that wing of the party, we are looking at everything we can to work with president-elect trump to make it successful, to make it work. if we disagree, we're going to disagree in a respectful way, but also have input and i would say that if we're thrown the aca from the beginning, affordable care act, obamacare, whatever you want to call it, i hope my colleagues would say, fine, we're going to repair this with this. it would be much easier. if you say we're going to do this and take a two or three-year period to work out the differences, there's going to be people on my side of the aisle that said you had six years right now and 60 votes to rebuild it and you've not begin us any alternative. let's work together constructively. i think it needs to be repaired. i'm the first to tell you that, but i think is there a pathway forward if we work together if we don't, we are taking hard votes and back into the stalemate. only thing i would recommend to the president-elect is this, i've said this many times, get

your financial house in order. as a previous governor, when i went into governorship, i went immediately to wall street to find out what they thought of the state of west virginia. i asked standard and poor's and moody's. once they laid it out to me, my challenges i had, i came back and took on financial reform. i had to get the finances of west virginia solid enough to do the things i wanted to do. i've said this, in public office, if people trust us with their money, they'll trust us with anything. they'll trust us to make the changes and good policy changes. if you can't trust a person taking care of your finances or their own finances, they might not give you the benefit of the doubt on good policy changes you want to make. i would recommend to our new president-elect, let's get this financial house back in order and make changes that i think will be great for this country. i'm looking for a lot of good things to happen. i really am. >> senators, this is a question for you. senator manchin was talking about affordable care act.

and the way that might get refashioned. what is your sense how that will happen? do you think it will be repealed and replaced a couple years later or both be done at once? >> which senator to go to? >> either of you. let's start with you, senator daines. >> i think it's constructive for us to look at history as we step back and think about the going forward plan with the affordable care act. comments about the need for bipartisan solutions, you go back to that year 2009 and '10 when the democratic party came to town. after arlen specter switched over there were only 108 senators in the house. they were scattering the ashes at that point. who would have thought we would sit here today with the current make-up of washington based on

how the world looked in '09 and '10? unfortunately when the affordable care act moved through congress, it was with zero bipartisan support. it was a very, very partisan piece of legislation. if we watched, i would argue the blowback on that the last few years, it ought to be very telling to us today as we go forward, as we think about the replacement plan now for obamacare, and i think the repeal will likely happen through some kind of reconciliation vehicle that's probably a high probability, i would offer. but the replacement will have to be bipartisan or we will face perhaps at our own peril a different political landscape that will blow back because the american people said something very, very strongly, president-elect trump to move forward as a country to get something done. first of all, we can't have a partisan replacement in the united states senate because it takes 60 votes. we need joe manchins and his colleagues to work with us to

get to 60. if we do that, we'll have a replacement and maybe stand the test of time. >> senator blunt, any thoughts on that? >> i do think it will be easier to get 60 votes on replacements. i want to come back to the plural of that. once there is an understanding that where we are now has got to change. everybody really knows that this system is not working. everybody has slightly different reasons why they think it didn't work, probably the biggest reason it didn't work was one side decided they wanted to take the entire structure on themselves, which would be a mistake for us to do, but i do think that we'll move forward, announce we're going to head in another direction, there's some discussion whether there would be a two-year window or a three, but we don't need to do all of that in one -- there won't be a 1,570 page republican bill that replaced the 2,700 page bill that we're moving away from.

i see that coming a piece at a time. things that 60 republicans, 60 members of the senate and a majority of the house can support, and i envision taking those things off the table starting almost immediately. there's a provision i sponsored in the house when i was still in the house. the 26 where you can stay on your parents' insurance till you were 26. i was the only person that filed that bill. i was glad to see it added. there seems to be a universal sense that's one of the things you want to maintain going forward. no reason to wait three years to say you're going to do that if you can get 60 senators and a majority house members say this is one of the pieces of building our health care system back that we want to sustain. but i do think we're going to see the elimination of the old system on a date certain on what will be close to a partisan vote. i hate that because it creates an ownership opportunity of a

really difficult to manage system that i would think republicans would want to try to avoid that ownership. >> as somebody who was in the body recently and you're now looking at it from the outside, how do you see it evolving? >> yes. i think the points that are being made are very practical, and i think there is a way forward for both parties to have an input on what you keep now and then what do you put on the table for discussion in a bipartisan way to go forward? and i would say the biggest problem of this bill was the prescriptiveness of it. it made you have to take a one-size-fits all program. if you didn't do that then you were going to go into the

government system beginning to have a government-only program. but if you would go in and have a bipartisan committee look out how they take a one-size-fits-all solution and put more flexibility in it so it's not congress trying to write every single person's health care plan, then i think could you make real progress on bringing insurance companies back in, bringing corporate coverage back in, and then that leaves a much smaller group that you can serve better if you would go forward with less prescription and more flexibility. >> congressman welch, if this unfolds the way they're describing, how do democrats respond? >> a couple of things. number one, there is obviously political pressure on the republicans to, quote, repeal and follow through on their promise, but we all know that

that is kind of meaningless. what happens the day after? what i really think is our job, those of us in congress in the first hundred days is to try to give some definition to what the scope of the problem is. in health care, there are three elements. one is the insurance reforms. that was a tremendous provision you had, letting our kids stay on until age 26. we want to keep that. letting people get access to insurance if they have a pre-existing condition. trump is for that. letting you stay on insurance if you have a chronic condition where you hit the cap, you don't get thrown out on the street. that's one. that has implications how we pay for it. second is medicaid expansion. there's a lot of problems in medicaid. that has made access to health care significant and a lot of republican governors accepted that. some haven't. the third issue that is just killing us in red states and blue states is the cost of health care. some of the reasons are what senator hutchinson said.

what i would hope is that all of us would say, look, we've got to deal with this cost of health care. in some cases it's a broken market. in some cases it's too much regulation. in some cases, it might be litigation. if we gave some definition to it, there is a common benefit if we start trying to bring down the cost of health care. it is killing our companies that are trying to protect their workers, it's -- our state budget, we're like an insurance company. that's an area if you give us some definition and say you've got proposals, we've got some and the objective is not to throw people off health care, objective is to get a more efficient health care system. i think we can make some progress. it's the same on infrastructure. trump is a builder. that's a good thing. we need it. it's got to be paid for. the worry i have is we'll come up with some infrastructure plan that will blow a hole in the

deficit. you'll see democrats raising questions about that. how do we deal with infrastructure with a payment mechanism? can we agree that's a mutual challenge? >> let me say the perfect storm coming is basically we had a change in the whole, from a presidency and changes in congress, but next year 2017, all states get hit with the full bill. the fed's been supplementing 10% for every state. little state of west virginia it's a couple of hundred million dollars. they don't have the budget. we're $300 million short right now. every state will be faced with picking up this 10%. it will be a perfect storm hitting. they want this done, this done and this done and cut this cost down. because their 2017 budgets will be working first of next year putting their budgets together for the end of 2017/2018. they're facing that. every state is facing it. >> joe is on to something as a former governor, the importance of the state's voice as we think about the go forward plan.

kay used the term overly prescriptive command and control. i've been on the phone with our newly elected commissioner of insurance practices. we've got to work with our states more effectively. i think mike pence can help bring that voice in his role as a former governor. you're hearing it from governor manchin and governor huntsman, the importance of our state's voice. >> on my side of the aisle, they are very opposed to block grants for medicaid. as a former governor, i can spend the money better than you can tell me. i never prescribed to that. we can design something that helps my state more if i knew exactly way had to work with. i can't fit in every hole you have there. i have to fit in this hole to get this reimbursement. mary knows exactly what we are talking about. the things we fight every day. we are 50 states and we're all different. we're not the same.

that has some appeal. >> where are we going to find a lot of common ground is going to be in the economic unit. we'll disagree respectfully amongst ourselves with aspects of the health care bill and what we need to fix or don't need to fix. but the area i think where we can all agree is the economy. creating new jobs, high-paying jobs for a lot of folks. the president campaigned heavily on that, particularly in rural america. he won big in rural america. there's great opportunities in agriculture and forestry, fishing. energy projects. a lot of working men and women want to work on. they're not just solar and wind. there are great opportunities for a lot of folks in this room to rally around and think all of us could rally around that would put people back to work in a real serious way. and, frankly, empower and get people feeling better about themselves and where this country is going. that is a big focus of what no labels is about.

it's about making sure people work with one another. respect the fact we come from different parts of this country, but we all want to see everyone in america succeed, no matter if you're from the city, from the farm. everyone has an opportunity. i think that's something we should put a lot of focus on that first 100 days to make sure that's a big outcome, bipartisan outcome we can get going forward. >> there is this broad message the president-elect had about putting america first. let's not forget, senator sanders tapped into that on the left as well with this message of putting america first. we allowed that to guide us in our conversations. that is where the public is right now. they want us to focus in on putting the country first. so whether it's infrastructure, whether it's tax reform, whether it's health care, we ought to be guided by that and focused inward for a while. >> congressman bera, thank you very much.

that's ending on a high note that. concludes the panel. we could give a round of applause to our senators and members? thank you very much for joining us. let me all get you the details on where you are all going to next. which i am not sure about. oh, everybody is staying in here. that makes it easy. stay in your seats. tonight on american history tv, veterans' stories from world war ii, korea, afghanistan and iraq featuring medal of honor recipients, silver star recipients, and military women. it all starts at 8:00 p.m. sunday, january 1st "in depth" will feature a discussion on the presidency of barack

obama. our panel includes april ryan, white house correspondent for american urban radio network and author of "the presidency in black and white, my up close view of three presidents and race in america." eddie glaude, "democracy in black." and david maraniss, author of "barack obama, the story." watch it sunday on book tv on c-span 2. and we have more now from the no labels conference as former british prime minister tony blaire talks about the u.k.'s vote about leaving the european union, its impact and the growing rise of nationalism.

good afternoon. i'm gillian tett. i heard the comments earlier this morning, we are absolutely committed to providing fair, credible and informed coverage of what is going on not just for our american readers but for around the world. i'm sure many of you are feeling like you've lived through a political earthquake or are living through a political earthquake. well, i've got news for you, brittain got here first or there first because as you all know, there was an earthquake earlier this summer in the u.k. in relation to the brexit vote.

jeremy corbin has been reinstated with a big majority. 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. 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, the man who's now heading for the white house, tony blaire. the man who is in charge of u.k. politics for a long time and did not simply run the u.k. but tried to set a new type of politics, a new political center. but before i start the questions, i want to quickly start with a protocol question. our american friends in the audience often have a mistaken impression that britts are very, very status conscious and very formal in public because they've all watched "downton abbey", and any of you who have ever been on a platform in the u.k. 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. 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

attorney-client privilegy or to? >> no, i'm going to be tony. what i found when i first left office is people in america would always address you -- continue to address you prime minister. the british media had a field day with this. this guy is so incapable of understanding he's left the job. so i said to them, you've got to scrap this and then it became that i was so depressed i couldn't hear the word prime minister. feeling a sense of disuppdispon. >> we are officially divided by common language. tony, how do you explain the series of extraordinary political upsets that we have 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 absolutely shocking and, frankly, could well continue

that way. >> yes. look, there's a lot i think we've got to still try and figure out because undoubtedly we're in the new political situation which has gotten in europe at least a lot of data to it. brittain has taken a huge decision and there's no doubt in my mind that something different is going on in politics. having said that, i think it's very important to emphasize several things. the first is that you're popular if it's not you. concerned about immigration isn't you. i remember at least too young to remember the 1960s and when there were politicians warning about the waves of black immigration coming into the u.k. this is going to get rid of the blood and so on. immigration is not a new topic. globalization is not new and its effects. i mean, if you look at the changes in brittain in the 1980s, there were coal mining

communities, steel communities that shut down. so what is new i think are two things. first of all, i think the 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. there's no doubt about that anger. secondly, i personally think the social media itself is a revolutionary phenomenon. it changes everything. it changes totally the way politics works. >> do you tweet? >> not voluntarily. i -- i -- >> well, i think personally the president-elect does but anyway -- >> no, i know. by the way, you see how it's used. it's a new phenomenon. it interrelates with conventional media.

the financial times is a little too generous and aloof in all of this. >> i take that as a compliment. >> you can take it as a compliment. for example, if -- when i was first prime minister in 1997 the bbc nightly news had an audience around 12 million people, right? that was one conversation in the country. today the figure is just over 2 million. so this is a big, big change in the way politics is conducted and the way information flows. so i think there are very new parts that aren't new but i am absolutely convinced that the only way to confront the anger is to provide the answers and that's why a strong presence is the only way to do it. not the sloppy common denominator wishy-washy. we need something strong and muscular that is providing answer be zblers when you come up today very tactical.

a ty nice mix of red and blue. perfect mix of red and blue so your tie is wonderfully centrist, but when you were in office you tried to create a supposed new vision of politics which perhaps we should explain to this audience because they weren't so aware of this but it was called the new way, the third way, which is trying to be, if you like, a centrist left agenda. and you were trying very hard to get beyond the right and left. now some people might see the development of politics in the intervening period since you left office as essentially a sign that that attempt failed. i mean, what we have today in the u.k. is essentially a very left wing left party, a right wing right party and a center that has collapsed. >> yes. no, i know that 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 victory, but i think i actually -- when i worked on this, of course i worked with president clinton here and we had echos around europe and -- but, you know, what's very important, i will say this to you. oh, you can't go back to the kind of third wave type of politics. distinguished policies which are good for one kind with a philosophy that, in fact, is good for most times and i think it's good for this time. and what we have at that point and in my view what the center has to recapture is we have a sense of forward momentum. we were the change makers. we were the guardians of the status quo. now you actually said that austria was an exception. it's an exception in the sense that the green party candidates

be the leonardi candidate, far right. it's not a victory for the old politics but actually the two centrist parties were nowhere in that election. i think there's no doubt at all about what people feel is the center has not been providing that dynamism and that leadership going forward. if you take the case of europe, i am passionate about the reason why europe is in this present predicament. it's because it's not performing. it's not changing. you know, you only have to look at the way that the euro and trevails have produced these agonizing situations with the societies. fiscal stimulus and monetary policies of allies. now that's what they should be providing but they're not in europe at the moment. >> well, you know it's a very different political world when we're all looking to austria as a beacon of hope.

>> now you really have offended the austrians. >> anyone here who's 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 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-collected audience that for the most part probably kind of agreed to you. you are preaching sort of to the converted here. so if you had to tease out top three points that you think everyone in this room should heed, what would they be? >> right. well, first of all i think i don't really offer advice, i offer friendship and partnership because i think no labels is a great concept. i actually love the whole idea. i just was listening to the discussion and previously about health care and infrastructure and finance and, you know, i was

just thinking how invigorating it was to have a discussion that's about practical solutions. so i don't offer advice, but i think the challenges for us is the following. i think along with the economics we do have to understand the issues of culture and identity. people -- people -- i mean, take the european situation. it is not irrational to worry about immigration. now i am pro immigration, right? i believe brittain is a better country because we have waves of immigrants coming in. i think london is -- if you'll forgive me in this audience, saying it, the greatest and most vibrant capitol city in the world precisely because of the contributions of a broad range of people from different cultures and races and states. but i think we have to accept that people and -- will only

criticize prejudice if they think there are rules. when people see their communities changing they worry about that. cultural identity is extremely important. second, we have to deal with the fact that verbalization, not just in trade but technology, displace jobs and many companies will be affected by this. they have got to know that we're not indifferent to their plight. we'll have to get alongside them and help them through these issues. will he come and stand? there's a paradox that i see in politics today. at one level people are getting more and more partisan and the effects of partisanship is very often paralysis. if things don't happen because of partisanship. on the other hand, i think one of the reasons why people elected donald trump here is because they actually want somebody who says, we're going

to fix it. they have to have strong solutions. they're going to make change. we need to educate the broad mass of people well. we need to educate them not just in the conventional sense but for skills, aptitude, training, for the world. we need a revolution. these are things we need to be addressing and we need also to be absolutely blunt about it, politics is -- i used to discuss politics with a famous soccer coach in the u.k. he had a great sort of psychology about working with

people and tactics. having a discussion with him he said to me once, he said, so if we've got the best strikers, the best goal scorers in the premier league, we've got a great team? >> i said, yeah. >> he said, no. either we've got a great team, we've got the best strikers and the best defense. and this is very obvious when you think about it. and the point is if you're fighting populism, there's a part of politics where you have to be professional enough, smart enough, capable enough to keep your planks protected, right? if you have people worried about extremism, you have to have a policy on extremism. it has to go to their hearts, the policy on extremism. the public in today's world gets any sense at all of the issues of what they call political correctness stands in the way of

tough solutions that will mark you down. so in a part of this also, frankly, is about making sure that the center is not just dynam dynamic, strong, moving forward but has -- it flanks where it's going to be playing defense properly protected. >> four key lessons there. one, recognize that culturally matters, recognize the global impact, three, have some strong policies. don't get too wishy-washy and four think of soccer, not football, and think about your desentences fences essentially. what i want to ask you about -- i will ask you briefly if you were donald trump walking into the white house in january -- >> this is an unlikely hypothesis at many levels. >> hey, i get paid to think of unlikely hypothesis. this is rather useful.

>> the issue is whether he's focusing on the most practical solutions and getting things done. if that's what happens the country will move forward. so i think like the people speaking before, let's wait and see. let's wait and see what happens. there's no doubt part of this is about making change and attempts of movement forward. this is definitely what people want to see, not just in america but elsewhere. when it comes to things like infrastructure, so on. there is a real need for it. have you got a practical plan and can you break through the layers of bureaucracy. one of the other ways was for the center absolutely essential. how do we redesign government

itself? this is something we have over the years engaged with. like to me government, 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, never mind providing the answers. technology alone by the way could have a transformative effect, in the way public services is delivered and the way we reduce the costs and burdens. if i was back in politics, which i'm not -- >> would you like to be? >> no. >> are you sure? >> sure enough. sure enough to be sure at this moment anyway. so i think if i'm back -- i've been trying to draw up also what are the questions that we need to answer?

the u.k. health care system, i've been looking at redesigning it, taking into account the changes that technology can bring about in our world. really it's a -- i think if people feel that the center ground is the place where people come together and work together to get things done together in the interests of the country, most people respond to that. >> right. >> you know, as long as they realize, okay, your election was close, 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 but 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 currently the most popular person, in france when it's rising very high and in germany where angela merkel is in trouble, do you think there is a chance that the eurozone could break up? >> i think it won't because i think despite all the problems with the eurozone, i think it was designed for it, i think the thought of breaking apart and going back to your individual currencies is great. when greece was in crisis and after all if you think of the pain the greeks have suffered in the economic adjustment, it's more than frankly -- i don't know how it would have been in brittain facing those types of cuts in spending or you here. but it's interesting, whenever it comes to the point, you know,

the greeks don't want to go back. in the end, whatever people say i would think it unlikely they want to go back and so on. so, i mean, i don't think europe will break out. we are in unchartered waters and there are very dangerous things. europe, this issue to deal with migration, culture and identity, you've got to look at the position of france and it's not surprising given what the french have been through over this past couple of years that these issues are powerful. you're not going to succeed in the french election unless you're showing awareness of it and unless you're addressing the issues of culture, integration, particularly parts of the community being apart from the rest of the community. if you're welcoming in waves of migration from the middle east and particularly syria, you are

going to have serious concerns about that. it would be bizarre if you didn't. so any politician is going to fight and win an election. he's 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 to human values but understand you've got a country that feels insecure and part of it -- >> the phrase is not so much brexit but brexit. france creates the next revolution or shock. anyway, we can turn to the audience now for a few minutes of questions. i think there are some microphones roaming around. it would be courteous but not compulsory to identify yourself and please keep the question extremely short because i can already see several hands

waving. >> thank you. francis. how would you feel with the challenges of expectations that are short term and yet challenges are so structural and long term? for example, really the only way to deal with the technology disruption really is through education and retraining, and yet the expectation of change is proven short term. how do you deal with that? >> that's a very, very good question. i mean, i think 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 policy is 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 note. so i think it's partly around that, but also -- and here's what i think is very important to look at how government itself changes. i think if you're asking everyone else to cope with change and people feel government's not changing, they're saying, well, you're not having to change, i'm having to change. i think that's also very important. >> anymore questions? question right at the very back. >> yeah. 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 not new and what is new, what is new and what is very, very troubling to me is that if you look at the analysis that has just been done of support for democracy in democratic countries, i mean, some of these figures are, to me, quite shocking. there's a poll in france weekly 30% doubted democracy is the right system for them. that's a large number of people. so this strong man type of authoritarian figure, this is one of the reasons why, for example, president putin is admired in parts of european politics. it's interesting how many people reference that quite openly in a way that i think ten years ago

they would not have spoken like that. so this comes back to my mind, i think there is a real risk that we forget what liberal democratic values are about and we just 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 a beacon for the basic liberal values but showing how things are made to move because the strong man idea, and you see this around the world today. you take the president in the philippines, classic example. i mean, i think we'd have to say that that's quite strong man politics. but, you know, why? why? and when you talk to ordinary

filipinos will they away from the camera and away from the public arena give some support? i don't know how long that lasts. why? because for years they weren't dealing with the problem of crime and drugs and the feeling that the system wasn't working for the ordinary person. so this is -- you know, this is where the social media aspect of this is also very important. today people know or think they know about the world, right? and they get -- they come -- they break into self-conforming groups that almost -- you know, they share the same opinion, they reinforce the same opinion and they become very angry about the way of the world because they're not -- they don't see politics as a difficult business where you're having to grind out results and take difficult positions. they see it in terms of an instantaneous like or dislike.

this is why the center, if you want to push away and defeat this type of strong man politics, the center has to be strong, it has to be vibrant and it has to be dynamic otherwise you will find a situation where people say -- this is mostly amongst young people by the way. i've got a particular adherence to democracy. i just want the job done. if this guy says he can do the job let's get him elected. >> sounds like you need to tweet as well or tweet back. >> well -- >> anymore questions? we have a question right at the front. do you have a microphone? i think it will have to be, sadly, the last one. >> immigration is very important to our country, but 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 wherever they are needed. if we can do something like this, the immigration of people that both integrate, very often impose their way of life on the british, there's no question that is going to bring in a lot of anger by the british. >> so, i mean, to state the obvious, brittain and canada have one big difference, there's a lot in canada. >> a big space. >> a big space. your point about integration is absolutely right. the thing is that we've got to be very -- and there's just been

a report actually published on this i think today in the u.k. i think we've also got to -- this is where people expect us to have an honest conversation that the problem of integration we have is with a part, let me choose my words carefully, is with a part of our muslim community. it's not really with the indian community or other communities, okay? so i think -- this is where i think the only way dealing with these problems. you put them on the table and say, let's work it out and deal with this. it's when we kind of appear to hesitate is when you get the problem, i think. you're absolutely right. that is the way for -- the sensible thing in my view is when people come into your country from diverse cultures, diversity i think is a strength, not a weakness for a nation, but you have to be very, very clear. you have to say, here is the

space of diversity, people practice their own faith in their own way according to their own religion and religious concerts but here's the common space. here's 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's a dangerous situation. if you lose the ability to raise the necessary space that people hold in common so that integration happens and that people feel equal citizens of the country because they actually all share that common

space. and this is the only way it will work in my view. >> well, thank you. given that this entire day is about celebrating common space in every sense and looking for it, championing it for it, championing it and upholding it, that seems like a fantastic note to end on. thank you for offering your insights, being an insider, outsider can be a very valuable prospective you can have. and in the mean time prime minister tony, i look forward to the day you start tweeting voluntarily. so thank you. [ applause ] >> tonight on american history tv, veterans stories from world war ii, korea, afghanistan and

iraq. feature military recipients and military women, starts at 8:00 p.m. eastern. >> tonight on the communicators. >> if we had to strike two regulations to do so, which can be done, we have a lot of regulation that's can go, we would have a much more effective and efficient agency and more opportunity for providers to serve consumers. >> michael o'reilly, f.c.c. commissioner talks about how the f.c.c. may change under the trump administration. he is interviewed by editor from communications daily. >> there is a lot of concern about cyber security and there has been for a while it's getting a particular amount of attention right now with what happened in the last few months during the campaign. does the f.c.c. have a role in that and what is it? >> i think it's a very important issue and one that congress has been very aggressive on in trying to find the right solutions. i think other agencies are as well doing so.

the f.c.c.'s role is limited by the statute that governs us, the communications acts of 1934, while i do believe that government has a role to monitor and potentially provide additional fixes in this space, they aren't authorized by the law for us to do. watch the communicators at 8:00 eastern on cspan 2. arkansas governor and mayors of oklahoma city and dallass talk about the way they intend to work with the trump administration on housing and infrastructure. christine todd whitman is the moderator. >> well, first of all, let me just say it's governor asa hutchinson, it would surprise the state to know there was one

mayor for the entire state. and the other thing i would just like to note is in the introduction, you didn't hear r or d after any names. that is significant. because as a governor or as a mayor, whether you are republican or democrat, really doesn't matter all that much. you have to deliver programs that work for every one of your citizens, all of them. republicans, democrats, independents, whatever they are. and you do have to deliver those things. it's not a question of sitting and thinking, do we -- might this work. is this a nice way to put this budget together, is this a nice way to put this program together. we have to say, we all -- they have to say now, i used to have to say, is this actually going to work and make it then work. and so what i hope we'll do on 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.

and i would like to then we'll throw it open obviously for questions. let me start with governor hutchinson, i guess i'm showing my bias for governors, nothing against mayors, the mayor, and spokesperson, but we'll start with you. >> thank you. i'm delighted to be here. and i think about no labels, first, i believe in the convictions of the two parties, multiple parties, but convictions are important. but whenever you look at trying to accomplish things, and i am delighted that president-elect trump has really 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 and we should not just think about highways, highways is probably the most significant. we think about the highway trust fund. but you also have to look at water projects. we have a grand pairie project, alleviate the decline of our water table in eastern arkansas, we are so dependent upon in our rice production. and that is 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 have made an investment but don't have enough money to complete the project. so that's another area of investment besides highway as a broad broader range of infrastructure projects. we're looking at investment for these from the private sector,

we're looking at the public sector and opportunities for direct foreign investment whenever it's appropriate. i look at china, which is subject of 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, so it is the foreign relationships as well as our federal government rerelationship, the private sector relationship, all of those taken together allows us to succeed. we have one of the largest new steel facilities being built, it's almost completed in eastern arkansas, big river steel. and that was an opportunity that we had, our teachers retirement fund invest in, so when you are a small state, you've got to rely upon a whole arena of investment opportunities for huge -- for big infrastructure projects, whether they're private sector driven or public

projects as well. and 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 and i think there's incredible excitement among the states because we're going to have an administration that understands in health care, more flexibility has to be given to the states. when you talk about infrastructure it has to be a strong partnership to get the job done. so we're sitting on pins and needles to see how this develops. i want to end with one thing before i turn it back, is i served in congress in the 1990s and in 2000, i joined the george w. bush administration. when i was in congress, though, we were able to set aside some differences and really

accomplish some great things. it was the last time that we actually had a balanced budget in our nation and we need to get back to that. but i think there are opportunities that now we can work together from whatever political persuasion to get some 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. it's bipartisanship is not, this is idea, can we get your support for it. that's not true bipartisanship. so i hope that we can move in the area of infrastructure with a bipartisan process and a bipartisan outcome so we can do something great and take advantage of this opportunity. >> thank you. mayor cor net, you are now the head of the conference on mayors and this was by all aspects a

fairly contentious election. how does that -- how has that been reflected at the conference and what do you see from your fellow mayors as far as what they expect and need and want to see going forward here in bar ? washington? >> there is a 24, 48 hour period where people were stunned at what had happened. i was enthused that the mayors that contacted me in the wake of that and the next few days, were really saying, look, it's over, i mean mayors know about elections, when it's over you try to hit the reset button and say what do we do now. so we're trying to have a conversation with the president-elect and hear more about his ideas for infrastructure and how we can be a partner in there. first of all, i mean, the need is real. you know, the nations mayors know the streets and the bridges and the airports, and the water systems are in dire need. and you know, the water systems i think 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 generations and decades didn't see any political advantage to fixing it because no one would know if you fixed it or not. so the deferred maintenance built up and built up and it's just going to be an issue that we're going to be handing off to the next generation and our grandchildren if we don't do something about it. i think the nations mayors would love to work with the administration on beginning to address that issue. one final word that we will be taking to president-elect trump is that there has been talk amongst candidates and amongst actually the sitting president, about removing the tax exempt status for municipal bonds. and that would drastically cut into the amount of infrastructure that we're able to -- dollars that we're able to build with. 5% to 10% of our projects would no longer be able to be constructed. so that is really important to

us that that tax free status remain on municipal bonds. >> mayor recaaw lings, you are mayor of one of our most vibrant cities, what do you see as the hope, the concern, what do you want to feel is getting accomplished in these first -- there is no magic to the first 100 days, i think we all know that. everybody kind of picked that out as a time frame for some reason, sounds nice, it's a round number. getting these things done takes longer. what are you looking for from the perspective of dallas, a city that has hat a lot of challenges but seemed to overcome most of them and agreeing 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, i mean, we are creating more jobs than anybody else in the nation and our revenues are going at a rapid rates and our property values, so it's good. i think hopefully, the reason i

believe, one of the reasons i believe is we are very centrist city, we're 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 is what taxpayers want. they want things to happen. and they don't care about ideologies. they care about results. and so when you bring people together, things actually happen, they're happier and taken care of. also, when you are in the middle of the road you can go faster. >> everybody else gets out of your way. >> you don't get a chance of running off the road okay. i think we can make a lot more progress, i'm very enthusiastic

about this movement. because i believe it is the next wave of what is going to be happening in america. and we can find common ground on infrastructure, all right. infrastructure, not only do we need it, it's really what we were all lektdelected to do, th build for the long term. building for the long term for america is a challenge. but it's that and education. that is what is going to take care of us. and then lastly in infrastructure, and 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 were talking about water, until i joined the u.s. conference of mayors, i didn't realize we have few cities in the nation that have wood pipes.

>> new york city. >> wood pipes. >> when abraham lincoln was president. >> you got to be kidding. >> goes back a year or two. >> so i think we're on the right path. keep it simple. get in the middle of the road. make it happen. and i think we can make some progress. >> no question. the question is right behind what no labels is all about. what i would like to do, i think it's informative and useful to everybody is open up to questions from the audience right now. we can bridge the gap a little bit. there is a lot more we can talk about. when we talk infrastructure, do you see any need on the definition of infrastructure for internet improvement? >> no question. >> on infrastructure is another area as we try to tease out a more focused -- potential agenda for congress? >> that's a good example of where there is so many silos, you look at internet access, which is critically important in rural areas of our country and you've got the department of

agriculture engaged in this, you have the f.c.c. engaged in this, and we've got to really make sure that is highly coordinated. and then of course you got the private sector that really has to drive it as well. we have a number of initiatives in arkansas, first getting 100% to our schools and then, which we'll have by the middle of next year. and then we want to make sure it gets to countour communities, ts signature and should be included in infrastructure, probably right at the top of the list. >> governor, i mean one of the big issues i think we all agree in america is the gap between the haves and have-nots. and it's in the information age, that gap has got to be closed. and we don't have to bring down the haves, we can bring up the have-nots to really, wouldn't it be wonderful in the 21st century to make that the -- to have president trump be the eisenhower of the highways for the digital age and you know, i think it would help a lot with

that issue. >> i agree. because it affects our schools, it affects our libraries, it affects people's everyday life. how many in here didn't bring the phone that is attached to the internet. in the last ten years it has become so overly viable in our lives, it's got to be included as part of it. it's just a little different because it's largely private sector driven on the marketplace. but you know, so are utilities and a lot of other projects. >> one last question and the privilege of the chair, we haven't talked here, but it's been discussed a lot about tax reform. are there particularly taxes from your perspective as governor and as mayors that you think are the first ones you would like to see addressed? >> well, in terms of federal policy, the idea of being able to reshore some of the money from major corporations that is

spent overseas and utilize some of that returned investment for infrastructure, that has merit. i think that is an example of tax reform that president obama talked about but obviously president trump looks at that as well. that is one we ought to be able to get quick agreement on that. bring that back and 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 tax or commercial income tax, you know, so we are pretty simple in that way. i think we should make -- as a democrat, i think we should be simpler. i will echo mick's point. we take away those tax free bond status, it's going to hurt infrastructure in a major way. we got to watch out for, you know, unexpected consequences. >> i think we need tax reform to

create jobs. the tax system as it exists is a little like the health care industry. if we were going to start from scratch neither of them would look anything like this. any time we try to address it we kind of tweak it, i don't think we make it simpler, we don't make it better. i don't envy anyone that is trying to take on either one of those challenges because the outside noise that comes in every time you try to address change in either of those entities is enormous. i don't believe we're going to, you know, move the economy at 2%, 3%, 4%, without some significant tax change. >> okay. questions from the floor? it's hard to see. we have a question here. is there a mike? a mike over here? there. >> ken lipper. i would like to know whether you would favor identifying single infrastructure projects in each of your states that would be

critical to the existence of your economy versus this kind of general expenditure across all the water mains and all of the -- the internet infrastructure or whatever, is there a single project, in your state, that is absolutely on the highest priority for whatever the cost, a dam or whatever, for example, in new york state and new jersey, we have what they call. >> the tunnel. >> the gateway tunnel. it -- all the freight in the north east and all amtrak trains to the north east 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 the states and now half of it from the federal

government, that is now the highest priority project. would you favor that kind of approach, where you identify the 50 most critical projects as the priority given that you have a finite amount of money available, or do you feel we have to have a very broad shotgun kind of approach politically to use this finite amount of money? thank you. >> go ahead, mayor. >> look, i don't think it should be shotgun. i think we have to be very thoughtful how we approach it. i would go for the 50, i would go the 50th largest cities as opposed to states, okay. because that's where people are living today, and so you 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 the return on the investments. and make it very transparent for everybody so it's not everybody gets a little piece of candy at christmas. because we won't make the biggest return on that investment. that's my thoughts. >> well, in 2009 the stimulus package came out and mayors collectively asked for a significant part of those dollars to be funneled straight to the cities so we could get those projects done. at the end of the day the projects went the way most of them do and that is to the states. and when it was all said and done the nation's cities didn't get their share of the needs. the needs seemed to apply to the rural areas, regardless of what sector of the infrastructure you are talking about. i think we have a similar message, if you want impact on the largest number of people, the cities need a larger specific share of the funding stream. i'm not saying we need more than the states, with he could use the cdgb formula or some other

formula to make sure some of the money goes straight to the city so mayors and city council can direct it to some of the most urgent needs. it is a problem if you are in washington to figure out the most important needs and local government will be able to do that more specifically. so there is a role for states and cities in this, but if we have the funding stream the same way we did in 2009, i fear it won't have the impact that people perceive it will have on the front end. >> governor? >> we've got to be able to hit a broader range of infrastructure needs. we need to have a more consistent policy in terms of highway funding, that is 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. but then, i also think it would be good to have the super

project list. and that is where i think you have special attention to needs that have been neglected in our count country. i would be happy if we could list the top ones here in arkansas and yes, there is a specific list of priorities. would it be different than the cities? you know, i think there is probably a lot more agreement, you know, one of our projects would be a bridge across the arkansas river, an i-49 bridge, it helps city, it helps cities all along, it's a state priority project. so there is a lot of coalesce ens and agreement as to what those projects would be from the state and city level. >> you know, i think in just adding a little bit to that, one of the important things in whatever happens is to allow as much decision making to come down on those priorities to the states and the cities. rather than having the federal government try to do it. i just think back to the days totally different area, still it

spoke to that, the ability to come together to make things work and then how t-- when newt gingrich was in control of the congress and i would come down on a regular basis to meet on that. it took three tries to get a bill the president would sign. in that there was flex bit to meet the needs of their populations, i interpret it in new jersey broadly and it made a difference. there were other states tighter and made a difference for them. the key in any infrastructure i believe is going to be yes, you need to have that top list so that people can have a level of confidence there will be return on investment, even if it's not dollar return but people return and improvement in people's qualities of lives, you also need to let the states and the cities have a certain amount of flexibility to really direct it where they feel the need is. >> governor, i think there is a

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

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

benefit from the economic growth. so yes, that is -- that to me is if you are going to bid to the federal government and say we can put this project 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 one that's move forward. i agree with your point about our federal debt, so we got to concentrate on growing the economy. in arkansas, we solve a lot of problems, we have a growing economy, we got down to 3.8 percent 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. >> you know, i went to a conference at the white house where mayors were introduced to

sovereign wealth funds, large pension funds, and i realized there were trillions of dollars, trillions, okay, sitting 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 privatize something, i agree with the governor, that a -- we need to figure out how to get that money working here in the united states and it doesn't have to come through washington. >> i agree. we love to have more public

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

i have to go there because i can't see. >> how is the way your city and your state changed the way it approaches 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 will take it on first. and it has changed. first of all, congress did away with ear marks and so really, the consistent infusion of special project money has been dim in i guessed from the federal level you are seeing the state and local government pick up the greater part of the load. you couldn't wait on ear mark money, was it going to happen, so you are going to create that growth and infrastructure of the highways you had to figure out a way to do it on your own. we've had a bond issue, sales

tax increase statewide for projects in arkansas, the voters supported that because they see that -- the benefit from it. so there is two changes i would like to see, and we don't have to go back to the ear mark day, but i would like to have a new federal highway build that has new funding sources so it's more robust, so there is a consistency in funding and then secondly, we 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. and i think a lot of that has to do with federal restrictions and federal policy and not providing the states enough flexibility. so those two things to me should be addressed. >> i'm pleased with the republican governor, he stepped up in a major way in his campaign and said we should be in the highway building business and we hadn't been and so we got

a statewide referendum passed and we're now, i think, on the move again. i do believe when we say transportation for cities, especially that we have to think outside the dots a little bit and it's not just big highways. we've got to focus on mass transportation. we've got a project under way, high speed rail between dallas and houston that will be privately funded and ways that 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 you know, agree we're making progress, but you know, on the transportation side and thinking about ways to fund it, in oklahoma we have gotten a long ways out of simple pinning on the dollar sales tax. we have passed a series of

initiatives, we tell the voters how long the tax will last, what it will cost and what we're going to do with the money if they extend it to. they have passed every one of these. and we built projects, like convention centers, parks, 75 schools, water projects, sports arenas, the scitizens like the idea the tax will go away and they like the pay as you go philosophy so there is no debt in occurred. it takes a little longer to complete the project, but with no debt with a climate like oklahoma we can get the initiatives passed. >> we have time for one more question. it will have to be brief and the answers will have to be brief. >> you mentioned both water systems and the internet, which i agree completely with. my company does a lot of work,

weapon system work, it's something called hardware and the loop and i was just wondering mainly for the mayors, it seems to me that the water system, that are also hooked up to the internet are incredibly at risk for people being able to go in and hack those systems and then direct the equipment to do something you wouldn't want it to otherwise do. and all the companies that i work with, that are highly classified, have enormous amount of cyber attacks on them. and 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. because 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

know, you don't know what cyber terrorism can look like and talk about water supplies and other things, those are susceptible to reprogramming by someone with devious ideas. >> i just had something to that because after 9/11 one of the things we were able to do at epa was to get the targets hardened in the water system. we worked very closely with the water affiliates, the associations and they really took steps to harden themselves as targets and have been constantly upgrading and watching it. it is a game you put up a barrier and the bad guys find another way to go in there. far more concerning is chemical security. we have not been able to get consensus going forward on that and we don't have the chemical site security we need and west texas was the example of what can go wrong and how devastating t. we're out of time.

i have to keep us on schedule. but i want to thank a fabulous panel. [ applause ] >> ladies and gentlemen has this not been fabulous. give it up. >> tonight on american history tv, veterans' stories from world war ii, korea, vietnam, afghanistan and iraq. it always starts at 8:00 p.m. eastern. this week on cspan, states count the electors votes for president of the united states. we'll have coverage of the counting at 8:00 p.m. eastern. tuesday night at 8:00, jerry green field, could finder of ben and jerry ice cream talks about business practices. >> the idea that we couldn't sell enough ice cream in the summer in vermont to stay in business that that forced us to

look for other markets. >> wednesday night, former vice president dick cheney and leon panetta. >> i think the challenges are very great and i think we have unfortunately over the course of the last many years done serious damage to our capabilities to be able to meet those threats. >> we're living in a period with a lot of flashpoints and a new administration is going to have to look at that kind of world, and obviously define policy that we need in order to deal with that, but then develop the defense policy to confront that kind of world. >> thursday at 8:00 p.m. eastern a look at the career of vice president elect, mike pence. >> amidst the shifting sand of culture and law we have stood without apology for the sanctity of life, importance of marriage and the