Skip to main content

tv   Politics and Public Policy Today  CSPAN  December 10, 2015 1:00pm-2:01pm EST

1:00 pm
they used, i believe, i don't know that much about the company, but they used a lot of very sophisticated financial techniques to be able to take out companies who were undervalued. i think it's a -- i think -- i believe it's a dead end. >> what do you mean by that? >> well, there's no future. there's no research. they're living off underappreciated assets that -- assets aren't being sold at their full rally in this society and coming in and selling them at close to the full value and making money from it, but, you know, so is it -- is it fundamentally helpful for science? no. will the marketplace take care of it? yes. >> so you're saying the company at least as it's currently operating is a dead end. >> i'm saying it's a dead end for research. >> is it a dead end for a business perspective, then? kind of has to be, right? >> well, eventually you run out
1:01 pm
of undervalued assets and in our business you have to remake yourself every ten years so from that point of view i don't see that business model is sustainable. >> specialty pharmacies. it's sort of in the weeds around the distribution network but an important one for them. do you do that? >> i don't know what their use of specialty pharmacies are. we do use specialty pharmacies but there is no type of agreement that reportedly valiant and other companies may have. we use specialty pharmacies to deliver oncology drugs and specialty drugs to patients who need a higher level of attention from a pharmacy. >> because if you read the reporting in the "wall street journal" you would see that yes they were specialty but really their specialty was getting the insurers to pay more so than handling the drugs themselves. >> well, i don't know anything about their business model:
1:02 pm
>> okay. fair enough. the company you've had some association with, what is the exact nature of your relationship where theranos? >> i'm not on my radar screen. i'm not aware of any contracts or how we deal with them. i am aware of how we ethically upgrade in the marketplace and i'm satisfied we ethically use specialty pharmacists in the way they should be used. >> they're the blood testing company. >> i don't think we have a particular relationship. >> so where does pfizer go from here? the street feels good from the r&d perspective. you've had good success. what's the next iteration? what does pfizer in 2020 look
1:03 pm
like? >> we've got a stated -- when i first came in i didn't talk about vision emission and later on we moved and we talked about purpose emission so our purpose is -- our submission to become the premier pharmaceutical company by the end of this decade and we described that as being highly respected, having people want to work for us, having life-saving medicines and being involved in conversations that the change or effect the juk which you are and outcome of the industry and having the right culture. i want people to want to come to pfizer. i want people to tell their families and friends this is a place to work. >> how do you change a culture of 80,000 employees? >> with a lot of effort and slowly and you need to get out and you need to talk.
1:04 pm
you would be amazed about how much work of a ceo and new management is about if you want to change culture is talking about it and then making sure that you act consistently. so we have something called own it, which is own in the business, win in the business and the next one which is very, very controversial, i introduced it, "n" for no jerks. "i" for impact and "t" for trust. >> why no jerks? >> because if you have jerks -- well, it's politically -- in a politically correct atmosphere to come out and say no jerks, the lawyers got involved and we had to say no jerks with regard to behavior because you can't label people as jerks yet everybody knows a jerk when they see one and no one wants to work for a jerk and if you want to attract the best and brightest, there isn't a pfizer culture,
1:05 pm
there's your manager. and if your manager is a jerk, you don't want to be at pfizer. >> true. >> so no jerks became important in our culture. >> so your conversation with the lawyers went like what? >> like, well, you can't do this. [ laughter ] like this is -- it's like putting a brand on people, it's naming them you shouldn't be saying people are this persuasion or that persuasion. i said well, all right, we're not saying you're permanently a jerk. i'm saying no jerks with behavior. so it's a recognition that you should tell somebody around work with them and tell them if they don't change their behavior we don't want them the company. >> you famously have a coin you like to share. do you have it with you? >> i do. i do not have it with me. >> tell us about the coin. >> part of the problem is in any system that's hierarchical, part of the problem is to get the
1:06 pm
people who are intimately involved in the business to tell you the truth. and to be -- not just me but to tell the organization what they believe and we have a saying at pfizer which was coined by somebody in australia, actually, who sent me the e-mail say iing bad news early is good news. b bad news late is really bad news. so we need a culture where people don't feel intimidated and can stand up and talk and take on the hierarchy of their supervisor. >> so what's the hardest conversation you had with someone who said, look, you wanted me to tell you the truth? here is the truth. what was that? >> it was thank you, i needed to know that. now we can bring the resources of the company to bear on solving it. and if you knew this two months ago you should have talked to me two months ago about it and we
1:07 pm
would have had more time to fix it. it's really important. we had a filing. we bought a small company. we had a filing to the fda. first timed the ever happened we've had a refusal to file. and i called the people together and there were 12 people and i said what happened? and when you talk to them, they said well, we knew it was a bad file. i said everybody individually knew it was a bad file but nobody spoke up? so that's when we started talking about straight top. get the coin out, say look, maybe not in your area but if you're uncomfortable about something you have to speak up and the coin is a mechanism, a symbol, it's a way of saying the coin is on the table, i'm protected and i want to tell you what i believe is wrong. >> so it's like the conch in lord of the flies. like this tool. >> this tool. [ laughter ] >> but i don't think people know what's on the coin. so could you knew miz matally -- i think that's the right word --
1:08 pm
>> yeah, bring it up. >> everybody has this. we had a big fight with our cfo, he didn't want to pay for them. but cfos are like that. so it says straight talk which is what you can put down if you feel you here in an environment y things have not been talked about, the elephant in the room hasn't been talked about, put it on the table. oops, oh, shoot. you slap it down on the table and you can use it like that or on the other hand, on the other side there's own it so you can tell a colleague, you know, own it, you're not owning it and it happened to me. a very simple example but i was -- and it has let's discuss behavior, let's discuss behavior which is very important in no jerks and i was at the christmas celebration and we have a small
1:09 pm
instance, really, but very telling and we have a voluntary carol organization and they were saying and i don't have a voice and i was walking by and they said "come on, you have to get up and sing with us. we do this every year, we're volunteers, it would be a great thing if you would get up and sing with us." and i said no, no, and somebody said "come on, own it." [ laughter ] well, i had to go out and sing. they got me. so this is powerful. soin sounds hokey, it's powerful. people don't use the coin now, they just say look, i want to have straight talk. >> it became a bridging mechanism for the culture. where did you get the idea? from a guy in australia? >> this idea came from our head of hr who was a top gun vie lot in his career before joining hr and he came up with the idea of using this tool. >> so would you -- that a patented -- will it go off
1:10 pm
patent soon? [ laughter ] >> this is like our culture, it's a permanent competitive advantage. >> okay. so you mentioned -- we were talking about pfizer going forward. you mentioned the company might split up into three parts, two parts, three parts, a lot of different ideas. walk us through that process of how you're thinking about that decision because it's, of course, a very important one. >> well, we have two basic businesses in the company as a result of being in the business for a long time and also doing acquisitions. we have and innovative business that's focused on creating new cures and as such dedicates a lot of money into research and dedicates a lot of money into education and discussions with physicians and getting new products accepted and working on guidelines and working with universities. we have another part of the organization that is selling products that are off patent or
1:11 pm
about to go off patent. and they sell them differently in emerging markets from the u.s. in the u.s. they sell them with people in a room monitoring quality and shortages and monitoring what the price levels are and in the emerging markets they do it with huge forces selling on the grand. these are two completely distinct businesses that need a different strategic set, probably different managers, different cost basis. so the idea is is the sum of pfizer equal than its parts or smaller? in other words, is this slow-moving established products business, is it dragging down the value of the innovative or vice versa or are we not
1:12 pm
operationally being as efficient as we can? or are investors perceiving we're taking money from the established business and subsidizing research i.e. bad allocation capital. >> are you? i thought that's how drug companies worked that you have a certain path where you would have older products that fund new products. >> no, some companies don't. >> genentech. >> celgene. clearly it becomes patented but ours is half and half so it's two big businesses with competing strategic visions so if we split those up would we unlock value? >> what's the answer right now? >> don't know. >> what will determine the answer? what will you be looking senate. >> well, we're creating separate
1:13 pm
operating units, giving them as much autonomy as we can inside pfizer. we're giving enough information to the street so they can calculate pro forma pnls. we'll start giving them balance sheets and at the end of '16 latest is when i have the ability to do a transaction if i wanted to, i need three years of financials, we'll look at the company and say do we believe these two divisions are working for pfizer or not? could they work better outside, is there trap value? i.e. if we look at their pes or what their pe should be or their earnings does that give me a higher value of shares and can we sufficiently realize that value. >> there's a saying on wall street that nothing happens for no reason and when you went through those steps with me the thought that flashed through my head is "oh, my god, he's going to break up pfizer".
1:14 pm
>> no decision has been taken. it may be we arrive at the conclusion that the sum of the parts is equal to the whole and investors are satisfied with our capital allocation and there are no difficulties in running the two businesses in the same corporate shell. a decision has not been taken. >> and that decision you will have by -- >> by the latest, fourth quarter of '16. >> okay. question, so much interesting stuff we've covered. or questions from you? the audience? we have microphones, i think. >> so you talked a lot about the pressures in pricing and the move toward potentially outcomes. a little bit about the questions on marketing, specialty pharma, distribution. what about the positive side? we have a health tech industry that's growing really, really fast. we have google life science,
1:15 pm
google lens that can potentially detect cancer early. a lot of innovation, use of data analytics. does that cause you also to think about changing your business mod zmel is that a culture pressure as well? >> you know, i think the biggest lever to change our business model would be gene therapy. and it is coming. we may have jeangene therapy fo blood disorders and, you know, if gene therapy comes in and it's a one-time cure it's going to stress the payment systems. how do you pay one time and then lose the patient because he's cured if you're an insurance company? it's a dilemma. but i think the technologies you're talking about will enable a more efficient and better use of pharmaceuticals. i think they're embree i don't
1:16 pm
knowic -- embryonic at the moment. but there's no sump thing as an average dose. it's an artifact of us not being able to individualize treatment for every patient so our treatment for breast cancer, ideally i would like an artifact that google or somebody could come up with which was monitored constantly by measuring blood, certain parameters that would tell the patient can they adjust their dose to maximize efficacy while keeping side effects within the right profile? then the dose would become perfect for every patient and we would maximize efficacy. we don't do that today. we take averages and the doctor can adjust the dose through his or her experience with the patient. it's suboptimal. so early detection of cancer cells. i think that technology promises huge productivity but i don't see it as a competition to our
1:17 pm
industry. i see it as a facilitator. >> so it would almost be a realtime monitoring device for cancer in a way. >> or diabetes which we have today but not as efficiently. or any medication you need to take where you're trying to measure the impact it's having on certain parameters within the body. >> how far away is a device like that? five years? ten years? >> i would probably guess in between five and ten. you know, if you're going to pierce the skin, the fda is going to say what's the benefit, you have to have a benefit if you're going to create a potential infection site. you can't go to the fda and say "i'm going to measure these keen things and see what happens later." they won't allow that. they'll say you're measuring these things and invading and creating a health risk. what's the benefit? so the science is promising and
1:18 pm
as we miniaturize and new blood tests, theranos, there are opportunities. >> okay, i have a question. >> thank you, thank you for sharing your thoughts with us this morning. just to slightly pick up on the previous question. many major industries, whether it is uber in transportation, in hospitality, airbnb, many in entertainment, netflix, you have disruptors that which are changing the pattern both from a competitive standpoint and otherwise of traditional industries. now when you look at biopharmaceutical, your sector, do you see as you look ahead such disruptive trends coming up and on that do you anticipate that those trends would come from oecd sectors or do you see
1:19 pm
those trends could from countries that traditionally don't fall within the oecd umbrellas? >> i think a disrupter in our industry would be an ability to take a product from mechanism to market in half the time. you take those, we got the first indication of the jack-free pathway and from that it took us 19 years to bring the product to market. >> and that product became what? >> zelgan. a disruption would be gene therapy. a disruption would be -- i don't see the -- previous issues we're talking about as being disruptive. zell janse. a disruption would be political change which would say society
1:20 pm
is not willing to continue to support innovation or they don't believe the model we have is the most efficient and they're going to supplant it. so i don't see disruption coming from countries that are not highly technologically advanced. >> please state your name, where are you from? >> martin reeves. you talk about changes in the industry, consolidation of providers, role of government and technology changes, as a result of that, if you look out ten years, would you see the pharmaceutical industry business model changing in some way and how are you preparing options against that? >> well, business model is changing. there are two parts to business model. there's what you do to get a product to market and part that is what science you have, how
1:21 pm
quickly can you move, how quickly can you validate, can you use biomarkers so we would hope to see science continue to progress and we would hope to see the regulatory side catches up to the science. they were stuck with a regulatory environment that was crafted in the 1950s. two per specki ivperfective ran criminal trials, only use of big data for safety. extremely professional but by its nature cautious fda where there is no one -- people only count their mistakes, which is very unfortunate. no one counts the great things they do, all the products they approve which are great products, they only get hammered when they make a mistake so it makes them naturally cautious. i feel for their dilemma. but we need society to say they're willing to take more
1:22 pm
risk. that would change our business model. the science, the regulators, the use of biomarkers and in the communication of positions. using better technology, using better ways of getting two positions to communicate their knowledge. >> what's the best ideas you talk about internally to do that, which is a really interesting point. >> which? >> to communicate with physicians. >> everybody's experimenting with using electronic methods. using webinars. using -- bringing them into conversati conferences via laptops or their phones. they're not sending people to congress but sending them messages from the congress. people -- we, for instance, now a rep goes in to see a physician and it's a very personal relationship that reps develop. they're extremely busy and there are so many restrictions around
1:23 pm
what we can say to a physician given the regulatory environment. i'll give an example. if we have an investigator who develops a drug and has huge experience on this drug and we ask him to give a talk to 200 physicians, if somebody in the audience gets up and says "doctor, i've heard this drug can be used in this way" and that's not yet an approved use by the fda, we have to get up and say "you cannot answer that question." if we don't, we get sued by the fda. >> and can you buy lunch for those people still or not? >> we can take them to lunch, yeah. but one on one is not very efficient, right? and we publish all of that so we use ipads now so we can be in front of the doctor and the doctor will say well i'd like to ask this question and the question is because it's not on our label, our rep may know the answer but he's not allowed to give the answer so this is a regulatory burden so he uses the iphone and puts the doctor on
1:24 pm
the iphone or ipad to a physician in peyser kbho medical to medical can answer the physician's question. >> do that end, do we need pbms anymore? they seem like middlemen who -- >> i think if pdms exist they exist because of regulations in the marketplace i'm a big believer in that and i think if you change the way drugs are reimbursed potentially you wouldn't need pvms but they negotiate value and better prices. that has good and bad. one of the issues with pvms is they can restrict the flow of new technology. if they have a large base of older products and they're making a lot of money on the rebates and a new product comes in they don't really have any interest in giving the previous
1:25 pm
position because they're not making rebates so it's a positive and negative. >> so here to stay for the time being. we have time for one questio question. >> diane coffey, peter soloman company i've enjoyed your talk so far, you're very nimble, i have to say. my compliments. but i have a question on washington. so the house of representatives has just changed its speaker or is about to. do you feel that they will be any more willing to consider some of the tax changes not withstanding the fact that the house is still divided and has factions but it will be run by somebody who's pledged and interested in tax policy coming from the ways and means committee? >> well, representative ryan, congressman ryan is extremely interested in tax reform.
1:26 pm
but that being said, there's no dynamic scoring and i believe this is the biggest issue the united states has that the budget office cannot dynamically score the impacts and policy changes so it's very difficult for congress to craft the policy changes that will be very positive, i believe, for the country in job creation with negative scoring from the cbo. so i -- you know, i don't -- i think it's very difficult to see radical change coming out of congress in the political situation we are now, going into an election year and there's so many restraints which are good in our system where you have a 60 majority in the senate or else you can't get a bill to the
1:27 pm
president's desk and so the fact that one side has majority doesn't really mean anything because they can't get bills through to the president if the other side decides to play hard ball. but unfortunately right now the political system makes it very difficult to move things forward quickly and i'll give you an example on dynamic scoring and the problem we have with it. we have -- it was american events act that was passed about a year and a half ago and the unintented consequence of the american invents act was to make the prosecution of patents faster and it was targeted at tech companies that have lots and lots of patents with short periods of duration and they wanted an efficient manner to adjudicate their patents. the unintended consequence was people are using it to invalidate pharmaceutical
1:28 pm
patents. so we worked 14 years to bring a product to market and spend $2 billion and now we have a party review process that doesn't have the same standards as the waxmans or the civil courts. there's a different standard and it's patents for 80%. and you have hedge fund people shorting -- taking a patent of a biotech company into patent review and then shorting the stock so they're using it as a way of making money on the fact that the patent review is more likely to cancel the patent then not. so we're trying to get this changed. so we go to congress, we go to the senate and the senate says well if we change it and we give you a carveout and establish the balance that we know is right for pharmaceuticals the seen o'says o -- cbo says it has to be a pay-for. i said what? they said it has to be a pay-for because if patents are protected
1:29 pm
it costs society more money so you have to have a pay-for for the cbo to score it as zero. i said, well, hold on, i thought patents were a good thing? i thought patents created wealth? i thought patents were a central part of our note? why doesn't the cbo say well if patents are being destroyed, people are not going to invest, there will be less jobs, less productivity, less money, therefore we'll score positively. but our system is so crazy we have to pay so that we can reestablish the right to have a patent with a reasonable competence it will survive. >> i hope congress gets one of your coins before too late. [ laughter ] i hope i get one of your coins, it sounds awesome. thank you so much. it's been a wonderful conversation. [ applause ] >> thank you very much indeed, dennis, andy, i can't add anything to that except to say if washington pursued your no
1:30 pm
jerks policy we might all be in a better place. that was a really, really fascinating discussion. we're enormously grateful to you for being with us and thank you again dennis thank you for being here and i want to say special tribute and thanks to our spon, so american express global corporate payments for joining us. thank you for that. we couldn't do it without your support. that concludes this morning's session. that concludes our season, this year's season of view points breakfast but we will be back in january with the president and ceo of siemens. we'll try to make sure we have a front page story about siemens this morning. have a wonderful day, thank you for being here and good-bye. [ applause ]
1:31 pm
a tweet fear lauren camera, the national education reporter for the hill. she writes today that president obama on thursday signed a sweeping rewrite of the controversial no child left behind education law. this is an early christmas present. after more than ten years, members of congress from both parties have come together to revise our national education law, obama said. the proposal known as the every student succeeds act passed the senate on wednesday by a vote of 85-12 following an overwhelming bipartisan vote last week in the house. the legislation reduces the
1:32 pm
federal government's control over the nation with's public schools by transferring decision-making power back to state and local governments in areas such as school performance and accountability. you can read more at thehill.com. former governor and republican presidential candidate jeb bush speaks at an event with some of new hampshire's young professionals. afterward, he talks with reporters about donald trump's proposal to ban muslims entering the u.s. governor bush is joined by former pennsylvania governor and homeland security secretary tom ridge who endorsed the bush candidacy for president earlier this year. >> well, welcome. [ applause ] . welcome to the life of the party. great to have you here. this is a wonderful opportunity
1:33 pm
for students to meet candidates. this is a conversation and we're thrilled to be here. i want to particularly o
1:34 pm
1:35 pm
1:36 pm
1:37 pm
1:38 pm
1:39 pm
1:40 pm
1:41 pm
1:42 pm
1:43 pm
1:44 pm
1:45 pm
would haven't lived in venezuela. life happen that way. i find people your age, by the way, spend too much time trying to plan it out there. ought to be more spon ttaneity. >> i've heard you talk about how that experience in your life has informed your views on immigration which is a big discussion during this campaign. talk about how it's informed your views and i think the question a lot of us are wondering given how such this is a hotly debated issue, what is the answer? >> on the broad question of immigration what makes us an extraordinary and exceptional country is that our shared values define our national identity and citizenship. we're the only country that has that at its score. in most countries it's race that
1:46 pm
defines it. the japanese, if you show up, it's very restrictive based on race. they have an incredible culture but it's a different kind of citizenship that we have. and our strength has been historically that we embrace a set of values and it doesn't matter what we look like or whether we have a vowel at the end of our name or where you're born, where you come from and we're losing that so the immigrant experience is part of our heritage and it's been a reason why we're the most creative country in the world and most innovative. we lose it because we don't control the border. we lose it because the rule of law doesn't seem to apply like it should and we lose it because we now have political leaders that like to divide us up in our disparate parts. is there a set of common values that define american citizenship? we have to have a much stronger belief in our heritage, our past. have you seen the tv shows where they stick a microphone in someone on the streets of new york and ask them how many supreme court justices are there
1:47 pm
or how many branches of government? it's a little scary to say the least. so just giving -- going back to the basics i think would make immigration a catalyst for a lot of good things. but if we don't a shared set of values, a common identity about what our heritage is that people can't buy into, it's a problem. and right now it's being preyed upon in the political sphere. >> what role do you think the next president can play in doing that? is it about leadership? >> yeah, we have to fix the damn thing. you could say that line for just about everything -- taxes, regulation, health care. we have to start fixing things and immigration, the immigration system is broken. the legal system is broken. think about it. we have family petitioning being the driver of 90% of all legal immigrants so spouse and minor children which you would say is a definition of family, right? every country has that and we have adult siblings and adult
1:48 pm
parents on top of that and it's -- chain migration has taken effect. we crowd out all other form of immigration. so fixing that, fixing our border. dealing with the fact that people extend their stay when they have a legal visa. we now have to look at the threats of terrorism and deal with that. we have the visa waiver program for european countries principally and some asian countries allows for expedited entry into our country. well now, gosh, we have citizens of europe that are -- pledge their allegiance to islamic terrorism and we could not make it easy for them to come in so we have to adjust our laws going forward. but to protect our legal immigration system we have to make sure that coming here legally is easier than coming here illegally. that's what's been missing in the last few years and we have to restore that. fixing it. how? roll up your sleeves. do what businesses do. you do what we do in our lives. you say here are our objectives,
1:49 pm
here's the strategy, make sure -- convene, make sure people are on target. there's money to build the places where a wall is appropriate. there's funding for it. there's funding for border security but we need to get them on the border. there's funding for the gps technology and the drone technology that could help us. there's -- congress has funded the exit and entry biometrics to make it easier to track where people are when they come here legally and overstay their visas, we just need leadership to monitor it and make sure we're applying all of the tools at our disposal to make it happen. >> if i could take you back to policy and get more to you personally for a second, i'm curious -- >> don't go boxers and briefs on me. [ laughter ] >> you made a comment earlier about being very thoughtful growing up as a kid, college student, et cetera. >> i wasn't thoughtful as a kid. that was after i got married. >> i was a big fan of "the hardy
1:50 pm
boys" books growing up. i'm curious what you would have read when you were a teenager in college, etc., and would you consider the books you read books that you read informative? >> the books that had the biggest impact on me were the books that my spanish teacher required me to read because they were the great works. i had to read these extraordinary writers. and i didn't think i could do it. i don't even remember what the books were about to be honest with you. just the fact that i could read it, wow, i'm actually capable more than i thought i was. they pushed at the school, it was like a gigantic root canal and i had a headache the whole time. but ultimately i figured out how to do things. so whether it was reading -- one was 600, 700 pages long in spanish. i didn't think i could finish it
1:51 pm
and when i did, i said maybe i can do calculus. i mean that kind of experience has had a lasting impact on me because i think everything we do, we should be raising expectations on ourselves and others rather than lowering expectations to excuse away somewhere people aren't achieving what they could achieve. the books i read now are all over the map. i read mostly to learn. i'm reading the biography of my dad. surprise surprise there. >> anything surprise you? >> yeah, actually there are things i didn't know. he had a diary and he was pretty disciplined about writing in it. and he had doubts about himself, doubts about where he was in life, that i never saw. i mean, i always saw him totally in charge. i idolized the guy. so interesting inside that he was a human being. upset when he lost. happy when he won.
1:52 pm
kind of strange, but when you're a son of someone, you don't get those kind of insights. and you how he learned from the job of being head of the liaison office and director of the cia that put him in good said when he became president. >> thinking about your dad, both professionally and personally, because you know him like no one else could -- >> apparently i didn't. >> what would you want to emulate the most about your father and then on the flip side, what would you want to perhaps do very differently from what your father did? >> you know what, i was in my mid 20s. i was married, i had two kids. i was working. and my dad -- you always try to -- if you have a good relationship with your family, you try to be, you know, the man your dad was. that expression actually i think happens to a lot of us. and i realized if i tried to achieve what i thought my dad was, that i would get about 50% of the way there. and i could either accept that
1:53 pm
as, you know, a traumatic experience and go get therapy and live a miserable life about or i could accept being half the man my dad was. or is. and still live a life of purpose and meaning. that's how high i think -- i think he's the greatest man alive. so it's hard to emulate him because i think he's near perfect. i just -- you don't know him. i'm just telling you. he's decent. if i could be better in my life, it would be to always be kind and generous and decent to people. not just the big dogs, but everybody. because that's himy dad. he treats the person serving in a hotel the same way he would treat a head of state. and just to be grounded that way, everything else just flows from that. and not worry that -- strength is not defined by the volume of your voice or the outrageous things you say. it's the fortitude and integrity
1:54 pm
that you show when people aren't watching. so i can't think of anything that i would not want to be like my dad. i can promise you that. >> i have another question, but i see we do have a hand up in the audience. >> do you have the microphone? yep, right there. >> hi. thanks for taking a question about federal account tors. so right now if you're a federal contractor, you can lobby the government with money you were paid by the government to do that job to get more money. and i was wondering if you would support a requirement that federal contractors cdisclose al their political spending. >> yeah, i think there should be total transparency about lobbying. it should be posted on the internet whether you've seen, whether it's a top staffer or elected official within 24 hours. and the money you use to lobby and the monies you use to provide support for campaigns ought to be completely
1:55 pm
transparent. >> another question over here. >> hi, governor. h i want to ask your advice. >> uh-oh. >> so i've seen you a couple times now and what is interesting is sort of your -- you're very personable. clearly know a lot of the issues. you have a lot of experience. and as we get to the issues, i saw you yesterday as a matter of fact and i was impressed with the way the conversation went, how you worked the crowd. you're really in with democrats, 00. i don't know if you knew that. but at the end, two words came up. gas and oil. it seemed like a little bit of air went out of the room. those issue points again. so how are you going to use your personality, your charm to sort of get through those topics where you're not sort of pigeoned into this, oh, it's a gas and oil issue on why the which
1:56 pm
economy is not doing well. >> the only gas sector is one of the great success stories of our economy and we need to make sure that we grow it at a far faster rate. information technology is one of those. we lead the world in those two sectors. we need the world in drug discovery, but we're making it harder with the fda and the rules to increase the cost of getting a drug to market and certainly the tile. and we create basic uncertainty. i didn't feel the room going away from me when i talked about the energy revolution in our midst. and i also think that the next disruptive technologies are this someone's garage, not inside the department of energy with a venture capital arm. so the world will be dramatically different five years from now, ten years from
1:57 pm
now as it relates to energy. it could be that someone will figure out how to store nuclear waste and to be able to build a nuclear plant in a time frame and cost that allows it to be the best renewable source of energy in the world over the longest period of time. i'm not smart enough to know what the world holds. i just think you need to create the freest environment where whatever that is happens at the fastest pace. and the friction that we create by getting government more involved slows it down. so i appreciate the generally if words about my efforts yesterday. here's what i love about new hampshire. new hampshire is a place where you actually can complete a sentence in the english language and you can ask someone what do you thinks and they will tell you. it's normally a really interesting conversation. that's kind of being lost and t you. it's normally a really interesting conversation. that's kind of being lost in the way that some people campaign. and y'all have maintained that tradition and it's really important that you sustain it
1:58 pm
for sure. and i'll be up here a lot. >> another question right next to them. >> hi, governor. i'm amy curry. something you said earlier about government slowing things down, we work with federal funds. and not only does it make the projects more expensive, but it definitely slows them down. do you have any solutions for that and how with can e can get important projects done? >> absolutely. the timing of this is perfect because i think at noon we unveiled a state/federal initiative that attorney general scott pruitt headed up for me with people mostly from outside of washington that create -- that laid out a blueprint about how to shift power away from washington. so we do -- we give money from washington to states and then they -- you get your money probably through the state and there is very few rules for the state, but just mostly a flow-through. but we embed in that money all
1:59 pm
sorts of rules that basically make the whole point kind of obsolete. whether it's department of transportation money, where now costs are probably -- if you didn't have the federal rules as it relates to how to build a road, you could save 30% and probably accelerate the time to build a road by about 30% if not more. to build interdiction structure in the united states today, to get a myriad of permits from the federal government, can take ten years rather than two years. so across the board, i think the answer wherever possible is to assume that states and local governments actually care about the constituents and their mission. maybe more than the federal government. rather than the opposite. because people in washington think, well, we'll have a race to the bottom. the minute you free up money and don't create a bunch of rules around it and just give the money to the states and allow them to decide what to do with it, somehow the states don't
2:00 pm
have the interests of their con s constituents at heart. if you didn't have the rules and the forms to fill out, that's the mission of this federal/state initiative. and what we'll propose, what we have proposed, is creating block grants for medicaid, block grants for the cgbd money, block grac grachts for department of transportation monies, aptd create a relatively fixed cost in terms of the money coming down, but eliminate the rules. so you can do what everybody should have the chance do in life, which is to answer the following question. if we weren't doing this way, how would we do it. that is where the fun part of life comes. if you have the ability to answer that question and really have the chance to start anew, position of how muchno

13 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on