servants than usdr. they are incredibly dedicated, incredibly hard working, and incredibly dedicated to their mission of both negotiating strong trade agreements and making sure they are fully enforced. i have every confidence as they have with every previous transition, and i was reminded when we came in in 2008 that -- 2009 that they had a number -- we raised a number of concerns about previous trade policies and renegotiating agreements and the like -- that we will work well with the new administration as well. they are very professional and i have every confidence they will be able to work with new administration to execute on their priorities. >> we talked about how much you travel on the job. after january 20th, you'll have a lot of time. do you have any travel plans? what will you be doing next? >> i'm going to be finding a hammock on a beach and sleep for some undetermined period of time. that's the only plans that i've made so far. >> but you seem, i don't know, i

sort of observed you have an interest in wildlife conservation. do you think you might be doing something in that area? >> i don't know. it's a great -- it's a very interesting area, something i've learned about in this job and my previous job at the white house working on development issues. the link between developments, trade, national security and wildlife is really very significant. so it's one of the areas we focused on tpp and getting tpp countries to agree to combat illegal wildlife trafficking. it's something i spent time in africa and rwanda and elsewhere, and it's something i imagine i will stay very much focused on going forward as well. >> we're about out of time. i did want to get your thoughts on this one question. there's sort of this confusing situation right now where public opinion polls show democrats support trade more than you would expect. republicans support it less than uwould expect.

but the parties vote in the opposite way in congress. i don't know. how do you see that shaking out over the next couple of years? >> well, look, i've seen those polls. i think it is interesting that young democrats, african-americans, hispanics, asians are all more pro trade than average. there's a certain group of republicans not as pro trade as average. i think we'll have to do more. by we, i mean the collective we, government, business, agriculture, to continue to educate people about what's really at stake. we take for granted when we pick up our phones and we download an app, or we take it for granted that the ecosystem that allows it to happen is one that's going to always exist. we know that other countries are quite eager to set up walls around the internet, create

national clouds, to tax digital products. we take for granted the amounts of farm income that comes from exports. when that disappears as other countries even to our market share, we're going to find those same people in rural america who have been concerned are going to find themselves facing more challenges, not fewer. that's why it's so important to get the story out and to get the facts out. i would hope going forward we could have a more fact-based discussion about the benefits of trade but also what we need to do as a society to deal with those impacted by change wherever it comes from. >> okay. thank you, ambassador. thank you on behalf of politico and everyone here today for spending time with us. i'd like to thank fedex for sponsoring today's event and luiza savage and all those on >> just a couple minutes left in this program. we'll leave it at this point as the republican study committee

chair congressman bick flores and chairman elect mark walker will be talking about the future of the conservative movement in the new congress. the group was formed in 1973. thy select a new chair for each congress. this is just getting started. >> we also have a larger audience who are watching us here, not live, but semilive, over the internet, and a lot of people are joining us by live stream today, and we're going to be opening up for q&a. i want to start with a tiny bit of house keeping which is if you're watching us on a live stream and you want to join in on the conversation, there way you do that on your browser is to go to sli.do and enter the code event, aei event. sli.do, and the event, aei event is the code. i want to welcome our viewers on c-span. thank you for joining us. well, i have been looking forward to this event because

this is something we have done at aei a bunch of times and a relationship we cherish. the republican study committee has been a force of intellectual ideas, a moral force in the u.s. house of representatives for a long time. and certainly since i have been in washington, d.c., it's done incredibly impressive work. they have 170 members. it's the majority of the majority in the house, and it impacts major policy. it has in the last few congresses and it really promises to do even more in the coming years given the political whirlwinds we have seen in washington, d.c. they have had a productive and very special relationship. this is the third time we have hosted this conversation between the outgoing and incoming chairman. let me introduce the outgoing and incoming chairman briefly before we turn to the meat of the event. the current chairman is representative bill flores, who represents the 17th district of texas. he's on my far left here. if not idealogically, at least

geographically. >> let's leave it geographically. >> my guess is we're pretty -- exactly. congressman flores was elected to congress in 2010 in the epic year of 2010, which is really the beginning of major changes in party politics in, around the country, and was elected as chairman in 2014. before that, he spent 30 years in the oil and gas business in texas. the incoming chairman for the next congress is representative mark walker from the sixth district of north carolina. mark and i have gotten to know each other from a series of communications seminars we have been doing on the hill, which is a lovely thing for me. he was elected to congress recently, in 2014, and has had a rocket-like assent, heading up the rnc in the beginning of his second term. before he was in politics, he worked as a pastor. before ministry, he worked in business and finance. he's done a lot for the

pocketbook and soul of a lot of americans and now in politics. two weeks ago, he was elected by his colleagues to chair the rnc. i want to congratulate you on that. we couldn't be happier. a few things we want to do in today's conversation. i want to start off by asking a few questions of outgoing chair flores and then a few questions for the incoming chairman, and then we'll open it up to discussion with the rest of you, and finally, we'll take some live and virtual questions and discussion and finish up by 4:00. so let's start with you. representative flores, you have been the chairman for the last two years. of president obama's presidency. we didn't know where the country was going. we all got a little surprise in the last election, it's fair to say. one of the few elections one of the key lessons, some of the key

takeaways in politics, i'm not a washington guy. i'm from the real washington, seattle washington, but int lived here most of my career. the remarkable thing i find is so many politicians, they interpret victories as permanent and defeats as permanent. this election tells us that those who saw the permanent realignment of american politics in 2008 as permanently to the left are wrong. we're wrong, and those who see this as a permanent victory for the republican party are probably wrong too. we should never treat any political victories or defeats as permanent. let's talk about what you have seen over the last few years. what's your assessment looking back over the last two years of what you have done and how you're thinking about it? how do you sum it up? >> let me say this. i think if you look at the macro environment we started with, we started the 114th congress with some head winds in front of us. first of all, if you remember, the president's first state of

the union after he got re-elected was he was going to bypass congress. he said the statement, i have a pen and a phone. so that set the theme for the last four years of his presidency. and he followed through with that threat. so he largely viewed the constitution as irrelevant, and congress as an inconvenience. that's the way he behaved in the last four years. we had to deal with that. that ultimately worked to our business because the american people rejected that style of leadership. with that said, that's the environment we were living with, with the rnc. we did have a majority in the house, a majority in the senate. the senate majority you couldn't tell if we were in the majority of not because it was hard to tell who was controlling the agenda over there. so the rsc had to maintain a clear, thoughtful, conservative course moving forward, and i think we did a pretty good job of that in the 114th congress. we set two of the most aspirational, transformational

rsc budgets we ever passed and created a framework of task forces to be able to provide the conservative substance for what became the speaker's a better way agenda. when speaker ryan became speaker, and he talked about setting a new path for the country, we decided, look, we're the conservative majority in the house. let's set that. let's take ownership of that. we created six task forces and dealt with national security, fiscal responsibility, economic empowerment, particularly those who serve as the permanent underclass, folks of poverty in this country, better ways to deal with that, with tax reform, health care reform, with restoring our limited constitutional form of government. and we took all those on. and we created a series of white papers for the speaker to use or for the house task forces to

use. and they ultimately formed 70%, 80% of what's in "a better way." if you take that one step further to the presidential race, donald trump's make america great again, it really has most of this embedded in it. he articulated it in a manner that is a lot different than i would do it, definitely different than mike pence did, but he was saying essentially the same things in terms of let's get america back on the right set of rails. i feel like the rsc played a part in the transformation of government that we've had over the last few weeks. now, history will determine whether that's the case or not. i do want to echo something you said. i just read a headline before i headed over here today, said the democratic party is dead. i think most of us in the room would like to say that's true, but if it's going to be dead, it's up to us to keep it that

way. if we as conservatives lose our bearings, if we go the wrong direction, and we have seen that in the past. you saw republicans stray away in the '70s. you saw republicans stray away from their core principles during the bush 43 presidency. if we stray away, then that will provide the allowing the democratic party to come back. we have to stay thoughtful to the core values we espoused in the last election that gave us a unified government. i feel confident under mark's leadership we're going to do that. we set the framework and mark is exactly the right person to lead us forward. >> what would you say are the biggest head winds you faced over the past two years? >> well, the biggest head wind, first of all, we had, you had a senate that believed that -- how do i say this carefully? let's put it this way.

the -- >> it's okay. we're not on tv or anything. >> i have already had a couple senators call me about comments after the election. and some of them were house broken senators too. let me say this. the american people make decisions in elections, and they really don't care what our rules are up here. they don't care about this inside washington stuff. when they say drain the swamp, they mean drain the swamp. they don't care if there's a 60-vote threshold in the senate or not. they want to get things done. the biggest impediment we had over the last couple years, we had an out of control executive branch, and when you actually dig into the constitution, we have a limited set of remedies to deal with that. if you don't have a senate that's willing to go ahead and use the majority in an effective manner to help you out with that. so if you want to change the behavior of the executive branch, change the way you

allocate dollars. but that means you have to pass an appropriations bill, and the senate only passed one or two appropriations bills. if you want to change the direction of the executive branch, then you've got to work -- you've got to find a way to pass legislation that tells -- puts the president on notice that he's going to wrong direction. we had difficulty doing that. we were frenetic in the house. you saw how productive we were in the house, but we couldn't really get that all the way through the article i branch, and that was what was frustrating to many of us as conservatives in this country. >> i can imagine a situation in which that is not entirely ameliorating, the tension going forward, particularly when there's a president, and who knows what the tension is going to be between conservatives and the white house itself. going to be a big adventure. that leads me to my next

question, is what advice have you been getting that you can tell us here in public to mark? >> well, first of all, i don't think i need to give very much advice to mark because mark is just wired right already. i hate to use that terminology, but i haven't told him that, but he's going to get the big head on this either, but you know, mark at his core is fundamentally conservative and he's a great leader. i think he's got all the tools in place. i guess the advice i would give to mark is the advice i would give to any conservative. that is remember, if we're fighting each other, we're not fighting the enemies of the hard working americans in the country who are suffering. we always need, when you decide that my conservative bill is better than your conservative bill instead of working together to figure out how to make it a common conservative bill or a common conservative thing, then that energy you're spending on

doing that takes away from being able to achieve the objective. of getting a thoughtful, conservative solution across the finish line and on the president's desk and in the law so you can improve the lives of hard-working american families. that's the advice i give him. make sure we're very careful to not let our rsc conservatives fight among each other. make sure they have always got the north star out there to go out and try to touch all the time. >> factionization can be a problem, usually is a problem, and what can we do about that? i'm going to turn it over to mark walker here for a second. a couple things you don't know about mark that i just learned myself. he's a trumpet player, which i respect as a french horn player. it's important for all brass players, i believe. also, is this right that you have an elvis impression that is well known on the hill? >> i cannot confirm or deny this point. >> let's see if -- we'll try to

do this one next time when you're the outgoing chairman, i'll get you liquored up and see what we can do with that. what do you see right now? you have been around, a member of rsc and you know your way around the hill plenty well at this point. what are your top priorities for the republican study committee as the next chairman? >> it's interesting how those have grown exponentially in the last 30 days. as a body, we have moved from trying to work hard to throw legislation against the wall and hope that it sticks as opposed to say listen, we have a chance to push forward policy and really laws that impact many generations. a couple of those things that come to my mind is tax reform. how many decades have we been talking about tax reform? this administration has added another 8,000 pages of tax code regulations. we're closing in on 75,000 pages now. small businesses don't have a chance. to lay that out, we have ideas

and keep higher education, charitable giving, but also something that's part of the american dream, mortgage reduction. i think that's something that's a huge win that the american people have been clamoring for some time. obviously, without getting too much to a ucttalking point, the repeal of obamacare. i enjoyed talking about the budget reconciliation. this is an opportunity to sink our teeth into it quickly and early on. the reason why i think it's so important of what we do with the repeal, i know there's arguments on cloture. we have a standard here, a chance to really go after the heart of obamacare, even under reconciliation, a 51-majority threshold. those are something we need to partner, also hopefully partner with the whole conference to get done early on in the spring. >> terrific. it sounds like you're going to be pretty busy. do you think you can, in doing that, in fighting against

factionalization, you can grow the size of the rsc and bring in a lot of people, factionalization ordinarily occurs when the other side is in the white house and you might be able to bring people together on more of a common theme. do you think growing rsc is the way to do it? >> it's a byproduct of it. it's not my first instinctive goal. i feel like if we do our job, whether it's business, politics, ministry, you do your job, than it fluctuates by itself as opposed to artificially tried to recruit people in. that's our goal, to recruit people not by marketing. >> terrific. >> sorry to jump in on this. >> please. >> the rsc is not effective because of its size. it's effective because of the members that it has. and the ideas that they put forth, and how they're willing to advocate for those ideas. not only at home among their

constituents but here among their colleagues. here among the outside groups on the media and so forth. so the rsc, today it's at 178 members. i'm not sure if that's really the right size or not. i think maybe a smaller rsc would be possibly more effective. >> recommend price rationing here at aei. >> i guess what i'm trying to say is the size of rsc is not the important issue here. i think mark hit it on the head. if we develop the right policies, the right strategies, then we'll have the right people as members get the right thing done. >> terrific. now, rsc has traditionally been known as the conservative thinking coalition on the republican side of the house. but not very many americans -- a lot of people in this room are pretty sophisticated in the factions that exist in the house, factions not in a bad way but the fact there are different brands of the republican party

on the house side. do the score card for the viewers at home at this point. they hear about the republican study committee, republicans who are in leadership, and then the freedom caucus, just sort of talk us through the different brands of republicanism these days on the house side. >> sure. >> you want to start, mark? >> i would love to. we're focused on effective conservatism. now -- >> by we, rsc? >> rsc. there's no reason we can't attract leadership, there's also the house caucus, we have a bleed over from several of the groups even though we're the largest and historically conservative caucus. i have challenged however long we're privileged to serve here, can you look back and say, was it simply about winning the argument or was it about making a difference? are there measured marks of success where you have moved the

needle forward? i think that consists of three things. one, the right policy. two, the right approach, and three, the right voice. what i mean by the right voice. if you go back in business, in marketing some of you may have worked in that arena, a product can sometimes reach what they call a maturity stage. people are walking past it on the shelf at the grocery store. kelloggs corn flakes had that problem in the late 1980s. in 1990, they released this commercial, big new englander, eating a bowl of corn flakes. the tag line was this, taste them again for the first time. and when you talk about what you question as far as the different factions. conservatives as a whole, i think it's hearing us again for the first time. we have an opportunity, an incredible moment in history right now to allow our voices to be heard. i don't want to elaborate too long on this, but that's why i believe the approach is incredibly important. republicans and conservatives specifically many times are guilty of preaching to the

choir. that's our culture, if you want to use the metaphor or continuum of analogy, that's the amen place, the easy place. but the aspect or the goal should be how do we get that conservative message into new communities? into new places. and sometimes it's not always leading with a policy but leading by the relationship, to visit, to listen, to grow this relationship. in the sense, i'll give you an example. if you look at a new car or used car and go on the lot and are looking at the bells and whistles. if i'm the salesman and i look at the used car and say that's the nastiest piece of automotive i have seen in my life, there's automatically a defensive nature that comes up. we have to do better across the board as conservatives and that comes down to our messaging. that's what drove me to run for congress originally. we're going to stay consistent with that, and i believe the rsc provides an incredible place to exhibit that conservatism across

the board whether you're leadership, whether you're in the freedom caucus or in tuesday's groups as well. >> bill? >> i have to agree. mark calls it effective conservative. it's all the same thing. it's the right policy, the right approach. i like the way mark calls it the right voice, which is very similar to what you tried to train us to do because you talk about the conservative heart and how we don't do well in conservative messaging. so we have to do it -- we have to have the right way to message the policies that the american essentially voted for on november 8th. so we've got to help articulate that and have the policy underpinnings behind that. i believe the rsc has the ability to do that. again, the membership today has that cross section like you said, it's not a mini conference. if you look at the average conservative scores of the rsc, it's way more conservative than

conference as a whole, but we have enough diversity that we have good, thoughtful ideas coming out that drive the good, solid conservative solutions. >> what i find really exciting from what you're telling me is there's going to continue to be a push, where know it's very important to you, bill, but the market, you're going to try to drive a conservative message ou outside of the traditional conservative constituency. it looks like a good year for republicans, but it was a 50/50 election. it was not the wave where you say there's things going necessarily in republicanrepublicans' -- it's pretty good at the state and local level, but it doesn't look like permanent victory or a huge wave that republicans are going to have to, if they're going to be successful, take a message into nontraditional communities for sure. you mentioned priorities, stuff the house can drive into the senate and get done on reconciliation. talking about tax and repeal of

parts of obamacare and maybe dodd/frank, et cetera. but what are the nontraditional things you're thinking about to help represent the conservative republicans to show basically conservative heads, liberal heart, what do you do about that? >> happy to take this one. >> i would love that. >> just yesterday, we were able to bring in, my staff and i, a couple other members, bring in the top evangelicals from across the country. and not just baptists like me, but across the board, nondenominational guys, people in different parts of the country to talk about two things, immigration and race relations. because i believe the church has an opportunity, not to write the policy, but to partner on getting this message to fresh communities. i was privileged this past time to be able to have two major endorsements in my area, two wonderful lifelong democrats from the african-american

community. one lady, mayor johnson, she's never had a republican yard sign in her yard before, but it's the intention to build that foundational relationship because if you're willing to invest in that time, it allows you to speak on the topics you would call the nontraditional topics, and i believe those two, not just the fact that it builds a republican party, but there's fertile soil right now. we have the data on our side in the last eight years have not benefits any community in north carolina, home ownership is down eight straight years in a row among the minority community. we have the data. but, mr. brooks, the conduit of how we share that message is crucial. if we come in with a strong armor, if we come in, attack, attack, any aspect, if you start from an adversarial position, you limit your gain immediately. i feel like if we're willing to work across the conference, across the rsc, to talk about these nontraditional items, we have an incredible opportunity to impact our culture.

>> and mark is exactly right. our messaging has to go outside. we can't just be on fox news all the time. we have to go talk to msnbc and make the case about why american families that are struggling today are better off under an environment that has the most competitive tax system, how they're better off if we look a new way to approach poverty because the old way didn't work. look at a way to look at how the obamacare failed and we have new fresh ideas. to deal with those issues. and talk about why constitutionally limited government is better for the american people, because that means the government is taking less of the liberties away from the american people and giving it back to them, and that the government works for them, not against them. those are the things that resonate across any community. you know, we've got to reach into the communities and we've got to use whatever tool set we can find to get into those communities. it may be msnbc. there my be guys there who are

hostile folks to interview with. but we've got to do that. we have to get outside of our comfort zone as conservatives to carry this thoughtful message out to the american people. >> nothing is more effective ultimately for the conservative message, for any message, than to -- if politics is the business of persuasion, isn't politics locking down the base and locking down the true believers? which is a good way to win in a temporary way, a bad way to win in the coming decades. one of the great ways to do it that we have seen is talk to people who are hostile. why? because those who are watching are persuadable. they say, man, i just saw mark walker on msnbc, and no horns, man. that's crazy. and who knows who could persuade -- >> and the elvis impersonation. >> the elvis impersonation was unbelievable. >> i think you guys have addressed this on the first page of your website. if i can remember the way you phrased it, we encourage civil

disagreement. that right there says it all because what you're doing is you're going into environments because you're not just taking your message to people who agree with you. when you can think from that perspective or that context, it gives you an opportunity to widen the base. >> republican study committee, going where they're not invited and saying things people don't expect. i like it a lot. let's talk about another faction, at least another movement in conservatism, republicanism today. it's hard to -- it's hard to miss the populism that's happened in the republican party of late. nobody knows how long that's going to persist, but certainly that's what the wave that carried president-elect trump toward the white house. what is -- i think we all understand what the phenomenon is, but it has some policy wrinkles to it that are interesting from an rsc standpoint. they have been very stalwart about the concept of free trade. rsc has been mixed with respect to immigration, but certainly

not restrictionest in the most traditional sense. how do we iron out those wrinks and how do you see it? why don't we start with you, bill. you were running rsc as we went through this election. how did you talk about it? then mark, how are you going to take it up? >> let me say this. if you listen to what donald trump said about trade, he started out with something to sort of get everybody's attention. that is that nafta has hurt the american people, and tpp would hurt the american people. but then, as he went along, that was sort of the hook to get people in to listen. then, as he went along, he sort of took it to the next step, that is he said i'm going to negotiate great trade deals. essentially what he's saying, we need free trade, but fair trade deals. and so all we have to do is make sure that he's going to scrap tpp. i'm fine with that. when the next trade agreement is

negotiated, it has to be a trade deal that makes sure we're taking care of america first. you can take care of america first in a way that where the other side of the bargaining table doesn't lose. you can do this where america is first but everybody else wins as part of the process. so i think the president is smart enough to do that, we as the rsc know how to do that. when it comes to immigration, i have a very conservative district in texas. but you know what they want? they say it's fine to have a path to citizenship for dreamers. 90% of my district is fine with dreamers. and that's a conservative district. we're home to as many hispanics in the country. the second thing they say is they're fine with a path to legal status for folks who broke the law and came here illegally. but the thing they want to start this discussion is they want to see the border secured before you do any of that. so i think we go back to what

president trump said, build a wall. you know, i look at it, whether it's a physical wall or more of a virtual systems type wall. but you make sure the american people feel comfortable that they're safe from people coming across the border. and then we can have the discussion about what do you do with the folks here, the dreamers, the folks who committed the crimes when they came across. and if we can take a conservative district like mine and find a way that sounds like a liberal policy but it's not, it's a compassionate conservative policy, i think there are ways to have a good, robust discussion about this and do the right thing. >> and the other thing, the outcome of this, the offshoot is we have people committed to the conservative movement of the republican party forever because you sat down with them and engaged them in a way where you didn't make them your enemy. too off, i think we as

conservatives in sort of the populism, we turn off groups. and we don't have to do that. >> i have one of the, if not the finest, legislative directors, who is here today, but there are times i disappointment him when he gets into these 30-minute policy rants, and when i have to say, i don't think the people care. what i mean by that, even though it's very valuable to have the depth and comprehensive policy, i liken this. i am married to a family nurse practitioner who flies on a helicopter and doeseal work. if i'm in that situation where i'm needing that attention, i don't really want to care or hear about the hippocratic oath or how many ccs i need to make my pain go away. can feel like there's a crisis and i need help. that's where the american people are. when we get in this policy elitism talk, we just need to make sure that our message is

very strong. when i first began to think about running for office as still a minister, i remember attending the republican national convention in tampa in 2012. i wasn't a delegate. found ticket and lodging and went down and was looking all around. and one of the things i noticed was this great lip service, and genuine intentionality about reaching all communities and different youth and generations of minorities. as soon as we finished, now put your hands together for the oak ridge boys. what gathered was what we were doing versus what we were saying was the contrast. i feel like, to answer the question as far as where we need to go at this point, we need to make sure as we talk to the american people that we're able to do it, not in these condescending terms of political greek and latin, but to be able to say listen, this is where you're hurting. we're at point a. we neelt to get to point b.

he's the two or three steps we need to get there. if we're able to do that and communicate in a way, we'll have buy-in maybe we haven't seen in generations. >> i find it real interesting, bill, your nuanced approach to the immigration question in particular is really important. and in point of fact, the house of representatives has traditionally been the think tank of the republican party. which is a great role. policy experimentation happens there. it's not where policy goes to die. which you didn't say that about the senate. i guess i just insinuated that about the senate. things can happen in that place. and i love the spirit of policy experimentation, but you're also talking about a approach that is pretty nontraditional. it doesn't fit on a bumper sticker about a wall. it doesn't treat all immigrants, even illegal immigrants, as equal to one another. i love that. i think that's really important.

and in point of fact, it does represent the views, the relatively nuanced views of your constituents. that leads me to my next question. as the experimenting body for the republican party, what's your view on the ability to continue to do that? and why i bring that up is because there's been a reg complaint about the separation of powers of late, the extent to which congress should continue to be congress and your nuanced ideas should take precedence where the constitution designates that. how is the approach going to change? when the republicans control the house of representatives and the senate, it was kind of easy to talk about the problem of the imperial presidency when president obama was using the pen and phone and issuing a bunch of executive orders. what happens when it's the president in your own party? >> well, i think we all agree that some of president trump's proposed policies are not gng

to line up very well with conservatives -- our conservative policies. with respect to that, what i would like to do is -- i mean, if i had absolute control over the agenda in the house, and i don't, don't get me wrong, and i'm not trying to claim that, but what i would do is try to say what are those areas where we have good alignment with where trump wants to go and we want to go and tell him we'll take the lead on this and give you the legislative, constitutional support to go for it and he's not inclined to try to use a pen, to follow the obama motto. early on, during the election process, he said i will do executive orders to do this, this, and this. you saw over time he began to ameliorate those views and soften them because i think his advisers are saying you have to pay attention to what article i says versus what article ii says. i think that the way to sort of

re-enforce that, to make him feel comfortable with that, is let's do the things where we agree. let's do tax reform. let's repeal obamacare. let's replace obamacare. let's start dealing with border security. let's rebuild our national security. and then on those areas where his agenda is not exactly aligned with ours, i mean, we can easily take six month to do those things where we agree, and that gives us the next six months to figure out where is the commonality between what he wants to do with respect to infrastructure and where we think would be the way to go with respect to infrastructure, as one example. let's worknhe things where we know we're together. sort of the ronald reagan, pick the 80% solution and move forward it and it figure out how to deal with, so the american people know they're getting something with the vote they made last november, last month now. and then we'll figure out the rest in the next six months. >> on the 80% concept of saint

ronald reagan, when he talked about that, it was interesting. he was actually not talking about just the 80% that republicans agree on. he was talking about the 80% that republicans and democrats agree on. so mark, what's your view on the most likely ways where you can make some new friends on the other side of the aisle? >> i'm glad you got that question. >> i'm a relational person. >> i can tell you are. >> but it has to be genuine. one of the things that we were able to do early on, and from what we understand was the first time we have done this in congress, is we launched a bipartisan hbcu internship program and reached out to dr. alma adams in education and big in the hbcu world, and we have a lot of their presidents coming in in february of next year. the way to do that, you have to take the lead. and not in a way where you're attacking or trying to show up

the opposition, but say, hey, listen, this i an area. not just the lip service aspect of it, but literally intentional action steps you can make. that was one of them. it is an environment where whether it's the outside groups or other entities, press, you want to name it, we're in this boxing ring. and we're having to dodge and bob and weave and move our feet at the same time. so it's very difficult. the real place where that can develop most is at the local level. as this thing grows up, it actually augments or spreads out more and makes it more challenging. it doesn't delineate our responsibility to make every effort we can, whether you grab a dinner or whether you're going out and playing sports together or whatever it might be, that's an opportunity. if you always use it, it does rub down the harsh rhetoric sometimes we see in washington, d.c. >> one of the key things that

has caused bitterness between republicans and democrats is obamacare. no piece of legislation has been more divisive than that. in 2008 when president obama won and promised to do that, and 2009, when he rammed obamacare through on a strict party line vote, i was brand-new at aei and a little naive, i have to say, about politics. i remember thinking to myself, they should see if they can find some not completely inplacable enemies on the other side. and they didn't. they said this is the way it's going to be. i won, you lost. boom, strict party line vote. shoe is on the other foot now. i have heard from my friends who are responsible for the obamacare legislation, and it's very bitter. they can't believe that their life work is about to be repealed and replaced by something, at least in part. is there a lesson that we conservatives can learn from that? is there a way we can at least attenuate some of the hostility

from the other side, and maybe not make allies in it, but make less implacable foes. learn how to not win the way democrats did? >> you want to go first? >> i'll let you go first. >> i immediately think my dad and mom were born and raised in alabama. huge crimson tide bear bryant fans. only seen my dad cry twice. one was when coach bryant passed. we grew up big crimson tide football fans, but he said this, and six national championships, he said lose with grace, win with humility. and when you ask that question, that's what i thought of. win with humility. we don't have to spike the football. because we have to ask ourselves, long term, what's our end goal? is it to accomplish, as you suggested, to build those bipartisanship relationships? there's a moment here, we're ahead. we're winning. we can go out and attack,

attack, attack, or we can say, you know what, let's revisit some of this. is that a pollyanna viewpoint, it is, but even it moves a few percentage points, that's a big win for us. >> well, the way i would look at it, let's go back to the core issue, what will the democrats try to do with obamacare? they were trying to increase access and improve affordability. it failed. absolutely failed. one of the reasons it failed is because they ignored all the ideas that our side of the aisle had. i will tell you some of my colleagues in congress are very bitter about the fact that they got totally shut out of the process. and so when we're looking at the replacement for obamacare, we need to think, what are the two things we need? we need to increase access and improve affordability. and you have a couple secondary issues you have to do with like what do you do with those with pre-existing conditions. if our goal is to achieve those

three objectives, then i think we ought to, it behooves us to reach across the aisle. there may be a good idea in there, there may not, but go ahead and include them in the process. as long as they're acting in good faith, i would say continue the discussions. if they don't act in good faith, if everything is designed to be a poison pill amendment, if that's the case, warn them, look, are you with us in trying to increase access and improve affordability? then let's sit down and do this. if you're not, if you're just there to make political points or poison pill amendments, then we're going to slam the door on you. but i would, even though they were not -- they didn't treat us this way, i would extend the olive branch and give them a chance. i'm not very optimistic they would do that, but give them an opportunity so at least, and do it on c-span, so the american people can see at least we gave them the chance to be part of the process, and they elected to not be part of the process. the political games, and

hopefully they'll understand that obamacare was probably the thing that cost them the majority in 2010. >> there's two possible wins here. one is most people would agree the patient should make the decision regarding health care. and two, i believe something that is very crucial is the amount of democrats that are hearing from small businesses of what the obamacare man dalts are doing to those businesses. that gives us a major opportunity. i want to add a third one, and scott ferguson and i were talking about this the other day, the executive director. one of the first guests of rsc, we may bring in bill clinton to speak about the ills of obamacare. maybe he can share -- >> he was great on the campaign trail. >> incredible. >> we're going to turn to the audience now. a few really good questions here coming in from my ipad. but we'll start actually here right in the back, and then we're going to go to the ipad. why don't you wait for the mike and then tell us your

affiliation and your name. >> hello. excuse me. hi, i'm madeleine. i'm fraught the center for american progress. my question is for representative walker. you mentioned that you met recently in response to the question about the nontraditional priorities of the republican study committee. i'm wondering what specific message should the church get out on the issue and how is that related to the priorities of the republican study committee? >> lovely question. one of the pastors were concerned they have a church of several thousand attendees on a sunday morning, and one of their church plants is in a hispanic community. he said we were talking the other day about putting people on the elder or deacon board. we realized we had 200 undocumented people and we were wrestling with the fact, should we allow them to serve in the deacon board. the problem with sometimes the republican talking points, every time we talk about this, secure the border, secure the border,

secure the border. we can't talk about that. we have to secure the border. yes, we have to secure the border first, but we cannot ignore the situation long term. what are our solutions? as opposed to saying we'll figure that out once we secure the border, maybe it's time for republicans to be proactive instead of reactionary, and i think to your specific, the heart of your question, that's where some of the evangelicals, as we saw even in the primary, the presidential primary, 16 of the first 24 states, evangelicals drove those primary votes. these are issues that are very important to us. and that's a place where i believe we can partner with the humanitarian, the compassionate side of the church to offer long-term solutions. >> i see my colleague robert out in the odd indianapolis heraudi runs our poverty practice, which is critically important to us here. something we invested in tremendously, and i know the two of you care about this, too, because i talked to the two of you about this particular issue. what can we see that's new among

conservative republicans in trying to ameliorate poverty? this is sadly a question that didn't come up very much during the campaign, yet american poverty has become extremely entrenched, particularly over the last eight years. if we're going to make progress on it over the next four years, the ideas are really going to have to come at least in part come from the house side. what kind of encouragement can you give us that we're going to see some big new thinking about helping our brothers and sisters who are still falling below the poverty line in this country? >> well, i think -- i think we're going to see some really bold transformational thinking on this. i mean, if you look at the better way agenda that we created in the house, that represents the thinking that we did. and a big, a big percentage of that -- of those policy solutions were developed by rsc

membership. we had a few members in particular that were passionate about this issue, and we went out and we talked to the communities that are stuck in poverty. we said, what is it? you don't like stuck in poverty. we said what is it? you don't like being here. what is it that you want or need? we looked at it from a totally different way, than the poverty programs today are designed. the poverty programs are measured based on the input. how many billions of dollars a year do you spend? how many people do you give food stamps to, housing assistance to? they never judged the outcome. instead of getting you equipped and ready to go to work. and sometimes you are disunsentivized to go to work. we turned it on its head and said we're going to help you get the training that you need. we're going to make sure you're

always better off to have a job and grab the rung on the economic ladder and not get stuckn poverty. of all the things that could change the country, you could eliminate a big chunk of the sort of permanent underclass if we can start looking at poverty a different way and view it as it is is designed to get people out of poverty, not to help them stay in poverty. that's the problem with the programs you have today. once you're in them, it's hard to the got out. for instance, if you're on welfare and you get married, your benefits are cut. so you destroy the family. and when you destroy the family, your chances of getting out of poverty are diminished even further. so we have to do things that protect the family and not destroy the family as part of the way we look at dealing with

this issue. >> i jump right in to general racial poverty and talk about the family. everything that we can do, reform, anything we can do to drive that family back together. you go back to the 1960s. across the board, our families were intact more than any of the time. now in places it is less than 20%. if a family is productive, they are overcoming poverty. we see that in the breakdown of the family. it is is cultural, spiritual, in my opinion. we need to drive the fathers, the men to be able to create a pathway for the family to be intact as much as we can. not to put incentives in our laws, as bill just talked about, to keep people separated, to especially hands people to not have the structured family. that's an area we have plenty of room. >> with even a hint of

hostility, which is is sort of remarkable from an american perspective who think they know what conservatives are, your pro safety net conservatives, but you want welfare with work and welfare with dignity. >> the safety net needs to be more of a trampoline. we catch you when you fall. we bounce you on your feet and help you get a job and raise a healthy family. the best social program to any family is a paycheck and a great job to support it. that's how you feed that family, house that family, educate the family, grow your local tax base, grow the middleclass. that's what we need to help bounce back to up on their feet. >> to go into various communities and talk about the fact that god has created you with specific skills, talents, and abilities that are unique to

your very person. and because of that, you have every right, every opportunity to flourish, to find a pathway. and to see that resonate for the first time is incredibly rewarding. those are the messages we need to talk about from a conservative thought process and not one of condemnation. >> up to the periphery, not of society but of our conference room. and the mike is coming to you now. >> congrats to adi on the new digs. >> thanks. >> very impressive. >> thanks. >> rather remarkable during the campaign, there was no discussion about the pro tkeupblgous al problem. what are you planning to do to drive much needed solutions in that area? >> do you want to go first? >> i'll go first. 1967-68 you have mandatory.

you have discretionary. the late 1960s we had about 26% or 27% mandatory and 73% or 74% discretionary spending. what is discretionary? it is what the government should be focused on. infrastructure, military defense et cetera. and what is mandatory? it is is two things, entitles and interest is on the national debt. since that time it is inverted. by 2023-24 it will have grown to 80% mandatory and 20% discretionary. it is a national security issue at some point. we have seen the cutbacks trying to take from the military defense and trying to put in other places. we will have to do hard decision making when it comes to the entitlement side. a few bills are passing around. we couldn't get it down in the past eight years. but those are things -- you're correct. it wasn't talked much about the

campaign. members of congress on the legislative side. we are doing a disservice to the generations behind us. >> and i would like to channel this. if you really want to the see how we have looked at this from an r is se perspective, go look at the budgets we have proposed the last six years that i have been in congress. since we have had a republican majority. if you look at the rsc budgets they have been much, much more conservative than the house budgets as a whole. and we haven't been timid about touching the so-called third rails. we have touched medicaid, medicare, social security. not with the view toward cutting them but with view of making them sustainable. and stopping the generational threat. they are being robbed by older

generations. our budgets, particularly the last two, which made social security solvent, medicare solvent, and medicaid solvent are the ways that we should do the that. we as conservatives in the house have not forgotten about that. we have actually put it in writing and we withstood the political fallout that comes from putting these aggressive decisions on the table. some worked their way into house budgets. i remember my first year on the budget committee touched medicaid and medicare. the rsc were balancing. so the second budget balanced in 10. and the house budget -- we as the rsc have continued to pus the conference to the right but in a way that doesn't blow up the programs. that's the first thing the other

side says. you're taking food from babies, throwing granny over the cliff. and we are proving what is happening today is we are taking the food away from babies from future generations is and granny will be thrown over the cliff when these programs fail anyway. we made them sustainable for current generations. we are aggressive in touching the third rail. >> it is an interesting point. it did not come up as a matter of republican politics during this campaign. is it fair to say to say this is an area where rsc will show resolute independence notwithstanding any other part of where the holding party goes? >> yes. mark will definitely have is to answer on this as well. we're going to show independence, particularly i think from the present. this is where there is daylight between the president-elect and us. because he wants to spend

trillions on infrastructure. he says we're not going to touch entitlements. and not touching entitlements damages his ability ultimately to be a successful president. because we're not going to be able to afford national defense, building the virtual wall, the physical wall, whatever it is he wants to do. so we're going to have to have a heart-to-heart with him. we have to sit down and have a rational conversation about this. and the thing about the president-elect, if you look at his behave the last three weeks i think he has shown he is willing to sit down and talk to people with diverse viewpoints on this. we will be very challenging. it won't be me. it will be mark. if mark wants me there, i will be there for him. >> do you want to add anything? >> even on leadership, there is excessive spending. that's where it sometimes gets a

little sticky. china owes a trillion dollars of national debt. now is the opportunity to do so. >> that's a good place to leave it. on a mark of independence, principle. we have talked really where the conservative part is with these gentlemen. i speak on behalf of of my colleagues. year always in your home here. great to share resources on ideas that really go beyond partisanship and the principle who we are. please join me in thanking our two guests mark and bill from the rsc. [ applause ].

president obama and first lady michelle obama will light the christmas tree during the annual ceremony. see live coverage at 5:00 p.m. eastern. december 7th marks the 75th anniversary of the japanese attack on pearl harbor.

this weekend on american history tv on c-span3, we're featuring programs remembering that day. sunday afternoon at 4:00 p.m. eastern on reel america, the u.s. army film directed by frank capra. >> when the factories of los angeles is and detroit were producing for japan's war machine, then the rest of the world would fall and the japs would have command. >> just after 5:00 on oral histories, survivors from the uss arizona where 1,177 crew were killed in 1941. recall what they witness odd that day. on 6th american on american artifacts. >> the missouri was commissioned in 1944 and saw action in the pacific. she's often remembered, though, for one event and that is the surrender on of japan at tokyo bay. >> we'll tour pearl harbor attack sites on the island of

oahu in valor of the pacific national monument. for our complete american history tv schedule, go to c-span.org. the sons of convicted spy ethel rosenberg were at the white house to ask the president to exonerate their mother. they were convicted in a cold war spying case that captivated the country. they cited unsealed court records that casts doubt on their mother's guilt. the brothers appeared at the white house in 1953 to ask president dwight eisenhower to spare their parents's lives. >> today, after over 40 years of research and struggle, we are sharing with president obama the fruits of that struggle.

and once again, asking for presidential action. this time we are not merely advocates for our family but for our country. it is never too late to learn from the mistakes in the past. >> we're giving the united states government the chance to acknowledge injustice done to our mother. this is a test to see if your government has the courage and commitment of true justice to acknowledge the terrible wrong it did to her and us. my brother, with the letter he presented to the white house at this spot in june 1953, gave president eisenhower the chance to pass that test. eisenhower failed it. but we hope president obama will demonstrate his compassion and decency and pass that test now.

we want to try to deliver something. i don't know if this is the place to do it or not. >> just bring it and drop it off. >> is there any place to do it? >> you can mail it to the white house. >> we've already done that. i wanted to make sure this actually got before some staff member's face. okay. we tried. thank you very much anyway. bye. there you go.

so they said that there is no way to physically drop it off. they said the only way to do it is to mail it i said we did mail it, but we would like to have a way of hand delivering it. we understand these are different times. in 1953 you could walk right up. there was a guard there. i had a tiny letter. the guy grabbed it. here it is is more formalized. there's more issues regarding safety concerns of the white house. so we're not surprised and we're not even upset. the important thing is that we symbolically did this to replicate what was done in 1953 and hopefully with very different results this time. and the packet has been sent by mail. we know that it was received. and now the question is how to get the petitions there. we'll worry about that in the near future. i guess we can take questions now. >> what would it mean to have to have this symbolically?

>> it is similar to the things that have been done in the past. for example, the recognition of the interment of the japanese americans. this is a time an innocent woman -- and the government knew. they knew she never had a code name. the chief witness changed his testimony for the grand jury. this is an acknowledgment that an injustice was done. that's important in and of itself. >> and how would you feel about it? well, this is our mother we were talking about. she was taken away from us when i was 3 and my brother was 7. she was killed when i was 6 and he was 10. there could be nothing -- since we can't bring her back to life, there could be nothing more satisfying to us than to have the government acknowledge that this shouldn't have happened, that this was a wrong.

so that's, on a personal level, it's very important. >> it's also a cautionary tale. we have gone through cycles in our history of hysteria, targeting, overpunishing, framing people. we're in danger of that happening again. recognizing in the past we have done things we shouldn't have done might be a cautionary tale. we certainly hope so. when i said earlier we were doing this for our country, not just our family, i meant it. i really did mean it. >> we're not asking for any compensation. we're asking essentially for a nullification of the guilty verdict against our mother. because the system of justice was perverted. and this is something that should resonate with president obama, who made a statement himself recently about there being times in our history when

we have taken actions against people who were considered threats. is and we've come to regret that. this is one of those actions. and this gives president obama to follow up his words with a concrete action. >> the most significant thing was the recent replace of the grand jury testimony of the chief prosecution. at the trial, david accused our mother of having typed up secret materials, participated in espionage meetings. the prosecution in summation, made a big point, she struck the keys blow over blow. the grand jury testimony was released two summers ago. he said he never spoke to our

mother about this at all. just that should indicate that the government knew she didn't have anything to do with this. >> that is why we started first with an op ed piece in the "new york times", then statements on "60 minutes", then with a petition campaign and have tkpwoe gathered tens of thousands of signatures. the reason we're doing it now is because obama leaves office next month. i want to make sure we don't replicate an error. we are not asking for a pardon. this is not something that goes to the justice department. ethel rosenberg was not guilty, therefore she doesn't need a pardon. what we are asking is a presidential statement that

null nullifies the guilty verdict and thus her incarceration was wrong. president-elect trump said was his mentor. the chances of trump doing anything that would cast -- that would put his mentor in a bad light strikes me as nil. and therefore this is the time to do it. if we don't get obama to do it, we are virtually certain trump will not. andhat's another reason for doing it now. >> let me reiterate about roll on of roy cohn. the chief prosecution witness said greenberg said it was roy cohn specifically who came to him and said your wife has just told us something new, ethel rosenberg typed stuff up. david admitted he had no memory of her having typed it up.

he said he doesn't the know if any typing occurred. he said he committed perjury to protect his wife. this is significant in a macabre way that he would end up being the mentor of the president-elect. >> we can say the ghost of ethel rosenberg is going to haunt the white house once donald trump takes office. >> (inaudible). >> no. we never had, because we didn't have that evidence. the grand jury testimony was sealed until the summer of 2015. and it was that grand jury testimony that got us to put together the op ed piece that ran in the "new york times". in fact, this result was sent initially to ms. valerie jarrett. we sent her a letter a couple of months ago -- >> in september. >> -- in is september as a place

hold tore get the process moving. my guess is they were kind of busy. it was a place holder. >> (inaudible). >> as far as i know -- >> we have had no -- we have had responses from the administration about, well, maybe send it to the justice department. that kind of thing. we have had no specific response. i know there was a story i heard on the news in which a reporter asked someone at the white house. and the response was we are considering these matters. >> it was very generic, these matters. >> the time for these things is usually january. so we are working to get to the point where there will be some statement made. our father was framed for

stealing the secret of the atom bomb. we wanted to a clean request. the evidence about our mother is so clear there is virtually no argument about it. the mayors talk about infrastructure at the local level. bloomberg government hosted this event. >> well, if i could have everybody's attention back again. thank you so much for showing up. it is great to see this many people show up for an infrastructure event at any time. but particularly at this time when we are ready to make lots of decisions we hope on this subject. i'm marcia hail of building america's future. we are happy to cosponsor this

with bloomberg government. they have been a great partner with us on many events. i'm going to ask a few questions, and then i would for the audience to get into this. if you would start thinking about what you might want to ask our panel of great people who know a lot about this subject. and we'll come to you in a little while. obviously this discussion needs to go forward in the context of the rather earth shaking election that we had last week. both candidates talked about improving infrastructure and the president-elect also has talked about it. so i think our challenge is to find a way to go forward and to find common ground. it is one of the subjects i think can provide some common ground.

i think what we need to do is figure out where our priorities are. what role technology will play. governor rendell the had to cancel this morning because he lost his voice almost completely. i think that is symbolic of something. i'm not quite sure what. when his voice comes back, he will continue to be very vocal on this subject because it is something that he has cared about ever since he was mayor of philadelphia oh, so many years ago. so we will have him back for another problem. with that, i'd like to the start -- first introduce our panel.

mayor from oklahoma city ands president of the u.s. conference of mayors, an organization near and dear to my heart. mayor of the district of columbia. most of us are your constituents or almost your constituents. we are very excited to hear what you have to say today. damon silvers, director of policy at the afl-cio. and medicine mortimer, executive director of the infrastructure at the u.s. chamber of commerce. as you can see, we have a i bipartisan split here today. we would like to have a conversation. this as we hope will be a big issue. so let me go to you first. as president of the u.s. conference of mayors, can you talk to us a little bit about what the conference priorities and what mayor priorities are going forward. what do you need.

what do you care most about. what's worked? >> first of all, our infrastructure needs are pretty broad. sit not only highways, but the streets that our citizens drive on every day. it is the water infrastructure that they rely on. it is the bridges that have some level of significant repair. rather than going to some of the predictable things you hear mayors say about infrom fracture, it might help you the problem that is out there. it goes through the heart of oklahoma city. we have three actually. i'm going to refer to interstate 40. it goes from california to north carolina. as it goes through oklahoma city, it was designed as an elevated highway for four and a half miles. incident was a bridge as it went through the downtown portion of our city. 1970s, traffic increases. 1980s, traffic increases. about 1990, the department of

transportation realizes that was a design flaw. needs to be brought to grade. so they try to figure out what to do about this situation o a major artery with a bridge that is not as stable as it needs to be. they come up with an idea of relocating it a few blocks to the south and then replacing that corridor where interstate 40 had been with an at-grade boulevard. so the city gains a street out of it. so in 1998 i was a city hall television reporter covering the city council meeting as the council determined the route for the new interstate 40 alignment. i cut the ribbon for that stretch that had been located years later. and the at-grade boulevard is already construction now. unless i run for a fifth term,

someone else will cut the ribbon for that. one other issue on the funding side, in 2007, we went to our citizens to pass a bond issue, which is in oklahoma how we pay for road reconstruction and improvements and build improvements and other civil needs. we estimated to the voters by 2014 we would be be holding a new bond issue. so this was expected to be seven years at length. soon after that state legislature passed a law that artificially suppressed property prices, taxation values. is and the long story short is we're going to be holding that bond issue election next some, three years after it was originally scheduled. so that is a quantifiable three years of deferred maintenance in a city that has been allowed to exist. our streets are suffering, our citizensre set about it.

they don't understand. they expect someone else. we have got to have technological improvements. we have to get more for less. we get more on some advancement. usually it is more for more. you can't say you are a politician but want to remove that tax-exempt stat to us inch out every dollar we can to put projects to work. >> thank you. >> as many of us are your constituents, can you talk to us what are the priorities of the district when it comes to

infrastructure, what you think your greatest gains and your greatest challenges are and what impact it will have. >> for us it's really simple. our most important infrastructure, initiative, project, funding, the priority, is metro. for our region for the district, for washington, d.c., we're about 670,000 people. we're going to grow to 100,000 people from the very near future. we have a system that needs tender love care. it needs serious consideration for safety and a funding source. it has a unique opportunity to be a partner in the change for metro.

we carry the -- the metro system carries the federal workforce from the suburbs in maryland, virginia, all over washington, d.c. to jobs all across this region. and so i think we have an opportunity to work with a new administration and a new congress on the federal government really being involved in paying its fair share of how we make the nations. really when you're washington, d.c., i don't even talk about the millions of people come to the nation's capital from around the country and around the world and making sure we have a world class metro system has to be i think a common ground that we can find with a new administration. >> so that's so important. the metro, when i first moved here, was such a spectacular way to get around town. and we just need to really bring that back. >> now, i didn't talk to you about specifically all the things in particular we in washington, d.c. are focused o.

frequently when people come to our city, they comment on how well things are doing, how many cranes they see in the air, how we are accommodating the people that are moving here. and we have been very focused on making sure that we are economical economically making sure we are investing in schools. making sure we invest in our communities so they have libraries and parks and they're safer. that continues to be our focus. but if i see a threat for the robustness of our economy, it is that our infrastructure can keep up with our growth. the signal i will tell the president and the new congress,

our chief financial officer just completed an analysis of our infrastructure needs. we know what we need the federal government to do. we know what we are doing with public/private partnerships. for the right deal. i know people are looking for big league deals. we will be ready to have those conversations in the district. >> that's great. and that hits a point that is so important to make. as a country we probably need a 10-year plan. we need a vision of exactly what the mayors talked about. what we need across the cup. not just in transportation but what we need in water, energy grid, and technology. we stop to think about it. if we allowed the mayors of this country to come up with a list regionally of what could happen, we might be able to then start to envision what it is and how

we would get there. so on that point, let me turn to the chamber and the afl. many of you may know they are prominent members on of an orgazation that we have all arted, what many of us have started, which is called infrastructure week. sit a coalition of the chamber, the afl, building america's future, manufacturers and asce, the value of water we don't agree on everything. but we agree we need to improve our infrastructure. the chamber and the afl have been a very important part. >> thanks, marcia. great opportunity to be here. great time i want to wheel back a little bit.

because damon and i are on separate parts of the stage. anyone who has seen our bosses together knows this is a long-time commitment of the business communities working with organized labor. we started a coalition back in 2000. and i think all panelists here, many of you in this audience and all over the country, this has been 15 years of effort to get to the point where we had two presidential candidates talking about the importance of infrastructure. it just didn't come out of the woodwork. we're not here because somebody is talking about it. this has been a sustained campaign for several years. once in a general racial opportunity to take advantage of that. so just to throw that out there, this is a note that we are excited about this opportunity. with president-elect trump to take some ideas they have thrown out in the campaign. and try to make that into a reality, we cannot let this opportunity go to waste.

so we are partnering with ava right of folks to educate, make them know. to allow out a couple of priorities. everyone asks the question, what is a big infrastructure bill. what we would like to see in a big infrastructure bill is increased investment and financing options. we know some in the trump campaign before the campaign talked a lot about investment. that is an important supplement. we need to make sure thattensy is met. we don't need to create a lot of new programs. looking private sector, a lot of talk about infrastructure bank. tifia has been helpful in the past. state and local governments can

go to an agency and look at ways for private participation for investment in a project. that is another core option. again, we need to continue to build upon -- a lot of people say we have to build up trust with government. and we believe that the federal government, that has been had. if you look at the las two federal legislation bills, the fast act, we started with 110 programs in surface transportation that were federal mandates. we have now cut that down to 12. we need more flexibility and options and provide a toolkit of options for governments to look at and say what is the best toolkit of options to find the projects in our community. so to provide that option and that choice. again, we have once in a lifetime opportunities to do it. we are very excited. what we heard from president-elect trump, we're going to be working very closely

with them. with many of you in this room to try to take a goal is and make it substantive. we don't want awe repeat of 2009, which at the time a lot of the infrastructure which was not nearly the amount needed, but the investments that went, went to a lot of short-term projects. they didn't systemically change. if we do an infrastructure package next year, it will change the system for the better. it is is not going to be a one time intphrubgz of money. this is a long-term sustainable investment and asset that's going to serve as the backbone of our economy. >> (inaudible). >> well, good question. i wouldn't argue that's the best thing. the bill increased funding for highways and transit by about

10%. that is only about half of what the american society of civil engineers said we need to invest to actually improve our infrastructure. we're doing a lot of band-aids. we're not systemically changing the system. a system started as a state-of-the-art tomorrow but it is not sexy all the time to put money into maintenance. when you don't maintain an asset and it deteriorates to such a point, the cost is so much more that if you maintained the asset during its lifetime. and i know it's a challenge because we have two lawmakers that made decision toss make investments that may not take place while they're in office. that's the leadership we need. dwight eisenhower wasn't in the office when the highway was. it is the right thing to do for the public. we are committed to support those lawmakers to make those types of long-term decisions.

>> talk too us about the goals of the afl in trying to get something done to take advantage of this opportunity. how do we finance this? how do we fund this? what's the scope of what we need and what you would like to see done? >> well, first, i think we really see in this panel an unusual convergence of opinion from people on different sides of partisan divides, business community. a lot of what i would want to say my colleagues in the chamber already said. but i'll repeat it. first we need to understand the

scale of the program. our infrastructure deficit, our unfunded maintenance, is 3.2 trillion. trillion. order of magnitude larger than all campaign discussions. but it is not the first story. that really is maintaining that inheritance from our parents and grandparents. it's about maintaining the interstate highway system that goes through oklahoma city. it but technology moves on. the real target is well in excess of 3.2 trillion. we think 5 trillion is a good rough guess. it is important that we understand it is more than krpgz. transportation is absolutely

critical. it is a full range. being a competitive place to do business in the 21st century. so if that's the scale, the second thing is is timeline. this is not a short-term matter. the assets we need to construct, whether it's the repair and maintenance of our interstate highway system, the construction of a -- power transmission lines to get energy from places where there is wind, places where there is demand, whether it's our ports, these are assets that many can cases take a long time to build and that last a long time. we need to think about the financing in that friday.

as a financial problem, this is not very hard. we have a tax exempt bond market and federal government's borrowing capacity the lowest cost sources of capital in the world. there are people in this country and around the world who are prepared to lend us the money we need build these systems at extraordinarily low rates. the idea that there is a problem that is unmanageable is incorre incorrect. that idea is really dangerous. it leads notion that we need to construct our financing as though our infrastructure needs are our business needs. so the model that we have heard about, the model that we need to

basically go out and find folks who are willing to invest capital that are going to demand high rates of return and paid out of user fees, which has been talked about a lot and was in the -- really at the center of the paper that the trump campaign put out two weeks ago, that idea simply doesn't work. we can argue about whether you think they should be privately held or whether someone will be eluding the treasury. the numbers don't work. these are public goods. there's no way to get the user fees out of the interstate highway system to pay for the infrastructure. if we say that is what we're going to do, what we are really saying is we're going to do nothing. and we can't afford to do nothing. now, i think you have heard from my friend from the chamber that in fact, we've got the

structures we need to work with. the question is, we have the political vision, the leadership to invest the way we need to as a society. i'm going to close what i have to say by adding one more thing. we are -- this is really -- this is really an area where there is aoe phorplous potential for healing in our country. across the labor business demand, across many other divides. there is enormous potential for building better lives here. but, but, and it really saddens me to say this. i had no idea i would be having to say this at this event. we have -- there was a prior question.

it has to be answered. yesterday, and i beg your indulgence for this. yesterday i went to church two miles from my home in suburban maryland at an episcopal church where someone sprayed on the walls of the church, trump nation, whites only. the aoe pal bishop of washington asked our president-elect specifically denounce the people who did that. we cannot have this type of conversation as long as that question remains unanswered. >> okay. we are obviously very empathetic to that and totally understand that and this country needs to come together. and it seems to me working on issues where we can find common

ground is probably the pwebest the first place we should go. perhaps cooperation across the board might be helpful. let me, before we go to questions, let me ask you -- so i agree. the process and some of the money is out there. is anybody, and do you believe that some type of tax reform is going to happen, repatriotation is a way to jump start the issue? >> it could be one way. i think there's a lot of ideas that have been thrown out from the trump transition team. tax reform is obviously something that mr. trump has talked about and in the house paul ryan has talked about. the challenge with that is that

a lot of people are for tax reform. it kind of gets more challenging. the other challenge on tax reform is repatriation, there's about 14 different ways to repaet kwraeut. we don't see that as a long-term sustainable funding source. most are one time intphrubgzs of money. we don't think that's what we need right now. so mayors governors know what they will get from their federal partner for a good period of time so they can make tough decisions locally to make the proper investments in the tpra structure. we need to make a plan that says we're making a major investment and asset that has backboned the economy. any kind of on economic recovery plan has to include a major

investment. >> for either of the two mayors, this last tuesday, over $200 billion in state and local referendum passed. so if you tell a city or a county what it is that you want to build and why you want to build it and they can see it, over 70% of them passed almost every election. your thoughts on that? is that the way of the future. do we have to keep doing that? is a federal partner? >> sure. i am heartened to see that, especially since in this region we need like most major systems like ours, the metro system has, a dedicated funding source. people are willing to make investments in public transportation and make their lives easier. and that's what we saw around the country. we're a little different in that our system is supported by three jurisdictions. so we need to come up with a

regional way to make that investment. i don't have to tell you it's already been said, that the deferred maintenance, the maintenance that we have foregone on the system is going to cost us many times more than it would have if we had that dedicated funding source for the 40 years of metro's history. so i think that is heartening. but also people are smart, right? they see the grid lock on our streets. we have to take advantage of our entire someone. that is biking, bridges. i like to use an example that is emblematic what the federal government has failed to do. we had a bridge between the

district of columbia and virginia. it belongs to the federal government. all of us have been fighting over who is going to fix the bridge. it belongs to the national park service. the national park service has a lot of bridges across the country that are in similar disrepair. so the leadership, and i couldn't agree with my friend from the chamber more, that a lot of these questions are about leadership. they are going to have their voters to do something that none of us may be around for. when the real bill comes through for metro, it will be five, is six years from now. what will we do to say right now i may or may not be here. i may have to ask a tough question to get additional revenue to fix it. but all of us have to say --

this is what i'm saying. i want to be the mayor that works with these governors to fix it. not the next one but these governors to fix it once and for all. and i think all the members of the congress, this is what it comes down to. our bridge that connects washington, d.c. and the commonwealth of virginia, we don't have two senators, as you know. >> that's my point. >> i'm just saying. i talked to their senators. they have to talk to their governor. everybody across the country is scrapping for that same bridge reconstruction. and so we do really need a plan. if i can do it for my infrastructure in the district, certain we can expect that of our federal agencies to say these are the priorities that have to get done. but stafbing the national park service is not the way to get

there i would like to add an additional thing in addition to transportation and communication and energy. i would like to think of rdable housing as part of infrastructure as well. as it crumbles, they change the character of of our cities. we like to approach a way to keep it affordable. >> you mentioned the voters's willingness to pass taxes to pay for infrastructure. that is true if there is not an increase in taxes. if it is an increase, it is much, much tougher. a couple other evolutions that affect the environment. one is health. we are realizing the environment

affects health a lot more than previously realized. oklahoma city, we have redesigned our streets. we created a city around cars. we are redesigning it around people to be more pedestrian friendly, bike friendly. so we have rebuilt our entire downtown grid. we are about to break ground on a street car system. we paid cash. there was no debt created. our citizens are willing to vest in things. if you want to increase taxes, you will have to have a pretty compelling argument. if you have a funded opponent you are probably just wasting your time. we have the investment trust. it is all in partnership in one form or another with the federal

government. the mayor bowser's point is spot on. in addition, talking about the parks. the park service, they are part of our public portfolio. and i think educational institutions are part of this landscape. the financing challenge really is -- there's a couple of tricky things here. a big bush by a small group of companies that would like to use the inextra structure challenge to get a huge tax break for offshore. that's what the paet kwraeuted language. there are ways that would be fair to those companies that create jobs in america.

you know, pay the full tax rate. there are ways of working things out. we have to be careful. there is one thing this election was a clear mandate for, public policy that did not incentivize the movement of u.s. jobs offshore. and there's ideas out there in the name of infrastructure that will subseu died offshoring. that strikes me as something nobody voted for. the challenge here is for political leadership to support financing level, there is more flexibility than there is at the state and local level. that can genuinely fund investment at the scale we need. and in terms of the coming couple of years, this is a

critical opportunity for real political leadership. and we will pay a terrible price if instead we push this further and further down the road. >> we are attention to that. who has a question or two? right here, ben. right there. >> hi, my name is ben levine. i'm struck after this election by the politically the urban/rural divides that different folks are supporting, and i think we now have a situation where both the executive and legislative branches in congress have been elected by overwhelmingly rural and post industrial voters. i also look at the republican platform that looks to transit and talks about how urbanization is social engineering. i'm curious to hear from the

mayors. how do you think about the future in light of the new administration? >> not many people live in rural washington, d.c. >> lucky. >> yeah, the rural urban divide is real. it has been well chronicled and plays out in the state legislatures, you know, frequently. but i'm not seeing a disconnect. i haven't seen any study that says it isn't for rural infrastructure. water, streets, i think it is universal. there is reasons to be forward against things, but i don't think the divide will play out on infrastructure. and i should probably add the advent of the autonomous vehicle will have more to do with change and the built environment and infrastructure than anything we've encountered in our lifetime. that will affect it as well.

>> so one of the opportunities that -- >> can you identify who you're with. >> i'm with nrdc. one of the opportunities that is presented with this infrastructure bill is an opportunity to really reimagine local and empowerment in that state governments, right, we understand that president-elect trump is not necessarily looking at the feds to be maybe the leader on some of these, there may be an opportunity for state, local opportunities. and so is there -- there are 36 governors who will be up in 2018. as mayor bowser was just talking about, the relationships that are required and damon talks about thinking about common grounds, how do we have a conversation around the regional investments that can happen, that really support kind of the small towns that are around, the bedroom communities are around the larger city, the aging

cities. and then where is the innovation and shared economy, especially as we think of the flexible dollars that we had through tiger that could space for us to do more? thanks. >> i'm not sure. well, i think one of the things that your question raises, your question raised a lot of things, and i'm mindful we're out of time. the role of state and local government and planning the built environment, and then essentially helping to shape national policy to then support local and regional plans. this is something that we in the labor movement are very, very strongly believe is necessary. and is a way of bridging divides that seem deep in washington and maybe less deep in, i don't mean the washington that mayor bowser is mayor of, federal washington.

the -- and more reflect the ways in which our people kind of live together and come together in the areas we live in. i would just suggest that in addition to this, we really have to think as we're doing this about the impact of infrastructure investment on our communities that we have a lot of people in this country that have been left out of economic growth in the last 30 years. and a lot of different ways. and people in our inner cities, people in our rural areas, people in the deindustrialized parts of the country. it is a critical question whether it will reach them. if not, these communities cannot participate in the global economy. it is not going to happen by accident. it is also, this is deeply and profoundly related to how work force policy relates to infrastructure. what kinds of jobs are we going to create and who will they be

available to. who will be trained. from the labor movement's perspective, and this is critical, again, to building common ground, from the labor movement's perspective, it is essential that our infrastructure agenda have the labor protections and provisions for training and for inclusiveness, all right, that will result in all the good things i just mentioned. it will not happen by accident. if there is a belief that somehow public goods will respond, that somehow we will create public goods as in the same way that we create software or chewing gum, right. what will happen is not that -- not that somehow, what will happen is we won't create public goods. we just won't. we've been doing that, that not creating public goods, for 30 years. it is not a tenable thing to do. >> anybody else? >> yeah, could i just add. from the business perspective, i

have the privilege of traveling to state and local chambers. if you go to any community, transportation is the top three. the mayors could probably tell you, maybe locating their business and community, they want to know there is viable transportation options. they want a tool kit of options. not just highways, transit. it is a variety of options available. wh when we talk about this difficudivide, there was a union involved in the coalition to get it approved, businesses. this isn't a partisan issue. for communities to succeed, they need transportation as one of the core tenaments. we've heard the president-elect say he wants to build the rural areas. this is a place we can bring options to those communities to have the ability to succeed that maybe didn't have those tools a few years ago. >> yeah, okay, i think -- unfortunately we're like now ten

minutes over. so i think you can see there are a lot of questions about this, and we would be happy to do something like this again. i didn't even get to my favorite subject of high speed rails. so we hope that you'll give us your feedback. we hope that we can do this again. and i would like you to help me thank our panel for being here today. [ applause ]

ladies and gentlemen, we will be starting back momentarily. c-span's washington journal, live everyday, with news and policy issues that impact you. coming up friday morning, congressional mental health caucus co-chair, tim murphy, will discuss mental health legislation. appropriations committee member, congressman, matt cartwright talks about the political agenda under president-elect trump and efforts to increase support among blue collar workers. watch washington journal at 7:00 a.m. eastern on friday. join the discussion.

so i decided to spend much more time on the young grant. i spent a week at west point. trying to understand how this man could finish 21st out of 39 at west point. and therefore, sometimes viewed by these biographers as an historical intellectual lightweight and yet he said of himself, i must apologize. i spent all my time reading novels. >> sunday night on q and a, ronald c. white, talks about the 18th u.s. president in his latest book "american ulysses, a live of ulysses s. grant." >> african-american leaders in the white house and he said to them, i said i look forward to the day when you can ride on a railroad car, when you can eat in a restaurant, do so along with every other person, regardless of their race. that day must come. it took 90 years for that day to

come. grant was the last american president to hold those kind of views. >> sunday night at 8 eastern on c-span's q and a. this weekend, the c-span city tour, along with cox communication partner explores the history of tempe, arizona. wildfire, efforts to change the narrative of fire and its role in the environment, with steven fine "between two fires." >> for 50 years, this country, after the great fires of 1910, which traumatized the u.s. war service, tried to take fire out of the landscape. the problem was that we took good fires as well as bad fires out. the last 50 years, which is rather a long time, half the history of our engagement, we've tried to put good fire back in. and that has been very difficult. >> hear f