tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN December 9, 2013 10:30am-12:31pm EST
[inaudible] often moving about the country and in order to invite no attention, dressed as a chauffer, his wife in the back stereotypical in those days and a good form of disguise, that chauffer's uniform. an ordinarily combined with extraordinariness is not mandela's sole uniqueness. his capacity for forgiveness is what made him the absolutely critical figure first during secret negotiations in the late 1980s from prison with the afrikaner nationalist government and then after his release both in the transition and in healing a bitterly divided nation. which then brings me to his -- [inaudible] gandhi, kennedy, churchill, all iconic figures. the last for his inspirational wartime leadership, the first more so for being assassinated. yet today ask almost anybody anywhere which global statesmen
they admire most, and nelson mandela will likely as not be the answer. other world figures are usually famous within their own professional disciplines, sections of society, interest groups or age groups. many attract cynicism or play at indifference. nelson mandela's achievement was to combine fame, affection and admiration from virtually anyone anywhere in the world. so if, i believe, he is more iconic than anybody else, then why? his life story of sacrifice, courage, endowns and suffering in the great and noble cause of democracy, liberty and justice, places him alongside a very select few; suffragists, gandhi himself, anti-colonial african leader, che get around rah, often sang suu kyi to name just some. but mandela towers above all of them in popular imagination.
perhaps in part because he was the first such figure to be projected to the world's peoples through the powerful media of the modern global television and the internet. he was quite simply far better known than any comparable figure. but equally, he survived -- and this is the lesson i draw -- he survived and, indeed, prospered even under the 24-hour news overhype and spin where uniquely he remained untarnished and diminished. that unrivaled capacity for building up, then knocking down leaving him serenely above all its insatiable -- [inaudible] an obsession for triviality and instant novelty. where most political careers end in failure, nelson mandela's continued to soar long after he'd stepped down as president. mandela's greatness derive t not just from an extraordinary biography that dwarfs the rest of human kind, it came from the warm glow of humanity, his
common touch, humbleness, self-depracation, humor and decency. prison could have 'em bittered. egotism could have triumphed. the clutching of the crowd and the intrusive pressures could have seen him retreat behind the barriers which most leaders and celebrities today not necessarily through any fault of their own erect around themselves partly to retain some personal space. but the consequence of which all too often east becomes aloofness or insincerity and its companion, cynicism. but none of this happened. throughout everything, nelson mandela remained his own man, not seduced by the trappings of office nor deluded by the admiration of -- adulation of admirers. that was why he was for me the icon of icons and maybe always will be. president bill clinton, who has such a wonderful with words, said this: every time nelson
mandela walks into a room, we all feel a little bigger. we all want to stand up, we all want to cheer, because we'd like to be him, like him on our best day. sadly, nelson mandela won't with walking into our rooms ever again, but we can all still strive to be like him on our best days. for as he said in one of his memorable proverbs, what counters in life is not -- counts in life is not the mere fact that we've lived, it is the difference we've made to the lives of others. >> here, here. >> mr. alistair byrd. >> thank you, mr. speaker. it's a real privilege to to follow the right honorable gentleman. he speaks with an authenticity that few others could have in these circumstances. and it must be the case the vindication of history sits comfortably on his shoulders and all those in the anti-apartheid movement, and he is entitled to his day today, and he's spoken so well of the things that
matter so much to him and to so many of us. i remember as a small boy writing -- [inaudible] when he was excluded from the test team. i remember cheering when a test series was canceled. my parents were convinced i'd become a communist. [laughter] they are now like one or two others of my colleagues, merely uncertain. [laughter] in the year 2000, nelson mandela visited bedford to pay tribute to the archbishop in the town of his birth. he gave so much to the anti-apartheid movement. and it says that a photograph taken that day was used as the model for the statue in parliament square. and mr. mandela's host on that day was the mayor. sadly, he is seriously ill at
present, but i know that she is so proud of her own and of bedford's part in mr. mandela's story. mr. speaker, between 1986 and 1990 the right honorable gentleman, myself and peter pike, the former member for burnly, made three visits to south africa at the invitation of the followers of christ working for a peaceful resolution of the situation there. on our return from our first visit, we made joint speech speeches in a debate here in the house of commons on june the 17th referring to each other as our honorable friends, a point dually note -- duly noted by -- [inaudible] we had gone together, safety in numbers, at a time when the anc was still banned, the political situation deteriorating, violence abroad and where the isolation of south africa was impacting on the flow of anything. we found and were able to report back to our respective party
leaders, and i had half an hour with an anxious, worried and very uncertain margaret thatcher. we reported back on the tragic success of apartheid in separating one person from another, on the urgency of the need for change to avoid a looming catastrophe and how the united kingdom's public position also needed to change. but we also and apparently rather unusually reported some hope. i said in the house there is a large group of people in south africa who many have ignored. they are those of all races who are working patiently for fellowship and reconciliation in pure human terms by meeting each other and sharing their lives and experiences. some of those with whom we stayed were white opponents of apartheid and have been so for decades, but all -- white and black finish were people who realized that the abolition of the legislative structure of apartheid is almost secondary to the struggle to change hearts
and minds. they should not be ignored, for if any group epitomizes hope if south africa, it is that group. we had met op our visit even in 1986 south african government figures who worried about the impact of the release of nelson mandela but who knew that his death in prison would be a tragedy beyond comprehension. like many others, we knew that only a miracle could save south africa from violent confrontation, but unlike others perhaps we saw some of the groundwork being patiently prepared. south africa was a land in which jesus christ was the person around who so many could meet together, especially if they were those who were allowed to meet in no other circumstances, a task which became easier after the reform church publicly recounted their misplaced biblical support for apartheid. south africa was a people readying themselves for a different future, but uncertain if the miracle of leadership
would be there. in the end, of course, the miracle was nelson mandela. with a passion for reconciliation and forgiveness which astonished the world and builds upon a base which had been prayed for and actively worked for in south africa for years before his release, it was nelson mandela who was the pivotal figure around whom all this work became based, whose attitudes overcame the fear and negativetivity from people who knew intellectually what needed to be done but could simply not see how it could happen. it is impossible to predict what would have happened without such leadership. i regret i did so little for the struggle here in the united kingdom, but my friend, peter pike, with 26 years in the anti-apartheid movement before he even set foot in south africa, deserves his voice heard today. i asked him over the weekend what he would say if he were here, and he told me of his memories of a visit. he told me, he reminded me of that --
[inaudible] who believed that god created reptiles, birds, animals, black people, brown people and white people and that they should all keep their place as a species, and he thumped his bible as he told us. he undermined his argument later by declaring he had prove that mrs. thatcher was a marxist infiltrator. [laughter] peter reminded us of the time on our next visit that we were going through the airport in johannesburg, and he asked why the security was building up as we approached the security gate. i said it might be the large free nelson mandela badge he was wearing on his lapel. he said to one of the security guards, is it illegal for me to wear the badge? and he was told very brusquely, it's not illegal, but it's extremely inadvisable. [laughter] but peter wanted to say this in particular, and he says this: i believe one thing so typical of
nelson mandela was when he addressed a large meeting in -- [inaudible] at the end he had young white dukes asking him what their future would be in a black south africa. he put his arms around their shoulders and said he was not removing the domination of south africa by the white minority to allow it to be dominated by another race. the new south africa would be for all south africans and that they were the south africans of the future. he ended by saying it was a pity they had wasted 27 years and could not have talked like this before. i wanted peter pike's words, a true anti-apartheid supporter, to be heard in this house today. >> here, here. >> mr. speaker, in conclusion, world leaders have on their plate a series of conflicts which i know only too well from the past three and a half years. a better tribute to nelson mandela than all the fine words we're going to hear at the funeral would be the leaders involved in just one of those conflicts echoing reconciliation and forgiveness, the nag
anymorety of power and leading their people in humility and peace rather than grandeur and war. >> here, here. >> mrs. margaret -- [inaudible] >> mr. speaker, for me as for so many of my generation, the story of nelson mandela and of his comrades and colleagues has been inextricably interwoven with political life and campaigning, events like can -- [inaudible] helped awaken and shape political awareness. campaigns against the evils of apartheid have run throughout the years of my political and trade union life and, of course, i think it's right to recognize today that the whole trade union movement, including my own union unite -- of which i'm proud to have been a member for almost 50 years -- were resolute in their support and solidarity throughout -- [inaudible] >> here, here. >> as those years drew to a close, like the honorable member
from kensington and chelsea, i recall a conversation with president declerk who asked me quite anxiously, i was surprised how anxious he seemed, if i thought reaching an agreement would, in fact, transform south africa's standing in the world and end his country's status as some kind of international pariah. and he seemed both relieved and almost grateful when i assured him that i thought south africa free or its people free would be welcomed everywhere with open arms. there's going to be much emphasis, i think, today on what we can learn from nelson mandela. it has been said already he was in no way a saint, as he acknowledged. but what he was and what is not always mentioned although it has already been in this house is that he was a politician, and he was a party politician and a party leader at that. born into a community that
lacked -- [inaudible] he understood it was both honorable and desirable to band together with others of a like mind to fight to change things for the better. that, after all, is what every political party in its own way is. and it was as the leader of the anc that he took part in those historic negotiations. i say that, mr. speaker, particularly because i think it's important to recognize it when some of the tone of what has been said for all the best and most well meaning of reasons not so much here today, but in comments about him is almost as if he was somehow i above politics. of course, he became admired and revered, quite rightly. but he wasn't above be politics. he was practicing politics. he was engaged in politics. and it was through politics that the transformation of south africa was secured. like many here, i had the
opportunity to meet him on a number of occasions, and one i particularly recall in the these days was when in 1998 i attended the commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the signing of the gap. seated in the hall, i heard this tremendous commotion at the rear. the delegates from south africa had arrived, and a kind of wave passed through the hall as delegates from every country in the world rose spontaneously to applaud him. and i was both honored and humbled when he took his place beside me. we all honor him as a hero of the arms struggle. unlike so many others who were also honored in that vein, particularly during my student years, he became also a hero of the peace. that's why we remember him in this way.
>> here, here. >> mr. charles kennedy. >> thank you, mr. speaker. um, i follow on exactly from the comments of the right honorable lady and her both -- [inaudible] which i think is absolutely well placed that that we're talking here about a politician. and certainly in the several encounters with president mandela in one capacity, with mr. mandela post-presidency and other capacities, it was very telling not only his own sense of humor, but the use to which he put that humor in a self-depracating way, lest there was any thought that a political heel could be bestowed upon him. he certainly didn't want that, and he wouldn't want that to be part of his legacy today. and, indeed, i mention humor because my own first introduction to him was far from fortuitous. it was one of those occasions in
south africa, he was then president, and enormous numbers of parliamentarians had somehow all descended in south africa at the same time. they'd come from new zealand, australia, here, ireland, france. all on fact-finding missions. and it was very interesting that these fact-finding missions all coincided with the rugby world cup that was taking place in south africa. [laughter] and given that there were more visiting foreign politicians in the country than even visiting foreign rugby players, the president held a great gallery section. and the leader of our delegation, pri friend rupert -- my friend rupert was doing the introductions to the president of the british delegation, and he was pretty apprehensive in the presence of the great man. and he came to me, and he said,
mr. president, one of my colleagues from the house of commons in london, this is nigel kennedy. [laughter] well, mr. speaker, characteristically firm handshake and jovial welcome confirmed two things for me there and then. first of all, he'd never heard of nigel kennedy, but far more distressingly, he sure as hell hadn't heard of me either. [laughter] on that visit the honorable gentleman, whom i'm glad is in his place today -- looking back, i wasn't so glad he was in the place he was in on that occasion that evening -- he and myself were photographed with president mandela. what a wonderful momento keep saning to have. a few months later i was passing through glasgow, my favorite
city, and as i always do, i pick up a copy of the glasgow evening times. and front page photo and lead story was that the south african government had confirmed that thing -- [inaudible] would be very much on the preferred list for the latest warship that they were seeking interest in globally. and there was a photo of the honorable gentleman and the president himself with the caption, "local mp ian davidson lobbying president mandela -- [laughter] on a recent visit to south africa." but the funny thing was when i looked at this photo, i had been airbrushed out -- [laughter] and perhaps that's been the story of my life ever since. [laughter]
but i think that president mandela would admire the gilens of the honorable -- the guile of the honorable gentleman and the way he sought his opportunity. albeit, it wasn't in a mendacious way, but it wasn't in a particularly helpful way towards me. [laughter] the other occasion that i recall was when he was back to plain mr. mandela, post-presidency. and the years were beginning to show, and it was the night of the concert in pa fall garre -- trafalgar square. as we say at home, it was -- [inaudible] mr. speaker. it was cold, it was wet, horizontal rain, and it was windy. and he was tired. and he was in an overcoat. and he insisted, first of all, working the room inside south africa house and speaking to everybody. then he went out and enthralled the young, if very soaked audience of music goers.
and by that point his minders were pretty keen to move him along and get him to his bed which he clearly needed. no, coat came off, he came back upstairs in south africa house, and he worked the room again. and and we came face to face a second time. he looked at me, and he said we talked earlier. and i said, yes, mr. mandela, we did. it was a very nice chat, very nice honor to meet you on this occasion. oh, good, he said. i will move on, but i did not want you to think i had been rude. that's the difference, isn't it? that's the difference. this is a man who when he did -- [inaudible] could weigh them in quantities that we could only have dreams of as practicing politicians. but when he was beyond meeting folks, he was still conducting himself with that extra something special magic
ingredient that really separates them out from the wheat and the chaff of day-to-day jobbing politics the world over. glasgow university today in my capacity, my role there as rector of that university, glasgow, a city that gave mandela when it was unfashionable to do so the freedom of the city of glasgow, something that he came and celebrated on another bleak day in glasgow as it so happened in the years following his release. a week ago this afternoon exactly, we were in this place paying tribute to glasgow because of the terrible helicopter crash. a week is a long time in politics because many of the international tributes, many of the most heartfelt came from south africa themselves. last night as rector i had the privilege in the chapel at the university of glasgow in
contributing along with others to the annual carol service that's held there, a very beautiful one. and they changed the format at the end. at the end instead of the anthem of the university itself, they sang a beautiful version, the university choir, of that rainbow nation's wonderful national anthem. and, therefore, the thoughts that went from south africa to glasgow last week in this time e very much being reflected and returned with great generosity and goodwill this week. mandela was in so many ways simply the best, but when president obama said we shall not see his like again, i guess he was right on one level. but when you look at what he did, the fact that his words and his deeds moved mountains,
actually, let's hope we do see his like again. and let's hope we see them in some parts of the world like the middle east or in the vicinity of the koreas or elsewhere where we're crying out for a quality of politician that can move mountains and move minds the way that he did. he does remind us that our -- [inaudible] isn't as bad and needn't be with as awful as often depicted, and he gives us something better to work for in ourselves. >> here, here. >> mr. frank dobson. >> mr. speaker, it's a great honor to take part in this tribute to nelson mandela. almost, as far as i'm concerned, a good a moment as the magic moment when i sat with my wife in westminster hall when he addressed both houses of our parliament as the democratically-elected president of all south africans. and i know i speak on behalf of
the people in my constituency, holborn and st. pancras because they have a very special relationship with the anti-apartheid movement. the movement was founded at a meeting of about 60 people in the holborn halls in the summer of 959. 1959. its first leaflets were distributed a fortnight later outside camden town tube station. and its headquarters were always located in our area. it always had our support. so local people were particularly delighted when mr. mandela came to camden town in july 2003 to unveil a blue plaque this memory of ruth first who was murdered by the south african secret police and joe slovo who was a member of president mandela's first cabinet, and i'm delighted to see here observing us today his
daughter, gillian. over many years committed people be in britain campaigned against apartheid, against the trials of the leaders of the african national congress and against the imprisonment that followed. they continued to campaign against the oppression of all black south south africans and l the other people who supported them. we also campaigned for the release of the prisoners, eventually concentrating on the release of nelson mandela partly as a symbol. and what a symbol he turned out to be. the common place history of political leaders is hope followed birdies illusionment. by disillusionment. not nelson mandela. his example exceeded the highest hopes of the opponents of apartheid and shattered the delusions of those who portrayed him in the african national congress as blood thirsty
monsters. instead, bringing disillusionment to the world, he became the most widely admired man on planet earth. he shamed and astonished the world by his forbearance and dignity in the face of all that he and his comrades had suffered at the hands of the apartheid system including the 27 years he'd spent in jail, 27 years. 27 years comes trippingly off the tongue, but try to imagine what that was like. let each of us imagine the last 27 years of our own lives. then substitute for this them the 27 years of pain, deprivation and indignities. 27 years of powerlessness to protect your people, to protect your own family, even denied access to family funerals. during all that time, he and his
anc comrades sustained one another by mutual support. but those 27 years of imprisonment were unforgivable. we all know that if we'd come out of 27 years of unjust imprisonment, we would have demanded revenge. so people the world over could scarcely believe it when nelson mandela preached not revenge, but reconciliation. and then went on to practice what he preached. and it wasn't easy. it wasn't just a case of reconciling white south africans to majority rule. it was necessary to reconcile millions of black south africans to not taking what they regarded as legitimate retribution against their oppressors. but those who'd supported the
anti-apartheid cause were not so surprised at what happened. we knew that the freedom charter drawn up by the leaders of the anc including nelson mandela had committed them to a nonracial south africa in which everyone would be subject to the same laws, protected by the same laws and which would pursue a policy of social justice. those prisoners went into jail committed to that cause, and they came out committed to that cause. they hadn't changed their dream of a non-racist south africa. it was up to the others to abandon their oppression, racial smears and scare mongering. south africa and the world were fortunate to have in nelson mandela a leader superbly fitted to bring about the necessary change. and the responses from all
around the world in these last few days attest to that. he was a man with a unique combination of profound dignity and a sense of fun. a man of towering intellect and plain words, a man of deepest enduring commitment to the cause of liberty. and he was surely in the model of what every decent human being would wish to be. meeting him was a pleasure. he put people at their ease. but behind the twinkling arms and the charm and the self-depracating humor was the tempered steel of the commitment to his principles. ..
of his remarkable character and achievements, but never allowed them to do for him from applying the lessons of history and his political principles to the problems of the present and future. in the 1960s, '70s and 80s, like many of us, i spend a lot of time in marches and rallies handing out leaflets, organizing campaigns, helping organize the first concert, getting people to boycott south africa to and i confess, i sometimes wondered whether it was doing any good. i even felt the same after addressing the united nations special committee on apartheid.
i referred to all this, and all of my conversations with nelson mandela. i confessed my doubts about the value of our very limited contribution to the anti-apartheid campaign. his answer was that what we did was invaluable, that even in jail the prisoners heard about the protests in london. that they knew they hadn't been forgotten and were unaware of the ever-growing pressure on the south african government. and that, of course, is why he came to address the labour party conference, to thank the labour party and the trade unions for what he called, and i quote, our faithful support for the african national congress over many decades, which he went on to say has helped make things bearable and not turn out to be wasted years. a lesson from the past that
should hearten all people involved in any of today's campaigns for justice. the worldwide response to the passing of the good old a man, equal measure, both from friends and former enemies. i'm sure he would want us to welcome the repenting sinless. but a test for them does not reside in the sentiment they now express. a test of their sincerity will be reviewed in their response to the problems the world faces now and in the future. will they apply his tests of what is a just and right? in his speech at the labour party conference he said, the world has become the global village of which we once spoke only in wishful metaphor. he went on to point out, and i quote, the danger that
globalization can come to mean only the free flow of goods and finance and open access to markets, and he went on to warn, the concern for the common good which characterize international solidarity we spoke of is in danger of being lost in the current understanding of a global world. i believe it's time currently as it is around the world, and here at home, heeded his warning. then and only then will we know they really learned the lessons of nelson mandela's life and work. mr. speaker, a few years ago a child at the local primary school in my constituency came up and asked me, who is the cutest person you know? [laughter] i didn't correct her english --
goodest. i knew what she wanted to know. and i said nelson mandela. that's why all of us, all of us who have the honor to meet him will go to our graves feeling privileged to be able to say yes, i met nelson mandela. >> here, here. >> dan mcintosh. >> we believe this program at this point to go live to actually the british house of commons. the plays were produced prime minister david cameron and members of the house of commons continue to give tribute to former south african president nelson mandela who passed away last thursday. at the age of 99. mr. mandela served as south africa's first black president from 1994-1999. he spent 27 years in prison before he was elected president. leaders from around the world gathering for a state fee schedule for sunday december 15.
>> live picture of the u.s. capitol where the senate returns from its two-week thanksgiving break. lawmakers gaveling in net tb in eastern for general speech appeared legislative action will start at 4 p.m. when centers will turn to a bill for 2014 defense programs. they will take up the judicial nomination for the d.c. circuit with a vote at 5:30 p.m. it will be the first nomination both since they changed the rule since leaving before break. >> now to talk about some of these issues on capitol hill and the week ahead is excellence ane news editor at the hill newspaper. thanks for joining us.u for joit >> host: thanks for having. as the "washington post" state and a number of reports have put out we are expecting a budgeted to come as early as this week. what could that look like? >> guest: is not going to be thi the grand bargaining guest: it is not going to be the grand bargain that has dominated
the discussion over the past five years. hikes.looking at tax they are also not looking at significant cuts to medicare, security,or social which are areas republicans say needs to be done. instead we are looking at pretty small things and haggling over whether to have federal employees attribute more to their retirement -- employees contribute more to their retirement plans. thingse also looking at -- a spectrum that is going to be sold to telephone companies. they are looking at a small budget deal that would replace some of the sequester, the automatic spending cuts that were launched in 2011 as part of a but -- part of a different budget process. like can't there right now? why can't there
be a grand bargain right now? caller: because republicans and democrats can't agree. all ryan, the chairman of the budget committee, and patty murray decided they were not going to go after the towels of the other party and just try to get something that was possible -- after all these failed budget agreements in the past, look we are not even going to go there this time. we are going to go for something much smaller. host: talking with ian swanson of "the hill." even if there is a agreement made this week, there will be a budget battle for 2014. caller: one thing this he'll will not do is raise the debt ceiling. at some point next year they are going to have to do that. it is a little difficult to forecast exactly one that is going to be. in part because the economy is -- it is a little bit more strong. as a result that extends the
time in which the treasury -- atment can do things some point congress is going to have to do that. i suppose the earliest it could possibly be is february. it is much more likely that it is sometime in spring or the beginning of the summer. then you are going to get the debate over -- we should look at tax hikes, changes in entitlement. it is hard to see how they are going to get any agreement on those areas. particularly in election year. the house is expected to adjourn for the year on friday and the senate shortly after. a lot of high-profile legislation still hanging in the balance. it is the list of what is likely to make it through the 113th congress. i think the only thing that is likely to get through is the defense authorization act.
will see what gets included. one thing we will be watching is to see whether any legislation sanctioning iran is added to that bill. the administration is doing everything it can to prevent congress from doing that but a lot of members are still interested in adding sanctions to iran. another thing to watch for is the farm bill. if they cannot get a deal they are going to have to extend existing -- finally the senate are here for and asked her week. they will look at a lot of nominations, particularly after the filibuster changes republicans ran through a couple of weeks ago. among the big nominees are the new chairwoman of the federal reserve, jackie ellen. -- a number of articles suggest this is the most unproductive congress ever.
why is it so hard to get anything done on capitol hill? it is divided government. you have the senate run by democrats, the house run right -- the house run by republicans. leadership for a longtime hasn't really been able to completely control their members. there is a lot of opposition to president obama, which does not make compromise easy. we are at a unique time in where no one is able to get along or agree on any of the big things. would make is a lot of republicans say they don't think that the measure should be bills passed in terms of whether congress is
productive. are trying to fight the battle on the health-care law and are being more of. host: >> the nationa national councile legislatures held its fall forum in washington, d.c. last week. former republican presidential candidate jon huntsman and democratic senator evan bayh talked about bipartisanship in politics. they are the co-chairs of no labels, national organization that works with members of congress from both political parties to solve problems. >> good afternoon. i am senator richard devlin from oregon come and i serve serve ae chair of the in csl standing committee. as all of you know, far too
well, republicans and democrats on capitol hill have been unable to find common ground on a number of issues. just to name a few, the fiscal year 2014 budget. the farm bill, and immigration reform. reaching across the aisle has become more and more difficult, and principled compromise seems like a mountain too tall to climb. this morning i have the honor of introducing to national leaders who can hopefully help shed some light on how our legislative colleagues in washington, d.c., and the white house, might be able to come together and find solutions to our nation's critical problems. let me begin with governor huntsman. he began his public service as a staff assistant to ronald reagan. he has since served for u.s.
presidents in critical roles, including u.s. ambassador to singapore, deputy assistant secretary of commerce for asia, u.s. trade ambassador come and most recently u.s. ambassador to china. twice elected as utah's governor, he brought about strong economic reform, tripled the states rainy day fund, and helped bring unemployment rates to historic lows. during his tenure, utah was named the best managed state in america and the best state in which to do business. he also serves as co-chair of no labels with u.s. senator joe mentioned. no labels is a group working to develop concrete policy solutions that could attract wide support in congress and begin rebuilding the american people's trust in their federal government. also with us today is senator
evan bayh. senator evan bayh is a former two-term governor, served also as the second of state of indiana and serve in the u.s. senate from 1999-2011. as governor of indiana, he enacted welfare reform, cut taxes, and brought about fiscal disciplines to states budgets. in the u.s. senate he was a leading voice advocating for fiscal restraint, on government spending. he also worked in a bipartisan manner, something missing right now, to seek consensus on several key issues, including financial services reform and health care. our plenary session will begin with some remarks from the governor huntsman and senator biden, to be followed by what -- senator biden, facilitated by ncsl ice president, senator from utah, the sender pro tem. however, before we go to those
comments, first would like to share some welcome remarks with you from u.s. senator joe manchin of west virginia, who co-chairs no labels with governor huntsman. >> hello. this is senator joe manchin. it is a pleasure to send my greens to all of you attending the national conference of state legislatures 2013 fall forum. i regret that i cannot join you in person today. i send you my best wishes for an enjoyable and productive meeting. the strength of the national conference of state legislatures rests in your bipartisan efforts and your commitment to serving democrats, republicans and independents. it is truly a breath of fresh air that your organization recognizes that we need to work together and put the american people and commonsense solutions ahead of politics. as a former governor and state legislature of the great state of west virginia, i was shocked
when i arrived in the senate only to realize that there's not only guilt by association in washington but also killed i conversation but as a democrat i was frowned upon for even talking to colleagues within our ahead of the name. that is why from the earliest days in congress i became a member of the no labels, which is one of the only organizations in washington where members of congress can have a it open and honest conversation about how we can solve the many challenges our great nation faces today. west virginians and the american people deserve a government that works for them. they expect us to work together and move this country forward. they don't want democrats solutions or republican solutions. they want american solutions. we should be thinking about the next generation and how we can help our children and are charged children succeed in an america that is stronger than ever. we should be working together on the ways we can make america an even better country.
so as you gather here today i thank you for coming together with an agenda that centers around bipartisanship. i would also like to thank the president, senator bruce starr, all of our west virginia leaders who made the trip to attend this conference, and my dear friends jon huntsman and seven by who are truly leaders and bipartisanship with the focus of moving this great country forward. please enjoy the rest of your meeting and congratulations on the hard work you do every day. thank you and god bless you. [applause] >> governor huntsman, senator bayh and senator bramble spent richard, thank you very much. it's a great honor and privilege to be with all of you here. i'm particularly honored to be with senator bramble who i had the great privilege of working with as governor in the state of utah. and i found early in my term that if you could somehow channel is intelligence and
energy, there wasn't anything that couldn't get done. [laughter] which is to say we got a whole lot done. and to be with evan bayh, somebody who i've admired enormously over the years, and i've often said, one of the reasons i got involved in public service was because of the model of pure public service that he provided while he was a very young governor of the state beginning. listen, i'm going to just take a moment to give you a couple of reflections on no labels and why i am involved. and it was great to hear from joe manchin. joe and i were elected governors together. he a democrat, i a republican. we used to call each other and share ideas on tax reform, on education reform, on getting things done. we loved the environment in which you could actually achieve results. that's the great thing about being a governor. and i look at so many members of the utah state legislature who are here, and with each one of
the i can tell you stories about how we able to get things done and there can do attitude. just remarkable. joe then went on to the senate and became terribly frustrated with the culture that existed on capitol hill, something that evan knows a lot about. i went on to china to become our senior diplomat running the embassy there, and we kind of regrouped a little bit when joe and nancy jacobson who really was the power behind no labels initially came and said would you like to become a part of this movement? and i thought what on earth is new labels? is a third party effort to try to shipwreck the republicans and the democrats? is it a bunch of mushy moderates trying to get together to take over the world? none of the above. come to find out that it is a group that respects the fact that we have a two-party system, and they are endeavoring to change the center of gravity away from finger pointing to
that of problem-solving. i said that's a pretty lofty aspiration objective. can it be done? for those of you who've been around politics for a while, many of you have, of course you can change the operating culture of politics. back in a nutshell is what no labels is endeavoring to do. our goal is to change the operating environment of politics here in washington and certainly among the state capitals because we know many of you have some of the same problems of gridlock and sort of the blame game of extreme partisanship that we have here in washington. our objective is to change the operating environment of politics, lofty and aspirational, no question about it. critical for this country, absolutely. so why is it that i'm involved beyond just thinking that's a pretty good objective, and doable i might add. second, i've also lived abroad for tons. i've lived in those countries that would be considered our greatest competition in the 21st century. i lived in taiwan, singapore,
china. my kids have gone to their schools. i used to serve on the economic development board of singapore, perhaps the most competitive nation in the world today. i've seen what they're doing to prepare for the 21st century, and i say we sit here in the greatest nation on earth. we've got all of these assets at our disposal. we've got so many things going for us, and but for the dysfunction of politics we are ready to grow, ready to get on with the next chapter in this country. but for whatever reason politics is holding us back. our inability to problem solve, our inability to plan solutions and to get the work of the american people done. i don't care if you're republican or democrat, there are just some issues that are so transcended and important to the future of this nation. we've got to identify what they are and get on with this. it isn't about ideology. everyone in this room shares a different approach to the issues. we all have our own ideology. it's about extreme partisanship
which is made for problem-solving to be practically impossible for this country today. we are setting out on a fairly ambitious and bold agenda to try to change the operating culture. we know we're going to have to have a few things present in order for it to be considered a success. one, we have to prove the concept which we are doing by the group of problem solvers that would put together on capitol hill. you could imagine, we started beginning of the year with nobody as part of the problem solvers pockets. today we have 90. republicans, democrats. they are meeting every week and they are putting forward some simple pieces of legislation to prove the point that republicans and democrats can get together, build trust and get some work done. you can imagine what they're going to be able to do by this time next year. that's step number one. step number two is i think there's great relevance for state and local leaders as well in terms of shifting is over all focus to problem-solving.
third, we will develop i suspect over a short period of time a large grassroots network of people who are looking for problem solvers in their elected officials. probably a million people in every congressional district in this country is what we want to over the next several months. i think we are a good part of the way there. so when you think of no labels i want you to think of problem-solving. i want you to think of a group that's also proving the concept. it isn't just catchy phrases and nice soundbites, but we are moving the needle and we're just getting it going. i'm excited about where this is leading to, because we have no choice. we have no choice. the elections ahead will have to be about problem-solving. it will have to be about getting taxes right, that right, education right, getting the foundational building blocks of this nation in a place where we can actually get our house in order. that's what it is so desperate needed right now.
we are delighted to be. we thank you for listening. and kurt, thank you for what you're doing to chair this segment the pleasure to be with you. >> thank you, governor. senator bayh. [applause] >> well, thank you very much, senator bramble. i would like to begin by thanking our introduced today, richard, for that moving eulogy divided for governor huntsman and myself last night not often i'm at it is pretty much the way i wrote it so i'm grateful to him for all those nice things. he was kind in enough to repeat. it's a real pleasure to be with my friend and colleague, governor huntsman. i admire jon huntsman. we have a mutual admiration thing going here. very successful governor. could have been any number of things with his life, coming from the family that he came from. he decided to devote himself to public service. in particular it's sometimes hard to answer the call when the
other political party reaches out. there's usually a price to be paid for that within your own group, but when the current president asked you to serve as our ambassador to the country that's probably the most important about a relationship we have in the world today, jon huntsman did make a political calculation of some kind. he said, i'll serve my country and i'll figure out the politics later on. i'm proud, jon, to be with you and particularly to work with jon and no labels to try and solve what may be the biggest challenge that we face, people sometimes say what i going to do by the budget? what about health care, education and all these other things? my response is, we're not going to get to any of that until we can first deal with the political dysfunction. so that's what we are attempting to do. it may seem like a little bit pushing a boulder up the hill but we've got to try. okay -- in washington it is usually the mic state you don't see get you in trouble.
[laughter] so to our friends at the nsa, we say hello. we think you're doing a great job las. [laughter] senators are famous for speaking at great length. i want to do today but let me say i have a great deal of admiration for state legislators. i developed that in my own right when i became governor. by the way, is the sender long still? path, raise your hand. senator miller is here from a indiana and senator long was a. i guess it just about. but in any event, one of our regrets i was elected at the ripe old age of 32. my birthday is in september so i have matured by the time it took office i was 33. i regretted not served in the state legislature. i served as secretary of state and i've been involved politically but i hadn't had a chance to get to know the members of the senate and house the way that i would like to
come and that it did over the next eight years. i realized pretty quickly, jon, i'll be the same when utah, we have a saying in indiana that governors propose. state legislatures disposes. so i realize we needed to try to find common ground, and i had a challenge right away during my eight years, my last two years the republican party had a majority in the house. the republican party had a majority all eight years of my senate. the last two years the republicans also had a majority. the middle for years the democratic party had the majority. my first two years, is what i mentioned this as you will recall, our state house of representatives was split 50/50. there was no constitutional mechanism for breaking a tie. i was then sitting said a state, i hadn't resigned to become governor yet and the second of state, one of his response to those is to preside over the organization of the house until they elect a speaker. which they were incapable of
doing. and so this went on and on, and at one point the gentlemen -- pat will know who he was, a forceful individual canvassing and said we've had enough of this. i just want you to gavel me in as speaker. i said, okay. i said i don't think so because i knew that would forever poisoned by relationship with republicans in the state legislature. long story short and the reason i tell the tale is that at the end a compromise was reached. we had two speakers. they alternated days. we called them stereo speakers. [laughter] every committee had to give in to the alternated days. at the beginning of this thing every thought it would be a disaster. how is this going to work? navigating down, constant fighting and acrimony and so forth. today if you visit the house of representatives chamber at the indiana state capitol, there's a plaque on the wall enumerating
the historic -- the word it uses -- the historic evenly divided session of the state general assembly. because neither side was able to impose its will, it dawned on to both that they had to forge some kind of consensus if anything was going to get done. and eventually that's what ended up happening. we need more of that in washington d.c. today. the final thing i would say, by the way, one other thing. jon, you may appreciate this. you have seen the indiana house, if you go behind the speakers -- they had every picture of every state legislative peace. so respect for state legislators runs in my family. my father had the privilege of being elected speaker of our house at the ripe of old age 30. the reason for that was in 1956 in the eyes our landslide, the house indiana was like 75 republicans and 25 democrats. nobody cared to be minority leader. it didn't happen. he said i'll do it.
he was elected minority leader for our variety of reasons. two years later this young man was elected speaker of our house of representatives. the reason i tell the tale, if you look back their there's a picture from that year, they're all sitting in a blue shirts and white shirts and looking official. my dad was a farmer. i was born while we are still living in the form. he had on his black wingtip issues, white sox. [laughter] so you can take the boy off the farm. you can't take the fun out of the boy. in any event, i'm going to conclude by saying this, what this town really needs, and this is what no labels is working to promote. if you're interested i think next june, next year we'll have been gathering here of state legislator, both parties, house, senate, to try to build on the progress we've made in washington to try to find what to work together. we're not going to agree on everything. we can't afford to just do nothing in the face of a rapidly changing world as our problems continue to compound and so the
two things i will end up icing, i'm reminded of something the civil rights leader said when he said, we may have arrived on these shores in different ships, but we're all in the same boat now. what's going on in this town is that too often, the two political parties, you would think they were from different countries. they view the other side as the enemy, not as foul citizens. we have interests in common. we've got to reconcile our differences, not accentuate them. we forget we come from a common country with a common heritage, and for sure a common destiny. final thing i would say, and this is something that no labels is working to overcome, in this city today what all of you have to do every session in your state legislatures, forge principle compromised. the word cover my switchback in the day my father son used to be viewed as that's an act of statesmanship. today it is used as an act of
betrayal. if you don't vote with your party, joe manchin was saying, 100% of the time, you are ostracized. there's something wrong with you. you can see this on cable tv. so i'll just finish by recounting some words that lyndon johnson who was a master legislature said once. johnson grew up poor in the hill country in texas. his family couldn't always take for granted that they were going to have enough to give the roof over their head or keep food on the table, so this is the thought i'll be with you. johnson once said that any man who is not willing to compromise, well, that men never went to bed hungry. he said, you know, the actions that any man who is not willing to settle for half a loaf, well, that meant never went to bed hungry. that's exactly right. the american people expect us to be problem solvers and practical solution providers, not happening right now because we're too intent on taking an all or nothing approach which leads to nothing.
so having said all that, i'm pleased to be with you today. senator, i'll turn it over to you. [applause] >> thank you. it's quite a privilege to be on the stage with these two distinguished gentlemen. the form of today, i do have some prepared questions, but we also want to open this up do all of you. if you have a question, stand up. i don't know whether mike backs are. let's begin. if you have a question, stand up and we'll go to you. governor huntsman, some elected officials might feel joining no labels is giving up their party identity. how you respond to that criticism? >> first of all, i can wait a long time for you to call me distinguished. [laughter] i hope somebody caught that on tape.
>> we revert our worst enemies as distinguished. [laughter] listen, governor huntsman during his tenure can we have a challenge with transportation and with his leadership the largest construction project in the state's history was agreed upon and moved forward on. and it was republicans, democrats. there have to be some additional revenues. revenue enhancements. it was a fee increase, but we've been in the trenches together, and it's a privilege to be up here. >> we did okay on immigration tax reform to. >> i would have to say that the marketplace politically, inevitably has to go toward problem-solving. and no labels is going to do everything that again to create a culture of problem-solving. no one else is doing it. so when folks look at no labels. i know they will have to look at once or twice, read the background, become accustomed
what is were out advocating a what we stand for. in a very real sense all of you have an opportunity to be a part of history. we'll just get it going. there's nothing else like this no labels movement. something has to change the operating environment politically in this country, period. i think the now we've blown up the system, we've done a good jobs in people back here to blow up the system. i suspect that most americans were saying now we've got to put it back together. we've got to get the basics done. we've got to have a bunch of it to keep the most important economy in the world going. you've got to have immigration reform. you've got to have a competitive tax cut. he got to do something about debt, something about education is all about problem-solving. no labels think that the sweet spot of i think with the american people are and what it will be in the next couple of election cycles will therefore be a place where most elected
officials are going to want to be. not because it's the right thing politically but because it's the right thing for this country. >> senator bayh, you served in the senate for over a decade. how did things change while you were serving? how useful would a group like no labels have been either early in your career or at the end of your career in the senate? >> that's a good question. the senate has changed dramatically in the last 14 or 15 years and it's just a completely different universe since my father's time. one story about that and then i will answer questions or it was 1968 my father was running for his first with the -- reelection. the republican leader who at the time was in illinois a man named edward dirksen came up to my father on the four of the senate and said, look, i know you're running for reelection. i hope you'll tell me what i can do to help. this would never happen today.
but back then, that generation, they had been through the great depression. many of them had served in the military during the second world war. you're in a foxhole, you don't care if the person next to is a republican or democrat. you just want to make sure they watch your back. then the struggle with global communism fall that. people of that generation knew there were greater challenges to the welfare of the country than just members of another political party, someone who had a different ideological thing. it's changed, it's just a different place in the senate. and since my time there used to be things, the leaders of the two caucuses used to not campaign against each other, raise money against each other. now that's commonplace. you can imagine how you feel when you find the person you're supposed be working with is out to the u.n. there are just not the personal connections either. a group like no labels can play a real role. joe manchin was saying, this may come to surprise them in the united states senate every
tuesday the senate is in session. every tuesday is a caucus lunch. republicans caucus in one room and have lunch. the democrats caucus in another room and have lunch. every thursday the policy committees of the two caucuses meet. same thing, democrats, republicans there. never, not once, literally not once, republicans and democrats meet together to discuss substantive issues. doesn't happen. and it's that way on purpose. because the leaders of the two conferences think that if there starts to be this dialogue going able to control and they can't direct the course of legislation the way they would like. and so the role no labels can play is to provide that neutral meeting ground. jon is saying you don't have to stop being a republican or democrat. we do need to start being americans. we are not going to agree on everything. that doesn't mean we can't agree on something, which is kind of where the system is right now. those muscles are working
together effectively. the role no labels can play can provide a forum where people can at least start talking to one another. and i think you would be surprised if we could make that happen. there's more that we have in common than we do that divides us. it's the process right now is accentuating the decisions and that's why no labels is working to overcome that. >> governor huntsman, on that same note if congressional leaders, if their agenda is to foster a polarization, would they be threatened by no labels? how does your organization get past that status quo? >> i think you are right, curt. they will be threatened to some extent by no labels. but guess what? that threat will transform into a desire to work collaboratively, once you reach critical mass, which is exactly what we are doing on capitol hill. when we have 10, 20, 30 members of the problem solvers caucus a few short months, nobody paid as much attention.
they were writing stuff, newspapers about should we take this effort is a slick? what's it all about? no way they can get critical -- today we are at night and we have a waiting list of people who want to be a part of the problem solvers. this is something i've never seen before in my political life. it's moving and as it moves, and as it continues to meet and put forward piece of legislation that increasingly are meaningful to the american people, that's what leadership will begin to take note and say, there's a viable group that is emerging. they are bipartisan, focus on solutions. they are checking their anger at the door. they're thinking in terms of the next generation, not the next election cycle. they're willing to put the country before their political party. something interesting is happening. so we've gone from a clinical trial to almost a finished product. i think going into the next year we will likely get real resonance with leadership on capitol hill. why? because we will have reached a
domestic i think that's where we're going. you have to prove the point. you've got to have critical mass in order to move the market. that's where we're going to be this next year. >> this is for both of you. with cable news, whether it's on the left or the right, there's a dialogue and that tends it would seem to perpetuate this polarization. what do you say to an elected official when you're asking him to find that compromise when that elected official has to go back and face his constituency in indiana, senator lugar in utah, senator bennet. so what do you say to the elected official, how would you convinced that elected official that forging those copper mice is not going to cost them their next election because of the polarization and the perpetration of that by both the left and the right? >> that's an excellent question. for those of you who aren't familiar with my state politics
as senator manchin, richard lugar served for 36 years in the united states senate in indiana. dick lugar was so popular that his last election, seven years ago, my party -- we didn't run anybody against him. it would be a waste of time, waste of money. let's focus on something else. he was unopposed. he went from being unopposed didn't suggest later losing his own party's primary by 20%. so you know, it was not as if to lugar -- dick oliver decided to leave and become a democrat or some flaming liberal. some of this happens in my party, too, but it's more manifest right now. he didn't vote for the affordable care act. he didn't vote for obamacare. he didn't vote for the students the. he didn't vote for dodd-frank which is reckoned the banks and so forth and so on. it was other stuff. the point was, here's the data point to this is what has many
people -- a gerrymander has released to the house. you have people on the far right, far left, the districts are drawn. all republicans have all been accredited in the senate, it's two things. the fact that no one votes in primaries, which is the point i'm about to make, and the role of big money. it asked me what change. there was a case decided by the supreme court which now basically allows unlimited amounts of money to be donated to campaigns. here's what happened to dick lugar. first, this was not a secret election. there were millions of dollars spent advertising. everybody knew there was an election coming up. the voter turnout in the primary, 18%. fewer than one in five eligible republicans voted. it would be the same if we had a democratic primary. you can imagine who are the 8%? the most partisan, the most ideological. people are mad about something. if we can get the voter turnout up to 40% in primaries, you
could have a look different results. but right now the voter turnout is very low. the second thing is five, $6 million flood in from some of these out of state organizations which now enforced party orthodox your a few benefit, you run the risk of having millions of dollars of negative ads running against you. my message would be the following, i was a look, you may run the risk if you do what you think is right and you vote for something think is practical, compromise and try to move the country forward, you do run the risk of ma maybe losing your party's primary. that's true. if you don't, with congress' job approval at night%, with both parties approval ratings way low, you're going to run a real risk of losing the general election. as long as you're going to be there, you may as well run the risk of getting something you believe in and then deal with the politics.
i think that's ultimately where we will end up. people care more about results than they do longevity in office. jon was wise to mention this but i think we may be in for a series of anti-incumbent elections. that will eventually refocus incumbents might on the fact if you're risk averse to avoid primaries, you're going to make it at the end of the day. so that's what i said do the right thing. at the end of the day, isn't that why you're there? >> my father-in-law was defeated in 1980. he's gone on. his life is okay. there are worse things that can happen to you. one of them is not outstanding for him. >> speaking the truth on the campaign trail. it may get you in trouble from time to time but you can live with yourself later on. there's a real world example beyond that which add an has eloquently shared with you. there's a real-world example of exactly what we're talking about. that would be kirk bramble.
i'm not here today to because i don't have to ask for your favors. no, curt. but if you look at what you did on immigration reform and on energy, just to mention a couple, and your election returns, you would have to say that you are probably a textbook example of what happens when you get out and do the right thing. you will find your able to get things done in the end. you've got a legacy. it's more than just rhetoric and textbook theory. some of you have put it in practice. you should be very proud of what you've done. and i know curt has put in practice. i didn't mean to embarrass you but i wanted to point that out as a real world example of what we are talking about. >> thank you. i haven't seen anyone standard with a couple of minutes left. are any members of the audience who would like to pose a question? we have sinned toward from hawaii. gene, you are up. >> can we come visit?
>> of the law. -- hawaii is unique. not only because of its terrain but because of its political history. we have a super majority, blue. i'm in the house of 51. my caucus is seven. in the senate there's one republican and 20 for democrats. what are some insights i can bring back -- i would like the concept not because i'm in the minority but because this is what we are americans first. then where republicans, then democrats but we tend to forget that. you guys are reminding us of that. how do you get inside the inner psychology to motivate people who have a super majority and have had it for 50 years, to do something about this which you gentlemen are talking about? if you. >> i'll just make a quick comment and let evan follow. so i've lived in poor countries,
only one of which doesn't have a strategy your this one. we don't have a strategy. we sort of meander along, hoping we're doing the right thing to help the economics works out. we hope our innovative spirit will keep us moving in a way that speaks to competitiveness, which is what the 21st century will be about. no labels is doing a very interesting thing. we don't know what it will look like but we are putting together a strategy document for the united states. so it should be out maybe february or march of next year in the form of an e-book. so if you. so if you're just a republican or democrat, doesn't matter, we are all americans, what does the united states need to get right for us to achieve the true greatness of the 21st century? we think there are four or five things we're going to have to get right as a nation, whether you're republican or democrat. i would suspect for a state the same thing is true. if you're in a minority position
you're going to have to work with the majority, but what are those issues that you're working on? what is the strategy for the state? we had a strategy in our state a spoke to jobs and economic vitality. we had a few things on our list that we just have to get done. the tax cut had to work, education had to work. you had to have the regulatory system that worked. you have to be fast on the time in working with the private sector, because they could take the investment and go elsewhere real fast. so we had a little strategy. i would guess that you sitting down, what is the strategy for a wide? what is it that you must get right to survive in the 21st century? backbend defines what you're able to do with your legislative body, even if you find yourself in a minority position. did i hear you correctly? are you the only republican in the state senate? >> i'm actually in the house.
minority leader. but there is one sender out of 25 in the senate, and there are seven out of 51 in the house. so we are eight out of 76. those are the numbers. >> we are just trying to change your dynamic. >> well, in the nsa's capital there's a saying in the house that the other political party of the opposition, the enemy, the enemy is the senate. [laughter] i guess we temporarily lumped you in with the enemy. so we are sorry about that but it sounds like your side emphasizes quantity -- quality, not quantity in the state legislature. i would take the approach, my state is a more republican state altogether. i used it to my friends, you've got to vote for at least one democrat to prove you're open-minded. so it may as well be me. [laughter] nothing about that was okay. i which is associate itself with what jon had to say. in this day and age we face a number of crises.
economy is not perform the way we would like. real wages have been stagnant in our country for more than a decade. think about that. at the time when the cost of college and whole host of other things, health care is going up substantially, real wages essentially has been frozen. you are all for me with the budget problems we face. it is a growing disparity between the haves and have-nots in our society. that should concern all of us over time. and all of these things are in some ways interrelated with the question of economic growth. if i had to pick one thing i would agree with what jon had to say. what is our comparative advantage? how do we grow this economy in a very competitive world? how do we empower not just give, but empower our citizens through hard work and thrift and all those things to enjoy some of the fruits of that growth, particularly the third that just aren't getting the education? those kids that just aren't getting the quality of education
they need to be economically relevant, and a very innovative and global economy. that's kind of what i would focus on. i suspect you're probably more concerned about the rising oceans than we are in indiana. that would be my take on it. >> good afternoon. i'm from minnesota. i joined new labels about two years ago. i'm a paying member of no labels. i'm a democrat representing a republican area, it's a bit like that with redistricting it got worse. now that 60% republicans. my first election was in 2005, and my slogan was unite in the middle but that is still my slogan, and my margins just keep getting better so i think i fit in something that really appeals to the people in my community. and so one of my comments come utah greater vision, i've been thinking because now there's an effort to get more state legislators, and i'm thrilled with the.
i think now is the time and we can really make a sweeping difference. but one of the things i've been grappling with is transportation infrastructure. because i think tax reform as a federal issue as was a state issue. immigration reform has to be tackled nationally. one thing that each of us grapples with is what we're going to do with regard to transportation infrastructure. our member banks outside when president obama talked about his commitment to rail. that kind of died. there wasn't a comprehensive support for that as well as other state to state initiatives. and so i'm wondering if you have a comment on the power of states uniting around transportation infrastructure? and if you also see it as one of the economic drivers. i think we all know about innovation, creativity and those things but if you can't move from place to place in the mobile, that's really an obstacle for our business
community. >> first of our, thanks for sharing your story. i think that's awesome. i'm going to talk about the way and reflect on your comment for the rest of the day. because you are really what this is all about. we now have some state and local theaters. we did a few phone calls in the last few days. we had lieutenant governors, sectors of state, senators, representatives, mayors on the line, cobbling numbering 300 plus and we're just getting going. we are doing this every month having a phone call and sharing ideas in the run up to next july 23 where, as evan said, we're going to the first ever of its kind state and local gathering. you've got flyers on your seat. be sure to read the. we have no labels people in the audience. raise your hands. feel free to talk to any of them about questions you might have. but this is a big deal. on the infrastructure side, it always seemed a little disingenuous when all of a
sudden on the republican side it became a bad word. i don't know how a nation competes without adequate infrastructure. i've lived in china most recently, and there's an example of overbuilding. you've got a lot of roads to nowhere. the heaviest in this package in 2009 that was probably 4 trillion yen, equal to $640 billion. the largest in this package in history of the world based on gdp ratio. they have overdone it, but sometime after flight from shanghai or beijing into newark or into kennedy. you get a sense that we've got some work to do in this country. and it isn't republican democrat. this is about survival and competitiveness. we got to get people around, get the products around the we're still the largest markopolos in the world. we still own 20 plus% back of the world's gdp. we are viable. and we just kind of taking off
when you look at the engines of growth that might exist in future. this is important to it's got to be presented i think as an economic opportunity for stanchion and for jobs as opposed to red and blue, republican, democrat. msnbc, fox news. it gets trapped inside us. because of that you can't even have a rational discussion about that. keep doing what you're doing. >> looks like we have time for one more question. >> thank you for both being here. senator brown become did you ask the panelists -- i appreciate you using the bully pulpit or positions to either encourage or shame us into more nonpartisanship. at the gridlock still exist. has no labels movement consider taking on one issue like transportation or immigration reform or taxation and fixing that problem and brandy that as a no labels initiative? and breaking the paradigm that way. >> let's have this be the final comment from both of our
presenters. >> well first, you come from a great state, one of my favorite. my twin taking your voice, some of the best vacations we went up in alaska, fishing, hiking, all that kind of thing. hope you will take good care of it. yes, we have. the first initiative, nancy, correct me if i'm wrong, no budget, nobody. it's amazing. it ma may come as a spice state legislator and former and former governors of the federal government has gone years without -- not passing a budget. so finally in an attempt -- we tried shaming people into voting and so forth and so on. finally, concluded that maybe an appeal to the pocketbook would be more persuasive and said you guys continue not passing budgets if you want but you will not get paid. well, surprisingly, or not surprisingly, both houses passed a budget shortly thereafter. that was something akin to try to begin the process of making
the budgetary apparatus in washington more functional and responsible again. we've got a list of eight or nine other things that there's been some consensus on. but it's going to start small and it's going to be gradual. because these problems didn't arise overnight. they would not be cured overnight. no budget no pay. and eight or nine other things we're proposing a that there's some consensus on that will begin to show it's not just a process. it's a process that can lead to tangible results. >> just very quickly, what i said earlier that you could be part of history, i really do mean that. you could be part of history. no labels to date has been about convening and building trust. that's what we've been about without advocating any issues in particular. you raise a very, very good point, and it's what we within the organization started talking about. so going into next your i think we will look at advocating some of the issues around what that strategy should be that this country must get right.
but your voice in this organization could be absolutely instrumental in shaping an agenda and helping to move that forward. because you have great clout on capitol hill here, and with every governor in this country. so we would hope that whatever we do with work collaboratively. but for us this would make history going from advocacy -- non-advocacy, really a convening organization to some form of advocacy. ..
[applause] >> this concludes our lunch program. immediately following, we have for the us meeting and as soon as the business meeting officers are up here we will begin to the business meeting so we would ask that you all stick around so that we can conclude the business. thank you. [applause] please stay in your seat. the meeting will take about five minutes. please it won't take that much longer. and honorable conversations
[inaudible conversations] on capitol hill today the senate returning from a two-week break they will be in at 2:00 eastern for general speeches. they will start legislative business at 4:00 and members will be taking up a bill for the defense authorization and at 5:00 eight u.s. circuit of appeals nomination for the dc circuit, the nomination of patricia. a vote on her nomination is scheduled for 5:30 p.m. it will be the first nomination since the senate change filibuster rules before thanksgiving break. they may also take up a recent bill that extends the ban for ten years on the manufacturers seals or possession of plastic guns. we are going to turn to air on maui meeting with world powers indiana taking place to continue talks on the nuclear program. we will have a analysis of 5:30
with an adviser to president clinton and obama as well as president carter's national security adviser and "new york times" columnist friedman. bob schieffer will moderate and that is why it's on c-span three. live now to the american enterprise institute in washington dc for a discussion abouof implementation of financl regulations created the dodd frank financial regulation law will hear from the group that's known as the shadow financial regulatory committee and likely to discuss the upcoming vote on the volcker rule that restricts trade financial firms where deposits are federally insured. you're watching live coverage here on c-span2.
>> welcome. welcome to the press conference. following the quarterly meeting of the shadow financial regulatory committee. i wish to thank all of you brave souls who braved the ice and snow to come here today. we are a little bit short on staff. some of our members didn't make it all the way. he first introduced the members of the shadow committee at the press conference. peter wallison from the american enterprise institute, speed by then from the wharton school of pennsylvania and from the school of pennsylvania chester spatt
from carnegie mellon institution and sitting in the audience because he is shy and bashful is kenneth dam from the university of chicago. and i am george kaufman from illinois university and cochairman of the shadow group. we have four statements. unfortunately one of them was delayed because of the chief author that came in today that what we will do with that statement is we may talk about it today at the meeting and we will have it ready in a weekend if you have an e-mail list, you will be getting a copy of the statement. we have three statements that should be in front of you. at the first deals with the liquidity ratios as defined by the committee, the u.s. regulators and the six shadow financial regulatory committees. i might note that the u.s.
shadow financial regulatory committee is in its 26th year and we have spawned the birth of the other committees. we have been very press release. for a five and 2 in 26 years i wouldn't call that promiscuous. anyway, there's one in japan, europe, asia, australia, new zealand, latin america. we try to get together every two years. we did last october in tokyo and we issued a statement on the liquidity that we made reference to in this statement. as usual, we will go over each statement one at a time and then take questions after all of the statements have been reviewed. the second statement, 147, is asset management. there is also one that was in today's lead editorial in "the wall street journal." both that "the wall street journal" and us work on sunday.
they print on monday morning and we had to wait for noon time. that is the scoop in that way. the third statement is on jpmorgan settlement on those large numbers what do they mean and are they justified? the fourth statement that we were not able to complete because the chief author isn't here and is caught up in the snow is an open letter to members of the international swaps and derivatives association regarding changes in the contract to facilitate resolutions. if you could write english i would be able to read it. resolution. we will talk a little bit about that and how it affects the bill if we have time. we will be sending it to my e-mail in the next week or so. the next one is by herring.
>> actually it is a joint paper with sheila bear. the idea of trying to improve the liquidity positions of the things stand from the crisis. the regulators in the united states i think deceived themselves for an entire year that that was the only problem because a sickly all they did is try to shore up the liquidity position of the banks with a number of invented facilities and a number of bailouts one way or the other. that was really only in the fall of 2008 that they admitted that thethere were solvency issues ad deep solvency issues in some of the banks that began to address it. you might recall the equity infusions and unsupervised capital adequacy in the simulations. so, the international regulators even before the crisis was over agreed that they needed to do more than just regulate capital. they needed to regulate liquidity as well. the idea for fruit in december,
2010, when they set out conceptually two kinds of ratios. one would be short-term focused, a booklet of the coverage ratio. and the other would be long-term focus so that your mismatch between short and long term liabilities and long-term assets wouldn't be great and that is the next stable funding ratio. people thought that ratio was a good idea, but so far they haven't been able to agree on a proposal. so if they work i'm not even sure it is in progress but it's yet to come. about the liquidity coverage ratio is here and it's been through several revisions. the idea was very clear when it was first articulated. the regulators wanted to be sure that every major internationally active banks have enough high quality liquid assets on hand to
be able to cover 30 days of net outflows under a stressed condition. so the idea was that every bank should be expected to make it on its own for 30 days without recourse to the central bank, without the desperately engaging the fire sale of assets. that's a pretty ambitious goal and it may well be a correct goal, but it's certainly a stretch for many banks these days, particularly in europe. as a result of the european supervisors and the european banks pressed hard to losing the ratio. so what began as a very clear idea got to be hazy first with regard to the enumerator in addition to things that are obviously high quality liquid assets, like cash at the central bank that's not required, treasury bills.
they wanted to add a number of assets that the pentagon secondary markets for the liquidity. now come in normal times that's just fine because that's really how banks manage typically. but recall one of the problems in 2,008 is one of the markets simply dried up. and so it was a compromise with the idea from the very start. then they tackled the denominator and the denominator had some pretty rigorous assumptions about which parts of the balance sheet would run off, the amount of deposits people would withdraw, the amount of commitment lines that would be drawn. it's fairly complicated but it was a fairly broad list. after the europeans were done with it it became half roughly. the runoff rate are basically half of what they once were. that is what they produced in
january of last year. ben bernanke was asked about it because he had to take testimony on the macro policy in february of that year and he said that the fed was committed to implementing a version in the united states that would be super equivalent, which is sort of a kind way of saying tougher. the fed delivered in fact it is in the register i believe november 29. what they did was to tighten the definition of liquid assets they still have assets that depend on secondary markets, but they have excluded assets related to mortgages. they have also tightened up the categories of the outflows and the net cash outflows and used roughly the same assumptions. but do they have also specified
that these are the same outflows that would be calculated under the annual ski cap exercise of the capital assessment program. so, you end up with a ratio that has no particular relationship to high quality liquid assets that would be available in the real crisis and you have a degree of stress that given the arbitrary runoff assumptions are not totally clearly related to the stress test scenario that they are in posing. when the shadows met any group in tokyo, this was actually top of mind for all of the groups because this is an international regulation and a number of people have concerns about it. i should mention also the fed reserves credit for shortening the amplification period if they wanted to be there by january,
2015 and fully there by 2017. so that is considerably above the international norm which is going to stress i out over four years starting much later. they also have more teeth in it. if a bank is out of compliance for three consecutive days they have to submit a liquidity management plan and they have no particular sanction at all. when the shadow committees met, there were several concerns about how these ratios would work in practice. one is that they are excessively complicated. now if you are familiar with regulation this is certainly a contemporary trend one can only wonder what the rule is going to look at and unveil this one comes out 125 pages. it's very tough reading in the federal register. and it's going to be enormously difficult to comply with because
there is many different categories in so many different weightings and caps that are trying to take account of the differences in liquidity but not in a way that is quite approximate. it's also going to be very difficult to administer and it's going to be tricky for the regulators to find out who the bank is in compliance with because there are so many different components so many different ways. the other problem is that this is being imposed in the context of an economy that is trying to work its way through the unconventional monetary policy that is literally flooded economy with liquidity. it's going to click and at the same time a number of adjustments in the capital requirements, the leverage requirements, the risk weighted assets require humans and require meds for more liquidity in the parties and the dearth of its transactions, such that it
is quite possible that this liquidity requirement could cause liquidity to dry up any serious way. there's a serious problem in the unintended consequences of occurring here because nobody appears to have thought through how all of the various changes and regulations are going to interact. unfortunately the regulation has become so specialized that the capitol regulation people don't necessarily talk all the time to the liquidity regulation people and when they go to their powers you sort of hope they connect, but you can't be sure. so we were concerned about that and wanted an indicator that was easier to implement, easier to understand. the ratio that was not a minimum that would be informative. the reason we decided we didn't want a minimum required images we felt nobody could figure out
what the right minimum was at this point, but we realized it would be highly useful for the market to have some kind of indicator that would allow them to compare liquidity positions across the institutions. and we simply don't have that now. there's no way you can pull it out even if you bare your soul from the footnotes -- berry ourselves in the footnotes. so we have the indicator into the idea behind it is very much like the regional basel idea that implementebutimplemented ay obviously. the idea is if you reduce enumerator to only those assets do not depend on a secondary market for the liquidity. so that would be things like cash reserves for the short-term treasury bills, that sort of thing. we would take out all of the things that rely on an act of
secondary market. as a widget in a position of liquidity in normal times, but it's not something we can rely on any crisis. then for the denominator, we decided to do a very simple kind of stress test. and that was to take an institutions actual net cash flow over the preceding 30 days and assume a worst case that the institution wouldn't be able to roll over its liabilities in the entire 30 days. and we would calculate the ratio as the lowest ratio was only can you let its basis on that period. that would be reported. and the advantage of that is that the market would become a factor in exercising some discipline over the liquidity. it wouldn't be only the burden of the regulators. it would be very clear that
stress the are dealing with would be useful if you are looking ahead and say what will the cash flow be looking ahead. but the problem in that is you have to make a number of assumptions that are highly subjective, difficult to verify and almost invite gaming so that a bank with a liquidity position can easily manage the scenario to make it look better than it actually is. if you get the actual data there's nothing you can do and it's simple to deal with. so we've come out with an actual measure and the market, understanding there are significant business differences across banks, would probably form and look at one bank related to a bank that had a similar make stuf such business. given that we can't be sure exactly what that ratio is another would be the feeling of
what it should be. over time he would have numbers that are comparable achieved can't be basel ratios and you would have numbers across banks which again you can't really do with the basel ratios. we think this is a simple way to proceed. it's a more cautious way to proceed given the other regulatory changes at this time. and it will help involve the market in what is a very tricky regulatory arena and where to market discipline is long overdue. >> the second is 347 asset management and system at risk and marshall blume will review that statement. >> thank you very much. recently, the office of financial research, ofr by dodd frank issued a report asset management and financial
stability. and it focused on the money management industry. it has received considerable attention because the sec asked for comments on the report without issuing its own port. it also was the subject of one of the lead editorials in "the wall street journal" today. the source was a request from the financial stability oversight council to determine whether the firms in the financial management industry or asset management industry should be subject to enhanced provincial standards. if the report itself focused primarily on the non- money market funds or they d they do e money market fund occasionally. we found that the report made some confusion between the operations of banks and investment management firms.
this is particularly with respect to leverage taking on debt. when a bank loses money on its own asset, what happens is the capital account goes down, and it may actually be eliminated. overall, when banks lose money, there's less ability for the banks to make loans because the capital account has gone down. investment management firms are quite different. the assets that an investment management firm manages are held in trust or some other sort of investment company. but generally, the investment management firm does not have its assets tied up in the funds that it manages. there may be some of that, but
not a lot. so what happens when a fund loses money? what happens is if loses money and it only has an indirect effect on the investment management company. now, the report states that when the funds the firm manages the client, revenues for the firm will decline. the report paints a picture of systemic risk when that happens. it's not clear exactly how this happens. but the report states that when firms lose revenue, that will have a double serious effect on the economy and we found that argument unpersuasive at all.
it is true the firms will become small and it's been a tour of investment management firms that the costs are highly variable were primarily personnel costs and those can be reduced very quickly. so we think that has -- that argument has much merit. going on into the report, the report identifies four potential areas that may lead to systemic risk. reaching for the yield and hurting behavior. number two, redemption risk, number three, leverage and number four, failure of an investment management firm. as we mentioned before, we don't think the fourth one has much merit but let's look at the other ones. the other ones, like reaching for the yield and the redemption risk and leverage our inherent in the investment process. and placing restrictions on the
systemically important firms probably wouldn't change on those types of risk in the investment process. what would happen is investors want a yield and if the large firms can't offer the yield, the ones who might be subject to enhanced regulation, the investors would just go to other firms. so in nature it is the investment process that there are the people that reach for the yield and there will be hurting. we illustrate this with one example. we don't go through every one of the statements or every one of the comments in the report. let's take the searching for yield. one approach people have been doing is putting money into heidi yield bonds reallocating
their assets to that area. that's particularly true with mutual funds restricted in the amount of leverage. other investors are doing something we call the kerry trade. this is a trade where you short the short maturities of the governments and use the proceeds to buy long-term and pick up the differences in the yield curve between long and short. there is a lot of that going on right now. now, what happens when the yield goes up? both of these strategies will lose money but it doesn't affect the investment management firm directly except for the freestyle revenues. so these losses in our judgment has nothing to do with systemic risk. they are just the normal course of doing business and investing.
another potential source of systemic risk involves the mispricing of assets in a portfolio and the destabilizing effect that investors will have when they take advantage of these destabilizing or these destabilizing possibilities. this used to be called market timing and mutual funds where people bought a cheap price and sold it at a high price to the disadvantage of other people. the sec is currently considering the proposal with respect to the money market funds and it's important to note that it does not involve subjecting investment management firms to enhanced provincial standards. throughout the report, the ofr calls for the collection of the new data to identify sources on the systemic risk. it looks like they are trying to find a lot of the data and maybe
they will find the systemic risk. in collecting such data, it's important that the collector spells of the potential benefits against a private cost of collecting this type of data, otherwise it's just collecting what the data and hopefully they will find something. the committee also thinks that the fec and the ftc rather than the ofr should take the lead role in collecting such data. these organizations have experience in this area. the ofr is new, but these regulatory agencies, the sec and the cftc know what's going on and should take the lead role and it's important that only if these agencies do find clear and convincing evidence of systemic
risk in the investment management industry and that this could be addressed with enhanced prudential regulation should the financial stability oversight commission designate investment management firms systemically important. >> thank you, marshall. the last statement is on j.p. morgan settlement. peter wallison of all people. >> thank you very much, george. ..
now banks we know are subject to pervasive government supervision and regulation. as a result they really can not, they really can not litigate with their supervisor. the risks of doing that are extraordinary and there is possible retaliation by the supervisor in other areas if the banks take them on. so there's real concern about settlements that