60 members of the senate and a majority of the house can support and i would envision taking those things off the table starting almost immediately. there is a provision i sponsored in the house when i was still in the house, the 26 -- where you can stay on your parents insurance until 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 there is one of the things you want to maintain going forward. no reason to wait three years to say you are going to do that if you can get 60 senators and majority house members saying this is one of the pieces of building hour health care system back, that we want to sustain. i do think we'll see the l elimination -- i hate that. it creates an ownership you want of a really difficult to manage system that i would think republicans would want to try to avoid. >> senator, as somebody who was in the body recently, how do you see it evolving. >> 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 -- the insurance companies are bailing out because what was in the 2,700 pages was so -- it made you have to take a one size fits all program and if you don't do that you awere going into the government system with beginning to have a government only program. but if you would go in, have a bipartisan committee look at how you can take out the requirements that they take a one size fits all solution, and put more flexibility in it so it's not congress trying to write every single person's health care plan, then i think you could make real progress on bringing the 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, if this unfolds as this is describing, how do democrats respond? >> there is a political pressure on the republicans to quote, repeal and follow through on their promise x we all know that is kind of meaningless. what happens the day after. and what i really think is our job, those of us in congress, in this first hundred days is try to give definition to what the scope of the problem is. in health care there is three elements. one is insurance reformed. in fact, that was a tremendous provision that 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

preexisting condition, trump is for that. letting you stay on insurance if you have a chronic condition, where you hit the cap and don't get thrown out on the street. the second is the medicaid expansion, there is a lot of problems in medicaid, that really has made access to health care significant in a lot of republican governors have accepted that, some haven't. but 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 the senator 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, some cases it's too much regulation. some cases it might be litigation. but 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. so that is an area where if you give it some definition and we

say you've got some proposals, we've got some and the objective is not to throw people off of health care, the objective is to get a more efficient health care system, then i think we can make some progress. the same on infrastructure, trump is a builder, that is a good thing, we need it, but it's got to be paid for. the worry i have is that we'll come up with some infrastructure plan that will blow a hole in the deficit. you will see a lot of democrats raising questions about that. how do we deal with infrastructure with a payment mechanism. can we agree that that is a mutual challenge. >> the perfect are storm that is coming is basically we've had a change from the presidency and lot of changes in congress, but next year, 2017, all states get hit with a full bill. the feds have been supplementing 10% for every state. the little state of west virginia is a couple million dollars, they don't have the budget, we're authority now. they'll be faced with picking up

the 10%. it will be a perfect storm hitting, they want this done and this done and this done and cut this cost down, because their 2017 budget, working next year putting the budget forg 2016 an 2017. >> the former governor, the importance of the state's voice as we think about the go forward plan. kay used the term overly prekrip stiff, to look for a broader thought process here in bringing in the states. i've been on the phone with our newly elected commissioner of insurance practices, we've got to wrk with our states more effectively. i think mike pence can bring that as well as a former governor. you hear from governor man chin. >> steve, another thing, i know on my side of the aisle they're opposed to block grants for

medicaid. as a former governor, i said i know how to spend the money better than washington can. i never did subscribe to that. if i knew exactly what i had to work with, i can't fit in every hole you have there and i have to fit in this hole to get this reimbursement. we're 50 states and we're different, we're not the same. so that has some appeal [ applause ] >> but where we're going to find a lot of common ground is going to be in the economic area. i mean, we'll disagree respectfully amongst ourselves with aspects of the health care bill, what we need to fix and 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 is great opportunity in forestry, fishing, men and women won't to work on. there is -- i think all of us could rally around that would put people back to work in a real serious way. frankly in power, and i think get people feeling better about themselves and where the country is going. that should be a focus, making sure people work with one another, respect the fact we come from different parts of this country, we all want to see everyone in america succeed, no matter if you are from the city, from the farm, everyone has an opportunity. that is something we should put a lot of focus on in the first hundred days to be sure it's a good solid outcome, bipartisan outcome we can get going forward.

>> putting america first, don't forget senator sanders tapped into that as putting america first. if we allow 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 focus inward for a while. >> thank you very much, that is ending on a high note. that concludes the panel. we could just give a round of applause to the senators and members who are up here [ applause ] >> thank you very much for joining us. let me get you the details on where you are all going to next. which i'm not sure about. everybody is staying in here. that make it's easy. okay. stay in your seats.

follow the transition of government on c span as president-elect donald trump selects his cabinet and the republicans and democrats prepare for the next congress, we'll take you to key events as they happen, without interruption, watch live on cspan, watch on demand or listen on free cspan radio app. >> the presidential inauguration of donald trump is friday, january 20th. cspan will have live coverage of all the day's events and ceremonies, watch live on cspan and listen live on the free cspan radio app. and we have more now from the no

labels conference, british prime minister tony blair talks about the uk's vote to leave the union, its impact and the growing rise of nationalism. >> good afternoon. is this microphone working? not yet, fantastic. good afternoon, everybody. my name is julianne, as you just heard i'm from the financial times. i run our editorial coverage across the america region and i am 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're absolutely committed to providing fair, cred credible and informed coverage what is going on, not just for our american readers but around the world. i'm sure that many of you are feeling right now that you have

lived through a political earthquake in the last month. are living through a political earthquake. with will, i've got news for you. britain got here first, or there first. because as you all know, there was an earthquake early this summer in the u.k. in relation to the brexit vote. and it's an earthquake that is still continuing. it's just been a new vote on the leader of the opposition labor party, and the hard left, jeremy corbin 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 did he -- the italian people, 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 have the austrian vote, which is 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 advise for the man who is now heading for the white house than tony blair. a 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 the mistaken impression that brits are very, very status conscious and very formal in public, because they've all watched down ton

abby. any of you that have ever been on a platform know that is 100% wrong. there is nothing that shocks a british audience more, is to use a title. my first question is do you want to be american and be a prime minister or be british and be tony or we can take a vote on it. >> i will 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 in capable of understanding, he has left the job, that he is still -- so i said to them, you 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 december upon den see, so tony is fine. >> we're officially divided by

common language. tony, how do you explain the series of extraordinary political upsets we've seen this year. if we ignore austria this moment, apologize to any austrians, this year has been absolutely shocking and frankly could well continue that way. >> yes. look, there is a lot we still have to try and figure out. because undoubtedly we're in a new political situation, which has got, in europe at least, a lot of dangers to it, britain has taken a huge decision and there's no doubt in my mind that something different is going on in politics. having said that, i think it's very important to emphasize several things. the first is that populous is not new, concern about immigration isn't new. i remember at least, you are too

young to remember the 1960s and when you know, there were politicians warning about the waves of black immigration coming into the u.k. and this was going to produce rivers of blood and so on. immigration is not a new topic. globalization is not new and its effects. if you look at the changes in the 1980s in britain there were coal mining communities that were shut down. 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 we don't seem to provide to people as they wish. there is no doubt about that anger. secondly, i personally think social media itself is a ref legislation near phenomenon. it changes everything, the way

politics work. >> do you tweet? >> not voluntarily. so -- >> i think certainly the president-elect does, but anyway. >> by the way, you see how it's used and it's remarkable. it's a new fen mama and int relates with conventional wisdom. in the sense that -- >> i take that as a compliment. >> you can take it as a compliment. for example, when i was first prime minister in 1997, the bbc nightly news had an 0 aud answer around 12 million people. that was like 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 is parts of this that are very new, parts of it that aren't new, i'm absolutely convinced that the

only way to confront the anger is to provide the answers. and that is why a strong center to my mind is the only way to do it and we need a center that is not a flabby lowest common denominator, wishy-washy between the left and right. we need something strong and muscular. >> you were tactful, you are wearing a tie that is a 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 the audience, because they weren't so aware of this, it was called the new way, the third way, which is trying to be, if you like, a centrist left agenda. 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. u.k. is essentially a very left wing, left party, a right wing, right party and a center that has collapsed. >> yes. i know there is -- 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. but i think -- i actually -- when i worked on this, of course i worked with president clinton here and we had echos around europe, but you know, what is very important, i will say this to you, we would say we can't go back to the third way type of politics, i say distinguished policies which are good for one time with the philosophy that in fact is good for most times. and i think it's good for this

time. and what we had at that point, in my view what the center has to recapture, is we have a sense of forward momentum. we were the change makers, not the guardians of the status quo. you said austria was an exception, it's an exception in the sense that the green party candidate beat the kind of neo-nazi candidate or far right candidate. it's not a -- it's not a victory for the old type of politics, because actually the two centrist parties were nowhere in that election. there is no doubt at all about what people feel is that the center has not been providing that leadership going forward. if you take the case of europe, i mean, i am passionate about the reason why europe is in its present predicament. it's because it's not reforming, it's not changing. you only have to look at the way that the euros have produced these agonizing situations with

countries when what is required is profound structure reform, fiscal stimulus and a monetary policy that allies itself with those two factors, that is what the center should be provided. we're not in europe at the moment. >> right. well, you know, it's a very different political world when we're all looking at austria as a beacon of hope. >> now you have offended the austrians. >> it's great. anyone here who is austrian? no. so we're safe. but in terms of what advice, i am ask you in a moment what advice you would give donald trump, but you would 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 probably kind of agree with you, you are 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. first of all, i didn'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 and you know, i was just thinking how in vig rating it was to have a discussion that is about practical solutions. so i don't offer advice but i think the challenge is for us, the following. i think along with the economics we do have to understanding the issues of culture and identity. people, i mean, take the european situation, it is not irrational to worry about immigration. now, i am pro immigration, right, i believe britain is a better country because we have ways of immigrants come into it. i think london is, if you will

forgive me saying it, a vibrant city in the world, precise capital city in the world because of the contributions of broad range of people from different cultures and races and faiths. but i think we have to accept that people and -- will only -- can't 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 i think 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 and there will be many communities affected by this. i think 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 and thirdly, we need to understand, this is a moment where -- there is a paradox i see in politics

today. at one level, people are getting more and more partisan, and the effect of partisanship is very often paralysis. 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 someone who says we're going to fix it. i'm just going to drive through and get it done. and i think what we have to be is in the center, we have to have strong solutions. you know they have to be solutions that are going to make change. i mean, one of my passions when i was in government is education. education policy. you know, it -- 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. these are the things that i think we need to be addressing and we need also to be absolutely blunt about it. i mean, politics is, you know, i used to discuss politics with a famous soccer coach in the u.k., he had a great psychology about soccer and about working with people and about strategy and the difference between strategy and tactics. and you know, i was 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 and we've got a great team. and i said yeah. and he said no, we've got a great team, if we have the best strikers and the best defense. and which is very obvious when you think about it. and the point is you know if you are fighting this populism,

there is a part of politics where you just got to be smart enough and capable enough to keep your flanks protected. if you have people worried about extremism, you have to have a policy on extremism and it has to be to the heart of the problem on extremism. if the public in today's world get any sense at all that issues of what they call political correctness stand in the way of tough solutions, they'll mark you down. so 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 going to be playing defense, properly protected. >> so 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 want to ask you -- i will ask you briefly, if you were donald trump walking into the white house in january -- >> this is an unlikely hypothesis. >> these unlikely high poj sees have been useful. >> the issue is interesting. the issue is whether he is going to focus on getting the most practical solutions and getting things done. if that is what happens, then the country will move forward. so i think like the people who are speaking on the panel before and i thought it was interesting hearing the democrats, you know, let's wait and see. let's wait and see what happens. there is no doubt part of all of this is about making change and a sense of movement forward. i mean, this is you know, definitely, i think what people want to see and not just in

america, but elsewhere. so when it comes to things like infrastructure and so on, people -- there is a real need for it, but have you got a practical plan and can you break through the layers of brur rock ra see -- how do we redesign government itself. this is something that 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 mean i think we're often not even asking the right questions about these types of issues never mind providing the answer. and it technology alone, by the way, is going to be potentially could have a transformtive effect the way they work, delivered, and reduce the cost in public sector. if i was back in politics, which

i am not. >> would you like to be? >> no. >> you sure? >> sure enough. sure enough to be sure at this moment anyway. so i think if i was back -- i would be trying to draw up, also, what are the questions that we need to answer and certainly, something like the u.k. health care system. i have been looking at redesigning it, you know, taking account of the changes that technology can bring about in our world. so 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 in the interest of the country, i think you know, most people will respond to that. >> correct. >> it's also important to realize, these things, okay, your election was close, the election here in america. brexit was 52-48, not like

75-25. there is a lot of people out there who, you know, are still capable of being persuaded. >> right. i'm going to turn to the audience in just a moment for questions, but before i do and while you are thinking of questions, given that we have three potentially crucial elections next year in the netherlands, where nationalist is currently the most popular person, in france, where one is riding high and in germany essentially angela amerimerkel 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 and i think there were design flaws in it, and i think the thought of breaking apart and going back to

your individual currencies is too great. which greece was in crisis, if you think of the pain that the greeks have suffered in the economic adjustment. it's more than frankly, i don't where we would be in britain facing those type of cuts in spending or you here. but it's interesting whenever it comes to the point, you know, the greeks don't wan to go back to the drachma. in the end, the italians would want to go back to the l ira is so on. we're in unchartered waters and there are dangerous things. i think in europe, the issues to do with migration, culture and identity. you know, we have to look at the position of france. i mean, it's not surprising, given what the french have been through over this past couple of years that these issues are powerful and you are not going to succeed in french election

unless you are showing an awareness of it and unless you are addressing the issues of culture and integration, particularly parts of the muslim community being a part from the rest of the community and if you are welcoming in waves of migration from the middle east and particular my syria, you are going to have security concerns about that, it would be bizarre if you didn't. any politician that will fight and win an election in those circumstances is going to have to have their policy absolutely in a position which, as i say, is not in any way compromising with prejudice or disrespect for human values, but understands you've got a country that feels insecure and part of it angry. >> absolutely. the hot new phrase these daze in european circles is not so much brexit, but frexit.

but anyway, we can turn to the audience now for a few minutes of questions. i think there are some microphones roving around. it would be courteous, but not come pull sore to identify yourself. please keep the question extremely short. i can see several hands waving. >> thank you. how would you deal with the challenges of expectations that are short term and yet challenges are so structural and long term. for example, really the only way to deal with the technology disruption, 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 good question. i mean, 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. sometimes policies of a generic nature, sometimes you need to specifically identify the communities that are going to be most effected by change and go with a package that is actually directed to that community. so but what you can't do is simply say to them, look, i know life is terrible, in the short term, but you know, wait 20 years and it will be better. that is not an election winning slogan as you all know. so i think it's partly around that, but also, and here is why i think it's very important to look at how government itself changes. i think if you are asking everyone else to cope with change and people feel government is not changing, they're saying well, you are not

having to change, i'm having to change, so i think that is also very important. >> any more questions? the question right at the very back. >> pedestrian.org. the ib clination to go to strong men and 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 was a poll in france recently where over 30% of the french people doubted whether democracy was the right system for them. a large number of people.

so this strong man type of authoritarian figure, this is 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 really would not have spoken like that. so this comes back to my mind, i think there is a real risk that we forget what liberal democratic values are about. and we just -- we don't understand that these values are absolutely fundamental to the human condition improving. but i think it all comes back to, 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 the basic liberal democratic values, but is nonetheless showing how

consistent with those things could be made to move. because the strong man idea, and you see this around the world today, take the president of the philippines, okay? a classic example. i think you'd have to say that that's quite strong man type of politics. but why? and why when you talk to ordinary filipinos will they, you know, in the -- away from the camera, as it were, 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 problems of crime and drugs and the feeling that the system wasn't working for the ordinary person. 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 break into sort of 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 decisions. they see it, just in terms of instantaneous like or dislike. and this is why the answer in my view is that the center, if you want to push away and defeat this type of strong man politics, the center's got to be strong and it's got to be vibrant and it's got to be dynamic, otherwise you'll find a situation where people say, this is most among the young people, by the way. i don't have a particular adherence to democracy, i just want the job done. >> it sounds like a tweet as well, or tweet back. >> well, hmm. >> any more questions?

we have a question right in front, i think. do you have a microphone? i think this will sadly have to be the last one. >> i think immigration is very important to all countries. but canada has a way of accepting immigrants, but being able to bring immigrants that are going to integrate in the country, and are going to be efficient in industries and wherever they're needed. will britain do something like this? the immigration of people that don't integrate, very often impose their way of life p. on the british, there's no

question it's going to bring in a lot of anger by the british. >> to state the obvious, britain and canada have one big difference. there's a lot in canada. there's a big space. but your point about integration is absolutely right. the thing is, that we've got to be very -- and it's just been a report published on this today in the uk -- i think we've also got to -- and this is where people expect to have this conversation, that the problem of integration we have is with a part -- let me choose my words carefully -- with a part of our muslim community. not all the muslim community, but it's not really with the indian community, or other communities. okay? so i think the best -- and this is where i think -- this is 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

appeared to hesitate in dealing with it, that 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, and diversity i think is a strength and 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 conscience, 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, respects 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 that people hold in common so that integration happens and that people feel equal citizens of a country, because they actually all share that common space. and this is the only way it will work, in my view. >> well, thank you. well, given that this entire day is about celebrating common space in every sense, i'm looking for it, championing it, that seems a fantastic note to end on. thank you on behalf of all of us ofg your insights. being an insider/outsider can sometimes be a very valuable perspective to have. in the meantime, prime minister, tony, i look forward to the day when you start tweeting vowelen taerl. so thank you. p [ applause ]

♪ this week is authors week on "washington journal" featuring live one-our segments beginning at 8:30 a.m. eastern. on wednesday, author carol anderson will talk about her book, white rage, the unspoken truth of our racial divide. and thursday, author james kitfield with twilight warriors, the soldiers, spies and special agents who are revolutionizing the american way of war. friday, author kathy cramer with her book politics of resentment, rural consciousness. saturday, two authors join us. a great immigration story and robert jones, with his book the end of white christian america. finally on subz, author tabby troy with shall we wake the president, two centuries of

disaster management from the oval office. be sure to watch authors week on "washington journal" beginning at 8:30 a.m. eastern. arkansas governor asa hutchinson and the mayors of oklahoma city and dallas talk about ways cities and states intend to work with the trump administration on housing and infrastructure. former new jersey governor christine todd whitman is the moderator. >> okay, well, first of all let me just say, it's governor asa hutchinson. it would surprise his state to know that there was one there. and the other thing i'd just like to note is in the introduction, you didn't hear r. or d. after any names.

whether you're 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 just a question of sitting and thinking, 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, they have to say now, i used to have to say, is this actually going to work and make it then work. and so i hope we'll do in this panel is talk about the relationship between governors and mayors is with the federal government, what you all need in order to make things work. and i'd like to then -- then we'll throw it open obviously for questions. but let me start with forch nor hutchinson. i guess i'm showing my bias, nothing against the mayors,

particularly when we have a chairman of the be conference of mayors. he is not just a mayor anymore, but the mayor. >> i'm delighted to be here. 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 prairie project that has federal and state money devoted to it, to alleviate the decline of our water table in eastern arkansas, where we're so dependent upon in our rice production. and 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. and so that's another area of investment besides highways, is a broader range of infrastructure projects. and 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 a subject to a great controversy these days. but we obtained a $1 billion investment from china into a

bioproducts 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, 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're 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 bl public projects as well. so we did a highway improvement plan in arkansas that was bipartisan, that we just passed a 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 whenever you're talking about infrastructure, it's going to be a strong partnership to get the job done. and 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 we actually had a balanced budget in our nation. and we need to get back to that. but i think there's opportunities that now we can work together, from whatever

political persuasion, to get some things done, particularly infrastructure. but 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. bipartisanship is not, this is the 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 cornett, you are now the head of the conference on mayors. and this was by all aspects of 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 washington? >> well, i think like most of

the country, there was a 24, 48-hour period where people were just stunned at what had happened. but 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. 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. the nation's mayors know the streets and the bridges and the airports and the water systems are in dire need. 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 underground where people can't see it where politicians through the generations and through the decades didn't really see any

political advantage to fixing it because no one know if you fixed it or not. so the deferred maintenance built up and built up. it's just going to be an issue that we're going to be handing off to the next generation and to our grandchildren if we don't do something about it. i think the nation's mayors would like to work with the new administration to address that issue. one final word 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. that's really important to us that that tax-free status remain on the municipal bonds. >> mayor rawlings, you are mayor of one of our largest, most vibrant cities. what do you want to feel is

getting accomplished in the first -- there's no magic to the first hundred days. everybody's kind of picked that out as a time frame for some reason, it sounds nice, it's a round number. but for getting these things done, it takes a lot longer time. what are you looking forward from the perspective of dallas, who has seem to overcome most challenges and is 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. and our revenues are going at rapid rates. and our property values. so it's good. and i think, hopefully, the reason i believe -- one of the reasons i believe is that we are very a centrist city. we're a blue city in a very red state. and that makes us very

practical. and i believe that -- i'm a democrat, but i believe staying in the mid did will of the road does two things. first of all, i think it is really responsive to taxpayers. i think that's what takes pairs 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 they're taken care of. also, when you're in the middle of the road, you can go faster, okay? >> everybody else gets out of your way. >> you don't get a chance of getting run off the road. and i think we can make a lot more progress. and 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, right? infrastructure, not only do we need it, it's really what we would all like to do, and that's

to build for the long term. building for the long term for america is a challenge, but it's that, and education. that's what's 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're talking about water, mick. until i joined the u.s. conference of mayors, we are one of the cities in the nation that have wood pipes. >> new york city, when abraham lincoln was president. goes pack a year or two. >> i think we're on the right path. keep it simple. get in the middle of the road and make it happen. and i think we can make some

progress. >> no question that i think the message is that right behind what no labels is all about. what i'd like to do, because i think it's much more informative and useful for everybody is to open it up to questions from the audience. actually, right now. we can bridge this gap a little bit. there's 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? that's another area as we try to tease out a more focused potential agenda for congress. >> that's a good example of where there's so many silos. you look at internet access in rural areas of our country. you've got the department of agriculture engaged in this, you've got the fcc engaged in this. and we've got to really make sure that's highly coordinated. of course, you've 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 our communities. this is a very significant, and it should be included in infrastructure probably right at the top of the list. >> governor, i think the big issue in america is the gap between the haves and have-nots. in the information age, that gap has got to be closed. and we don't have to bring down the haves. we can just bring up the have-nots. and 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. i think it would help a lot with that issue. >> yeah, i agree. because it affects our schools, it affects our libraries, it affects people's everyday lives.

how many of us didn't bring our phones that's attached to the internet. in the last ten years it's become so overly viable in our lives. it's got to be included as part of it. it's just a little bit different because it's largely private sector driven on the marketplace. so are utilities and a lot of other projects. >> one more question with the privilege of the chair. we haven't talked here, but it's been discussed a lot about tax reform. are there particular taxes from your perspective as governor and as mayors 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's been spent overseas and utilize some of that returned investment for infrastructure, that has merit. i think that's an example of tax reform that president obama talked about. but obviously president trump looks at that as well.

that's one we ought to be able to get quick agreement on. let's do that, let's get that money being brought back, stimulate the economy and use a portion of it for infrastructure. >> yeah, i'm in a weird place, because texas' tax policies are pretty good. we don't have a personal income tax or commercial income tax. we're pretty simple in that way. as a democrat, i still think we should be simpler. i'm going to echo mick's point. we can talk about infrastructure, we take away the tax-free bond status, it's going to hurt infrastructure in a major way. so we can't -- we've got to watch out for unexpected consequences. >> i think we need tax reform to create jobs. the tax system as it exists today to me, it's a little bit like the health care industry. and if we were going to start from scratch, neither of them would look anything like this. and every time we try to address it, we just kind of 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, because the outside noise that comes in, every time you try to address change in either of those entities, is enormous. but i don't believe we're going to move the economy at 2%, 3%, 4% without significant tax change. >> questions from the floor? we have a question here. is there a mic? a mic over here? there. >> ken lipert. i'd like to know whether you would favor identifying single infrastructure projects in each of your states that would be critical to the existence of your economy versus this kind of general expenditure across all the water mains and all of the

internet infrastructure, or whatever. is there a single project in your state that is absolutely on the highest priority, whatever the cost, a dam, or whatever? for example, in new york state and new jersey, we have what they call the gateway tunnel as it's called. it hauls all the freight in the northeast and amtrak traipse to the northeast and mid-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've got to be very thoughtful how we approach it. i would go for the -- the 50th largest cities as opposed to state, okay? that's where people are living today. and 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 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 the projects done. and 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 the 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. so i think we would have a similar message. we go back and look and say, if you want to have it impact the largest numbers of people, the cities need a larger specific share of the funding stream. i'm not saying we need more of the states, but we could use the cgb formula or a similar formula to make sure some of the money goes straight to the cities so the city councils can direct it to the most urgent needs. it's hard if you're in washington to figure out what the most important needs are.

local governments are going to be able to do that, you know, more specifically. so there's a role for states and cities in this. but if we have the funding streams the same way we did in 2009, i fear it won't have the impact that people perceive it's going to have on the front end. >> 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. but then i also think it would be good to have the super project list. and that's where i think you have special attention to needs neglected in our 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 in the cities? you know, i think there's probably a lot more agreement. you know, one of our projects would be a bridge across the arkansas river. i-49 bridge. that helps cities, that helps the cities all along, but it's a state priority project. and so there's a lot of coalescence and agreement over what the projects would be from the state and city level. >> i think 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 have the federal government try to do it. i just think back to the days in a totally different area, but still it spoke to that, the ability to come together to make things work, and then how the flexibility made a real difference in states. and that was welfare reform. when we had bill clinton as president and newt gingrich and republicans were in control of

the congress, i was one of the governors who came down to get a bill signed. there was sufficient flexibility that the states were able to meet the needs of their various populations. i mean, i interpreted it in new jersey quite broadly and it made a difference. there were other states that were tighter, but it made the right difference for them. the key in any infrastructure is going to be, i believe, yes, you need to have that top list, so that people can have a level of confidence that there is going to be a return on investment. even if it's not dollar return, but people return. and improvement in people's quality of lives. but you also need to let the states and the cities have a certain amount of flexibility to really direct it where they kneel the need it. >> governor, i think there's a role for competitive grants. where we say here's what we can do, but this is what we need the federal government to do. so there's a partnership that we have some skin in the game so we're not just asking for a

handout. we're willing to participate in the funding. >> right. question over here? >> i'm a big supporter -- i'm from new york, and i'm a big supporter of infrastructure investment. but i'm also concerned that with our national debt at a level that's 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 could use a portion of that money that's repatriated from overseas. well, the truth is, that we could use all of that money that's repatriated from overseas, and that will only address a fraction of the infrastructure we're talki inin about. so we need to think of other ways. there have been a number of

suggestions of using the private enterprise to fund at least a part of the infrastructure needs that we have. any of you looked at some of these proposals? and do you have any interest in them? >> absolutely. the projects that i've 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 defendant of the project. that's one of the really key deficiencies that we have in our infrastructure now is that there's too long of a time frame. costs go up. there's inefficiencies in it. you don't get the benefit from the economic growth. so yes, that, to me, is if you're going to bid to the federal government saying, we could put this project together, it should be timeliness, it should be 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. and i agree with your point about our federal debt. so we've got to cop sen trait on growing the economy. in arkansas, we solved a lot of problems. 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. 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 help us 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, okay? but i agree with the governor, that a -- we need to figure out how to get that money working here in the united states. and it doesn't have to come through washington. >> yeah, i agree. we'd love to have more publish/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 have to pay it back, that's the problem. and you have a very -- in my

case, a very conservative electorate that isn't fired up about taxes, or what they perceive might be a tax. and so i think more creative solutions on how we're going to generate reef newfrom the construction. are there the ways that we can have tax credits address the jobs that are created by the construction of the infrastructure? and can somehow that be generated back into the revenue stream? i think there's got to be creative tools out there, because it seems like it's a win-win for everybody if we invest the money. but as long as we rely on our taxpayers to pay the entire freight, it will be hard 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. >> john whitmore with pedestrians.org. 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'll take it on first. it has changed. first of all, congress did away with earmarks. and 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 earmarked money. was it going to happen. so if you're going to create that growth, create that infrastructure, the highways, you had to figure out a way to do it on your own. we've had a bond issue, a half cent sales tax increase statewide for projects in arkansas. the voters supported that, because they see the benefit from it. there are two changes i'd 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. 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, 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. it's not just big highways. we've got to focus on mass transportation. we've got a project under way, a high-speed rail between dallas and houston that's going to be privately funded. and ways that we can do that. and so i would hope that gets part of the dialogue a little bit more. so i do think we're making progress at the state level. >> i also, you know, agree we're making progress. but, you know, on the transportation side, and figuring out ways to fund it, in oklahoma we've gotten a long ways just out of simple penny on the dollar sales tax. we've 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're going to do with the money if they'll extend it to us. they have passed every one of these. and we have gone out and built projects like convention centers and parks. we built 75 schools. we built water projects, sports

arenas. but the citizens seem to like the idea that the tax is going to go away, unless they approve it to pay for something else. and they also like the idea that we do a pay as you go philosophy, so there's no debt that's incurred. it takes us a little longer to build the projects, but with no debt, a very conservative climate like oklahoma we can get the initiatives passed. >> i'm afraid we have time for only one more question. and that's going to have to be a brief, and the answers are going to have to be brief. >> all right. >> you mentioned both water systems and the internet, which i agree completely with. my company does a lot of work, weapons systems work. it's something called hardware in the loop. i was just wondering mainly for the mayors, it seems to me that the water systems that are also

hooked up to the internet are incredibly at risk for people being able to go in and hack those systems, and then direct the equipment to do something you wouldn't want it to otherwise do. and all the companies that i work with that are highly classified have enormous amounts of cyber attacks on them. and i just was wondering what your thoughts were about the safety of the systems now, and what needs 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 don't know what cyber terrorism can look like. and you talk about water supplies and other things. don't forget the autonomous vehicle is right around the corner. those, i think, are susceptible to reprogramming about i someone with devious ideas.

>> i'll add something to that. right after 9/11, one of the things we were able to do at epa was 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. about you it is a game of every time you put up a barrier, the bad guys figure out a way to go in. you're constantly at it. far more concerning to me is the chemical site security. certainly west texas was an example of 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. but i want to thank a fabulous panel. >> thank you. >> thank you, governor. >> thank you. ladies and gentlemen, has this not been fabulous? give it up!

tonight on "american history tv," programs on great attacks in the civil war. including longstreet's attack at chick mauga, and spotsylvania courthouse in virginia. that's all tonight starting at 8:00 eastern here on c-span3. this week on c-span, tonight at 8:00, jerry greenfield talks about creative and responsible business practices. >> actually, the idea that we couldn't sell enough ice cream in the summer in vermont to stay in business, that forced us to look for other markets. >> wednesday night, former vice president dick cheney and former defense secretary leon panetta, the future of the defense department under president-elect trump. >> over the course of the last many years, we've done serious damage to our capabilities. to be able to meet those

threats. >> we're living in that period, where there are 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 work. >> thursday, at 8:00 p.m. eastern, a look at the career of vice president-elect mike pence. >> and the culture in law, we've stood without apology for the sanctity of life, the importance of marriage, and the freedom of religion. >> on friday night, beginning at 8:00, fair well speeches and tributes to several outgoing senators, including harry reid, barbara boxer, kelly ayotte and dan coates. this week in primetime on c-span. c-span, where history unfolds daily. in 1979, c-span was created as a

public service by america's cable television companies. and is brought to you today by your cable or satellite provider. author and inventor and futurist kurzweil, in areas of wages, job creation, and the way individuals think. >> talking about interconnectedness. and automation. our next speaker has such a complicated and unique cv, that i'm just going to read it to you. he's one of the world's leading inventors. was the principal creator of the first flatbed scanner, character recognition, print-to-speech reading machine for the blind, text-to-speech synthesizer,

music synthesizer of creating orchestral instruments and commercially marked large vocabulary speech recognition software. he has received a technical grammy award, the national medal of technology, holds 21 honorary doctorates and honors from three presidents and has written five national best-selling books. he is a director of engineering at google, heading up the team developing machine intelligence and natural language understanding, and he has a futurist who has a 30-year track record of accurate predictions. just saying. please join me in welcoming rare kurzweil and andrew ross sorkin to the stage. [ applause ] >> thank you all for having us. i should tell you, it's a treat for me almost selfishly to have

the opportunity to spend time with ray, who is a bit of a -- i'm a little star-struck myself. in terms of walking out on the future. this is somebody who really is not just an author and inventor, but somebody who thinks about the future in ways that i can't even possibly comprehend. so thank you for being with us. i want to start the conversation here, which is, you talk about the idea of physical immortality. and you say that this is going to be possible by 2045. explain yourself. >> well, i'll never be able to come on the stage and say i've done it. i've lived forever. because it's never forever. but i talk about three bridges to radical life extension. i've written a few health books. bridge one is what you can do right now to stay healthy the old-fashioned way. so that we can get to bridge two. a key idea of mine is that information technology

progresses exponentially. and health and medicine is now in information technology, enabled by the general public. which was a perfect exponential. it cost $1 billion, we're now down to a few thousand dollars. it's not just collecting this object code of life, but it's our ability to understand it, to model it, to simulate it, and most importantly to reprogram it is growing exponentially. and we're now getting clinical applications of biotechnology. for example, you can now fix a broken heart. not from romance, that will take a few more developments in virtual reality. about you half of all heart attack survivors have a damaged heart, we can now reprogram that. we're regrowing organs, successfully installing them with the patient's own dna in animals. we'll do that in humans soon. we could talk all day about these examples. it's now a trickle will be a

flood in ten years. that will get us to bridge three where we'll have medical robots that are computerized that basically finish the job of the immune system. we have intelligent devices that keep us healthy. they are our t-cells, but they evolved thousands of years ago and it was not in the interest of the species for us to live very long. so they don't recognize cancer, for example. that gets us later on in life. we can finish the job with these medical robots. there are detailed designs, actually, how to go after every disease once we have these devices. that's in a 2030 scenario. that's the third bridge. ultimately we're going to merge with artificial intelligence. we can talk more about that. >> the reason i wanted to bring this up is just the idea as we all sit here trying to understand what the future actually looks like. and part of that future, in your

mind at least, is something known as the singularity. >> right. we start with the idea of extending our mental capacity with ai. we've already done that. you misplaced your cell phone. >> this morning, yes. >> you're not enhanced at the moment. but most people if they leave their cell phone, they feel like they're incomplete. so they're not yet inside our bodies and brains. there are some people who have computers in their brains like parkinson's patients. but that will be routine in the 2030s. we'll connect the outer layer of the brain, that's where we do our thinking, to the cloud. now, if you remember, 2 million years ago, we got these large foreheads. before that we were walking around with a slanted brow and no frontal cortex. we got this additional quantity of neo cortex. we put it at the top of the neo cortical hierarchy. issues become more interesting and more complex as you go up

the cortical hierarchy. that was a factor for humanoids to invent newspapers and conferences, no other species does that. but it was a one-shot deal. our skull couldn't keep expanding, our childbirth would have been impossible. we'll connect our near cortex wirelessly to the cloud just as your cell phone does it. most of the things you do with that do not take place in the phone. the cloud is technology. it is doubling in power every year as we speak. we will then connect to simulated neo cortex in the clouds. as we did 2 million years ago, to our cortical hierarchy, but this time it won't be a one-shot deal. the cloud is expanding expo nepgsly. and so we will be a hybrid of biological thinking and nonbiological thinking, which i believe has already started with these devices outside our body. and we'll become smarter. by 2045, we'll expand our

intelligence a billion-fold. it's such a profound transformation that we borrow this metaphor from physics and call it a singular change in human history. >> there are a number of people in this audience working in a creative field. they're creating whether it's a product or marketing that product. how does the singularity, the augmentation of technology change the way we think? >> first of all, it's already transformed the world. my father was a musician. he had to hire an orchestra just to hear his orchestral compositions. there would be late-night conversations on the phone, raising money, in order to hire an orchestra to hear his own compositions. now a kid in her dorm room can do that with a mini keyboard and note book computer. everybody in the fashion industry and other design fields is using all kinds of graphical tools to expand our creativity.

creativity in art and design and music is exactly what happens at the top of the neo cortical hierarchy. primates, which have almost as big a brain, but don't have as big a neo cortical hierarchy, doesn't have the frontal cortex, they don't really have language, they don't have art or music. every human culture we've ever discovered has music. we will add more to the neo cortical hierarchy when we can augment it with artificial cortex, ai, and become more creative. we'll become funnier. >> dare i ask that the computer ever become more creative than us. there is a fantastically interesting project going on in london right now where there is an ai, a computer, ai operated computer drawing a new picture every week. it reads the newspaper, tries to capture the sentiment of the way

people are feeling, and it draws a different picture of the thames river. the pictures are okay right now. i assume there's going to get better. >> my view is it's not us versus them. we've seen that scenario in lots of ai futuristic movies. ai versus the humans in control of humanity. we're already very mixed up with it. we don't have one or two ais in the world, we have several billion of them. these are ais that connect to the cloud. we create these tools to extend our reach. who here could build a skyscraper with your own muscles. we have machines that leverage our physical abilities. a kid in africa with a smartphone can access all of human knowledge with a few key strokes. we'll literally connect our neo cortex and expand it and add to the top of the hierarchy. that's where we do designing new

fashions and all the creative work we do. we're going to be mixed up with it. that doesn't mean conflict will go away. we already have conflict in the world between different groups of humans augmented by our machinery and artificial intelligence. that's going to continue. but we're basically going to extend our creative reach. and we're doing that already. >> when you think about the future of the economy, in an ai augmented world that you've just described, there are some people who think that this is going to be great for society, and others who think that most of us are not going to have jobs. >> well, first of all, jobs is an economic system that we've used to meet our needs. the -- it was mentioned 3.2% economic growth. these economic growth statistics completely ignore the increased

value of a dollar. so i spent a few hundred dollars for this device on my belt. and it counts as a few hundred dollars of economic activity. despite the fact that it's $1 billion circa 1980 or $1 trillion circa 1965 of computation and communication. it's millions of dollars of economic activity. as a teenager, i saved up thousands of dollars to buy an encyclopedia britannica. i have a better one that counts as nothing from economic activity because it's free. that's the strange world of devices, but you can't eat information technology, you can't wear it, you can't live in it. all of that's going to change. we'll be able to print out clothing for pennies for pound with 3-d printers. we're not quite there yet. but that's improving at the rate to get there by 2020. >> the idea that we're going to

be able to 3-d print every product for pennies on the dollar? >> as technology gets more sophisticated, increasing varieties of products will become feasible. >> what about the commodity cost? i still have to pay for the cashmere, right? >> we're going to be able to increase the types of products including the types of materials that we use. i mean, clothing already is a lot less expensive than it was 100 years ago. 20 years ago, a lot of movement was formed because we had these new technologies emerging that could automate the making of clothing. but in fact, now the common man and woman could have a wardrobe rather than just one shirt. but this will revolutionize manufacturing. you'll have open source versions of products and proprietary versions co-existing. let's take several other industries that have already

been transformed from physical products to information products. if i wanted to send you a book or music album or a movie, just a few years ago, i'd send you a fedex package. now i can send you an e-mail. indeed, there's millions of high-quality free documents and books and movies and songs, and you can have a very good time with these free media products. but people still spend money to read harry potter, see the latest blockbuster. and what has happened to the revenues of those industries? they've gone up. not down. fueled by the ease with which those products can be distributed and marked. and we can tell you that you're going to like this movie or this song based on what we've noticed your preferences are. the same thing will happen in the fashion industry. there will still be hot, cool designs from the latest designers, that people spend money for. but manufacturing is going to be transformed. but if you look at the impact on

employment, the perception is entirely opposite to reality. so if i were a futurist, i would say 38% of you work on farls, i predict in 100 years that will be 2%, which is what happened. 25% of you work in factories, i predict that will be 8.7%. everybody will go, oh, my god, we'll be out of work. don't worry, you're going to get jobs doing design on the web and creating new websites and applications for mobile devices and new chip designs. nobody will have any idea what i'm talking about. in fact, what i would say is, gee, we're going to create new jobs to replace the ones that are eliminated. people are like, really, what new jobs? my answer would be, well, i don't know, we haven't invented them yet. that's a bad political answer. but it's the reality. people say, well, that really has changed now. this is different this time. well, look at the types of

economic activity that exists now that didn't exist five years ago. people creating apps for mobile devices, and websites and new applications. >> dare i suggest, most of the communities, instagram being in one of the great examples, a company with 12 people that gets sold for a billion dollars, in the digital world, things that can be digitized are ultimately different than tangible goods. >> we've gone from 24 million jobs in 1900 to 142 million jobs today. but what about the percentage of the population? we've gone from 31% having jobs to 44% having jobs. okay, well what about the wages of those jobs? they've gone up per hour 11-fold in constant over the last hundred years. but has it really happened over the last five years? the answer is yes. it's all these types of economic activity that exist now that didn't exist before mobile devices. >> you don't think we'll be living in some kind of luxury or

leisure -- we'll all become part of the leisure class? >> we're moving up the hierarchy. a hundred years ago you were happy if you had a back breaking job that put food on your family's table. today, not everyone, but an increasing percent of the population get their definition and identity and gratification and self-actualzation from their careers. the idea that you're going to just study for a trade and have, you know, one type of job that you keep for 40 years or 30 years and retire, that model has already gone away. the perception is quite different. there was a poll of 24,000 people in 26 countries recently that asked, has poverty, worldwide poverty gone up or down and by how much? 87% thought, incorrectly, that poverty had gotten worse. only 1% correctly identified that it had gone down by 50% or more.

and there's a similar disparate between the perception and the reality in every other economic area. part of the reason is that people now concede the writing on the wall. if you're driving a truck, you care about these autonomous vehicles, that makes you nervous. people didn't have that level of information. part of the reason people think things are getting worse is our information about what's wrong with the world is getting exponentially better. i like to point out, as steven pinker did in his book "the better angels of our nature," that this is the most peaceful time in human history. people say, are you kidding, didn't you hear about the incident that happened last week, something happens halfway around the world in fallujah and not only do we hear about it, we experience it. a hundred years ago, there could be a big battle in the next village and you would never hear about it. you could count on the fingers of one hand the number of

democrats a century ago. not every country is a perfect democracy, but in all these areas, democratization, human freedom, peace, economic activity, this is the most beneficial time in human history. we didn't have any social safety net until we put social security in. >> you don't think in 20 or 30 years we'll need to have some kind of universal income because so many people will be effectively out of work? >> we'll redefine the nature of work. >> people talk about inequality. >> we had 52,000 college students in 1870. we have 20 million today. and another 5 to 10 million that service them as teachers and staff. so that's 30 million people, that's 10% of the population of the united states. it's 20% of the workforce. and what are they doing? they're studying poetry and history and mathematics and music. and that's considered a useful thing to do.

so we are going to redefine the nature of work. you've got people creating creative apps for mobile devices, i could give you a list of a hundred activities that didn't exist just five, ten years ago. >> does this ultimate create more or less customers for the luxury market? which is to say, what happens to quality globally as a function of all of the things you're talking about? >> i think we are becoming wealth area. a lot of our activities on gratification in terms of beauty and creativity, if you look at the statistics of the fashion -- luxe our the statistics of the fashion -- luxe ouy fashion market, it's ge up. it used to be a very small percentage of the population. it's now something of universal interest. we're going to be very wealthy. >> everyone is going to be very wealthy? >> when i point out the exponential growth of the value of information products, people say, well, as i said before, you

can't eat information products, you can't live in it, you can't wear it. i mention 3d printing of clothing. but we're also going to be producing food very inexpensively using vertical agriculture, basically artificial intelligence controlled food production at very low cost. there already is a demonstration that was recently put together, snapping together modules printed on a 3d printer like lego bricks. at very low cost, in three days put together a three-star office building. that will be the nature of creating structures, houses and buildings in the 2020s. the physical things we need ultimately will be provided through ai-controlled 3d printing at very low cost. and we will have the physical resources to provide a very high level of standard of living for everyone in the world. and we're already well on the way toward that. poverty in asia over the last 25 years has been cut by 90%,

according to the world bank. south america and africa are not only somewhat behind that but are moving in the right direction. so we are wealthier. but our perception, as i said, of what's wrong with the world is increasing. people have more information about the threats to their economic security. and that's i think a lot of what we saw in the election. people are actually better off but their perception of their economic security is infused with more knowledge of the change in the world. we actually adapt very quickly. once these new things happen, we think it's always been that way. >> okay. so that's the

ray happens to take 90 different pills a day because he plans to stay alive for a >> okay.

well, people say you take all these supplements and other pills, that's going to enable you to live hundreds of years? the answer is no. that's just to get to bridge two. bridge two is not far away. according to my models, ten to 15 years from now we'll be adding more than a year every year to your remaining life expectan expectancy. life expectancy is a statistical phenomen phenomenon. >> how old are you now? >> people think i look pretty good for 95. [ laughter ] i'm 68. >> tell us what you take. >> that would take us all day. i'll give you one example of an actual prescription pill, metformin. it's a diabetes drug. we've known for years that all the people that take metformin, and there are millions because it's the most popular diabetes drug, have much lower cancer rates. i did some research with some mit scientists and we discovered why. it actually kills scacancer ste

cells which are the real cause of cancer. you need to take 5 milligrams every four hours to keep it at a level -- >> is that what you do? >> yes. even people who take one every 24 hours have some protection. we see dramatically lower cancer rates as a result. it's also a caloric restriction mimetic, meaning it causes some of the same changes that eating less causes, without eating less. so i actually recommend anyone over 50 take that. so there's -- >> we all want to go to our doctor and call walgreen's immediately. tell us what else is on the list. a couple. then i'll give it over. >> pasfatidil choline, you can buy it at whole foods.

90% of your membranes are this lipid, it's reduced by the time you're 90, it causes your organs to work less well, that's why your skin is less supple, that's why a baby's skin is so soft and smooth. you can reverse that by simply supplementing with that substance. there's a lot of different stories. i've written several health books about this. >> great, thank you. let's open it up for questions. i know there's probably many in the room. i already see a hand in the back. wait for the mike, if you could. >> hi. alexandra trowor. you've talked a lot about so many interesting things but i haven't heard much about humanity and how our emotional intelligence involved as these other parts of the world evolved. can you talk a little bit about that? >> well, emotions are two different things. we still have the old brain that

provides basic motivations. the neo-cortex, which is around the old brain, is really the great sublimater. i might have an ancient motivation for aggression and conquest. my neo-cortex will supplement that into writing a book about the future or talking at a conference to leading fashion executives. no other species does those types of things. the neo-cortex is organized hire arc i c hierarchically. i can tell if someone is funny or ironic or pretty. we added different levels to the hierarchy when we got these big for h foreheads. other primates don't do music.

every other culture we've discovered does music. that exists at the top of the neo-cortical hierarchy. there was a woman having brain surgery, whenever they stimulated particular spots on her neo-cortex, she would start to laugh. at first they thought they discovered a laugh reflex, but no, they had discovered the points in her near owe co neo-c stimulated her sense of humor. they found points in her neo-cortex that covered humor. as i mentioned, we'll add additional levels to the hierarchy when we expand on the neo-cortex in the cloud. we'll become funnier, be better

as expressing loving sentiments. those finer qualities of humans exist at the top of the neo-cortical hierarchy. we're going to enhance those as we increase our brain capacity. >> i'm so glad you asked that question. let's get a question right here. we'll get the microphone around. >> scott lowan. the idea of radical life extension is exciting but on a planet where the population is growing increasingly exponentially, talk a little bit about sort of resource utilization and sustainability and how are we going to solve those issues. >> right. well, as you know, the first thing that happens when nations get wealthier is the population growth rate goes negative. when we start to significantly reduce the death rate, the population will go up again. we have far more resources than

we need. take energy. so tom friedman, i don't know if he's here, he's written a lot about energy. we have exponential growth, for example in solar energy. larry page and i, this is before he became ceo of google, did a -- were asked by the national academy to study solar energy. at that point it was half a percent of the world's energy. people said, half a percent, it's a nice thing to do about it's a fringe player. ignoring the exponential growth, now it's 2%, still doubling every two years. i think tom has a graph in his book that shows that progression. that's only six doubles from 100%. i presented this to the prime minister of israel recently and he was actually in my class in the sloan school in the 1970s. he said, ray, do we have enough

sunlight to do this with? he said, yes, we have 10,000 times more than we need, once we meet our energy needs from solar. that's just -- it's a similar story with geothermal, tidal energy and wind and so on. we have thousands of times more energy than we need. i mentioned vertical agriculture that will provide food at very low cost for the entire population. we'll be able to print out the other physical things we need ultimately with advanced ai-controlled manufacturing technologies in the 2020s. we'll be able to meet the material needs of the population. i talked about snapping together homes from 3d-printed lego modules. if you're talking about land, we're all crowded together. we're crowded together because we created cities as early technology so we could work and

play together. now virtual reality is not yet competitive with real reality, but it's becoming more so. we are spreading out, my work group is all over the world and we communicate just fine. that will become more realistic as virtual reality and augmented reality become more realistic. try taking a train trip anywhere in the world and you see that 98% of the land is not being used. we use 40% of it for horizontal agriculture, which we'll place with vertical agriculture. we have plenty of resources for an expanding population. even when we dramatically cut the death rate, the biological population will only double every 15 years or so. the power of these technologies doubles every one year. that's the expo tension growth that i call the law of accelerating returns. >> ray kurzweil, i could talk to you forever, and if we get to the singular i at th uusingu --

i hope i'll get the chance. thank you. [ applause ] the author of "the presidency in black and white: my up close view of three presidents and race in america." the author of "democracy in black: how race still enslaves the american soul." and journalist david maraniss, author of "barack obama: the story." watch on sunday on book tv on c-spa c-span2. we have more from this business leaders' for am now as a former russian political prisoner talks about russian president vladimir putin, the future of u.s./russian relations

and his initiates to promote democracy in his native country. welcome back, ladies and gentlemen. well, i have the grim task after those inspiring talks from ray and tom about the empowerment of everybody in our new world is to bring us back to the reality of president trump, president putin's expansionism, a great deal of global tensions and the word wide growth of rightist movements. i'm joined by mikhail khodorkovsky, fierce opponent of president putin, former chief executive of the dismembered ucos oil corporation in russia. he spent ten years in jail on

charges that an international court in the hague is found to be utterly without foundation. and mikhail, maybe i could start, you like others have observed this curious friendship or sympathy between president-elect trump and president vladimir putin. what is this friendship about? is it about power? is it about money? is it about testosterone? what is this about? and how dangerous or menacing is it for the world? >> translator: put inhas experience of being friendly with billionaires. both russian ones and

non-russian ones. i too am curious what it is that he finds that he has in common in these conversations. >> putin is a billionaire himself, right? >> translator: but he denies this. a former kgb agent and a billionaire. i don't know. it's possible. but to speak seriously, putin is a person who by virtue of his profession knows how to create relationships with people. he orients himself very precisely to a person.

if he wants you to like him, you will like him. especially if you've got a weakness such as for example when you like it when people say nice things to you about you. >> many people have that weakness. >> translator: that's why he's successful. >> how dangerous might this relationship be? we have seen president putin's expansionism, whether annexing crimea, fomenting the small war in the ukraine, dictating the end game in syria through military means, something we were told in the united states that was not possible to do. there are lots of danger signals.

>> translator: i don't think putin is in a simple position right now. things aren't going that well inside the country. and he's always had a simple explanation for that. he says, well, there's this enemy, america. everything that's bad is america's fault. the people joke about -- they say if your doorstep has mud on it, it's obama's fault. putin put his stakes on hillary winning. >> but he backed donald trump. in fact, he interfered in the