces the challenge even more so again the restrictions on budget and

salary. i think the ant dote that is to appeal to the idealism of a lot of of techies. we have been talking most live about how nontechies can tech. the reverse question is how can we get techies interested in law and policy. i've had more deep conversations about law with computer scientists than i have had deep conversations about computer sciences with lawyer. computer scientist love the law and love policy anding the they're better at it than they are. i wonder if it's something we can use to appeal too are to people and do their duty and help the government out. >> host: on that note president obama has been called by the first cyber president. set up the digital service, other things to reach out to silicon el valley to forge the partnerships. we now have a president-elect, donald trump, who has had a

little bit more of an adversarial relationship with silicon valley, talk baghdad closing off the -- talking about closing off the internet. is this a problem. >> guest: from my vantage point, i have not talked to a lot of people in the new administration. from my vantage point it's most his disinterest. not outright hostility. if someone has the secret his of priorities for the in energies, my guess is technology won't be on the first few pages. ...

because they don't know. and so it's a waiting game really. you can predict something, i don't think you get our technology. the other thing is you are right, we are i think at the pinnacle with the obama administration on the narrow question of kind of deep integration with technology and technologists. so no matter what been president i think we would've had to drop off. i'm wondering if it's going to be a serious cliff. >> any advice for president-elect trump added his administration coming in? >> guest: i think institutions matter a lot. i think that continuing to keep some of the positions even if you populate it with people who are more like my two year politics is a great idea. so obama as not only a cio or cto, a chief data scientist, ostp, office of science and technology policy in the white house is more robust and vibrant

i think particularly on digital issues than ever. it would be great if the new administration said i'm going to keep those structures in place and i'm going to find people who can populate them. this thing goes for the agency. a lot of agencies are at their peak in terms of sophistication. >> host: are faster, this disconnect between technology and law, has it affected the federal trade commission and the federal communications commission? >> guest: yes, ma although those agencies in particular understand i think deep within their deny the have to get good at this. and i have some experience with the agencies. i think they really have made strides, probably not as quickly as i would like but they both have made strides in recent years. both of them now have established chief technologists, and going back years and years, those two offices have