i would anticipate this going to a lot more innocuous interviews. things that were so unbelievably routine in the past that they're going to try to pull something and i think your solution was a good one. every time they do it, say we were not able to talk to the number one guy in the world on climate change without having a public relations person there vetting everything he said. >> or just staring him down. >> just staring him down. you know, when asked this question, so and so was glared at by the public relations -- i think we have to do more of that. it's more -- particularly in these days when, you know, let's face it, fake news and all of that, we have to do more explaining about our process because the one thing we hopefully have as journalists is

credibility and one way to get credibility is to be be more transparent about where you got the information versus these guys who are sitting in their basements making stuff up. hillary clinton had martian parents or something. so i think a good word of advice would be -- i know it takes up space and time but mention that stuff. for one thing it says, yeah, you were actually in the room with this person. >> this was not something that started even under obama. it's been going on for years, it's just intensified again and probably won't go down so it's something you need to be aware of and it's difficult. we've, again, representing as & e, this is an extension of the access issue with the whca, and literally like 50 groups in total sent this letter and it resulted in a meeting with jay carney and we talked for a while and there was supposed to be

follow-up and there was follow up with the white house correspondent's association leading the way then it petered ou out. >> [ inaudible question ] >> and then about a year ago, december, 2015, i was part of a small delegation representing as & e and spj about that particular issue. we went in to meet with josh earnest and we had a good conversation but nothing happened. they took the meeting, they listened, we talked but kind of all -- you know, it was a lot of talk and little action and i think that's standard for administrations. they can say they listened but in reality nothing changes. and there's not a lot we can do to change it but what you're doing is one thing you can do. >> and that also kind of -- the whole non-disclosure agreement that that federal employees are theoretically going to be asked to sign which only intelligence agencies have had to do in the

past. if that happens for just routine stuff, that will shut down access to a whole bunch of agencies that you guys are used to covering. >> let's go back to jen. >> i just wondered, what do you think the purpose is of off-the-record meetings with the president-elect or the president or -- and how do you think that will play into this coverage? >> the only off-the-record meeting that i can think of that's ptha that's been publicized is the one with the tv networks, right? it's funny you mentioned that one because when i first saw that meeting was happening i was frustrated because of that -- what i just shared with you about press corps unity and i thought okay, here we go. [ laughter ] the tv crews are going right in and we're not all on one page.

the reporting of the results of that meeting then made me feel like, oh, that's fine. maybe we didn't need to be in on that one because it was not a meeting about access or at least that wasn't the main thrust of the meeting. it sounds like it was an opportunity for the -- it sounds like, i wasn't in the room, obviously, but it sounds like it was more of an opportunity for the president-elect to vent against broadcast coverage he did not find favorable. but to answer your question, i guess i would say that i think the way the "new york times" handled their meeting was terrific and, you know, having some off-the-report time with any principal that you're covering can sometimes be valuable as long as it's done in -- as long as there's also a

chance for an on-the-report piece. i can remember even in the 2008 campaign that being a topic sometimes when we were discussing on the obama press corps about whether we were okay with him coming back to the back of the plane and chatting with reporters. that was only okay if he had already done -- or if he was also doing some press conferences where we could ask on-the-report questions and i think that same principle applies here will we have some off-the-record meetings with his staff as we're working on access issues and working on preparing the way for white house coverage? yeah, i mean not all of that needs to be -- they need to know that when they're sitting down with us that we are also negotiating in good faith and i'm not going to take everything i learned in that meeting and go

out and write a really critical statement. that doesn't help me, either. but your question i don't think was about that. i think your question was more specifically having off-the-record meetings with the president-elect and i would say i think there needs to be balance and the balance of the two examples that i can think of in the last couple weeks of the television execs and anchors and the "new york times," i think the "new york times" example is the one to follow. >> we're going to veer then i'll come back to this side of the room. we'll start with james and then next to james. vera? >> this applies to covering trump as a whole but i'm going to use it as an example of the pool because i just got back from the first time covering the trump press pool and there's this split in the people who do that in how to kind of go about normalizing the routine when they're inconsistent in the way they respect things like, for example, calling a lid or things we've gotten very used to. so on saturday they say in the morning we're done for the day but then it turns out they're

not done for the day and people have to come back. but then yesterday, the afternoon, they tell me there's a lid on the day and i stay a couple extra hours because i don't trust it. then some people in the pool tell me that we need to start respecting it because if we come back and see we trust their word, then they will also -- that that's a way to normalize it and if they call a lid and we're still there for six hours, the term loses all meaning. so i guess my question is kind of what's a responsible way to normalize this kind of routine of covering him while not letting them walk owl over press access. if we don't respect it, they won't respect it. so there was an interesting split. some people thought that way and some didn't. >> so i'll define for the room for anyone not familiar with the term "lid," anybody not familiar with that term? that is the term we use at the ends of the day when the white house, in this case i'll use the white house as an example, says the president isn't going to do

any other movements on or off campus that are -- that the press would cover. which to be more specific, know vents on campus that would be open press and he's not leaving because if he were then the pool would cover him. so a it will basically means you're free to go and your question is on the trump side, at trump tower in particular, should we or should we not vice president it when they call a it will because there have been a handful of examples where they have called a lid and something has happened. >> and beyond the lid. they use this term that established administrations use and yet they don't treat them them the same way. >> anything besides the term lid? >> i just think it's a good example of how they will use things in the future where it's kind of "nothing to see here" and then we leave and something happens. >> well, on that specific example i'm not concerned, in fact i'm encouraged by reporters

not necessarily taking their word for it about a lid and i don't say that to be critical of the trump folks. i think part of it is genuinely they're still figuring it out figuring out how we work, figuring out what their responsibilities are to the press. i know that the one time that he went out for dinner new york and didn't bring a pool, hope hicks had given a lid to the press and then everyone rightfully sort of freaked out when they heard he had gone out for dinner and she had known he was going out for dinner so i don't -- i mean i'm not there and i don't know what the individual considerativersa were, if she said she didn't know, i take her at her word, that was poor communications internally and they fixed it the next time and that's a good thing but when they get to the white house and the press corps is there, calling a lid right

now doesn't mean that all the reporters go home, it just means -- in many cases it means the still photographers go home because they probably don't have anything else to photograph but the rest of us hang around anyway because we're doing our jobs. will maybe some of the folks who might accept a lid as standard at the beginning of the administration stay a little bit longer afterwards in case this happens some more? probab probably. i would say that would probably be wise. but i'm not ready to exdrop late the very unusual experience of covering this transition at trump tower and applying these lessons to what happens at the white house. so it's going to be a totally different environment. that said, i'm not nighee and i don't think any of us should be naive about the risks.

about respecting our vocabulary and terms like that. part of it means we have to be vigilant and in fairness we have to be sure that they get a chance to get it and to be explained what the standards are and what our practices and principles are. and we are working on that. >> james? >> james osborne. obviously presidents throughout history have been critical of the media. the idea of non-disclosure agreements for government official officials have there been times when this has been flirted with in the past. >> yes. i think when bill clinton almost signed a version of britain's official secrets act and only a

last minute organization through john podesta and the newspaper associations of america made him realize, oh, wow, this is a bad idea. congress passed the bill and he was ready to sign it without thinking and it just seemed like a good idea at the time. so that would be i think one example. what do you know of more practically. >> in terms of other presidents ditching the pool, yeah, that's happened. it hasn't happened a lot. and it hasn't been an apples-for-apples comparison because they had a pool to ditch which at least -- we don't entirely have right now with the trump folks. we're mostly there, but we're not all the way there. i can think of maybe two times with president obama and that

was very unusual. >> i think there was one time and i have to have a sit down with some of my colleagues who were there, i wasn't there but i believe a colleague of mine said it happened once in hawaii. and there was one time in washington when he went out to get a sandwich or something and they had probably declared a lid and then he changed his mind and wanted to go somewhere and that may have been a poor choice by someone lower down for calling a it will. i'm not sure, i honestly don't remember what the circumstances were. and in both cases they always -- from the press point of view egregious and so we woif objectives no doubt. i wasn't on the board then but i'm sure the board did thereto

wasn't an effort to ditch the pool under this administration. that doesn't mean we've gotten everything we wanted. in my view, there's been an alarming decrease in the number of pool slots for summits that we cover. that's not necessarily something the white house has control over but an issue that we deal with. so that was a longer answer that i meant to give. there is some precedence for it. it happenes occasionally. but there's not a widespread problem. i don't know if the trump administration can turn to anything to use as precedent. >> your november 16 statement about the ditching the press pool at the new york dinner talked about -- it was breaking with decades of precedent. what exactly is the history. what did the press cool come

into effect? >> well, the press pool has had various iterations for decades. everyone can remember there was a pool there with john f. kennedy when he was shot. it wasn't the same number of journalists we have now is communications were different, i've heard some fascinating stories about the two wire reporters the upi guy holding on the the phone and keeping the news from getting out. that's not a press corps issue we have anymore because we have these. i can't give you a specific rundown of details. >> i did some research on this

recently. we're talking probably 75 or 80 years in some form or another. >> so we'll go right there. >> i'm with first television and also a former fellow. i have two questions. maybe three. i wanted to start off with kevin because i want to go from kanye to trump. as you rattled off your list of concerns can you address libel laws because we know the president-elect has previously said he wants to open up libel laws so having to argue about that or the possibility of that having how that could impact what we do. broadly speaking to all of you if he could just -- and you touched on it as well. give us your prescription of fake news and false statements. what's concerning to me is the tweet about illegal votes because, yes, while we wrote the story saying "yes, the president-elect cites no evidence" but still just as

yesterday we saw his incoming chief of staff defend him on that point so, yes we're writing the stories but how much of it is sinking him, are we just writing until we're blue in the face and this fake news issue. >> so this is somewhat on this. i think this is a bit of a red herring, like the flag burning issue was. other than to say that again it gives credibility to others who might want to jump on -- he can't do this himself. he can't criminalize flag burning himself. i feel like allen iverson here. are we really talking about flag burning? this is insane. but so, you know, i don't see anything about it. you did a lot more with the libel laws in the past than i did and working with the

committee. you have a much better perspective on what can be done there. >> he can't do anything. as he said to the "new york times" "somebody pointed out to me that i could be in trouble myself because of things that i've said? the past. yeah, you think? [ laughter ] duh. so liable is a state tort. even when you have libel case venued in federal court, you are relying on state statutes and common law. so you would have to influence half of the local court judges in the country to make any impact on this whatsoever. i'm not worried about the libel laws. every once in a while people raise the malice standard issue.

that is a standard that was created in 1964 in the "new york times" v. sullivan case where for the first time they applied federal constitutional law to a libel case and where they said in the instance of a public official and then later a public figure they will have to -- the plaintiff will have to prove that the statement was made knowing it was false or with reckless disregard as to whether or not it's true or false. and i imagine mr. trump as a litigant finds that annoying. but, you know, you would have to sort of in four years to pull off something, let's just assume for the sake of argument right now four years have a sea change in the way libel law is operated throughout the entire country, it just doesn't work that way. it just doesn't so he can talk about it all he wants but it

kind of shows ignorance. >> i knew i should do better by giving it to her. the thing for me is i think it really makes me -- we were making progress on a federal anti-slap proposal that would be going to be useful for people who were sued. anti-slap is just a defense that can be used by a person who speaks out on the matter of public concern and is sued in retaliation. many suits are defamation lawsuits but they can be other things and generally these laws which exist in just under 30 states around the country but may or may not apply in federal court allow you as a defendant to accelerate the dismissal process and sometimes get your own damages, which is unusual under u.s. law. winning defendants do not get their attorneys' fees paid for very often. and this would allow that to happen so it is a great thing for people who were sued just to shut them up.

i'm not sure he would sign that bill if it were presented to him by congress. >> i'm confident he would not. if it had gotten to obama, he probably would have. but 30 states already have these statutes so what it would do is give those protections to to other 20 states and allow defendants to get rid of the cases early and california probably has the best functioning really, really strong anti-slap statute. >> it works. >> it works. it works really, really well. >> so which one are we taking next? there were two others she had. >> real quick. this [ inaudible question ] encountering these false statements. that are also coming at times from the president-elect. >> that's another one where i wish i had an easy answer.

i think -- i talked about this earlier today. i think there's a responsibility both from producers of news, journalists, consumers of news and public officials who are covered to be clear about what is actual news and what is not and we certainly saw over the weekend the potential consequences and ramifications of a fake news story being taken as seriously as this was which is awful. i don't know the answer. i mean, i know that some social media companies, facebook included, are taking it more seriously and i think that's good. i encourage -- i had an opportunity to encourage both students and teachers recently

to inform yourself about what are source sofs news, legitimate sources of news and what aren't. clearly that's an issue. and that needs to be addressed. and i encourage people to look closely at sources, even within stories and to read and think critically. journalists have a responsibility there but the responsibility has to be shared by public officials. >> if i can just follow on that just a moment. last week stanford released a study that showed 80% of high school seniors -- i think it was high school seniors -- were not able to identify true stories versus false stories. true information versus false information. they don't have the tools to do that. one thing we're going to have to do as a society is have a massive education campaign and figure out how to teach media literacy to everybody.

there's some foundations and other nonprofits that have been working at this. in maryland we teach 400 students a year. we have a very popular media literacy class. there are ways to learn how to read something. the problem with anyone under the age of 30 is that they are more likely than an old fossil like me to believe things that i see on a screen. so there are ways you can learn how to read something on a screen, to look at the url. if you talk to a fact checker they have a way where they describe it they read things horizontally. most people read a story vertically. they'll go right through it. but a fact checker looks at it wholistically and we have to teach people how to do that themselves. >> kevin was going to talk about

kanye. >> one minute. >> then we'll go to chris and michael. >> so there are a lot of parallels in covering entertainers and sports to covering presidents with one key difference in both instances what we've seen in the last ten years is a change in the reliance on those you're cover ing to needing you. politicians can bypass you now, government officials can bypass you, entertainers can bypass you, athlete cans bypass you. so as & e and other have worked very hard making sure access via the credentials you get can ensure you don't give up too much. that's what this fight is all about. so you go to a concert and they

tell you what you can have your phone and when you can't. and then after two songs you have to leave. we saw this where he was on a rant and went on stage. we saw that for one reason. because there were people there with smart phones, you know where there won't be people with smart phones when a rant happens? in the oval office. what happens when the white house photographers leave and he goes completely off message. is the white house photographer going to show a picture of the president talking down to the japanese prime minister? i don't know but i doubt it. that's why this matters. that to me is the case you make about why the access matters. kanye to trump. [ laughter

[ laughter ] >> the daily briefings in the white house, it seems wild speculation that they might not have press briefings, maybe a gaggle but nothing on camera and then trump being just -- just being so vain that he wants to be himself in the briefing room everyday. so i was wondering what your expectation is. >> it's a great question and i won't hide my frustration with former press secretaries advocating against having daily briefings and/or criticizing the mainstream media and using the mainstream media as the vehicle for doing that. i find that frustrating.

i don't have intel with the trump folks, i haven't had a conversation about their plans with daily briefings. i think genuinely right now they are not thinking that far in advance because they haven't identified who the press secretary will be yet. and once they have a structure for the trump white house's press team that will be the time you have conversations about how do you invasion the day by day operation going? i don't think anyone in the white house press corps would support getting rid of briefings. obviously clearly there's room for reform of some kind if a new president wants to add a gaggle instead of a briefing here or there or make it a shorter briefing sometimes, there might be many people in the press who would applaud that but i myself and the white house correspondents association

generally are not engaging in speculation about it because we haven't gotten any intel from them. all we've done is seen outsiders who are either trying to get influence for themselves or trying to get clicks on a story throw things up in the air. i would also add one thing to what kevin said. i'm not sure that a president obama, if he had went off script with a visiting leader, we wouldn't see that, either. >> but it matters. >> it does. but we have to be clear that though there is -- based on the experience of the campaign, the media and reporters and journalists have a reason to have concerns about an incoming trump administration and access issues that said. we have many of these concerns already and would have had many of them regardless of who had

won the election. >> yeah. i was not necessarily saying it was just trump. we're doing this forward looking. it is -- and i've been making that same argument pre-kanye. [ laughter ] >> so michael? i think this will have to be the last question. >> it was talked about how politicians are bypassing media using social media outlets but at the same time i think there's two trends going on as well where there's a proliferation of more ideological news media publications and i think pretty widespread belief, at least among a lotz of conservative voters, that the traditional press is a liberal establishment and i wonder how you see those two trends playing out under president trump. >> we just have a couple minutes here. >> run that by me again. how we see the trends of the proliferation of more ideological news organizations at a time that the public thinks

news organizations that might not think of themselves as ideological are. whether -- who's getting access to trump is breitbart or somebody else or that trend. >> the short answer is i don't know. my guess is that, like any -- i can see a some comparisons between kind of a geographic connection -- and what i mean by that is when president obama won election more chicago media came and was interested in being part of the white house press corps. is it possible that after mr. trump's election that there will be more conservative leaning news organizations that will start covering the white house on a daily basis and perhaps get encouragement from the white house to do so?

yeah, probably. what we have control over from -- in terms of the white house correspondents' association is our standards for admittance into the pool will not change. thatch will apply to -- those same standards will apply regardless of your news organization affiliation and potential bent one way or the other. and we -- i mean, we can't -- we are a neutral association that represents a diverse press corps so we cannot obviously instruct our members how to report or what to report but we do have a certain standard for membership and not just for membership in our organization but for the pool which gets access at that white house regardless of who is in power. >> and i guess if consumers of news are being drawn towards more ideological outlets does

that just continue to increase this polarization that brought us to this point? i mean do you see a remedy to that? what direction do you think that trend line is moving? >> somebody else want to take that? >> nobody wants to take that. >> you're absolutely right. we're seeing a trend toward more -- people being more siloed and sort of operating in an echo chamber and again i think the only thing you can do is be vigilant in your reporting and then also it sort of goes back to the same thing i said about media literacy. we have to teach people what is -- we're not going to be able to report the truth because truth is so subjective but we can report facts. and realize that people are going to go to their preferred sources of information but we have to somehow teach them what they're doing, you know?

and what types of -- where these sources are of information are coming from. i think it's the only thing we can really do. >> i think with that we need to close it down. i want to thank all three panelists very much. [ applause ] so that's it for this afternoon. the paul millers, we and our panelists have been invited to. we're moving up to the national press club for reception so i want to thank the former paul millers who came and all the others for coming out and thank you very much. [ indistinct audio ). and we'll be live again at 2:30 eastern here on c-span 3 when the senate foreign relations committee holds a hearing to consider terror threats in the middle east and around the world. they'll be looking into iran's potential influence over certain terror groups. live coverage starts 259:30

eastern on c-span 3. the u.s. capital christmas tree lighting ceremony takes place at 5:00 eastern. house speaker paul ryan will lead off as a number of congressional leaders will be speaking at the lighting and we'll have live coverage of of that at 5:00 eastern. then at 6:00, the cato institute hosts a discussion about freedom of speech and freedom of the press and politics. we'll have live coverage of that on c-span 3. that starts at 6:00 p.m. a picture here of air force one as it waited today to take president obama to macdill air force base for a visit with troops. this morning president-elect donald trump called for the cancellation of a new presidential airplane and he was asked about the tweet when he stopped by the cameras in trump tower.

>> good morning, mr. trump. >> good morning, how are you? good morning, how are you? everything fine? we've got great people coming in today. you'll see them. >> what are you going to talk about with mayor bowser from washington, d.c. today? >> well, we're going to talk about a lot of things to a lot of people. we have a lot of people coming up. great group of people. doing very well. thank you off very much. >> reporter: you tweeted about cancelling the contract for the new air force one. is that something you're trying to do? >> well, the plane is out of control. it will be over $4 billion, it's for air force one program and i think it's ridiculous. i think boeing is doing a little bit of a number. we want boeing to make a lot of money but not that much money. okay, thank you. asked for comment, a boeing

spokesman said "we are going to have to get back to you after we figure out what's going on." in the meantime, boeing stocks sunk after the president-elect's tweets but are starting to improve. president-elect trump will be traveling on his personal plane today to north carolina where he plans a victory rally for supporters in fayetteville. with him will be retired general james mattis to be named defense secretary. yesterday, former british prime minister tony blair asked about the populism wave across the globe and uk's brexit vote to leave the european union. this is about half an hour. [ applause ] >> good afternoon, everybody. is this microphone working? >> not yet. >> not yet. fantastic, it's now. good afternoon, everybody. my name is jillian tett, i'm from the "financial times," i

run our editorial coverage across the americas region and i'm absolutely delighted to be participating today because notwithstanding what some of you may be feeling about the media, i heard the comments earlier this morning we are committed to providing fair credible and informed coverage of what is going on not just for our american readers but around the world. now, i'm sure many of you are feeling right now that you've lived through a political earthquake in the last month, are living through a political earthquake. well, i've got news for you. britain got here first -- there first. [ laughter ] because as you all know, there was an earthquake early in summer in the uk in relation to the brexit vote and it's an earthquake that's still continuing. there's just been a new vote on the leader of the opposition labor party and the hard left

jeremy corbyn has been reinstated with a big majority and the earthquakes are continuing across europe. you will have hopefully seen the results of the italian referendum on sunday which indicated quite decisively that the italian people, like the american people, like the british people, are voting against the establishment. and there are more votes looming next year in the netherlands, france, and germany. of course we had the austrian vote, too, which was more establishment but still right now we have one establishment result and three anti-establishment results. so i can't think of a better person to tell us what is going on, not just in america but to put this into an international context and perhaps even offer some advice for the man who's now heading for the white house than tony blair.

a man who was in charge of uk politics for a long time and did not simply run the uk but tried to set a new type of politics, a new political center. but before i start the questions i ought to start with a protocol question. our american friends in the audience often have the mistaken impression that brits are very, very state of conscious and very formal in public because they've all watched "downton abbey." [ laughter ] and any of you who've ever been on a platform in the uk will know that is 100% wrong because there is nothing that shocks a british audience more than to use a title, particularly a previous title. so my first question is do you want to be american today and be mr. prime minister or do you want to be british and be tony? or we can take a vote on it? >> no, we're going to be -- at least i'm going to be tony. what i found when i first left office was that people in america would always address

you -- continue to address you as prime minister and the british media had a field day with this saying this guy is so incapable of understanding he's left the job. [ laughter ] he's still -- so i said to them, listen, you have to scrap this. then it became that i was so depressed i couldn't hear the word prime minister without feeling a sense of despondency so tony is fine. >> well we are officially divided by common language. tony, how do you explain the series of extraordinary political upsets that we've seen this year? i mean, if we ignore austria for a moment -- and apologies to any austrians -- if we ignore austria for a moment, this year has been shocking and, frankly, could well continue that way. >> yes, and look, there's a lot i think we've still got to figure out because undoubtedly we're in the new political

situation which has got in europe at least a lot of dangers to it, britain has taken a huge decisi decision and there's no doubt in my mind that something different is going on in politics. having said that, i think it's very important to emphasize several things. the first is that, you know populism is not new. concern about immigration isn't new. i remember at least -- you're too young to remember -- the 1960s when there were politicians warning about the waves of black immigration coming into the uk and this was going to produce rivers of blood and so on. immigration is not a new topic. globalization isn't new. and its effects. if you look at the changes in britain in the 1980s, there were coal mining communities and steel communities that shut down. and so what is new, i think, are two things. first of all, i think that

post-financial crisis and with all the change in the world people are insecure and anxious, they see their communities and societies changing around them and there is an immense amount of anger that we don't seem to be able to provide for people in the way that they wish and there's no doubt about that anger. secondly i personally think social media itself is a revolutionary phenomenon. it changes everything. it changes totally the way politics works. >> do you tweet? >> not voluntarily. [ laughter ] >> well, i think certainly the president-elect does, but anyway. >> i know. and by the way, you know, you see how it's used and it's remarkable but it's a new phenomenon. it also interrelates with congressional media. new the financial times is a little sue wi generes.

but when i was prime minister in 1997, the bbc nightly news had an audience of 12 million people. that was like one conversation in the country. today the figure is just over two one conversation in the country. today is the figure is 2 million. this is a big, big change in the way politics is conducted and information flows. parts of it aren't new but i'm absolutely convinced that the only way to confront the anger is to provide the answers. that's why strong center the only way to do it, lowest common denominator, wishy washy between left and right. we need something strong and muscular providing answers to the challenges people face. >> you were tactful as a politician, a tie, a nice mix of red and blue, a perfect mix of red and blue. your tie is wonderfully

centrist. when you were in office, you tried to cease a supposed new vision of politics, which probably explain to the audience, weren't so aware of this. it was called the new way, third way, which was trying to be, if you like, centrist left agenda. you were trying hard to get beyond right and left. some people might see development of poll six in the intervening period since you left office as essentially a sign that that attempt failed. what we have today in the uk is left wing left party and right wing right party and a center that has collapsed. >> yes. i know there is a tendency to say that the reason why the defeats are happening should be laid at the doors of those who achieve the victories.

when i worked with this, of course, i worked with president clinton here, and we had echos around europe. but what's very important, i always say this, we can't go back to the third way of politics. distinguished policies which are good for one time with the philosophy that, in fact, is good for most times. i think it's good for this time. what we have at that point and in my view what we have to recapture was forward momentum. we were changemakers, not guardians of status quo. you said austria was an exception. it was an exception in the sense green party candidate beat the kind of neo-nazi candidate or far right candidate. it's not a victory for the old type of politic, because actually the two centrists were nowhere in that election.

there's no doubt at all what people feel is that the center has not been providing that dine mitchell and leadership going forward. if you take the case of europe, i'm passionate about the reason why europe is in its present predicament. it's because it's not reforming. it's not changing. you know, you only have to look at the way euros and prevails have produced agonizing situations in these countries. what is required profound structural reform, fiscal stimulus and a policy that allies itself with those two factors. that's what we should be providing but we're not in europe at the moment. >> you know it's a very different political world when we're all looking to austria as a beacon of hope. >> i think you really have offended austrians. >> no, it's great. anyone here who is austrian? no. okay.

so we're safe. but in terms of what advice, i'm going to ask you in a moment what advice you'd give donald trump. but i'd like to ask before that. what advice would you like to give the people here in this room? because i think what you have here is basically a self-selected audience that for the most part kind of agrees with you. you're preaching sort of to the converted here. so if you had to tease out the top three points that you think everyone in this room should heed, what would they be? >> right. well, first of all, i don't really offer advice. i offer friendship and partnership, because i think no labels is a great concept. i love the whole idea. i just was listening to the discussion previously about health care and infrastructure and finance. you know, i was just thinking how invigorating it was to have a discussion about practical

solutions. i don't offer advice. but i think the challenges for us, the following. i think along with economics we do have to understand the issues of culture and identity. people -- take the european situation. it is not irrational to worry about immigration. now, i'm pro immigration. i believe britain is a better country because we have waves of immigrants come into it. i think london is, if you will forgive me in this audience saying the greatest, most vibrant city in the world, precisely because of contributions of broad range of people from different cultures and races and faiths. but i think we have to accept that people will only put aside prejudice if they think there are rules. and you know, when people see their communities changing, they worry about that. culture and identity is extremely important. secondly, i think we have to

deal with the fact that globalization, not just in terms of trade but technology also does displace jobs. there will be many communities affected by this. they have got to know we're not indifferent to their plight. we're prepared to get alongside them and help them through these issues. thirdly, we need to understand, this is a moment where there's a paradox, actually, that i see in politics today. at one level, people are getting more and more partisan, and the effect of partisanship is very often paralysis. okay. things don't happen because of partisanship. on the other hand, i think one of the robberies why people elected donald trump here is because they actually want someone who says we're going to fix it. i'm just going to drive through and get it done. i think what we have to be is in the center we have to have strong solutions.

they have got to be solutions that will make change. one of my passions when i was in government, after government, is education. education policy. you know, we need to educate the broad mass of people well. we need to educate them not just in the conventional sense but in terms of skills and training and aptitude for a changing world. this is -- we need a revolution in this area in order to be effective. so these are things i think we need to be addressing. we need also to be absolutely blunt about it. politics is -- i used to discuss politics with a famous soccer coach in the uk. he a great sort of psychology about soccer and working with people and about strategy and the difference between strategy and tactics. and you know, when i was having a discussion with him, he said

to me once, we've got the best strikers, the best goal scorers in the premier league. we've got a great team. >> yeah. >> he said no. we've got a great team. the best strikers and best defense, which is very obvious when you think about it. the point is if you're fighting this populism, there's a part of politics where you've just got to be professional enough and smart enough and flanked enough to keep your flanks protected. if you've got people worried about extremism, you've got to have a policy on extremism and it's got to go to the heart of extremism. if the public in today's world gets any section at all that issues of what they call political correctness stand in the way of tough solutions, they will mock you down. so a part of this also, frankly, is about making sure that the center is not just dynamic,

strong moving forward but has its flanks where it's playing defense protected. >> four key lessons there. one, recognize cultural identity matters. two, be honest about globalization and the impact. three, have some strong policies, don't get too wishy washy. and four, think of soccer, not football, and think about your defenses essentially. what i'm going to ask you about -- actually, i will ask you briefly. if you were donald trump walking into the white house in january -- >> this is an unlikely hypothesis on many levels. >> i get paid to think of unlikely hypothesis. they have been rather useful. what would your opening speech say? >> well, i think the issue is interesting hearing that discussion before. the issue is whether he's just going to focus on getting the post practical solutions and

getting things done. if that's what happens the country will move forward. i think the people speaking on the panel before, i thought it was interesting hearing the democrats. let's wait and see. let's wait and see what happens. there's no doubt part of all this is about making change and a sense of movement forward. this is definitely, i think, what people want to see and not just an american but elsewhere. so when it comes to things like infrastructure and so on, there is a real need for it. have you got a practical plan? can you break through the layers of beaurocracy. one of the others by the way for the center, which is essential, how do we redesign government itself. this is something we have over the years engaged with. but for example, if you take -- i mean government in its broader sense. i mean, for example, if you take in our case certainly things

like public services around education, health care, i think we're often not even asking the right questions about these types of issues and providing the answers. technology alone, by the way, is going to be potentially have a transformative threat in the way the government works and public service is delivered, in the way we actually reduce some of the cost and burden of the public sector. so if i was back in politics certainly, which i'm not -- >> would you like to be? >> no. >> for sure. >> sure enough. sure enough to be sure at this moment anyway. i think if i was back, i'd be trying to draw out also what are the questions we need to answer. certainly for something like uk health care system. i'd be looking at redesigning it, taking account of the changes, the technology can bring about in our world. so really it's -- i think if

people feel that the center ground is the place where people come together and work together to get things done in the interest of the country, i think, you know, most people respond to that. >> right. >> you know, it's also important to realize, these things, okay, your election was close, the election here in america. brexit was 52-48. it wasn't like 75-25. you know, there's a lot of people out there who are still capable of being persuaded. >> i'm going to turn to the audience in just a moment for questions. before i do and while you're thinking of questions, given that we have three potentially crucial elections next year in the netherlands where a nationalist is the most popular person. in france, where he's riding

very high and germany where angela merkel is in trouble. do you think there's a chance the eurozone could break up? >> i think it won't, because i think despite the problems with the eurozone, and i think there were design flaws in it, i think the thought of breaking and going back to individual currencies is too great. when greece was in crisis -- after all, if you think of the pain greece suffered in economic adjustment, it's more than frankly i don't know where we would be in britain facing those types of cuts in spending. but it's interesting, whenever it comes to the point, you know, the greeks don't want to go back to the drachma. whatever they say, i would think italians would want to go back

to the lira and so on. so i don't think europe will break up but we are in unchartered waters and there are very dangerous things. in europe, this issue to do with migration, culture and identity. we've got to look at the position of france. it's not surprising, given what the french have been through over this past couple of years that these issues are powerful and you're not going to succeed in a french election unless you're showing awareness of it. unless you're addressing the issues of culture and integration, particularly parts of the muslim community being apart from the community. and if you're welcoming in waves of migration, and particularly syria, you're going to have security concerns about that. it would be bizarre if you didn't. any politics is going to fight and win an election in those circumstances, going to have to

have their policy absolutely in a position, which, as i say, is not in any way compromising with prejudice or disrespect for human values but understands you've got a country that feels insecure and part of it angry. >> the hot new phrase these days in european circles is not so much brexit but frexit. france created next revolution or shock. anyway, we can turn to the audience now for a few minutes of questions. i think there are also microphones roaming around. it would be courteous but not compulsory to identify your self. please keep the question short because i can already see several hands waving. >> thank you. how would you deal with the challenges of expectations that

are short-term, yet challenges are so structural and long-term. for example, really, the only way to deal with the technology disruption, really, is through education and retraining. and yet the expectation of change is so short-term. so how do you deal with that? >> that's a really, really good question. i think that you obviously have to be able to explain to people the value of long-term structural reform. but at the same time i think you've got to help people in the immediate sense. so i think, you know, sometimes policies of a generic nature but sometimes you need specifically to identify the communities that are going to be most affected by change and go with a package that is actually directed to that community. but what you can't do is simply say to them, look, i know life

is terrible in the short-term. but wait 20 years and it will be better. that's not an election winning slogan as you all know. i think it's partly around that, but also -- and here is where i think it's important to look at how government itself changes. i think if you're asking everyone else to cope with change and people feel government is not changing, they are saying, you're not having to change, i'm having to change, i think that's also very important. >> any more questions? we've got a question right at the very back. >> pedestrians.org. this inclination to go towards strong men who can get things done, what are the implications for civil liberties and civil rights? >> i think one of the most -- when we're looking at what's new and what is not new, what is new and what is very, very troubling

to me is that if you look at the analysis being done, support for democracy in democratic countries, some of these figures are to me quite shocking. there was a poll in france recently where 30% of french people doubted whether democracy was the right system for you. that's a large number of people. so this strongman type of authoritarian figure, this is one of the reasons why, for example, president putin is admired in parts of european politics. and it's interesting how many people reference that quite openly in a way that i think ten years ago they really would not have spoken like that. so this comes back to my mind. there is a real risk we forget what democratic liberal values are about, and we just don't

understand that these values are absolutely fundamental to the human condition improving. but i think it all comes back to, well, what is going to be the alternative to the strong man. and the alternative to the strong man can't be a weak center. it can be a strong center that is obedient to those basic democratic liberal values but nonetheless showing how consistent with those things can be made to move. because the strong man idea, and you see this around the world today -- take the president of the philippines, classic example. i think you'd have to say that's quite a strong man type of politics. but why? why when you talk to ordinary filipinos away from the camera as it were and away from the public arena gives some support. why? because for years, they weren't

dealing with the problems of crime and drugs and the feeling that the system wasn't working for the ordinary person. so this is -- this is where the social media aspect of this is also very important. today people know or think they know about the world. and they get -- they break into sort of self-conforming groups that almost -- they share the same opinion, they reinforce the same opinion, and they become very angry about the way of the result. they don't see politics as trying to grind out results and take difficult decisions. they see it in instantaneous like or dislike. this is why the answer, in my view, the center, if you want to push away and defeat this type of strong man politics, the

center has got to be stronger and vibrant and dynamic. otherwise you will find a situation where people say, and this is among some young people, by the way, i've got no particular adherence to democracy. i just want the job done. >> tweet back. any more questions. >> anyone have a microphone? i think this will sadly have to be the last one. >> i think immigration is very important to all countries. canada has a way of accepting immigrants but being able to bring immigrants that are going

to integrate in the country and are going to be efficient in industries where they are needed. can do something like this, the immigration of people that don't integrate very often impose their way of life on e british, there's no question that is going to bring in a lot of anger by the british. >> so to state the obvious, britain and canada and one big difference, there's a lot of canada. >> a big space. >> a big space. but your point about integration is absolutely right. the thing is that we've got to be very -- there's just been a report published today in the uk. so i think we've got to -- this is where people expect an honest

sort of conversation, that the problem of integration we have is with a part -- let me choose my words carefully, with a part of the muslim community. not with all the muslim community but not really with the indian community or other communities. okay? so i think the best -- this is where i think -- this the only way dealing with these problems, you put them honestly on the table and say let's work it out and deal with it. but it's when we kind of and to hesitate in dealing that you get the problem, i think. so you're absolutely right. that is the way for the sensible thing in my view, when people come into the country with diverse cultures -- it's a strength, not a weakness for a nation -- have you to be very, very clear. have you to say here is the space of diversity. people practice their own faith in their own way according to their own religion and religious

conscious and that's great. but here is the common space. here is the space where we agree we all share these values. respect for democracy, respect for the rights of women, respect for the rule of law, respect for the basic freedoms of our country. now, i think in europe today, you could galvanize support around those principles. but if it becomes a situation where people are either pro immigrant or anti-immigrant, that is in my view a dangerous situation, because you lose the ability to curate the necessary space in common so immigration happens and people feel equal citizens of a country because they actually all share that common space. this is the only way it will work in my view. >> well, thank you. given this entire day is about celebrating common space in

every sense, looking for it, championing it and upholding it, that seems like a fantastic note to end on. thank you on behalf of all of us for offering your insights. being insider outsider can be a very valuable perspective to have. in the meantime, prime minister, tony, i look forward to the day when you start tweeting voluntarily. so thank you. [ applause ] ♪ ♪ >> joined by mayors of oklahoma city and dallas at the no labels event to speak about the way cities and states intended to work with the incoming trump administration. this is about half an hour.

>> okay. first of all, let me just say it's governor asa hutchison. it would surprise his state to know there's one mayor. the other thing i would like to note, in the introduction you didn't hear r or d after any names. that's significant, because as a governor or as mayor, whether you're a republican or democrat really doesn't matter all that much. you have to deliver programs that work for every one of your citize citizens, republicans, democrats, whatever they are. you do have to deliver. not a question of might this work. is this a nice way to put this budget together, nice way to put this program together. we have to say, we all -- they have to say or used to have to say, is this going to work and make it then work.

so what i hope we'll do in this panel is talk about what that relationship between governors and mayors is with the federal government, what you all need in order to make things work. i'd like to then we'll throw it open, obviously, for questions. let me open it for governor hutchison, i guess i'm showing my bias governor, nothing against the mayors. he is the mayor and spokesperson. we'll start with you, governor. >> thank you, i'm delighted to be here. i think about no labels. first i believe in the convictions of two parties, multiple parties. convictions are important. whenever you look at trying to accomplish things and i am delighted president-elect trump has put infrastructure front and center on the possibility of things to get done that this is a specific area that we can set

aside differences and say we agree on this and we can find out ways to get this done. it's really an essential need for our country. from an arkansas perspective, you look at some of our huge infrastructure projects, not just hires. highways is the most significant and we think about the highway trust fund. you also have to look at water projects. we have a grand prairie project that has federal and state money devoted to it to alleviate the decline of our water table in eastern arkansas we're so dependent on in our rice production. that's a federal project. it's a state project, but it's been stymied in terms of the flow of money. it's an example of where we've made an investment but we don't have enough money to complete the project. so that's another area of investment besides highways, a broader range of infrastructure

projects. we're looking at investment for these from the private sector. we're looking at the public sector, and we're looking at the opportunities also for foreign direct investment whenever it's appropriate. and i look at china, which is subject to great controversy these days. but we obtained a $1 billion investment from china into a bioproducts mill in south arkansas. it's a huge investment that creates jobs. and so it is the foreign relationships as well as our federal government relationship, private sector relationship, all of those taken together allows us to succeed. we have one of the largest new steel facilities being built in arkansas, big river steel. that was an opportunity that we had our teachers retirement fund invest in.

so when you're a small state, you have to rely on a whole arena for investment opportunities for huge, big infrastructure projects, whether they are private sector driven or must be projects as well. so we did a highway improvement plan in arkansas that was bipartisan, that we just passed in special session of legislature that creates $1 billion in new money for highways in arkansas, combined federal money and state money combined. so we're moving forward. i think there's incredible excitement among the states because we're going to have an administration health care, more flexibility has to be given to the states. whenever you're talking about infrastructure, it's a strong partnership to get the job done. so we're sitting on pins and needles as to see how this develops. i want to end with one thing before i turn it back.

i served in congress in the 1990s and in 2000 i joined george w. bush administration. when i was in congress, we were able to set aside some differences and accomplish some great things. it was last time we actually had a balanced budget in our nation. we need to get back to that. i think there's opportunities that now we can work together from whatever political persuasion to get things done, particularly infrastructure. but it has to start out, any bipartisan starts out with a process. you build the framework for an initiative by working with the other party from the very beginning. its bipartisan is not this is our idea, can we get your support for it. that's not true bipartisanship. i hope that we can move in the area of infrastructure with a bipartisan process and bipartisan outcome so we can do

something great and take advantage of this opportunity. >> you are now the head of the conference on mayors. this was by all aspects of fairly contentious election how was that reflected at the conference and what do you see from your fellow mayors as far as what they expect and need and want to see going forward here in washington? >> well, i think like most of the country, there was a 24 or 48 hour period where people were just stunned at what had happened. i was enthused that the mayors that contacted me in the wake of that in the next few days were really saying, look, it's over. mayors know about elections. when it's over you try to hit the reset button and say what do we do now. we're trying to have a conversation with the president elect and hear more about his ideas for infrastructure and how we can be a partner in there. first of all, the need is real. the nation's mayors know the

streets and bridges and airports and water systems are in dire need. the water systems are really something that doesn't get enough attention. in large east coast cities, largely, there are billions and billions of dollars of deferred maintenance buried under ground where people can't see it. where politicians through the decades didn't see any advantage to fixing it because no one would know if you fixed it or not. so deferred maintenance built up and built up and built up. it's just an issue we're handing off to the next generation and our grandchildren if we don't do something about it. i i think the nation's mayors would love to work with the administration on beginning to address that issue. one final word we would be taking to president-elect trump is that there has been talk amongst candidates and the sitting president removing tax exempt status for municipal

bonds. that would drastically cut into the amount of infrastructure dollars we're able to build with. 5 to 10% of our projects would no longer be able to be constructed. so that's really important to us that that tax-free status remain on municipal bonds. >> mayor, you're mayor of one of our largest, most vibrant cities. what do you see as the hope, as the concern? what do you want to feel is getting accomplished in these first -- there's no magic to the first 100 days. i think we know that. everybody picked that out as a timeframe for some reason. sounds nice. it's a round number. getting things done, it takes a much longer time. what are you looking for from the perspective of dallas and a city that's had a lot of challenges but seemed to overcome most of them and really growing at a rapid pace. >> well, i hope nobody screws it up for us. that's the first place, i think, because we are on a run.

we are creating more jobs than anybody else in the nation. our revenues are going at rapid rates and our property values. it's good. i think hopefully, the reason -- one of the reasons i believe is that we are very centrist city. we are a blue city in a red state, a very red state. that makes us very practical. and i believe that -- i'm a democrat, but i believe staying in the middle of the road does two things. first of all, i think it is really responsive to taxpayers. i think that's what taxpayers want. they want things to happen and they don't care about ideologies. they care about results. so when you bring people together, things actually happen. they are happier and taken care. also when you're in the middle of the road, you can go faster.

>> everybody else gets out of the way. >> you don't get a chance of running off the road. i think we can make a lot more progress. so i'm very enthusiastic about this movement because i believe it is the next wave of what's going to be happening in america. we can find common ground on infrastructure, all right? infrastructure not only do we need it, it's really what we were all elected to do. that's build for the long-term. building for the long-term for america is a challenge, but it's that in education. that's what's going to take care of us. lastly in infrastructure, we don't talk about it enough, is the return we're going to get on that investment. when we do this right, not only are jobs created but property values go up. businesses move -- businesses grow and that's the way you drive it. so it's not only just an investment because things don't -- things are decrepit but

it's making things happen. you're talking about water. until i joined council of mayors, i didn't realize we have a few cities in the nation that have wood pipes. wood pipes. >> new york city. when abraham lincoln was president. back a year or two. >> you've got to be kidding. we're on the right path. keep it middle of the road, keep things happening and making progress. >> that's what no labels is about. what i'd like to do, much more informative and useful to everybody is open it up to questions from the audience actually right now. we can bridge this gap a little bit, a lot more to talk about, talk infrastructure. is there any need, see any need on the definition of infrastructure for internet improvement? >> no question. >> infrastructure is another area as we try to tease out a more focused agenda -- potential

agenda for congress? >> that's a good example of where there are so many silos. you look at internet access, which is critically important in rural areas of our country. you've got the department of agriculture engaged in this. you've got the fcc engaged in this. we've got to really make sure that's highly coordinated. of course you've got private sector that has to drive it as well. we have a number of initiatives in arkansas first getting 100% to our schools and we'll have by the middle of next year. then we want to make sure it gets to our communities. this is a very significant and should be included in infrastructure probably right at the top of the list. >> you know, governor, one of the big issues i think we all agree in america is that the gap between the haves and have nots. it's in the information age that gap has got to be closed. we don't have to bring down the house. we can bring up the have nots.

wouldn't it be wonderful in 21st century to make that -- have president trump be the eisenhower of the highways for eisenhower of digital age. i think it would help a lot with that issue. >> i agree. it affects our schools, it affects our libraries, it affects "people" every day life. how many of us in here didn't bring our phone that's attached to the internet. in the last ten years it has become so overall viable in our lives, it has to be included as part of it. it's a little different because it's largely private sector driven in the marketplace. so are utilities and other projects. one last question, privilege of the chair. we talked -- we haven't talked here but it's been discussed a lot about tax reform. are there particular taxes as governor and mayors you think of the first ones you'd like to see

addressed? >> in terms of federal policy, the idea of interesting able to reshore some of the money for major corporations that's been overseas and utilized some of that returned investment for infrastructure, that has merit. i think that's an example of tax reform president obama talked about but obviously president trump looks at that as well. that's one we have to get a quick agreement on. let's do that, get money brought back, stimulate economy and use a portion for infrastructure? >> i'm in a weird place because texas tax policies are pretty good. we don't have personal income taxes or commercial income taxes. we're pretty simple in that way. as a democrat, i still think we should be simpler. i'm going to echo milk's point. we can talk about

infrastructure. we take away those tax-free bond status, it's going to hurt infrastructure in a big way. >> i think we need tax reform to create jobs. the tax system, it's a little like the health care industry. if we were going to start from scratch, nets of them would look anything like this. every time we try to address it, we tweak it. i don't think we make it simpler or better. i don't envy anyone that's trying to take on either one of those challenges. the outside noise that comes in either time you address change in either of those entities is enormous. i don't believe we're going to move the economy at 2, 3, 4% without some significant tax change. >> okay. questions from the floor. there's a question here. is there a mic? a mic over here?

>> ken, i'd like to know whether you favor identifying single infrastructure projects in each of our states that will be critical to the existence of your economy versus this kind of general expenditure across all water mains and the infrastructure or whatever. is there a single project in your state that's absolutely on the highest priority, whatever the cost, a dam or whatever, in new york state or new jersey. all the freight in the northeast and all am track trains to the northeast and to the middle atlantic states would come to a halt in a few years if we don't

spend $30 billion to rebuild it. so with the help of the port authority and states and federal government, that's the high priority project. would you favor that approach where you identify the 50 most critical projects as the priority given that you have a finite amount of money available, or do you feel you have to have a very broad shotgun kind of approach politically to use this finite amount of money. thank you. >> go ahead, mayor. >> i don't think it should be shotgun. i think we've got to be very thoughtful how we approach it. i would go for 50, 50 largest cities as opposed to states. >> might have an argument. >> that's where people are living today.

so prioritize that. i really think what should happen, though, is a commission should be set up, and we should really run the numbers on all the infrastructure projects and understand the critical needs of them and return on investments and make it very transparent for everybody so it's not everybody gets a little piece of candy at christmas. we won't make the biggest return on that investment. that's my thoughts. >> well, in 2009, the stimulus package came out. mayors collectively asked for a significant part of those dollars to be funneled straight to the cities so we could get the projects done. at the end of the day, the projects went the way most of them do, and that's to the states. when it was all said and done, the nation's cities didn't get their share of the needs. the needs seemed to be applied to the rural areas, regardless of which kind of sector of the infrastructure you're talking about.

i think we would have a similar message. if you want an impact on large number of people, the cities need a larger specific of the funding stream. i'm not saying we need more of the states. we could use cdbg formula or some similar formula to make sure some of the money goes straight to the city, that mayors and city councils can direct it to urgent needs. it is a problem in washington to try and figure out what the most important needs are. local governments are going to be able to do that more specifically. so there's a role for states and cities in this. if we have the funding streams the same way we did in 2009, i fear it won't have the impact people perceive it's going to have on the front end. >> we've got to be able to hit a broader range of infrastructure needs. we need to have a more consistent federal policy in terms of highway funding. that's one side of it. we need to have a coordination for expansion of broadband access across the country.

we need to have the water projects. we need all of those. so you've got to be able to cover a broad range of infrastructure. then i also think it would be good to have the super project list. that's where i think you have special attention to needs that have been neglected in our country. i'd be happy if we could list the top ones in arkansas. yes, there is a specific list of priorities. would it be different than cities? i think there's probably a lot more agreement. one of our projects would be a bridge across arkansas river, i-49 bridge. that helps cities all along. it's a state priority project. and so there's projects from state and city level. >> adding a little bit to that. one of the important things and whatever happens is to allow as

much decision making to come down on those priorities to the states and the cities rather than have the federal government try to do it. i just think back to the days, totally different area, still spoke to that, the ability to come together to make things work and how the flexibility made a real difference in states. that was welfare reform. when we had bill clinton as president and newt gingrich, republicans in control of the congress. i was part of the governors who would come down on a regular basis to meet over that. it took us three times to get a bill the president would sign. within that, there was sufficient flexibility that the states were able to meet the needs of their various populations. i interpret new jersey quite broadly and it made a difference. there were other states tighter but it made the right difference for them. so the key in any infrastructure is going to be, i believe, yes, you need to have that top list so people can have a level of confidence there is going to be return on investment, even if it's not dollar return but people return and improvement in

people's quality of lives. but you also need to let the states and cities have a certain amount of flexibility to really direct it where they feel the need is. >> governor, i think there's a role for competitive grants, where we bring our infrastructure challenges and we say, here is what we can do but this is what we need the federal government to do. there's a partnership but we have skin in the game so we're not just asking for a handout. we're willing to participate in the funding. >> there's a question over here. >> i'm a big supporters from new york. i'm a big supporter of infrastructure and investment but i'm also concerned. any time since world war ii relative to the economy, how are we going to pay for this.

we often talk about, well, we could use a portion of that money that's repatrioted from overseas. well, the truth is we can use all of that money that's repatriated from overseas. that will only address a fraction of these infrastructures we're talking about. so we need to think of other ways. there have been a number of suggestions using private enterprise to fund at least the part of the infrastructure needs that we have. if you look -- any of you look at some of these proposals and do you have any interest in them? >> absolutely. the projects that i've mentio d mentioned, i believe we can do it with a public/private partnership. we create a revenue stream and then utilize the private sector to accelerate the development of

project. that's one of the key deficiencies we have in our infrastructure now is that there's too long of a timeframe. costs go up. there's inefficiencies. you don't get benefit from economic growth. that to me is if you're going to bid to federal government saying we're going to put this together it should be timeliness, partnership with the private sector. and those that can be shovel ready the quickest and have the greatest economic impact ought to be the ones that move forward. i agree with your point about our federal debt, so we've got to concentrate on growing the economy. in arkansas we solve a lot of problems with a growing economy. we got down to 3.8% unemployment rate. the first quarter of this year we had the highest economic growth rate of any state of the union. so economic growth solves a whole host of problems. if we can use the infrastructure

investment that spurs the economy on, that will reap big benefits to us in terms of the national debt as well. >> i went to a conference at the white house where mayors were introduced to sovereign wealth funds, large pension funds. i realize there were trillions of dollars, trillions, sitting on the sidelines wanting to invest in the united states. and we can't figure out how to talk to them and put these deals together. and probably one of the most important things that secretary of treasury or commerce could help us figure out is how to do that. what gets in the way is ideology, because people run on this notion that we don't want to privatize something, okay. there's different models to do it on both ends. i agree with the governor that

we need to figure out how to get that money working here in the united states and it doesn't have to come through washington. >> i agree we need to have more public/private partnerships. however, the issue generally isn't an access to capital. we have really good bond rating. we can borrow all the money we want but we've got to pay it back. that's the problem. have you a very -- in my case, a very conservative electorate that isn't fired up about taxes or what they perceive might be a tax. so you know, i think more creative solutions on how we're going to generate revenue from the construction. are there ways we can have tax credits address the jobs that are created by the construction of the infrastructure, could somehow that be regenerated back into the revenue stream. i think there's going to be some creative tools out there because it seems like a win-win for everybody if we invest the money. as long as we're relying on

taxpayers to pay the entire freight, it's going to be hard for us to borrow enough money to build our way out of it. >> one way in the back. i've got to go there because i can't see. what i have seen, we'll go for it. >> pedestrians.org. how is the way your city and state changed the way it approached transportation over the last 10 or 20 years and has federal policy helped you make those changes or do they need to do changes at the federal level to help you make those changes? >> well, i'll take it on first. it has changed. first of all, congress did away with earmarks. so really the consistent infusion of special project money has been diminished from the federal level. so you're seeing the states and local governments pick up greater part of the load. you just couldn't wait on

earmark money. it wasn't going to happen. so if you're going to create that growth, create that infrastructure, the highways, you had to figure out a way to do it on your own. we've had a bond issue. we've had a half cent sales tax increase statewide. four projects in arkansas, the voters supported that because they see the benefit from it. so there's two changes i would like to see. we don't have to go back to the earmark day but i would like to have a new federal highway bill that has new funding sources, so it's more robust, so there's a consistency in funding. then secondly we've got to look at the speed of projects. it is distressing to me that it takes so long from approval to delivery and breaking ground on it. i think a lot of that has to do with federal restrictions and federal policy and not providing the states enough flexibility.

those two things to me should be addressed. >> i'm pleased with the republican governor, he's step you said in a major way in his campaign saying we should be in the highway building business and we haven't been, so we got a statewide referendum past. we're now, i think, on the move again. i do believe when we say transportation for cities especially we have to think outside the dots a little bit and not just big highways. we have to focus on mass transportation of we've got a project, high-speed rail between dallas and houston that's going to be privately funded and ways we can do that. so i would hope that gets part of the dialogue a little bit more. so i do think we're making progress at the state level. >> i also agree we're making

progress. on the transportation side, figuring ways to fund it, in oklahoma we have gotten a long way simple penny on the dollar sales tax. we have passed a series of initiatives that we tell the voters how long the tax is going to last and how much it will cost and what we'll do with the money if they extend it to us. they have passed every one of these and we have gone out and billed projects like convention centers and parks, 75 schools. we built water projects, sports arenas. but the citizens seemed to like the idea the tax is going away unless they approve it to pay for something else. they like the idea of a pay as you go philosophy so no debt incurred. takes long tore build the projects. nonetheless, with no debt a very conservative climate like oklahoma, we can get those initiatives passed. >> i'm afraid we have time for only one more question. it's going to have to be brief and the answer is going to have to be brief.

>> you mentioned both water systems and the internet, which i agree completely with. my company does a lot of work, weapons system work. it's something called hardware in the loop. i was just wondering mainly for the mayors, seems to me that the water systems that are also hooked up to the internet are inedibly at risk for people being able to go in and hack those systems and then direct the equipment to do something you wouldn't want it to otherwise do. all the companies i worked with that are highly classified have enormous amounts of cyber attacks on them. i just was wondering what your thoughts were about the safety of the systems now and what needed to be done in order to

enhance that safety. as we invest in both of those, that's something that we need to address. >> i think it's a vulnerability none of us want to talk too much about because we don't know. you don't know what cyber terrorism can look like. you talk about water supplies and other things, don't forget the autonomous vehicles around the corner. those are, i think, susceptible to reprogramming with devious ideas. >> i had something, after 9/11 one of the things we were able to do for epa was get targets hardened. we worked closely with water affiliation and they took steps to harden themselves as targets. they have been constantly upgrading and watching it. every time you put up a barrier, the bad guys figure another way to go in. constantly at it. far more concerning to me is chemical site security. that's the area we have not been able to get consensus on moving

forward and we don't have chemical site security we need. certainly west texas was the kind of thing that can go wrong and how devastating it is. at this point we're out of time. i have to keep us on schedule. i want to thank a fabulous panel. >> thank you, governor. ladies and gentlemen, has this not been fabulous? give it up. >> no label co-chair jon huntsman, former utah governor and joe lieberman, former senator talks about popular candidate sis in the election and the role their organization could play in getting centrist politicians elected. ♪ >> i love that song. that's such an auspicious song,

"beautiful day" by u 2. that's the song i had when i ran for governor. i actually nelson peltz and and any berski, what a special moment. people like that, when they take this effort seriously, you know what we're doing is of serious purpose and intent. all of new this room don't waste your time. you want to be part of something purposeful going in a direction toward a destiny that's going to be good for this country. i'm delighted to be here with joe lieberman, my co-chair, rabbi, big brother. there she is. let me just remind you of a couple of things is so significant about why we're here today. number one, it's a new center of gravity emerging in american politics.

now it's by virtue of how things played out not over one administration but over many administrations, and it's brought us to where we are today. it's called unclaimed real estate. it's center right, it's center left, it's where the deals get done. it's where business is tra transacted. we are here to plant our flag in that real estate. make no mistake about what we are doing. this is where we are. it's a claim to this real estate. number two, no labels is leading the effort. i don't know of another organization or undertaking quite like what nancy and her team have put together. it is prepared, it's organized, it's got the energy to make things happen with respect to this new political real estate. number three. this new political real estate, this new center of gravity is represented by an emerging

problem-solvers caucus who had a couple of years of, let's say, pretrial exercise. some of them are here, working together, burnishing up their ability to do things cross boundary. i'm here to tell you, they've got the resolve to build and to play a significant role as the problem solvers caucus on capitol hill. the go-to group that could change the balance of power on these very important issues, whether it's tax reform, infrastructure, immigration or health care. number four and finally, we couldn't be doing any of this without defensive mechanisms in place. make no mistake about it. this is where we have not adequately built the right systems. that is protecting the center lane in primaries with an unprecedented new super pac. we talked about it and we talked about it. we've thrown some numbers out there. members of the media are starting to report on those

numbers. i'm here to tell you if we can bring all of this together, claiming center right, center left, this new real estate down the center lane where deals are done and problems are solved, if we can keep our problem-solvers caucus on capitol hill alive and well, organized and focused on the mission, and if we can build these defensive mechanisms, folks, we will be an organization to be reckoned with. and then the amount of good we can do for the american people for the good taxpayer, for the folks who make everything else happen, i think will be very consequential and important longer term. it's a great privilege to serve as co-chair of no labels. i can't begin to thank you enough for what you're doing in your own individual ways. i'd like to turn this microphone over to my great friend joe lieberman. thank you. >> thank you, jon. thanks, ladies and gentlemen. great honor really to be

co-chair of no labels with jon huntsman and better to be his friend. i want to take my text for my brief remarks this noon from a holiday card i got from my former colleague in the senate tom carper of delaware. on the card he quoted this african proverb, "if you want to go fast, go alone. if you want to go far, go together." and i think that proverb really sums up what no labels has been about and what we are doing here today. there has to be a new center in american politics where people with good intentions, even if they have different ideas, can

work together to get things done for our country. because if we don't have a center in american politics, we don't really have a functioning democracy. we just have a never-ending battle of factions trying to impose their narrow views on one another. and that, too often in recent years, is exactly what it's felt like in america. it feels like we're coming apart when we should be coming together to solve our problems. but here's the hopeful fact beneath all the partisan slashing back and forth. at the level of the american people, we are not really as divided as a lot of people would suggest. if you look at the polling, the majority of people in america

are in the center right to center left. they're not at the extremes. but in washington, it doesn't feel that way. it feels like that majority has been squeezed out by the extremes. so what i'm saying is we have the numbers. what we need is the will and the organization to put those numbers and the common sense that comes with them back into our government. and that really is what no labels has been about and why this day is such a moment of great opportunity. it's a different day. it's a beautiful day. and it's a different day. why? because we've got leaders in congress and no labels supporters across the country, from across the country, stepping up like never before. we've got the problem-solvers

caucus working together. we've got the political action committee ready to help those who are problem-solvers and fight those who are extremists and who are not. i can tell you having been there at the moment a member of congress faces a big decision about a vote, and he or she feels that what's in the best interest of their constituents in our country is what they want to vote for, but the party leadership, our interest groups are telling them to vote the other way, too often that's what they do. at that moment, we want them to know that the problem-solvers caucuses with them and in a very real and tangible way, the super pac that we're forming will be with them at their backs the next time they run for office.

there's another reason why this is a moment of real opportunity for no labels. in the last election, whether you supported hillary clinton as i did or donald trump, the election of donald trump is a disruptive event for a political system that has needed to be disrupted. it opens the door to enormous change. and if president trump wants to really carry that change forward, he can't listen to the people in the republican party who say let's just shove it down their throats, and he won't benefit and won't be able to get anything done if the voices in the democratic party there are calling for resistance, obstruction at all cost prevail. he needs a group from congress from both parties to come together to work with him to

take america forward. so i would say that today marks a new and exciting chapter in the history of no labels. we have a lot to build on, but we've got a lot of great things we can do for the country. to go back to the african proverb, we can and must go far, but we can only do it if we go together. thank you very much. >> ladies and gentlemen please welcome from the great state of texas, former senator kay bailey hutchinson.

♪ >> well, thank you, everyone and welcome. i think this is a very exciting opportunity for our country to reboot as joe lieberman just said. it's been disrupted and so now let's go forward in a positive way. and i think this panel today is an example of the diversity, geographically in our country, in the party diversity as well. and our task is to talk about what to expect in the first hundred days. raise your hand if you would like to predict what will happen in the next hundred days after watching this campaign of the

last year and a half. kind of hard to predict right now. but that's what this group of experts who are sitting in congress today can enlighten us on what can the president-elect actually do without congress? what can he do maybe with the consultation of congress, work with congress to do, and then what can he not do at all without a congressional way forward? so with that, let me introduce this panel. first to my left is my friend and former colleague roy blunt, senator who has just re-elected from missouri. senator steve daines -- i guess i should say party affiliation. roy blunt is a republican.

senator steve daines from montana also a republican. we are expecting senator joe manchion a senator democrat from west virginia, he's running late. if he gets here, he'll be on the chair at the end. congressman oni berra, democrat from california. congressman kurt schrader, democrat from oregon. and congressman peter welch, a democrat from vermont. and we are being moderated today by ryan clancy who is one of the chief strategists for no labels. i think he's going to start us off, let everybody say what they think the lay of the land is then be ready to ask the questions that you would like to

answer or make the statements, brief statements with a question to follow, as well. >> thank you very much, senator. i want to start with senator blunt and daines. i think for anybody that's been following the news, we have a sense of what's on the docket in the first 100 days, tax reform, infrastructure, some other things. i think what's more interesting to people is not only what is going to get done, but how. is the republican party, does it see an opening with your senate democrat colleagues to get something done together? we'd love to hear your perspective and conversations you have with senator schumer and other folks on the other side what you think you could work on on the first 100 days. >> i want to say first, i thought senator lieberman's observation about the importance of the disruptive event, and disruption not a bad thing. in fact, i've got a good friend who has an investment group he calls the disrupt-offs.

it's an important thing in an economy to keep it vital. i do think there is a synergy available here that would not be available under other circumstances. i think the new president makes us think about different ways to look at things because he's got to look at things in different ways. i would think on the senate side, a lot of the first hundred days will be the personnel business that we're involved in, that the house isn't involved in, trying to get move forward with appropriate speed to get a government in place, very possibly we'll have a supreme court nomination to deal with in that hundred days. we will probably pass two different budgets. we have an opportunity to pass a budget in january that frankly gives us a vehicle to do

something to move forward with health care, and then we'll pass the budget for the budget year that begins next september or next october 1 after that. that's about all we'll be able to get done in the first hundred days. when you think about the inclusiveness of that, that's going to be a big moment. what do you think? >> i do. i come from a state, montana, if you think about no labels, we are a state that's notorious ticket-splitting state. we elect democrats, we elect republicans. in fact, i was the first republican elected to this u.s. senate seat in 101 years. in fact, i say about my home state, we're a little bit of john denver, a little bit of me merl haggard. i love to backpack with my wife.

we have the environment and we need jobs. that's the merle haggard side. i'm also a chemical engineer. i'm trained to solve problems. i think this last election governor huntsman and senator lieberman alluded to was less about ideology. president trump's message was pragmatic, staying focused on american jobs, energy security, about the need to secure and save social security, medicare, and the need to responsibly manage the fiscal house here in washington in achieving a balanced budget. so i hope we can stay focused on these bigger picture issues. this town suffers from attention deficit disorder. i think the question about the first 100 days very important as roy mentioned. the presidential appointees will consume a lot of our time, at