for starters, they built themselves a lavish office building complete with a waterfall. the bellagio hotel was cheaper to build. they even treat their female and minority in these horribly. so far or surface that a division with many african-american employees was nicknamed the plantation. dozens of official complaints have been filed in a nearly tripled in the last year. to top it off, they even set their own salaries with the average staff are making $10,000 a they do agree on one thing, the reformed so ite can go back to helping the american -- forum --st of today's abe., a few words about an

-- nabe. our members interpret economic developments for business veryrs, are members are interested in the result of this election and the implications for economic policy for the u.s. and globally. the results of our most recent economic policy survey are on www.nabe.com for you to consult. it addresses current fiscal policy, federal budget deficit, tax reform, monetary policy committee migration and trade and yes, also the u.s. elections. looking ahead, we hope you will join us in 2017 and our economic policy conference which will be

held here in washington at the 5-7.al hilton from march e thirdate is thi election cycle in which we posted debates here at the national press club. the peterson foundation, we would like to thank them for their support of today's event and the support of other nabe events in the past and we must thank the nabe foundation, who is also supporting today's event. joining us in our effort today to broadly understand the candidates's key economic policies to elevate the campaign discourse, to focus on economics , now, i would like to hand over and introduced doug hamilton, vice president of research and the peterson foundation, to say a few words.

>> thank you, stewart, for those kind remarks. the peterson foundation is very pleased to sponsor this important debate. many have said that this is the most consequential election in a generation. i suspect our two debaters today would agree on that point. even if they disagree on nearly everything else. and few issues will be more our long-termfor future than the fiscal course the next president sets for our country. although deficits are down from the heights of the recession, the debt is still high, deficits have begun rising again and our current fiscal path is unsustainable according to the nonpartisan congressional budget those rising debts will

have well-known economic consequences. reduce the flexibility of neutral policymakers to respond robustly to another willus recession and they crowd out private capital and undermine productivity, wages and growth. at the same time come interest -- at the same time come interest on our debt will become a bigger and bigger drag on our budget, clouding out important investments that fuel economic growth like infrastructure, education and r&d. interest costs alone will become the third largest category of the budget after social security and medicare. problems are well known and they stem from a fundamental disconnect between spending and revenues. on the spending side, we face growing pressures from an easing -- aging population and an inefficient health care system.

on the revenue side, we have been in desk we have an inadequate tax code. addressing these challenges will take vision, commitment and leadership. network will not be easy. debate onand engaged these issues like we will have here today can help people better understand the challenges we face and the choices we have to make. thank you, stewart, tom, and nabe for pulling together this important discussion. [applause] thank you, doug, for laying soout like that for us effectively and thanks again to the peterson foundation. i would like to encourage twitter users to use #nabe debate. to those watching at home on c-span, they can tweet their

questions to us. let me introduce the economic advisers. is currently on leave from the heritage foundation. representing the clinton campaign is gene sperling. that -- now, it is an honor and privilege to turn the program over to our co-moderators, christine from cnn and greg from the wall street journal. >> thank you. question, say who it is for, it will be three minutes for a response. we are not too ferocious on the time, but we will let you know if it's going to long. your colleague will have a chance to respond.

there will then be a one minute rebuttal after that. there will be time for questions from the audience. steve, good afternoon. now commend donald trump's president, what will the people in this room notice that ofdifferent from the economy today and why? stephen: thank you all for being here. this has been a tough 10 days for me, personally, given all the things that have happened. just when i thought things could not get worse, the cubs score four runs in the bottom of the night. -- latest poll just came up the game is on and this will be a highly consequential election. to answer your question about how the world will be different, have fiveat we can

years of 4% growth if we put in place the trunk program. it's not that hard, although we are growing at only 1.5% now. things --om a couple if trump wins, he will have a republican congress and we will be able to pass our business tax cut within the first 150 days. you will have paul ryan as this bigger of the house, the bill that we proposed is not much different from what the house has and they can get through that quickly and if trump wins, , evenn get 20 or so votes from democrats, to cut the business tax rates. that will be different. , one of theing is things that i've told the donald trump you should do and i think he will do is the day he enters , just like the day ronald

reagan entered office, we will have a stack of executive orders sign that will undo a lot of the executive orders that barack obama has put in place. overturning the powerplant rule, if you do that, you can put tens of thousands of coal miners back in their jobs where they belong. those are two things right away, executive orders that can take effect right away. of businesses have been sitting on just piles of capital now for six or seven years, they've been profitable, having a pro-business president were once will unleash a lot of that capital that has been pent-up. right out of the gate, you can see a significant rise in optimism and growth. christine: that was exactly three minutes.

if it is president clinton, what is the one thing people feel first is different in the economy thean now? gene: there is such a divide in the selection that i almost want to dwell on what he said, which is what i think so many people would object to, the moving away from a caring about climate change and a very regressive tax that i think would be extremely expensive and do very little to help working families. comeillary clinton obviously, what's going to be different, some of that is going to depend on the cooperation of one, you would have a supreme court that could overturn citizens united. that would be an important thing for our country and democracy. win, there'ssolid a good chance she could do steve would support,

we would have another chance at comprehensive immigration reform. for all the talk about the economic impacts from immigration reform is widely seen by economists on all sides come including the cbo, to increase revenues, to increase andth, to increase wages increase productivity up to .7%. where i dolace believe more republicans would realize it's time to do that. that would give tremendous confidence -- you would see a focus on a tightening labor market. she would press very hard for wouldinfrastructure that tighten labor markets and mean more employers were raising wages and reaching out to people who had not fully benefited from the economy. people who are long-term

unemployed, people who did not get a good start, people coming from prison who have not gotten the advantages. you will see a tighter labor foret that would be good wages and good for getting people back in the workforce. you would see a real chance of major immigration reform. which would be good on a military in an economic basis and more confidence we could do things and there's important things we would like to do for the families like the very important child care tax credit proposal that would be so important for poor families to move out of poverty and for middle income families to make sure they are not spending more than 10% of their budget on childcare. that would also mean more participation in the workforce for more parents who may be have trouble getting in because of the high cost of childcare. united, citizens really? this is the problem with hillary as a candidate. she wants to take special

interest money out of politics? this is the candidate who will be raising $1 billion in special interest money -- it is so hypocritical for her to talk about that we should not have special interest money in politics and she is the queen. i was just in florida and literally come every time you turn on the tv, it's a hillary ad attacking donald trump with special interest money. the wall street journal summarized this agenda that she has been talking about. hope without change. gene justg that mentioned are things that have been in barack obama's budget for six or seven years. if american people want change come i don't think they will vote for that agenda.

>> economists overwhelmingly support free trade. they believe increase more winners than losers. in the recent poll, the majority believe the transpacific is a very good deal and not to be ratified as it is. secretary clinton once supported now says shep but is not satisfied with it. what would have to happen before she could support it? gene: secretary clinton, like a lot of people in a lot of endeavors in life was hopeful as ,art of president obama's team many people were, that this well-intentioned effort to have

a gold standard trade deal that would help isolate china would get to the finish line in a way that she could support. aret of times in life, you excited about a house or car, you kick the tires and look closer and walk away. when she looked at the rule of , when sherrency looked at the projected impact on manufacturing by those who supported the bill, it did not meet her standard. secondly, as we go forward, i think she wants to help unify us on what could be a very strong jobs agenda that could get support. that would not be unnecessarily divisive. that type of agenda, and immigration, these are the types

of things we could unite and work and get done and going back to tpp is really not in her an economicat progressive economic agenda looks like for her. importanceciate the of trade for creating jobs. we do appreciate that you want more exports. what we want to do it is show china that you've got to be extremely tough on them. there's measures she's going to the marketenying economy status to going hard on the subsidization of steel that's hurting our workers, she will build up that enforcement ouranism to make sure that trade partners live by the rules in a way the bush administration never did with china when they never used the 421 measure that

.as put in place you can feel comforted, for those who are upset that she is against tpp, we are not supporting the trunk plan, which is to simply slap on a 45% or you canff to pretend magically make imports go away and that that would cause no disruption to my has no sophistication about the role of how economies work and the different parts that go into products that are exported. tppary clinton is against after she has look closely at it. she will be very tough on china and ratchet up our trade enforcement come again, particularly on china where we feel workers have not been protected she is not going to then go to a place where we are proposing a legal test illegal

tariffs that would make it harder for our workers to export. a steelworker, auto park worker -- unfairant on fair dumping that will cost them their job but they don' also -- in her term as secretary treasury, that was the , 3%est increase in exports in gdp in exports of any presidential term on record. it's no secret that mr. trump is very unhappy with the trade agreements that country is now involved in. he has called nafta a disaster and he once it -- he wants it renegotiated. what specifically is he looking

for? what has to happen? i was quoted in your newspaper today that i agree with donald trump on about 80% of the issues. i don't fully agree with him on trade. there is something to what he sang on trade. thus he is saying on trade. -- there is something to what he is saying on trade. talking to people in pennsylvania, going to places like grand rapids, michigan or toinois and talking working-class folks who are extremely upset about the economic situation in this country, they are incredibly financially stressed out and anxious.

they are anxious about trade agreements. that't fully agree with -- is trade that is destroying their jobs, but it is true -- i still don't understand what hillary's position on trade is. tpp and then against she did notor it -- really turn against it until trump made a big case about how bad of a trade deal it was. trumpeve with a president , we will see somebody who is a piercer negotiator. appearedr biggish unit the democrats have been charged for the latter is years -- fiercer negotiator. the democrats have been charged for eight years.

i think they are stealing. i read a statistic that $200 billion of american intellectual property is stolen by the chinese. we produce intellectual property in this country. we produce technology, we produce music and computer technology and drugs and vaccines and those come with patents and property rights. what happens if we send them over to china and they still them? it's tough. they've done that with impunity. i think trump will get much tougher. tariffs, i don't think you've heard donald trump recently talk about tariffs. him, you cand solve a lot of these problems with our in balance and trade by fixing our taxes them, getting these regulations off the backs of business -- there was a study

that just came out a couple of months ago that showed manufacturersst about $19,000 per worker. if we can reduce those regulatory costs, guess what? more manufacturing jobs will stay here. one, just the facts, as the clinton as soon tpp agreement was available did not hesitate to come out against it. she looked at the deal and was against it. americans are not against all trade but against agreements they feel have not been enforced. that don't have workers first in mind and third, we have never put in place the more robust training economic development agenda -- too many workers who lost their jobs have seen their communities cycle

downward with no help at all. there's a lot of reason for her to be skeptical and want to have a very high standard for a trade agreement. barack obama did -- was the first president to enforce the port 21 anti-surge agreement -- 421 anti-surge agreement on china. it sends a good signal. steve can try to say comforting words to this crowd about trump on trade, but when he's out there, he sounds like the man who was just going to go outside the law and do things that en towerhan tough stands and enforcement and make everybody live by the rule of law go outside the global thatments and do things many people worry will end up hurting our ability to create jobs through exporting. >> next question is about the national debt.

an national debt is on unsustainable path thanks to medicare and social security spending and interest on the debt. mr. trump's physical plans will make the problems worse -- fiscal plans will make the problems worse. is mr. trump willing to let the debt rise this much? if not, how will he prevent it? remaincial security untouchable? stephen: hillary clinton has zero credibility on the debt. the obamah administration which has been the most physically reckless -- herecally reckless we are eight years later and the production of the debt will take

off again. underrowed more money barack obama than we did with george washington through george w. bush. there's a couple recent but that has accelerated so much under obama. important onet has been that the growth rate has been so anemic. our major case against hillary clinton is you've been part of giveninistration that's us the weakest recovery since the great depression. eight years later, you cannot blame this on george w. bush. the growth rate has been 1.25%. it's pathetic. people don't get pay raises, they have to worry about the future of their jobs and so on. if the economy is not growing, you will not produce the revenues. donald trump has been clear about this and i happened to fully agree with him on this, we have to make jobs and economic growth job number one.

we have to do whatever we can to get growth up. gina knows these numbers as well as i do. you cannot get enough revenues into the government to balance the budget if you don't have solid and consistent and sustainable growth. we will concentrate on getting that tax cut through. the numbers that came out by the brookings institute were so bogus, they don't even know what they're talking about. one.ll make growth number you will get a lot of revenue and the deficit will come down. secretary clinton wants to expand social security and medicare. how will she rein in the cost of those programs? gene: first of all, i will mention what you just expect me the only four years of surplus and had a strategy very much like hers,

which was raising taxes on those who could afford it the most and having a strong public investment strategy. that was part of the last time we had 4% growth. his second term was the last presidential term where we had 4% growth and private sector growth under bill clinton was 4.3% in the first and second while all of those numbers were stronger than even the reagan administration. blamenot stand to try to the debt on barack obama. robust recovery plan. it was $800 billion. it helped take us from the brink of depression in the first quarter of 2009 when we were losing 7% growth, 800,000 jobs a month to out of recession, that did an enormous amount to prevent the fiscal fallout.

that's $800 billion. by twot has been cut thirds. let's get the record straight there. as we look on the long-term deficit, i do think that the most important thing we could do right now is to tighten the labor market, frontload a jobs plan that is fine for the long term but gets more demand in the economy, tighter labor market in the economy so we could get the kind of stronger growth that we all want over 3% in the 4% would -- would be better. the most consequential thing that has happened in these last six or seven years has in the projections for government health care spending have gone down dramatically. trillion.$1.5 one of the most amazing statistics is that we spend less

-- the government spends less on health care than was projected in 2010, even including the affordable care act and covering 20 million people. i'm not going to make this a like itartisan point must be all obamacare, etc., but it is to say the following. what happens to drive down the cost of health care, dwarf the kind of budget negotiations we have with a little options from the cbo book and we as a country and hillary clinton will focus on what we can do to move toward more bellevue-based health care, -- more-for-service value-based health care. the savings that brings to the long-term deficit and debt dwarf what we fight about in the normal budget negotiations which i've been a part of many times the last decades.

stephen: my premiums have gone through the roof. the greatest single failure of modern times is obamacare. americans are feeling it in the pocket book right now. we have to start over. health plan that works that allows people to keep their doctor and her hospital -- there hospital. i'm paying thousands of dollars more. that's one of the reasons people are not getting pay raises. the increased costs of health care to employers is crowding out pay raises. , a dramaticea difference between trump and hillary. hillary will double down on obamacare. this is an important episode of -- the onestory

thing i will say about barack obama's presidency is that he basically disputed economics -- we've had massive amounts of debt, we had an $800 billion gene's ownll -- numbers about what the economy will look like if we didn't do $800 billion waste of money and their own numbers show that the economy would have performed better if we had not wasted the hundred billion dollars. that's $800 billion. neither of you actually

addressed what we should do about social security and medicare. i did say that the drop in medicare spending has been more savings,nt than the 1.5 trillion dollars, that works what we were talking about at the table in a budget negotiation. this argument where we get the look atet book and we this benefit or this provider is more important than as figuring out as a country how we deliver health care that is more bellevue-based -- value-based than fee-based. i did not make it a partisan point. we do better to try to understand and work on policies that lead to two better value

for lower cost and that these types of measures that are being experimented with now and that we are examining are more important and have a broader affect than the traditional i'm going to nick this benefit this way or not. >> i would like a chance to come back on some of the things that -- we did not know, people did not know how much the downturn was in 2009. if you look at jason furman's response, he went through this very well, you can take several other measures -- unemployment has come down.

jobs and unemployment were down than projected, it was difficult coming out of a ,inancial crisis like we had but when you look at private sector growth, it was 2.6%. when you ask, what was different about this recovery than other recoveries, it was that state and local government was contracted when in every other previous recovery going back 30 years, state and local government expanded during that time. ronald reagan was helped dramatically by a burst of state and local government spending. you look at his private sector growth of 2.6%, if you had more help from republican congress on infrastructure and deferred maintenance come on helping state and local governments during this time,

you could very easily have been over 3% growth, even with the obstacles we face globally. dowhat would president trump about social security and medicare? --phen: this should not rest we should learn from what happened in 2009 and the failures of the obama stimulus. that ity was supposed was sold as shovel ready projects, they would rebuild american infrastructure. the money went to social programs. they spent money on unemployment insurance and food stamps. you had the speaker of the house say that food stamps on unemployment insurance were stimulus to the economy. that is economic nonsense. that is the left's view.

we still have 40 million people on food stamps. ,n social security and medicare republican candidates have been so demagogue, that lady in the wheelchair going off the cliff, you cannot win an election right now by talking about cutting the social security and medicare. you don't have to cut the social security benefits. back up, ifrowth you have pro growth economic policies, you will have enough money to pay all of social security benefits for a long time. the problem is the return that workers are going to get from it. the most important thing we are going to do on entitlement reform is get rid of obamacare. >> we should move on. the u.s. now has the

, itest corporate tax rate encourages companies to move to other countries for tax reasons. what is secretary clinton's plan to reform the corporate tax system and reduce tax avoidance? gene: we would all agree we have a broken corporate tax system. we have differences on how to fix it. we are engaged in a race to the bottom. in thatclinton differs she doesn't think the way you compete with that is to raise more to the bottom. she does believe and we believe that too many of our companies spend too little time -- spend more time on international tax arbitrage than they do on expanding their markets and focusing on the core of their company. systemieves that our tax can no longer be in different

two location. it is not about the bottom line of the company, it's about the bottom line of the u.s. economic growth and productivity. a taxe are judging initiative or corporate tax reform, we have to look, not what it does for the bottom line of a company, but what does it do for our bottom line in terms of investment, research, job creation? a perfect example is the 2000 for repatriation holiday -- 2004 repatriation holiday. it satisfied the corporate bottom line because people , but it wentmoney to dividends and stock buybacks. when she looks and says we want a tougher measure like 50% in version rule and we want more incentives for small business,

job growth, manufacturing, what she is suggesting is we need a reform that encourages the right aligns behavior that corporate tax incentives with what actually leads to economic growth and job creation in the u.s. and that is not what we see right now. we all know that the corporate , the amount is not particularly high, it is in the middle of the pack. we have this system where people are paying too much and some people are not paying at all. she has not shown her hand on the exact we where she goes as president, but she's laid out principles by which she judges after useasures -- extending all the business extenders without paying for it, in a corporate tax reform, you could also have enough

additional to reminisce the additional revenues to fund a pro job, pro productivity agenda that can deal with our deferred maintenance, doing more for small businesses that start and grow and expand here on our shores. if you cut me, i bleed red, white and blue. andnt as many jobs companies located here, i don't want them in ireland or china or india. i want them here. for a long, long time that our corporate income tax is so anti-american, it's almost unpatriotic, frankly, to support a law that is basically exporting jobs. this,companies, we know we've seen burger king, medtronics, walgreens, pfizer,

dozens and dozens of companies that are leaving and more are going to leave if we don't fix this. frankly, shame on barack obama for not fixing this. what is so hard about cutting corporate tax rates? we should have done this four or five years ago. taxes do matter. if you've got location a with a high tax rate and location be with a low tax rate and all the things equal over time, people will move from a to b. why haven't we fixed this? we will get the rate down to 15%. we will allow immediate expensing. when companies build factories or invest in machinery, they can write that often the first year they are in office. growth hormones injected into the american economy, you do that.

i don't understand why obama has not done this. the simon alarm should be going up in washington there's something seriously right here. in their tax plan, which both the tax foundation and policy center judged to be $6 trillion, $2 trillion comes from a corporate tax cut alone -- this corporate tax-cut has no assurances that it will lead to locational impacts of job creation. we have no idea, this is again the kind of blind supply-side -- i don't think most americans right now want a tax cut where more goes to the top 1% than the bottom 99% combined by simply cutting all business rates to 15%. without the type of more

thoughtful analysis that is going to show that is not going to crowd out our ability to deal with social security and medicare, is not going to crowd out our ability for infrastructure that is not going to have negative effects on the trade deficit. when hillary clinton says this supply-sidec , steve may believe it deeply, but i think for our country to go in that kind of direction and to say the answer is $2 trillion less for knows howns and god much less for high income americans who have business opposed to investing those things in things we need to know we need to do in this country, whether it is fixing , roads, schools, investing in the skills of our basics, this is just a

mismatch of priorities. stephen: it's a good economic discussion. >> our theory on this is that when the biggest beneficiaries of the business tax cut would be middle-class american workers -- and first-rate economists at the american enterprise institute has done the best research on this, when you cut corporate tax , businesses invest more. that's i you get workers to have higher wages. the capital to labor ratio is what leads to higher wages. we are not doing this because we want to help people who get evidence. -- dividends. we think this is the best way to create higher-paying jobs. term expiresen's

in 2018. mr. trump says he would replace her. he has been very critical of janet yellen, says her policies have been politicized. he would like to replace her. what's what sort of person does he want to replace her with and what would you like the next year to do differently -- next chair to do differently? stephen: i'm not inexpert on monetary policy. i will give you a couple quick impromptus -- you would see someone who would -- we as free market economists believe the move is to some kind of price where you take discretion away from these individuals and you have something locked in. whether it would be a market

basket of commodities, it would be more and stabilizing for the economy. will janet yellen raise the rates? wouldn't it be better if people just knew what she was going to and it was all done by a formula rather than having these smart people make these decisions? my own view on the monetary stuff is our problems right now are not monetary. the people on wall street hyperventilate about whether the fed may or may not raise a quarter of a point, it doesn't make a difference. we will not get growth or the federal reserve. it has to come through tax and federal reform. we have low interest rates, that's a good thing. we have a tax code and a regulatory structure that is failing our businesses. >> what would hillary clinton like to see changed about the fed, if anything.

? gene: the attacks on janet yellen for being political and lacking independence are just absurd. it's hard to imagine a more independent, less politically motivated person. i think people feel that way about janet yellen. that economists supporting hillary clinton have had differences with the fed, it has been that we have thought that perhaps they have not been dovish enough, that there's much more likelihood of a hawkish mistake than a dovish mistake. we believe there is still a degree of tightening that can go on in the labor market. she supports full employment focus. that is something that when you look at the evidence now, when

that youat the degree have not had as much wage gains over so many years, when you look at the important tightening labor market when you've had this type of strain that happens -- ben bernanke you never said 2% was a ceiling. he said it was an anchor. while, if above for a that helps give a bit more demand and helps give employers a bit more focus to help more african-americans whose unemployment rate could come down further, the people who've --n this committed against discriminate against, if anything, we probably believe the evidence at this point makes forch stronger case worrying more about a hawkish mistake than a dovish mistake.

there is a much greater case for a much stronger full employment view from monetary and fiscal policy. this is where steve and i have a fundamental disagreement. i believe monetary authorities have been strained beyond what they should have to do because fiscal policy has not risen to the challenge. i do believe the failure of us to help state and local governments to have done at least the first maintenance at a time when it would help labor markets, lower borrowing costs, has put our federal reserve and other monetary authorities in the position where they've had -- moreings that expansive than they might like but are necessary because they realize that they became instead

of lenders as last resort come and economic saviors of last resort. we would like to see a future where we are doing the part of putting less pressure on to "steve andials i would like to see. steve and i would like to see. i've talked to janet yellen if wethat many times -- had actually talked about it -- nice try. [laughter] >> a minute to respond. stephen: i look at the world differently. this idea that we have not had fiscal stimulus -- we borrowed a $10 trillion in eight years.

this idea that if we only spent more money, we would have a better economy, i don't get that logic. americans are pretty fiscally conservative. they understand that a great nation cannot are away trillion dollars europe the year after year. borrow a trillion dollars year after year after year. we've had this karen this this -- karenren horendous recovery. given us a 1% growth rate. people say we cannot do this anymore. it doesn't work anymore. and knees we've seen on the campaign trail, in

,articular in both parties despite a recent recovery, real household incomes are still lower today than they were in 2007, real wages have barely grown, yet companies increasingly complain they cannot find the right skilled workers and job vacancies are higher than their prerecession levels. with a secretary clinton strategy for matching workers to vacancies and getting those wages up? , it was be clear encouraging to see the census report for 2015. but it wasn't good enough. family income is a tiny bit above where it was in 2000, household income is still a bit below. expect to see their income grow. we were fortunate in the clinton

administration to have seen the time when you actually did see up $10,000 family go in real income. the typical african-american family went up $11,000. you had a time of true shared growth, but it's not just the politics, the world is more complicated. you are seeing more job polarization, more global pressures. we have to have a stronger policy response for that. one of the things she is doing is making college education really very high on her agenda. some of that is relieving family pressures like allowing people to refinance. it's encouraging more people and more families to seek a college education through having to be more affordable, debt-free or even free tuition. one thing that she says i heardre she goes --

some of the republican candidates like marco rubio -- we have too have a strategy for getting education ofher any type that works well for them to match the jobs. in the future, for me personally, i would not call one thing college and other thing training, etc. come everything should be seen as higher education. supporting apprenticeships is an example. 1015 years from now, people might -- 10-15 years from now, people might ask you what is your credential wallet instead of what is your major. industry and government need to work together. you have to have a greater sense of what are the credentials that are needed to fill those jobs. when you hear people saying

there's a welding shortage, the be able to gotion into a commuter college class and know the credential you are getting will put you at the front of the line for all the top employers that are looking for welders. we need to stress the college education -- for your completion is still one of the most important things for social and economic mobility. but we need to broaden and it he wille early good -- have to develop policies because we have to give people a way they can get financial support for those types of training or credentials. but without having the type of complete lack of accountability and often abuse we've seen in the existing for-profit school industry. all, if youst of , he to have skilled workers

and i agree on this, donald trump and hillary clinton we arey agree on this, not training workers today for the jobs that are out there. funk is the single biggest employer in the u.s., he runs the biggest temporary employment agency in the country, 800,000 people in jobs. he says, you give me someone who has a useful skill and i can find them a job in 24 hours. how to do something, you are a carpenter, electrician, engineer, welder, trucker, you can find a job. why aren't our workers prepared this? we spent trillion dollars a year on education and there's something seriously wrong with

our education system that we are spending all this money on kids and frankly, i'm not so sure a four-year your degree is always such a great idea. there's a big problem and it could be solved in a bipartisan way. the worst possible thing we could do right now is to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour. that is a terrible idea. one of the problems with the u.s. economy is you have a very high teenage on a claimant rate this unemployment rate. -- there he high teenage unemployment rate. people are not entering the workforce until they are 23 or 24. it's a starter job and most are under the age of 25. we don't want to price those people out of the labor market.

i have two sons that are teenagers, i love them to death, but i would never pay them told dollars an hour. an hour. them $12 -- i would never pay them $12 an hour. away for free is also a really bad idea. kids should work for their education. the fight for $15 has been one of the most impressive things i've seen, it can be implemented in a way that it will work. in seattle and los angeles where it's been even more aggressive, we have not seen a negative impact. you really don't think there will be displacement effects? gene: you have to be smart and how you do it. if you look at you are, they are trying to phase it in a way that allows them to take account of where you have lower median

income. right now, i believe or very soon and not phase displacement -- what it does for rewarding people, the dignity in providing for your family. -- when weone thing are looking at the skills of our workforce, we have to be focused on what i think of as the excel a rating inequality that happens everybodyeople -- knows what i'm talking about. when our kids get to this age, we provide them with a are going to the best schools, they have or a ct prep -- the same kids spiral down. they have no college at pfizer he. -- college advisory.

have a greater commitment to creating a pathway up for minority youth. it's a shame on us for the idea that somebody with all the ambition in the world, simply because their parents never went to school or they don't speak english, we start with those disadvantages and right at the critical time that they enter and we do nothing for the other kids who do not have those benefits. it is an accelerating inequality that we should all be fighting, and i have no partisanship and that, i just think for a country where the action figure birth should not determine outcome of your life, we got to focus on kids in their middle years and make sure they really have a pathway and all the help to get to college and not just advantages for our kids who are already, many of them, quite privileged.

>> the next question is about federal regulation. the purpose of the regulation is , most agree we want cleaner air, cleaner water, less discrimination, and we want banks that are safe and do not mistreat their customers. at the same time, it is a constant and growing refrain from businesses that the complexity of these regulations has become a burden on productivity. barack obama has issued 400 like a -- proclamations. what should we do to reduce the regulatory ordinance that we face? i'm not sure that i'm excepting the facts that you just gave, but i will go forward anyway. i think regulation is something that you look at with a common sense you of what the costs and

benefits are. don't like cost-benefit at all, because on justonservative side, they tell you what the costs are, and these dramatic numbers here are always just the cost. some on the progressive side are worried that the cost-benefit site will be too narrow and take intond not account quality-of-life issues. however you frame it, you have to look at what those benefits are. the most significant economic cost that our country has dealt with in our life was the failure of regulation and enforcement on wall street during the subprime. the cost of that in the andlions, the heartbreak setback was so great, so to take this approach that just says you are for or against regulation, as opposed to saying what type of regulation. if you say to me, or their costs with the major banks having to do living wills?

if, as hillary clinton wants, would give more power under dodd-frank for them to break up or restructure, or their cost to them perhaps to abiding by the cfpb? if you just look in a very narrow way, you will see the cost side. but you have to look at the benefits. endags were supposed to humanity as we know it. they were supposed to cost $1000. they ended up costing a few hundred dollars, and the benefits to live saved ended up being tremendous. we look at the lives saved, the asthma, the cleaner air, automatic amount of economic benefits. i think hillary clinton is going to take a thoughtful approach a look at where it is justified. i think she will also support things like the obama

administration has done where they have looked back at old regulations that have saved $28 billion and looking back at regulations that might not make sense. i think she will really focus on small business. she has already propose that more feeshould have in terms of licensing that she put out where she called for a standard deduction on the tax size and people having to ollect every receipt, etc. i think you're going to see someone who's going to push for regulatory simplicity where it can be done safely on the small business site, but i think it will be a commonsense approach and you have to weigh the ,enefits as well as the costs and you have to remember that every time you do something, there is always an exaggeration of the media cost, and over time, whether it is airbags or clean-air are clean water, what has turned out later to be the the economic

disruption was minimal and the economic and health benefits were significant. >> mr. trump has talked about the burden of regulation and the policy paper from the campaign says he would roll back cost ofons with the $200 billion. what regulations is he going to roll back that would achieve those types of costs raving? >> we started out by saying this would be a consequential election. i disagree with just about everything jean said. disagreesmp probably with hillary on this issue more than any other issue. this reflects the fact that donald trump is a man who comes from the business world and hillary clinton is a lifetime politician who has no idea how business works. she has never been involved in business, even though she is rich. the power plan thing, look, i live in virginia. you want to see the real life it

of regulation, you go to these coal mining towns, and it is catastrophic what is happening in these towns. vibrantat used to be coal mining towns were people have middle-class lifestyles, where you have little league and vibrant communities, have been decimated, because we have to andy about global warming therefore 10,000 people have to lose their job. the donors to the sierra club who are paying a price for this, it israel workers who are now in unemployment line. it's a disaster. for hillary clinton to say i care so much about working-class people admin says we're going to ,rovide -- people and says these people just want their jobs back. these are the victims of regulation that is happening way

too often. thing, when we have met with real business leaders, we have talked to ceos, people who actually hire workers out there, whether in the energy business, financial services, transportation, banking, they all say the same. taxes are big problem, but they say the regulatory red tape and regulations are putting on businesses are worse and we've got to unleash these businesses and get rid of some of these regulations. dodd-frank has been a total disaster. if we stick with dodd-frank, within 10 years we will have five chiat banks. it will be light utilities and it will destroy the community banking sector of the country. gene: yes, we should do look

asked to make sure we don't have ones that are old and don't make sense anymore. yes, we should try to make things easier on small business, there are major policy differences. donald trump thinks climate change is a hoax. if that is your view, than all of this is probably just a waste and hurting people. if you think climate change is a and issue for the world making sure we deal with it on the coal power plants, projected serious asthma , you can justear before it, or you can just be against it, or you can ask case-by-case, after wells fargo, do you really want to get rid of the consumer finance bureau? do you really want to get rid of all the regulations on the major harm that caused so much

with their exceptionally risky behavior and breakdown of underwriting that led to the sum -- subprime crisis? do you want to get rid of living wills? reduceda administration foodborne illness cases by 75,000 year. look,n take a serious hillary clinton says she is into the details. , they are a big deal to each person, and you have to weigh very carefully her ability to have those benefits versus the potential cost case-by-case. for both ofuestion you and then we will open it up for questions. microphones the open in just a few minutes. many people in the business community for many years now, and economists, have talked

about reforming immigration to allow more skilled workers into the country to fix the immigration system so that you can match skills and people in this country. donald trump, we know that he wants to end illegal immigration. does he want to dramatically reduce legal immigration, too? i will answer that but i have to respond to what gene said. hillary kept talking about donald trump was responsible for this, wanting to buy up properties or something like that. this. just say i've heard other economists say that the tax cuts are what caused the financial crisis. politiciansry few who have their hands dirty or after the financial crisis than hillary clinton. i was working in congress at the time.

we had a fannie mae and freddie mac reform bill that we were trying to push through congress, and the person who filibustered that will was senator hillary clinton. had people in the obama administration saying the chance of fannie mae and freddie mac ever needing a bailout is one in a million. greg, you know, we worked at the wall street journal together. we must have written 100 editorials about fannie mae and ready mac and how dangerous these institutions were, that -- it was ave cauldron that was ready to explode. not only did hillary clinton not do anything about it, she did not take any action to rein in fannie mae and freddie mac, she took tens of thousands of dollars of campaign contributions from fannie mae and freddie mac. her foundation took over $50,000. and i don't think she ever day that money back.

fannie mae and freddie mac were at the center of the crisis. the reason i mention that is because fannie and freddie, under barack obama, or doing exactly -- are doing exactly the same thing right now. have we not learned a single thing from what happened eight years ago? yes, we do want legal immigration. the consensus in the country is that we have to get the border under control. then we can do things to reform the immigration system. you and i agree on the benefits of immigration but i've come to the conclusion that until the border is secure and we are not letting drug runners in and so terrorists,tial until that happens, there's going to be no political consensus for doing the things we do need to do to have a more rational immigration system. gene: we will do urban legend,

right wing think tank legend, which is that the effort in the people,o help minorities, or people who were not as well off the homeowners was somehow the cause of the financial crisis. in fact, other people in the trump campaign believe -- blame it on the community reinvestment act. what does joe biden say? malarkey. rise of all, there was no predatory lending behavior are those type of problems while bill clinton was president. when we had the problem with subprime, sheila bair, ben analyses bothr showed that only one of four of ofse who did so right, one four were covered by community reinvestment act. indeed, there was never a time when fair housing advocates had less influence than they did

under the bush administration. this administration, and this is true, one of their regulators posed with a chainsaw in front of regulations. macie mae and freddie ,ought 270 billion subprime 2005-2008. the were recklessly chasing worst of the financial crisis. so the idea that this was not a fundamental breakdown of judgmentsng and risk in our economy, a fundamental breakdown of enforcement and regulatory sanity, and that somehow what you want to do is lame this on what was a successful effort to help lower income and minority families become homeowners just does not come anywhere to being proven by any fax anywhere.

on immigration, there is some kind of huge increase in people coming over the border? where is that fact from? that is not the case. we need comprehensive aggression reform to include more skill-based immigration, but we are never going to, nor should we do that, if we don't have confidence in immigration reform. as a people, it is terrible to have these people living here who have been here for a long time, living in the shadows, fearing their families being broken up. it's wrong, we should have a path to citizenship, and economically, when people have to live in the shadows, it is harder for them to pay taxes and get legal documents to buy houses. it is harder for them to move to the jobs they want. if you ever wanted a policy which was the right thing morally, from humanitarian view, and from an economic policy,

join the so many republicans and want comprehensive immigration reform, we need to have comprehensive reform. that is one of the best things we can do for a country, and to pretend it is somehow justified because there's been some huge inflow coming over the border is just without fact or foundation. towe would like now to move questions and answers. we would like to hear from you and the panelists. we have microphones set up over here and over here. please take your spot at the microphone and when you have a question, state your name and your affiliation. stephen: i didn't get my one minute response. you are right, underwriting standards went to the toilet.

what happened is, you would go in -- there was a story in the washington post, a couple literally just off the boat. they came out with a $600,000 mortgage. yes, it was due to a lot of bad practices in the private sector, but the government totally the silicate it this. the biggest rail out of all the bailouts that happened in 2009, the single biggest institution was fannie mae. and we are back to doing what we did before. this, the quick thing on you talk about george bush, and his policies i think contributed to this, but it was barney frank who in 2007 said i think we should roll the dice on the housing market, and we rolled

the dice, and it crashed. that's what happens when you get politicians involved in markets. i want to take to questions and we will figure out who is best able to respond. i work with bloomberg. i'm just curious, i think i have an idea what the trump answer is on this, but what are the two or three things among all the economic and domestic policy ideas where each administration is really going to put their first part ofthe the presidency, the first 100 days, six months, whatever, when you have the most power to get things done? i have a sense from the trump campaign what that might be, but i'm not sure of the clinton will put thet they

most bullets on in the first part of the presidency. i would be interested to get that priority. >> thanks for taking my question . i'm with the congressional quarterly. i was just wondering you too could provide a little bit more detail on how you plan to address the social security , what if the tax breaks don't provide the type of growth needed to satisfy the cost of social security? and alternatively, what kind of tax increases might you propose on the clinton side to deal with the problem? we will deal with the second question first and then go to the first one. gene: we are probably both thinking about it because campaigns have never been the greatest place to try to work out of social security solution. i do think there's something

very important that has happened in this campaign. i think it is worth really thinking about, which is that a lot of times we have thrown social security around as if the problem was, it was too big or too much. the fact is, that is not the case. we face potential require -- we face a potential retirement crisis in this country. i have always been for kind of universal pensions and for matching savings and for making ent morecode work to inc savings from low in moderate income families and not just the well-off. what we saw during the financial crisis was that you could lose everything, your house, you could lose a lot in the stock market, but the one thing that was rocksolid was your social security benefit. a lot of people on the progressive side started saying, why do we have this discussion where we start with the view

that somehow you have to make it smaller? it we really think people have too much security in their retirement? answer is no. you have seen the democratic party start to move, including hillary clinton, towards the idea of expanding social security as opposed to cutting it. she did not go as broad as bernie sanders did, but she put forth a character -- caregivers tax credit which has been pushed by those in the women's economic community and others, so she has put that, and i think there has been a lot of consensus on expanding the minimum for families. that obviously increases your burden, and hillary clinton has put forward the idea that there are many options you could do from high income revenues. i think what you're seeing in this campaign has been a shift in the debate.

whether you like better do not, we do have to take seriously that when we look to the future, we look at what's happening with private pensions, etc., there is a real worry about whether will still be able to retire with the dignity they should. there is nothing we haven't as efficient,t is as rocksolid, as well done as social security. so i think push, which hillary clinton supports, to look for expanding where you can is a policycant and important for hillary clinton, and i think for progressives in general. donald trump hasn't talked a lot about social security, so i will answer the other gentleman's question. this is the heart of what the election is about. has waythat the economy

underperformed. if we had had a typical, even a normal recovery, we would have $2 trillion more gdp today. growth gap is the equivalent of losing the entire gdp of pennsylvania, ohio, and michigan combined. americans are feeling that every day. of us live in washington dc, people in silicon valley and new york city are doing great, but get out of those places and you see people under extreme financial stress. our whole agenda is going to be to make dramatic change. two out of three voters now say the economy and the country are going in the wrong direction, and i happen to agree with them. we will have a pro-america energy policy where we are not going to put coal miners out of work. energy.ing to use our we will become the saudi arabia

of oil, gas, and coal production over the next five or six years. that is a game changer for national security. we will become energy dominant, not by building solar panels but by using $50 trillion of assets. we will cut taxes significantly for businesses and put america back to work. and finally, we will roll back obama care. everything i wrote about , not only has it happened but it is worse than i thought it would be. the costs are out of control. it's in a death spiral and we have to fix those things. fix those things, i really do think we can make america great again. i disagree with stephen that during a recession that things like unemployment

benefits or things they go to people who are living paycheck to paycheck and have the highest tendency to consume immediately, that it's crazy to just there's an economic case for having a high multiplier. i disagree completely. whatsaid, when you look at hillary clinton wants to have a jobs plan that is focused on doing the things that are good for long-term productivity. when you are building infrastructure, expanding broadband, modernizing schools labs, whenscience you are strengthening our manufacturing and supplier base, when you're helping more small --inesses, those are things and strengthening housing, which will become a more and more inortant issue for jobs affordable housing, you are tightening the labor market,

increasing wages, giving more people a chance. you're not doing it to build pyramid's on the mall. you're doing it to do things that we need to do is a country for productivity and long-term investment. there will be a chance to have comprehensive immigration reform. even steve, deep in his heart, knows that if republicans lose this election, they are not likely to get back to the white house with candidates who talk about mexicans being rapists, and not opposing comprehensive immigration reform, and certainly not for supporting deporting millions and millions of families from our country. i think there is a real hope on a jobs plan come immigration, and then on the affordable care act. at two independent sources, commonwealth study and b, they both did analysis of

the trump health care plan and found it would cost between 21 million and 25 million people their health coverage. we cannot go back to a world where people with pre-existing penalized, for those who have autism, or spouse who has a heart disease. we cannot go back to that, and they have no plan to go forward. hillary clinton will try to go forward with that and strengthen things like how we negotiate drug prices, sweetening the premium so that it's not more than 8.5%, maybe changing the design to make it more attractive for younger people. these are positive things. so yes, there is a big difference. like dodd-frank and the affordable care act, we are not saying they are perfect, but we are saying we want to build on them. obviously they want to repeal

them, and repeal of the affordable care act with no viable plan that will not send us back to the days of people being penalized for pre-existing conditions and 21 million less americans having health care. do you think that is progress? then you should vote for them. republicans have never put forward a plan, and there is an economic reason why. you don't do the mandates, etc., because you want to have a strong government. it is because you need a pool. you can either have those kind of mechanisms, or you have to sweeten the tax incentive enough to attract people in any way. when you just do deductibility, like donald trump, what every analyst has shown is that of the twentysomething million people who believe, only 5% will be your back. republicans have -- only 5% will be lured back.

the house plan does have a plan. we are going to reveal -- repeal care. pai >> i'm with voice of america. how do you feel the political uncertainty influences the investors andried consumers keep more money in their pocket, and is that it, in turn, cut demand? >> declining oil prices in the last two years been a little puzzling for a lot of economists , because they would expect consumers to benefit from it, but then business investment

dropped off and knocked off some points of gdp growth. visualizer campaigns this problem? we can imagine oil prices at some point rising and then business investment picks up. >> the first question is about uncertainty and how it is affecting consumers and markets. the second question is about political uncertainty. prices as a matter of economic policy, not necessarily energy policy. i'm so high on the shale oil and gas revolution. it's the single biggest story of the american economy. we would not have gotten out of this recession.

much more affordable than the stimulus bill. the oil and gas industry accounted for every net new job that was created in the united states from 2009-2013. it was an amazing phenomenon and we are just at the beginning. you've done everything you can to stop it. this is a president who hates the oil and gas industry, and it has room -- has bloomed under his presidency. when she talks about a clean energy future, that is gas. the benefits is not just jobs but dramatically reduced rices. it ends up being an economic issue in terms of everything we've talked about. we will have the lowest priced energy of any country in the world. we've been talking about competitive this.

.e've seen -- competitiveness if you want to see the green energy future that hillary is talking about, look at germany, rants, spain, and italy. their prices went through the roof. they had unreliable electricity in terms of the output. because we have so much of the these we can bring factories back to the united states. we will have the lowest tax rate, the lowest energy prices. every time we see a reduction in the gasoline price, every tiny reduction puts a billing dollars more into american consumers. i think hillary is wrong. we should use our fossil fuels. we can do research on climate the 25 million problems in the country, its jobs, the economy, health care, terrorism, crime, and number 24

on the list is climate change. in that case you are definitely a lined with your candidate more. let me go to the political uncertainty, because i do want to talk about donald trump. exampleyou want an where political uncertainty affects demand, affects the economy, look at what happened when the republican congress was threatening to put the country in default for the first time. one thing we should do as a country, whether donald trump whence -- let me say this now whether donald trump or hillary clinton wins, no matter who wins, everybody should hate the idea -- i will say this to democrats, you can call me, you take the idea of using

the notion of defaulting on the of budgettactic negotiations. it is so harmful to the confidence in the country. major retailers came in and said that the couple of days where people thought we were going to go into default had the andvalent impact of 9/11 was the worst since pearl harbor for some places. we went through it in 2012. secondly, you might feel comforted there are some issues for donald trump where perhaps he cannot do certain things because of the united states congress. imagine going through that debt crisis with donald trump. imagining him threatening to do discounts on the debt. imagine the threats to foreign leaders because they were perceived as insulting his masculinity in some way. imagine him talking about the dollar and the gold standard and paying debt. if you are a financial professional and you are looking

at a trump presidency, start figuring out how you are going to deal with unpredictable volatility, because congress can limit some things, but we have learned that nobody limits what that guy says come and that he spends no time studying the complexity of economics. you can see it in the time that he seemed to suggest he was going to discount on the debt, default on the debt, and what was more important was the five or six days that followed afterward, as he continued to put his foot in his mouth. it might have been amusing. areill not be amusing if we going through another global challenge, where people are used to thinking of the united states as the safe haven where you have strong, serious leadership. so you should worry very much about the impact on confidence person ofnomy if the donald trump is president.

donald trump is not talking about defaulting on the debt. if you thought defaulting on the debt was such a horrible -- look , it was the obama administration, people were saying we are going to default on the debt. there was never going to be a default on the debt. that happening was a zero probability. what we're talking about is restructuring and refinancing the debt, and we should do this. we have the lowest interest rates and 50 years. the federal government should 50, 75, 100 year on's and permanently lock in these low interest rates. one of the dangers in this economy is if those interest rates start to rise, we can cut the federal budget to the bone and the increase on the cost of

interest payments is going to go through the roof. we will be in a debt spiral -- we have to lock in these interest rates now. what about the temperament question? that donald trump doesn't have the temperament to be able to handle a crisis like that? gene: the guy -- stephen: the guys a businessman. this is the heart of what this election is about. donald trump knows how to create jobs. there's a lot of criticisms of donald trump and a lot of them are valid. i don't agree with a lot of things donald trump has said. but these attacks against him as a businessman are ridiculous. he has created one of the greatest brands around the world. you don't do that unless you are incredibly good. million dollars and

created a multibillion-dollar organizational. of the things one wrong with the political class, these people who have never hired a single work in their whole life would criticize someone who has been so incredibly effective and successful in running businesses his whole life. that is probably all the time we have now. ask for a great discussion. stewart will come up and make some final remarks. [applause] >> thank you very much. sure you had a very enjoyable time. we've had a great debate today. it's clear there will be extremely difficult policy choices facing whichever party takes over the administration

shortly. will be hard midterm and longer-term decisions, economic and fiscal. going forward, they will continue that debate, fostering it in different forms, and i hope you will join us for those events. i would like to say now, thank you very much to our participants, gene and steve. leadershipte your and your diplomacy most of all. i would also like to thank greg and christine, thank you for pushing them with superb questions, pointed, pushing them well. work, i want to thank the peterson foundation and the nabe foundation for supporting this and most of all, for those of you watching this in the room and around the united states. let me close now and ask you to join me in thanking everyone. thank you. [applause]

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

>> if you missed any of the discussion about the candidates economic policies, we will have this available for you shortly online, any time at www.c-span.org some -- demanded the new york times retracting article about him. the new york times declined to retract the article and posted this letter, sent to donald trump's legal team. has thein our article slightest effect on the reputation that mr. trump, through his own words and actions, has already created for himself. it continues, it would have been a disservice to democracy itself to silence the voices of the women in the report.

if mr. trump disagrees, we welcome the opportunity to have a court set him straight. you can read the letter in its entirety for yourself on the new york times website. both the clinton and trump campaigns have released new videos in the last few days. here is a look. by so manybama: measures, our country is stronger and more prosperous than it was eight years ago. -- the the problems we progress we've made, despite the forces of discrimination, , thate the politics doesn't stop with my presidency. we are just getting started. up.'s why i am still fired that's why i'm still ready to go. saying theirbody vote does not matter, that it does not matter who we elect, read up on your history.

it matters. we got to get people to vote. if you want to give michele and me a good sendoff, get equal register to vote. realize everything we stand for is at stake. all the progress we have made is at stake, in this election. my name may not eat on the ballot, but our progress is on the ballot. tolerance is on the ballot. democracy is on the ballot. justice is on the ballot. good schools are on the ballot. ending mass incarceration is on the ballot right now. there is one candidate who will advance those things, and there is another candidate whose opposition tos all that we have done. vote is no such thing as a

that doesn't matter. they all matter. achieved, i will consider it a personal insult, an insult to my legacy, if this community lets down it guard and fails to activate itself in this election. you want to give me a good sendoff? go vote. ♪ >> he extracts the most from , because people want to measure up to his expectations. >> he finds the right person for the right job. the qualified person for that job, he puts them in that position and gives you a tremendous amount of responsibility. >> he is a mentor to so many.

he is kind, and that is something that doesn't necessarily get out there is much as it should. >> first lady michelle obama was campaigning for hillary clinton in manchester, new hampshire, today. she talked about donald trump and his alleged hager toward women. we joined her speech a few minutes after she started. this is about 30 minutes. >> while i would love nothing more than 2% like this isn't happening, and to come out here and do my normal campaign speech, it would be dishonest and disingenuous of me to just move on to the next thing like this was all just a bad dream. this is not something that we can ignore. not something we can just sweep under the road is just another

disturbing footnote in a sad election season. because this was not just a lewd conversation. this was not just locker room banter. this was a powerful individual speaking freely and openly about sexually predatory behavior. and actually bragging about kissing and groping women, using language that many of us are worried about our children hearing will we turn on the tv. and to make matters worse, announcing that this isn't an isolated incident. it's one of countless examples of how he is treated women his whole life. i have to take you that i have listened to all of this, and i feel it so personally, and i'm ,ure that many of you do, too particularly the women. the shameful comments about our body. the disrespect of our ambitions and intellect, the believe that you can do anything you want to

a woman? it is cruel. it is frightening. and the truth is, it hurts. it hurts. sick, sinking feeling you get when you're walking down the street, minding your own business, and some guy yells out bold words about your body. or when you see that guy at work that stands just a little too close, stairs a little too long, and makes you feel uncomfortable in your own skin. it's that feeling of terror and violation that too many women have felt when someone has grabbed them, or forced himself on them, and they said no, but he didn't listen. something that we know happens on college campuses and countless other places every single day. it reminds us of stories we

heard from our mothers and grandmothers about how, back in their day, the boss could say and do whatever he pleased to the women in the office, and even though they worked so hard, jumped over every hurdle to prove themselves, it was never enough. we thought all of that was ancient history, didn't we? and so many have worked for so this kind of end violence and abuse and disrespect, but here we are, 2016, and we are hearing these exact same things every day on the campaign trail. we are drowning in it. and all of us are doing what women have always done. we are trying to keep our heads above water. just trying to get through it. trying to pretend like this doesn't really bother us. maybe because we think that admitting how much it hurts makes us, as women, look weak.

maybe we are afraid to be that vulnerable. maybe we've grown accustomed to swallowing these emotions and staying quiet, because we've seen that people often won't take our word over his. we don't want to believe that there are still people out there who think so little of us as women. too many are treating this is ,ust another day's headlines and that our outrages overblown are unwarranted, as if this is normal. just politics as usual. clear, hampshire, be this is not normal. this is not politics as usual. [cheers and applause]

>> this is disgraceful. it is intolerable, and it doesn't matter what party you for long too. democrat, republican, independent, no woman deserves to be treated this way. i know it is a campaign, but this isn't about politics. , human decency. it's about right and wrong. and we simply cannot endure this or expose our children to this any longer. not for another minute, and let alone, for four years. us to the time for all of stand up and say, enough is enough. [cheers and applause] this has got to stop right now. because consider this.

if all of this is painful to us as grown women, what do you think this is doing to our children? what messages are our little what theying, about should look like, how they should act? what lessons are they learning about their value as professionals, as human beings, about their dreams and aspirations? and how is this affecting men and boys in this country? because i contend that the men in my life do not talk about women like this. [cheers and applause] as everysmiss this day, locker room talk, is an insult to decent men everywhere. knowen that you and i don't treat women this way. they are loving fathers who are

sickened by the thought of their daughters being exposed to this kind of vicious language about women. they are husbands and brothers and sons who don't tolerate women being treated and demeaned and disrespected. about theare worried impact this election is having on our boys who are looking for role models, of what it means to be a man. fact, someone recently told me a story about their six year old son, who one day was watching the news. they were watching the news together. the little boy said, i think hillary clinton will be president. his mom said, why do you say that? saidlittle six year old because the other guy called iggy, and you

cannot be president if you call .omeone a piggy so even a six-year-old knows this is not how decent human beings behave, and certainly not how someone who wants to be president of the united dates hates. -- president of the united states behaves. strong men, men who are truly role models, don't need to put down women to make themselves feel powerful. strong liftre truly others up. people who are truly powerful bring others together, and that is what we need in our next president. we need someone who is a uniting force in this country, someone who will heal the wounds that divide us, someone who truly cares about us and our children, someone with strength and

compassion to lead this country forward. let me tell you, i'm here today because i believe with all of my heart that hillary clinton will be that president. [cheers and applause] we know that hillary is the right person for the job, because we have seen her character and commitment, not just in this campaign, but over the course of her entire life. the fact is that hillary embodies so many of the values that we try so hard to teach our young people. we tell our young people, work hard in school, get a good education. we encourage them to use that education to help others, which is exactly what hillary did with her college and law degrees, advocating for kids with disabilities, writing for children's health care as first lady, affordable childcare in the senate. we teach our kids the value of

being a team player, which is what hillary exemplified when she lost the 2008 election, and actually agreed to work for her opponent as our secretary of state. ratingsskyhigh approval , serving her country once again. we also teach our kids that you don't take shortcuts in life, and you strive for meaningful success in whatever job you do. , a law has been a lawyer professor, first lady of arkansas, first lady of the united eights, u.s. senator, secretary of state, and she has been successful in every role, gaining more experience and exposure to the presidency than any candidate in our lifetime. more than barack, more than bill , and yes, she happens to be a woman.

[cheers and applause] finally, we teach our kids that when you hit challenges in life, you don't give up. you stick with it. asing her four years secretary of state alone, hillary faced her share of challenges. she has traveled to 112 countries, negotiated a cease-fire, a peace agreement, a release of dissidents. she spent 11 hours testifying before a congressional committee. hillary doesn't complain. she doesn't blame others. she doesn't abandon ship for something easier. no, hillary clinton has never quit on anything in her life. [cheers and applause] so in hillary, we have a

candidate who has dedicated her life to public service, someone who has waited her turn and helped out while waiting. mother.n outstanding she has raised a phenomenal young woman. she is a loving, loyal wife. whois a devoted daughter cares for her mother -- cared for her mother until her final days. if any of us had raised a daughter like hillary clinton, we would be so proud. we would be proud. and regardless of who her opponent might the, no one could be more qualified for this job than hillary, no one. in this election, if we turn standrom her, if we just by and allow her opponent to be are we, then what teaching our children about the values they should hold?

about the kind of life they should lead? what are we saying? in our hearts, we all know that wine let hillary's opponent this election, then we are sending a clear message to our , that everything they are seeing and hearing is perfectly ok. . we are validating it. we are endorsing it. we are telling our sunset it is ok to humiliate women, we are telling our daughters that this is how they deserve to be treated. we are telling our kids and bigotry and bullying are acceptable in the leader of the country. is that what we want for our children? remember, we won't just be setting a bad example from -- for our kids but for the entire world. america has been a model for countries across the globe, pushing them to educate their children and