tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN April 17, 2015 10:30pm-12:31am EDT
family, with the disabled father. they had dreams when they were young, but they could not do them, they found themselves in a society that told them that they could not do those things. imagine what that must have felt like. a society that tells you no matter how much you try, there are things you cannot do because of who you are and where you come from. in 1956, they came here. my parents never made it big. they were never rich, famous, but they were successful. just a few decades removed from poverty, they owned a home, had jobs retired. that is our story. it defines us as a nation and people. it's what makes us exceptional and different.
it is our identity. today it is in doubt. there are millions of americans who are started to believe we are no longer that country. you either know them or you are them. you are living paycheck to paycheck. now the jobs do not go far enough. they literally live one unexpected expense away from disaster. the young people who did everything we asked, and other cannot find a job. the person trying to start a business out of their home, it is in violation of zoning codes but it is a good business. [laughter] they are struggling because of government regulations. as a result, our identity as a nation is in doubt. why is this happening?
the answer is, because we have leaders trapped in the past. people who think it is the 20th century. people who think yesterday's ideas will propel us to tomorrow. they never will. america is a nation out of its history but it has always been about his future. our future has the opportunity to be better than our history. we must confront challenges and embrace opportunities of our time. we must do with that generation of americans did during the industrial age. it is straightforward. we need to understand and accept that we are engaged in a global competition for investment, innovation, and talent. government policies hold us back. we have a tax cut that makes america one of the most expensive places to invest and innovate. we have regulations that are crushing innovation and holding people back.
we have obamacare, which actually discourages is is is hiring more people. we have energy policies keeping us from fully utilizing energy resources. we can fix these things with a progrowth tax policy. if we limit the size of regulation, if we replace obamacare with the plan that allows every american to buy the health insurance they want, if we utilize energy resources that the american people will do it they have always done. they will create millions of better paying jobs, 21st century jobs. that is not enough. the second reality of this century is that the better paying jobs of today require
more skill and education that before. we have a higher education system doing a phenomenal job of preparing people to compete in the 20th century another 21st. why do we graduate people from high school ready week -- why do we not graduate people from high school to go to work? why have we stigmatized industrial careers? these are good paying jobs. we can teach people to do this while they are young. we need flexibility in higher education, some people who can work full-time can also acquire the skills they need to improve their life, so that a receptionist can become a paralegal. so that a health aide can become a dental hygienist. today, people cannot.
if you have to work full-time to raise a family, you can't have everything to set in a classroom. we need to provide flexible programs that allow people to learn at their own pace. we have to stop graduate he people from college with degrees the do not lead to jobs. [applause] we cannot afford to do this anymore. people are borrowing thousands of dollars in loans for degrees that do not lead to jobs. i propose a straightforward idea. before you take out a loan, or school has to tell you how much you can expect to make when you graduate from that school with that degree. sivan decide -- so you can decide whether that basket weaving degree you are seeking
-- by oases to cite greek philosophers just to get people offended -- greek philosophy is good, by the way -- so that people stop borrowing money for degrees that do not lead to jobs. we have to accept that we live in a global age. we have 4%-5% of the global population. we needed to be millions of people on the planet that can afford to buy what we sell and bake. you cannot have global prosperity without american leadership, because you cannot have stability with how to american leadership. the united nations cannot do it god for bid china cannot do it russia cannot do it. there is only one nation in the world capable of allowing the
freedom loving people in the world to confront evil. look around the world today, it is chaos in every region of the planet. from asia -- china is literally building islands to stake out illegitimate claims in the south china sea, and in latin america and in europe were vladimir putin is trying to rewrite the cold war, to the middle east with the spread of radical jihadist groups and iran moving ahead in hegemonic intentions. america cannot solve problems on its own. none of these poems can be solved without america. we have a president that has eviscerated military capability. [applause]
these are challenges, and opportunities. if we can have a vibrant economy, if we can equip people with the skills they need, if we can reengage america and its leadership the 21st century will be in american century. i believe that all of my heart. these things will not happen on their own. it reminds us that the election will not be a choice about what laws are going to pass, whether it is going to be republican or democrat. 2016 as a referendum on our identity. what kind of country do we want to be? to be want to remain special aura be prepared to become like everybody else deck ? tonight, my wife and children
are in orlando. i wish i was there. although i am happy to be here with you. [laughter] i make that point because when you make the decision to run for president, you realize you will be away from home. there are days he will not be there. there are tournaments he will miss. what a lobby to make the decision to run is that this election is about them as much as anybody else. my children's generation is the most important generation in history. they will either be the freest or rob -- most prosperous americans, or the first to inherit a diminished country. it reminds me of all my parents did for me, and it should remind you that all your parents did for you. the americans the 4s did what
had to be done. they faced the challenges, they embraced opportunities and we inherited the greatest nation in all of human history. they did so as a nation and the people. my father worked events like this for a decade. he stood behind a heart -- behind the bar. on nights he did not want to work, he said behind that bar. because the purpose of their life became to give us the chances they never had. to open doors for us that were not open to them, all the dreams they once had would come true for me. that's not just my story, it is our story. this is who we are. this is who we must still be. if you want to know whether america will remain special, it will not be based on the size of our economy.
it will be based on whether or not the people doing this now can still do it. the people who will clean your rooms tomorrow morning and this hotel. the people who are using free wi-fi at a starbucks to operate their new business. the student that will take two buses in the morning to attend a better school. the single mother who has made the purpose of her life to ensure that her children have the opportunities she never did. if their dreams come true, the 21st century will be the greatest era in our nations history. if they do not, we will always be known as the generation that allowed america to diminish and decline. this is what the selection -- this is what the election is about. this is why we are engaged in public service. this is not a sport.
this is about the future of america and its identity. [applause] i believe the century will also be an american century. there is a donation on this earth i would trade places with. there is no cut other -- there is no other country i would rather be. the 21st century can be an american century if we wanted to be. it is up to us to be the party of the future, to show those who are trying to improve lives that we are the party with a plan to get us there. if we do these things, we will be able to leave for our children what americans always leave for their children, the single greatest nation in the history of all mankind. thank you. [applause]
thank you. thank you. thank you. >> we will take some questions you know the routine. we will bring the microphone over. >> thank you, senator. i have asked this before. i want to know who you get along with on the democratic side. only because, if you are going to be president, you have to work with everyone. please tell me. senator rubio: i think i get along with everyone, even those who call me a loser.
[laughter] some of you got it, calgary the papers. -- go read the papers. chris coons is someone from connecticut i have worked with. delaware. i forget. someone i have worked with on many ideas i have talked about. there are people we can work with some ideas. there's a fundamental difference between our parties. the democratic party is under the control of a radical left-wing view. i think you see evidence of that in policy. and also the control of a left-wing view -- ec reflected in foreign policy. the idea that we are creating problems for ourselves, as
opposed to the reality that in the absence of american leadership, at least two of vacuum, which leads to chaos. we will have to work with people who we disagree with on certain issues. i hope we can move forward because at the end of the day america will decline for all of us, republicans and democrats alike. we are all in this together. we are inextricably linked in that regard. there are fundamental differences between our parties. >> senator, great to see you. i've been asking candidates about common core. common core is an issue important to me. i want to know your status on common core, what would you do? senator rubio: it's going to be used by the department of education, though standers to force themselves on state policy. you will not get federal money.
i do not think that is the right approach. i believe in curriculum reform. [applause] >> i am a local businessman in new hampshire. my concern -- my concern is how much is the regulation on businesses. the last regulation and came into effect yesterday, the ambush law, you know? the ambush election law. and also the thing with trying
to make joint employers with franchisees. i'm concerned that what they are doing what changed the face of business in this country. as president, how would you get the group under control? what we do do with new regulations? senator rubio: at the end of the day, all agencies are under the domain of the executive branch. president obama supports those policies, and that's why they are happening. residential leadership can have a big role in how these play. an increasing amount of power and the federal government is held in the hands of unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats. a lot of this is because the vast growth of regulation. members of congress often think that we are lawmakers but most laws being passed in washington are nothing but authorizations for regulators to write rules. there are different ways to bring regulations under control. the one i propose is called the
regulatory budget. it says that no matter what you do, we will set a limit on how much regulations can cost the economy. agencies would have to get under that number every year by reducing regulation. it will force them to undercut -- undertake a cost of that analysis, and that is something that is not happening right now. they'll have to get rid of an old regulation if they want to put a new one in place. most of all, it would massively regulate the regulatory state. it would bring it will under the regulatory impediment on the growth of our economy. beyond that, i would argue that it is not simply an annoyance countries -- companies and investors and people that trying to create jobs look at these things at the conditions us doing business in the nation. his -- it is not attractive to have a place where you have a national labor it is opposing
upon a particularly small business like a franchise owner, which is not a mcdonald's, it is on by an individual that happens to on that store, requirements that they have to make that make them uncompetitive in respect to the rest of the world. so it's just one more example of at the regulatory state is making america uncompetitive in an era of global competition. [applause] >> hi senator. he spoke a lot about the future in your speech. entitlements are going to be a huge part of that. i was wondering if you could speak to entitlement reform or how you plan to keep america prosperous in terms of budget. senator rubio: during my senate campaign, i have campaigned on the issue of entitlement reform. there are a lot of people on social security. this includes my mother. i would never do anything to harm my mother. i recognize to troops.
-- two truths. the single leading cause of debt is the fact that we have entitlement programs that are structured that are not sustainable. the only solution -- if you want to reform programs that doesn't impact people like my mother, it will require my generation and her generation to accept that our social security and medicare is still going to be the best thing in the world, but it is going to look different. we propose specific ideas of how to make that come about. i did so when i ran for senate in florida. when i did, i talked about retirement age. many pundits predicted it was the end of my campaign. it wasn't true. the math is unmistakable.
when social security was founded, we had 15 workers for every retiree. today, we have three for every retiree, isn't it will be -- and soon it will be two for every retiree. it is unsustainable. anybody who says they want to leave programs the way are is in favor of bankrupting those programs. we need to confront that issue. the sooner we confronted, the less disruptive changes will be. >> when my grandparents moved here from quebec, they could only speak french. when my father and his siblings went to school, they had no choice to learn english. he didn't have any special teachers that went to classrooms and as they learned, they were forced to learn english. when my daughter applied for a teaching job in florida, she was
told she was not qualified because she did not have a certificate in english as a second language. she said, mom, is a english the leg which in this country? -- isn't english the language in this country? we spend extra money making sure that every child is comfortable in their native language before they are taught english. i want to know if something can be done about it. i do not think people are coming here and learning english. you walk into a lowe's store and assigns are in english -- and the signs are in english and spanish. it seems like this country needs to do something about this. we are in english-speaking country, but the people here are not forced to learn english
senator rubio:. senator rubio:if you don't speaking bush, you are not going to prosper economically. it is a language spoken in this country. there is not a law that says it is the official language, but it is the official language and it should be. it is that unifying which of our people. anyone who doesn't learn english is going to have a limited horizon, economically. i don't know the circumstances your daughter faced, but the truth is, anyone who comes to this country who immigrants year and doesn't learn english the more disadvantage they will be in the less they will contribute economically. >> [indiscernible] senator rubio: i don't know what it means in other parts of the country. children who come to the united states and only speak creole
have to learn english to graduate. because they are learning english they have to be patient -- proficient enough to take a test. they are streamlined to speak english to graduate high school. you cannot graduate if you don't speak english. you cannot pass the exam. many of those esol classes are designed for students who first language is in the language. that is how the system -- i'm not sure with the district she applied to. >> i think you have been clear about this and i totally affirm your position that the number one position of the chief executive and the government's national security. estimates are that iran will
have the bomb within months no matter what happens. we obviously, you know what i am talking about, the silliness in washington as far as what the president is doing. this will destabilize the entire international scene. i think most americans have no clue that this is coming as quickly as it is coming and what kind of impact it is going to have. i would love to hear your views on if you were in the white house, how do you deal with this? we have a president who is basically, what we do? i think you probably have a different perspective. senator rubio: let me just describe the nature of the problem. even though we have lost a lot of leverage because of what the president has already done. iran is not just limited to nuclear weapons. this is not even being discussed in negotiations.
iran is the premier sponsor of terrorism. they have multiple groups around the world that the sponsor to carry out terrorist attacks as a form of state -- they use terrorism the way normal nations use diplomacy. that is literally what they do, that is not being discussed. second a nuclear capability is not is limited to a bomb, you have to have a delivery system. a are delivering long-range rockets that will be capable of reaching the eastern coast of the united states. those are not part of the talks. weapons design they can buy it if they haven't bought it already. the ability to enrich uranium or reprocess plutonium. even under the most generous deal the president is trying to sell, they retain the infrastructure to enrich and reprocess. when we trust them is that if we want to inspect them, they will let us. we have seen this movie before. it is called "the rock."
we say, let's go in, and no we can't. they try to let you in, they have been at the site. you go back, you do the same game. we have seen this game before, it is called -- we have seen this movie before, it is called north korea. it ron is willing to put on a charade because they want inspections, because they want more access to the money. in the long term people want a weapon because it furthers their ultimate ambition, and that is to be a regional hegemonic power. they want to the single most powerful country in that area of the world, they want to drive america out of the region, they want the whole region to be under their domain, and they are already acting on that ambition. today, you can find your radiant in lebanon and syria and increasingly in a rock. you find it in yemen now. you find in bahrain. it is the most dangerous part of it. we should never have entered into these negotiations. these international sanctions and abominations -- [applause]
the international sanctions and combination with u.s. electoral sanctions have a devastating effect on iran, and the choice of them is clear you can have nuclear ambitions or you can have an economy but you cannot have both. it was having a real strain on them and threatening the regime's instability, and that is why they came to the table. they do that this president wanted the deal worse than they did. john kerry wanted this deal worse than they did. what we have been ill to do is basically disrupt the entire international sanctions regime. china and russia -- the russians have already sold antiaircraft weapons. the chinese art going to build reactors. -- the chinese are going to build reactors. bring those international sanctions is going to be difficult. here's the last truth. we may have to decide at some point what is worse, what is worse? a military strike against iran, or nuclear armed iran?
i will say this, i don't want there to be military force, but nuclear bond is an unacceptable risk to the region and the world. -- nuclear iran is an unacceptable risk to the region and the world. [applause] >> last question of the evening. >> take you for coming this evening. i wanted your view, speaking about security. there are terrorists coming across our borders every day, as well as lots of other people who want opportunity and to work in america, but there is a lot of terrorism, too. what is your viewpoint about closing our borders? senator rubio: we had to define what a border is. it is not just mexico or canada, it is airports. people overstay visas. i believe not just in
immigration, but national security. we need to do this early in a term of the next president is improved the way we enforce immigration laws. it also includes an e-verify system that employers can use to verify the people they hire. we need to ensure we know these people. today, we are like a hotel that checks you in, but never checks you out. [applause] that is a big problem. we really have not confronted about terrorism. we used to be concerned, we still should be about someone from abroad carrying out a terrorist attack. we were concerned about somebody going abroad and being radicalized and coming back.
now we face the threat of someone who has never left the country and through online activities is inspired to carry out a terrorist attack. i am telling you, god for bid that happens here and the first thing people will want to know is why did we not know about it, and why did we not stop it? i have no reason to exaggerate, the risks this country faces are greater today than the day i took office. every time a traitor discloses secrets to the world, our enemies find ways to invade our intelligence. there are thousands of people around this world, even as i did, they are plotting to kill americans. this risk is real.
the spread of radical jihadist has spread everywhere. it only continues to grow under the watch of this president. we need to deal with this. you cannot have prosperity, when you're constantly under the risk of a terrorist attack. [applause] >> thank you. announcer: scheduled speakers tomorrow include senators rand paul and ted cruz. our live coverage fix up tomorrow morning on c-span. >> during this month, c-span is pleased to present the winning entries in the studentcam documentary competition, which allows middle and high school students to think critically about issues that affect the nation.
students were asked to create their documentaries based on the theme "the three branches and you" to demonstrate how a policy, law, or action by one of the three branches of government has affected them or their community. allie stanley and katherine thompson from fort payne middle school in fort payne, alabama, are one of our second prize winners. they are entry focused on the tennessee valley authority act of 1933. >> over 80 years ago, the tennessee valley was exposed to electricity. the valley went from one of the poorest regions in the country to a booming economy. but why? what could possibly change the economic climate so quickly? >> the idea that something could change a lifestyle seemed impossible, but the impossible became the reality. the people put their faith in one of the most successful government projects, known as the tennessee valley authority act.
mike: the president was franklin delano roosevelt. he had a vision to improve the quality of life in the tennessee valley region. and so he created what was to become the tennessee valley authority. >> this was the plan. to chain the river through a series of giant dams checking the floods, opening the river to navigation from beginning to end. to give farmers the benefit of modern science and help them control the water on their land. the dams were to restore the fertility of the soil exploit the mineral resources of the area. the dams would also reinforce millions of acres. the plan was to use the electric power generated by the dams to develop industry in the cities. it was going to electrify farms throughout the rural areas, and above all, improve daily life in the tennessee valley. >> president roosevelt signed the tennessee valley authority act on may 18, 1933, creating
the tva as a federal corporation. jason: it's interesting to think back about what it's like without electricity. it's changed everything, just like the automobile changed everything for transportation. martha: my husband says that for a pastime, he and his little brother david watched the toaster. and put the toaster down and waited anxiously for the toast to pop up. jason: our main headquarters are in knoxville. we have a large office complex in chattanooga, tennessee, and other locations in huntsville bowling green, kentucky, nashville, tennessee. we are spread out through a seven-state region. >> the agency carefully runs the
nation's fifth largest river system in order to reduce flood damage, reduce travel and , protect water quality. >> millions of people enjoy recreational activities on lakes created by the tva. the company operates 80 public recreation areas throughout the tennessee valley. jason: tva owns and operates but it's really the people's property. the people of the tennessee valley and the united states have hundreds of thousands of acres that one can recreate on. >> this is one of the 29 hydroelectric dams that produce electricity for the tennessee valley authority. >> hydroelectric power is generated using the force of falling water. water is held behind a dam forming in an artificial lake
or reservoir. when electricity is needed, some of the water in the reservoir is released. gravity causes the water to fall through a pipe inside the dam called a penstock. the falling water spins a turbine attached to a waterwheel that turns energy into mechanical power, located at the end of the penstock. when a turbine spins, it turns a shaft, which goes up to an electrical generator. as the shaft turns, it causes the generator to rotate, producing electricity. after flowing through the penstock and across the turbine, the water continues into the river on the other side of the dam. tva owns and operates one of the largest and most reliable transmission systems in north america. serving about 9 million residents in an 80,000-square mile area. martha: my experience is that tva was a godsend to the people of the south.
they dammed up water. the backwaters covered my ancestors' cemetery. it covered the farms. tva, or the tennessee valley authority, made the south come alive. rep. nunnelee: the mission of tva can be summed up in three phrases -- keep the lights going -- keep the lights glowing, the economy going, and the river flowing. >> tva has renewed its vision to help lead the region and the nation to a cleaner and more secure energy future. mike: everything we do is centered around trying to improve the quality of life for the people of the tennessee
valley. we've been doing that for 81 years. that is our focus today. >> life in the valley would not be the same without the visions of fdr. the tva act has drastically improved the way of daily life in the valley, and more specifically, our personal lives. >> our community has benefited greatly and would not be the same without it. the tennessee valley authority has been one of the greatest federal projects that has benefited the people of our country. >> to watch all of the winning videos and to learn more about our competition, go to cspan.org and click on "studentcam." also, tell us what you think about the issue these students addressed in their documentary on facebook and twitter. announcer: it age 25, she was one of the wealthiest widows in the colonies. during the revolution, in her mid-40's she was considered an
enemy by the british, who threatened to take her hostage later she would become the nation's first first lady, marking washington -- martha washington. on c-span's program, "first ladies"." sundays at 8:00 eastern. as a complement, c-span's new book, "first ladies," providing lively stories of these fascinating women, creating an illuminating, entertaining, and inspiring read. it is now and it -- about now available as a hardcover or e-book. next "newsmakers." then, president obama's news
conference with the prime minister of italy. after that, the present -- republican leadership conference. >> joining us on "newsmakers" debbie wasserman schultz. thank you for joining us. debbie: thank you for having me. >> joining us in the studio, kathy kiely. kathy: congresswoman, you are in new hampshire, what are you doing there? are you running for something we do not know about? debbie: the only thing i am running for israel action in south florida. the reason i am here is because we have a veritable circus tent
of candidates here in new hampshire for the first in the nation cattle cane. i thought it was important to be here to make sure we get established the contrast between our candidates and what our nominee will stand for, and what the group of presidential candidates stand for. very clearly, the republicans are demonstrating that they are all fully embracing the failed trickle-down economic policies of the past that voters have rejected trade they have gotten us into the worst economic crisis since the great depression. finally, thank you -- thanks to barack obama they are climbing out of. i am here to make sure that new hampshire voters understand if they want a candidate who will fight for the middle class, that will be the democratic candidate.
>> congresswoman, it sounds like a lot of the speakers, they have already decided who your nominee will be. hillary clinton is perceived as the front runner. a bloomberg poll earlier this week showed that voters, even those who support secretary of state, former secretary of state clinton think that she should be challenged. they think she would be a better candidate if she has a primary challenge, do you agree? which candidate do you think would be the best challenger for mrs. clinton? >> as the chair, i am not in the business of handicapping the strengths or weaknesses of any of our democratic candidates. i have to effectively manage the democratic primary. martin o'malley, the former governor of maryland has
expected -- accepted. the vice president is expected to decide his decision in the summer. bernie sanders is also the thing about running as well i expect the voters that believe we should have a democratic primary will get their wish. >> right now obviously hillary clinton is the only candidate we have running four year nomination. she starts out with a problem on the question of honesty and trust, we see polling showing a majority of voters in some of those states say that she is not honest and trustworthy am a what does she have to do to reverse that? congresswoman schultz: hillary
clinton is one of the most admired women in america. i am confident that her strength and candidate will show through because of the issues that she champions. we will have a breadth of candidates who will also champion the issues that matter the most, they want a president who will have their back. they want a president they know will create opportunities for them to reach the middle class. they want a president who will say, let's make college more affordable. let's not cut held grants, let's increase them. let's make college more affordable. let's not repeal the affordable care act. let's make sure the 16 million people who have health care now let's make sure it continues to work for them. >> going back to this question,
it is national and in-state, is honesty and trustworthiness not an important characteristic in an election for president? congresswoman schultz: of course the polling that is done now, we are in april of the year before the election, any polling that is done now is really not that credible, beyond that, the decisions made by voters on who they want to be the next president will be based on who they think is going to make sure if you play by the rules and work hard, you will have a fair shot. on major every issue that determines whether you have a fair shot, it is democrats who have stood up and made sure we pulled ourselves out of the worst economic crisis since the great recession, had 61 straight months of job growth in the private sector. we have a stock market that is
booming. we have gas prices that are lower. the lowest in recent memory those are the results of the democratic policies. contrast that with republicans who would take us backwards. anyone of the clown car candidates among the republicans would take us back to the past. that is what voters will make their decision on. >> i will try one more time of the question of honesty and trustworthiness. when we talk to voters in iowa the reason they almost all site are the stories about hillary clinton's e-mail server and how she has handled it or not handle it. a lot of frustration among democrats. those who supported obama or bill clinton, i want to asking because you are the head of the national committee, do you use a personal e-mail account for anything you do politically or for government business?
congresswoman schultz: i use both official and a personal account, yes. >> and do you make any effort -- that is for both government business and party business? congresswoman schultz: i use a personal e-mail and an official e-mail. and i have a dnc e-mail as well. i have several e-mails i use for various responsibilities. on e-mail specifically, your question about e-mail, i can assure you and i am confident , number one that secretary clinton followed all the rules that were in place at the time for how she would communicate with her staff. she has made that clear. she has released 55,000 pages of e-mails. at the end of the day, american voters are not going to decide who they want to be president based on what e-mail address they use. that i am confident of. >> for yourself, at the party and congressional office do you make an effort to make sure any business you do on a personal e-mail is copied for the records?
congresswoman schultz: what i do is communicate -- depending on the issue -- with my staff on official e-mail and on political e-mail with my personal e-mail address. we separate it out in the appropriate way. there are times i use my personal e-mail for official business, but as you know, when it comes to e-mails in congress, we have constitutional restrictions that are little bit different than how it applies to the executive branch. steve: kathy kiely. kathy: you mentioned that hillary clinton is one of the most admired women in the country. how do you think gender plays in this election, if at all? is it an advantage or a disadvantage? is a woman, yourself in politics , do you think that there is still a bias against that.
if you look at the numbers, it certainly is a far left representative than the numbers of women in the country. is that a problem for hillary clinton? congresswoman schultz: i don't think so at all. no on the contrary, i think , being a woman would be an asset. i am someone who believes and what my parents raised me to understand is that in america, a little girl can grow up and be anything she wants to be, even president of the united states. i think it is absolutely an asset. it is an opportunity for a candidate hillary or anyone , else, to talk about the issue of families through the lens of their experience. just coming off equal payday on tuesday, it takes an extra four months for women in this country to earn what a man earned in a year doing the same work. we have women candidates for president, congress, governor,
who can talk about that. if you look at the republican field, jeb bush said he didn't even know what the paycheck fairness act was. marco rubio said that pursuing paycheck fairness and making sure women can earn the same amount and making sure there is legislating to hold it accountable was a waste of time. rand paul has also criticized it. there is not a single republican who believes we should pass legislation to make sure women get equal pay for equal work. that is even in spite of the fact, kathy, that 40% of households with families in this country are headed by a woman. a woman loses almost half $1 million over her working life when she isn't paying the same for equal work. i think people who address issues that are important to women specifically are more likely to rise.
kathy: i was asked you about the republican field. i assume, being a floridian, that you know both jeb bush and marco rubio. did you serve with rubio in the legislature? congresswoman schultz: i did. i was in the senate when marco was in the house. kathy: are you surprised to see the two of them as rivals? any insights as to why that happened and how that will play out in your state and beyond? congresswoman schultz: i served in the legislature for the six years that jeb bush was governor. i will tell you, in my 22 years in office, there was not a more inflexible, unreasonable governor or elected official that i had the chance to work with. this was someone who was the furthest, and i am not just talking about because i disagreed with him on issues. i have disagreed with plenty of people. i served a lot of years in the minority.
majority is better, but even in the minority, i found ways to be effective. jeb bush did not have any interest in working with anyone who didn't share his opinion. that is not a good harboring of your ability to be president and work together with people across the aisle. in addition to that, he really decimated our tax base and focused on making sure we could cut taxes almost exclusively for the wealthiest floridians. he left us in a very difficult spot when the bottom dropped out of the economy thanks to his brother's economic policies. it was much tougher for florida. we were hit harder. marco rubio, unfortunately, is trying to market himself as a new type of republican with new ideas. he has fully embraced all of the same republican policies. his trickle-down economics increase taxes for the middle class and benefit the wealthy. he supports ending welfare as we know it. to add insult to injury, he
writes a comprehensive immigration reform plan, pushes it through the senate, and as soon as the right wing tea party extremists in his party got wind of it and were opposed to it, he ran away. the last time i checked, there is a little bit of pressure on the president of the united states. if marco rubio couldn't hack pressure from the extreme right wing of his own party how will , he handle being president? steve: steve: just to finish up on that subject, because of your florida expertise, which one is going to win the florida primary? congresswoman schultz: quite frankly, it is -- quite frankly, it doesn't matter. no matter who the republican nominee is in the field of 19 or 22 or whatever number end up throwing their hats in the ring,
they are all embracing and will present a very stark and clear contrast between our democratic nominee. the democratic nominee will continue to fight for the middle class and working families, will ensure that colleges affordable ensure that people have access to quality health care, focus on job creation, help small businesses, make sure we expand opportunities. the republicans focus on helping people who are the wealthiest and most fortunate, give them all the breaks, and maybe the crumbs will fall on the rest of us. that has been tried. it failed. and the voters rejected it as recently as 2012. i think it doesn't much matter who they nominate, just like it didn't matter in 2012. ultimately, the voters will reject their nominee because they know they won't have their back. steve: as you know, congress is going to start debating trade. particularly trade with asia.
this is not an automatically easy answer or question for debate with democrats. a lot of interest groups, labor unions in particular, are not in favor of free trade as the president is. i want to ask you a couple of questions. how would you vote on this trade partnership? and secondly, how do you think it would help wages for low income wage earners in the united states. what would you do about the wage gap? congresswoman schultz: one thing i will tell you is that when it comes to negotiating a trade agreement, i have a lot more confidence in president obama handling those negotiations than i did when we had a republican as president. i voted both for and against trade agreements. i voted against cap the. i voted for columbia and south korea. i am taking a close look at tpp and tpa, and taking a look at environmental considerations and labor standards.
i would give you a little pushback on your characterization that we have a lot of democrats who are against free trade. democrats are generally for fair trade. we want to make sure that when we passed the fair trade agreement in the united states we are getting a good deal and that when it comes to balance, we are addressing trade deficits we have with the nations involved, but at the same time we make sure that we have labor standards that are up to par so that workers are treated fairly and have a living wage. so that environmental standards are strong, that we don't have an agreement that runs roughshod over the environment, that when it comes to balance for businesses and regulations for consumers, that we have good strong rules in place. those are things that i know president obama has been meticulously negotiating. i have confidence that we have a chance to get the best possible agreement we can get and i am
going to take a close look at it, as are many of my colleagues. kathy: just to follow up on steve's questions, a lot of democratic constituency groups specifically labor groups are suspicious of this because they feel burned by some of the agreements that have been supported by democrats in the past. how do you, as the head of a party that relies heavily on labor and labor has provided a lot of money and legwork for your party, how do you -- how can you even consider it, and why is this not a third rail when it comes to labor, a very important constituency for your party? congresswoman schultz: remember president obama as a candidate talked about how, if he had a chance to be president, he would make sure we renegotiated nafta. that is what he is doing as part of this. i think because labor was so concerned at the time about
nafta and what a raw deal they thought it was, and how harmful they thought it was, that now they have an opportunity to renegotiate those standards. look, the democratic family is just like any other family. we have arguments. we have discussions. but we ultimately coalesce around the democratic nominee and our candidates up and down the ballot because we know that our candidates are best suited and are the most likely to focus on making sure that if you work hard and play by the rules in this country, you have a chance to earn a living wage, reach the middle class, provide for your family, have a good roof over your head, and that you don't have to spend your life wringing your hands over how you are going to negotiate all of that. republican policies have included none of those protections, have included terrible environmental standards, have not made labor protections a priority. that is the kind of conversation
we are having. we are listening to our friends in the labor movement. i have had numerous meetings with labor leaders both at home and in washington. we are listening carefully to them. we know the administration is as well. kathy: have they given you any ultimatums on this? >> no i have not heard any ultimatums. they feel very strongly about certain provisions, about priorities within a trade agreement. and there are some labor unions that have said they don't support this, the trade agreement being negotiated now. quite frankly we don't have a trade agreement fully negotiated to show folks. we definitely should be listening to one another and hear them out and i'm confident if there is anyone going to bat on the issues that matter to
labor when it comes to a trade agreement it's barack obama. let's give the negotiations some time and let's take a look at the standards that come out when, that matter to us, and let's judge it at that point. >> i want to come back to the politics, kathy opened with a question about challengers in the primary. to the one candidate hillary clinton. you assume there will be a multi-candidate field. how active will you be in regulating and setting debates? the republican party has stepped forward and after their debate calvacade last time and said we're going to limit the number of debates. will you do the same thing or let it be a free for all and as many as possible? >> no. we're going to roll out a schedule for sanctioned debates. we usually do that and this election cycle will not be any different. we'll have a series of sanctioned debates that we expect our candidates will
participate in. we have been having corings with both candidates in the race and potential candidates and talking about what that schedule will look like. >> when and where will we see the first one? >> we've not made that decision yet. we are still having those discussions. i'll make an announcement in the near future. >> generally how many do you think we'll have representative? >> like i said, we're still having those discussions. as soon as we reach a final decision, i'll make an announcement and everyone will know. >> more than five less than 10? >> like i said, we're still having those discussions. when we make a decision we will announce it and everybody will know. what we are doing is making sure we take a lot of input from our ally groups, from our candidates who are talking about running, as well as who are in the race already, and i'll make a decision on that in the very near future and we'll
make an announcement. >> congresswoman, i certainly picked up a theme in your remarks here about the middle class. and i just wondered, how is it possible to convince voters that that is sincere rhetoric when you talk about the middle class and when you talk about the needs of folks who are trying to make ends meet and at the same time have to go out to fundraisers whether you personally or people working on behalf of your candidates asking people to write checks with lots of zeroes behind them. i mean we've seen so much. we've seen so many super pacs already this year. there's already one teed up for your potential nominee, the only candidate in the race, hillary clinton. given that the candidates are going to be relying so heavily on money from big donors, either directly or indirectly, how can they stay in touch with and how can they make a
priority of middle class voters and how can middle class voters trust that they're being made a priority? why should they? >> well, as you know, kathy we as a party feel very strongly that there is too much money in politics. that we need more transparency. that the citizens united decision was one of the worst decisions as president obama has said that the supreme court has handed down. it's harmful to democracy because it makes it so that you can have the massive more than six or seven figure contributions that are opaque that voters can't see that, where spending doesn't have to be reported. and it allows these oblique attacks against candidates that really i think poison the environment. so we believe that there should be transparency. we support the disclose act. as i heard secretary clinton say on the campaign trail the other day, smea said we might
need to consider amending our constitution to ensure that we can roll back some of the worst changes that occurred after citizens united. that's where our party is. but of course under the rules of engagement as they are now we're not going to unilaterally disarm. we're operating under the rules as they are now while making it clear how we feel about campaign finance reform and transparency. you know, look. our average contribution just in 2012 for example was about $ 54. you had 98% from the contributions from what i remember in 2012 that came into the obama campaign were less than $250. so we feel very good about our grass roots fundraising and how many people we've reached and who is contributing to our candidates because it's really from the grass roots. >> the last question. >> would you tell your nominee not to accept not the unlimited contributions that go to super pacs that are are reported but
money that comes in via 501 c 3's would you urge your nominee repudiate that and disassociate from any of that money or advertising? >> our position as i said is that we need campaign finance reform. that we need to have as much transparency written into the law and in the constitution as necessary. so that we can get that poisonous environment out and we make sure that we know that voters can choose their candidates and that you don't have donors buying their candidates as republican support but at the end of the day we'll play by the rules as they exist now and fight for the change that we know will be better for our democracy. >> our guest on newsmakers this week representative debby wassermann schultz who serves florida and is the chair of the democratic national committee. thanks for your time, representative. >> thanks, all of you. >> turning to our reporters now, most significant thing you've caught from that conversation, kathy kiely?
kathy: she expects a multi-candidate primary. i think we all do to some extent but the fact that she is preparing for debates indicates to me that she thinks hillary clinton will get challenged. how significantly is the question. but that i thought was interesting and i thought the fact that she would not commit to even barring dark money. not that you can really bar third-party money from a campaign but even that which is really the money you can't trace at all to a donor they're not going to say no. pedro: steve? steven: she would not go anywhere near any question about hillary clinton's honesty. clearly, a political challenge now. and the notion that polls a year out don't mean anything is true of horse race polls but not questions like this about the characteristics. the same polls show people think hillary clinton has very strong leadership qualities for example.
i'm sure that the chairwoman would be happy with those numbers. i think the overall impression though is this may be as good as her job gets today talking with the three of us. the bad election of last year is in the rear view mirror four or five months. she has one candidate alone running for president who despite all these challenges still polls, has an edge over any potential republican. it's going to get rocky in the next months. she'll get more candidates in her party, particularly lincoln chafee who is going to raise uncomfortable questions in those debates and the republican party will eventually coalesce around a candidate. things will get uncomfortable. for hillary clinton. his big question in the debates and he has said tell' ask repeatedly about her iraq war vote. that helped cluster the -- that helped cost her the nomination last time. kathy: i agree. i think any kind of challenge is going to be a challenge and
there will be i'm sure there will be people asking about the e-mails. just as steve did. i think there will be people asking about kind of that history of lack of transparency. you heard congresswoman wassermann schultz talk about the importance of transparency and that is certainly a criticism that's been leveled at the clintons and specifically hillary clinton. her desire to kind of keep things secret, to control information, which has gotten her into trouble again and again. so i think anybody who is out there is going to start to raise those questions and that's going to be something that both hillary clinton and the party that i think fully expects her to be the nominee are going to have to negotiate. paid roe: what did she bring regarding the trade discussions especially as they've been going on the last couple days here? kathy: i got the sense that was a lot of dancing around. i think this is going to be a really tough issue for democrats and i think it'll be
an issue that'll come up on the campaign trail as well because labor is, remains a huge part of the constituency. we're not talking about just contributions although labor has produced a lot of money. but we're talking about foot soldiers and that has always been one of the things that has been an asset that the democratic party has had. i think if you have labor feeling alienated from the party, going into a presidential election, it's not a good thing. steve: to tie it back to her conversation she brought up about the middle class and economic security. she could not answer the question of how the trade deals would raise wages or address the income gap. it seems to me to be a question. trade in itself sounds wonderful but unless you can say it will raise wages in ohio or iowa or florida i'm not sure why they're going to push it. kathy: one thing we know about these bills is they have a huge
support in the business community. big business and big money wants these bills. that's not to say that there couldn't ultimately be a benefit. but i think what labor and a lot of middle class voters feel is that past trade agreements have led to job exodus. so convincing people that it -- why would people believe it won't happen this time and how is there any guarantee that any of these laudable goals of the negotiating environmental guarantees and worker safety guarantees how is that going to be enforced in an international environment? pedro: our reporter guests for newsmakers this week, kathy kiley of bloomberg politics their washington news director and steven thome, the white house reporter and political editor. for both of you, thanks for being on the show. steven: my pleasure. kathy: thank you. >> next, president obama's news conference with the prime minister of italy. after that, some of the
speakers from today's session of the new hampshire republicans leadership conference including former governor rick perry of texas and new jersey governor chris christie. on the next "washington journal" "usa today" reporter greg zoroia discusss army efforts to improve soldier morale then the president of friends of the earth and nicholas loris discuss how americans celebrate earth day. you can join the conversation at facebook and twitter and we'll take your calls. "washington journal" live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> this weekend, hive event coverage on the c-span net works. with politics on c-span, l.a. times festival of books on book tv and historians discuss the end of the civil war on american history tv. on c-span saturday morning
beginning at 10:00 eastern live all day coverage of the new hampshire republican party first in the nation leadership summit. speakers include texas senator ted cruz wisconsin governor scott walker ohio governor john kasich and kentucky senator rand paul. saturday at 1:30 p.m. eastern on c-span 2. book tv is live from the university of southern california for the los angeles times festival of books with panels on journalism and publishing and author call-in programs throughout the day. some of the authors you'll hear from include best selling biographer scott bure, taffs smiley and radio talk show host hugh huet. for live coverage it continues sunday afternoon at 2:00 with panels on crime and u.s. history with authors taking your phone calls throughout the day. on c-span 3 saturday morning at 8:45 eastern, for an all day event on the end of the civil war, speakers include harold
holeser, james mcphearson, barbara gannon. sunday at 8:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. eastern the 150th anniversary of president lincoln's assassination with a ceremony at lincoln's cottage. re-creations from ford's theater. we'll take a tour of peterson house where the president died. get our complete schedule at c-span.org. >> president obama is criticizing senate republicans for the delay in the confirmation of his attorney general nominee loretta lynch. he says the delay is embarrassing and that senate republicans have gone too far. the president made the remarks during the joint press conference with prime minister of italy in the east room of the white house. this is just over an hour.
president obama: please have a seat. it is a great pleasure to welcome my partner and friend prime minister renzi to the white house. i actually should say welcome back. not many people know this but matteo came to the white house several years ago. back then he was the young dynamic mayor of florence. today he is the young, dynamic prime minister of italy. but even then i think people recognized that he brought an energy and a sense of vision to where he wanted to see his country go. and today is an opportunity for me to return the incredible hospitality that matteo and the italian people showed me last year in rome. one of the great cities of the world. italy of course is one of our closest and strongest allies. and any time italians and americans get together it's also a chance to celebrate the
deep bonds of history and friendship and family. as i said before, i'm not lucky enough to have any italian ancestry that i know of. but i consider myself an honorary italian because i love all things italian. and the united states would not be what we are or who we are without the contributions of generations of italian americans. in rome last year matteo spoke eloquently of his visits to the american military cemetery in florence. and that's a reminder of how italians and americans have made extraordinary sacrifices for the freedom that we cherish. now, i'm also grateful for my partnership personally with prime minister renzi. we've worked together on several occasions from rome to our nato, g7 and g20 summits. i know he is deeply committed
to ure alliance. moreover i have been very impressed with the energy and the vision and the reforms that he is pursuing to unleash the potential of the italian people and the italian economy. his willingness to challenge the status quo and look to the future has made him a leading voice in europe and we're already seeing progress being made with respect to italy. matteo, i want to thank you again for the seriousness and the sense of purpose you bring to our work together here today. this morning we focus on our shared security starting in europe. we agreed that the international community needs to continue supporting ukraine with robust assistance tass pursues economic and political reforms along with our international partners we strongly support the agreements and we agree that both russia and the ukraine must fulfill all the obble gags under these agreements. i thank the prime minister of
italy's strong support for the international coalition against isil. italy, by the way, is one of the largest contributors of advisers and trainers to help build up the iraqi security forces and italy is leading the effort to ensure the area is liberated from isil's control or stabilized with an effective civilian police force. we also spent considerable time discussing our deep, shared concern for the situation in libya. where we continue to support u.n. efforts to form a unity government. given italy's leadership role across the mediterranean the prime minister and i agreed to work together even more intense i everly to encourage cooperation -- more intensively to encourage cooperation on threats coming from libya including the growing ice ill presence there as well as additional coordination with other partners in how we can stabilize what has become a very deadly and difficult situation.
more broadly, italian forces continue to play a vital role from kosovo to lebron nonto afghanistan. the coalition forces continue to train and assist afghan forces and we want to make sure we transition responsibly as we complete our consolidation by the end of next june. i updated prime minister renzi on the framework that we reached with iran. our progress toward a comprehensive deal that prevents iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, and we agreed that until any final deal is reached, sanctions on iran must continue to be fully and strictly enforced. so that's what we talked about in the morning. after this press conference we'll have lunch and that'll give us a chance to focus on what is clearly the top priority of both our people and that is creating a strong, inclusive economy that is creating jobs and opportunities on both sides of the atlantic.
like me, prime minister renzi is a strong supporter of t-tip the trans atlantic trade and investment partnership which would boost both jobs and exports in europe and the united states and would include strong protections for workers and public health and safety and the environment. now that congress is considering important bipartisan legislation for trade promotion authority ttip negotiations need to make major progress this year. i look forward to hearing the prime minister's assessment of the ambitious, economic reforms he is pursuing to make italy more competitive and reinvigorate the italian economy as a source of growth in europe. we'll be discussing europe's effort to find paths that build on recent reforms to return greece to growth within the eurozone. and we'll be discussing the importance of all our major economies taking ambitions -- ambitious action on climate change. during its presence in the eu
italy showed real leadership as europe committed to new targets for reducing emissions. my work with prime minister renzi today is part of our continuing effort to forge a strong climate agreement in paris this year. finally, i want to congratulate italy and the people of milan as they prepare to host the 2015 world expo. the focus is on food. something that italy knows something about along with wine. but the expo and our u.s. pavilion is focused not only on outstanding cuisine like italy's but also how we feed a growing planet. how we combat hunger and malnutrition. how we put healthy food on our tables. and that's a cause obviously that is very close to michelle's heart. we commend italy's leadership and i suspect many americans will be visiting milan and sampling the food and sampling the wine.
matteo, gracias for your leadership in italy and europe and for your partnership on many pressing global issues. i assure you that it is a friendship and partnership that all americans treasure and we are grateful that we have such strong bonds between our people. prime minister? prime minister renzi: thank you so much, mr. president. thank you so much. it is really an honor for me and for every member of the italian government to be here in the white house in hope of freedom around the world. i will speak in italian very quickly in order to thank the president of the united states of america for the extraordinary leadership that he has displayed both in terms
of his foreign policy as well as in the economic and development models. the last time we met was in brisbane during the g20. i can only say that as a partner and as an ally i have to express my appreciation for the work that has been carried out by the united states of america and the very complex cuba issue. this has been a very complex issue. it's been difficult for the american people as well as for the cuban people as well i would like to congratulate the president for the iranian issues because at least there is a framework an agreement which we hope will reach a conclusion by june 30. i would also like to add that when i came to the white house i brought on my behalf and all of the italians the feelings of
pride for what the president mentioned earlier, for the role of so many italians in the history of the united states of america from kristoffer columbus onward as well as the appreciation and the gratefulness for the sacrifice of young men and women in the united states whom in these next few days we will remember for having liberated italy. we are very proud because they fought against facism and went out in the mountains and they struggled. they fought. but this would not have been possible without the sacrifice and the commitment of the american army. young men and women who didn't even know italy, who died for my grandfather, for my father, for my family, and my children. this is why during these days of celebration italy i will be
sure, this is the 70th year after the liberation, i will go to a place that i love particularly which is the american -- in order to honor all of the american people. i would like to thank you dear president, on behalf of ally tailians. we spoke quite a bit and spoke about a number of topics and i'm quite anxious to talk with president obama about everything that has to do with the economy. now, if you look at the last seven years, from 2008 to 2015, the american economy has had a reduction of the unemployed and there has been a growth in the gdp. the european economy had an increase in its employment and unemployed and its g.d.p. went down. something just did not work at home. this is why i believe that the experience of the united states
government is a model for the european economy. and that we have to be very careful about budgets, about the limitations, about our commitments but at the same time we have to go through a new season of growth and investments in 2014 we started with the first provisions. there is still much to be done. the american leadership for me is a point of reference. we also spoke about libya as the president said i just had a meeting during this meeting i am convinced that the united states and i, the president and i are fully on the same page in the next few weeks. we will see that we will reach the fruits of all this commitment. everything that happened in the mediterranean sea is not merely something that has to do with security. and of course it is. but at the same time, it has to do with justice and the dignity of mankind. this is why the very
authoritative cooperation that the united states and -- is for italy, an extremely important fact. we also spoke about the ukraine and we spoke about russia as the president mentioned. we also mentioned all of the issues that have to do with iran and the very complex framework in the middle east. i believe that it is very important for us to underscore how as part of this great alliance guided by the united states which is a reference point not just for our choices but for the ideals, the cultural battle that all of us have to fight this is why, dear president, dear barack, i decided to leave you, at georgetown university i went to visit georgetown and now when i leave the white house i will go to the national gallery because
i know there is an exhibition on the florentine italian renaissance and this of course is a clear message that tells us how culture is important for a young boy a young girl. this is the basis of our civilization and our future. this is a great occasion, the expo of course and i draw a few bottles of wine to barack because i know that he is a great expert. [laughter] >> i remember in an interview about tuscan wine i remember very well a very important interview about this. but i also believe that it's very important for us, quite aside from any jokes. we must make sure that the expo becomes a great occasion for the quality of life, the lifestyle, and at the same time, to declare war against
poverty. it's just not possible for us to have a word -- a world in which one billion people die because they're obese or because they don't have enough to eat. this is what the expo is going to be and the presence of the united states will be an element of great importance. thank you from the bottom of my heart. and if i may finish, i'd like to say that even if it doesn't have anything to do between the relationship between governments, i said to president obama that i wanted to thank him for his speech. this is a personal observation but it's also a political issue. there are moments in which history can be quite extraordinary and one of these moments is what this country has lived through over the last 50 years. i think that from those of us who love politics that speech was a moment of great
inspiration and very strong reflection. for this, thank you kindly, mr. president, and thank you for your warm welcome to the white house. president obama: with respect to the wine, i felt it would be insulting for me not to sample it. and, and, to establish the strong commercial bind, bonds between the united states of america when it comes to tuscan wine. so i will give you, matteo, a report on whether it is up to the quality that we expect. with that, let me call on roberto ramden of reuters.
>> thanks. president obama, some congressional leaders yesterday came to a deal on fast track for trade but it's clear that many in your party are opposed, including senator schummer. and are you worried that your support for this is going to divide your party going into 2016? and prime minister, how confident are you that greece will reach an agreement with it is he had creditors by the end of this month? how are each of you the effects this could have on the global economy if a deal is not reached? >> on trade, -- president obama. trade promotion authority is not in agreement. it gives us a structure whereby
one is presented, it can move forward in a quicker fashion and not get completely bogged down in the usual procedures. i would be receiving the same authority that every president in the post-era would, with the exception of richard nixon. is not exceptional in that sense there are requirements for enforceable labor, environmental provisions. there is a clear attention to issues like human rights. in many ways, this is the most far-reaching and progressive we have seen going through congress. that is important. as i have said before, it is entirely understandable that there is some skepticism around
trade from working families who live in a town that saw manufacturing collapse and jobs being outsourced. people recognize that there had been circumstances in the past in which trade may have contributed to aggregate growth of the global economy or u.s. economy but hurt workers. and we have learned lessons from that. and this trade promotion authority, thanks to the work of senator widen and hatch, reflects some of those lessons. now in terms of actually getting a deal done? the first trade agreement we potentially would present under this trade promotion authority would be the trans-pacific partnership or tpp. i spoke of this before but i will just repeat that 95% of the world's markets are outside of our borders. the fastest growing markets, the most populous markets are going to be in asia.
if we do not help to shape the rules so that our businesses and our workers can compete in these markets, then, china will set up rules that advantage chinese workers and chinese businesses. and that will set the stage over the next 20 to 30 years for us being locked out, us being unable to protect our businesses from discrimination, our agricultural products being excluded from these areas. high tariffs that prevent us from being able to compete fairly. when it comes to services or comes to the internet, for example, our ability to maintain intellectual property protection or freedom in the internet or other requirements that tilt the playing field against u.s. workers, that is what is going to happen.
so we are doing is negotiating the highest level, the highest standard trade agreement in our history, with strong enforceable labor provisions, strong enforceable environmental provisions, and, i will be able to show when the final agreement is presented, that this is absolutely good for not just american businesses but for american workers. and it is good for our economy. it is the right thing to do. now, last point i will make on this, the politics around trade has always been tough, particularly in the democratic party, because people have memories of outsourcing and job loss. the point i have made to my labor friends and my progressive friends is, that, you know companies looking for low-cost labor, they have already left. we're already at a disadvantage
right now, and the trade agreement i'm proposing would actually strengthen our ability to force other markets to open and strengthen our position compared to where we are right now. and, being opposed to this new trade agreement is essentially a ratification of the status quo where a lot of folks are selling here but we're not selling there. japan is one of the, one of the negotiators in this, in this deal. now, last time i checked if you drive around washington, there are a whole bunch of japanese cars. you go to tokyo and count how many chryslers and gm and ford cars there are. so, the current situation is not working for us. i don't know why it is that folks would be opposed to us opening up the japanese market more, for u.s. autos, or u.s. beef. doesn't make any sense. so i'm going to be able to make
a strong case but i think it is important when you talk about dividing the party, okay, we have got a korean free-trade agreement passed, we got a colombian free-trade agreement passed and panama free-trade agreement passed over last several years of my presidency. it didn't divide the democratic party. there will be a set of democratic senators and house members who traditionally have just on principle opposed trade because the unions on principle, regardless of what the provision are, are opposed to trade. there are others who like me believe, we can not stop the, a global economy at our shores. we have to be in there and compete. we have to be sure we're writing the rules so we have level playing field. when we do, products made in america, services provided by
american firms are the best in the world and i will continue to make that argument. and for those who argue that somehow this is contrary to the interests of working families, what i tell them is, my whole presidency has been about helping working families and lifting up wages and giving workers more opportunity. if i didn't think this deal was doing it, i wouldn't do it. i didn't get elected because of the sponsorship of the business roundtable or the chamber of commerce. those are not the ones who brung me to the dance. the reason i'm doing it because i know this is an important thing to do, and i also know that it sends a signal throughout asia that we are out there competing and that we are going to help maintain international rules that are fair for everybody and not so tilted in favor of one country that, it ends up backed for not only our commercial prospects but for other countries over the long term.
that was a very long answer but it's a big question, and i hadn't had a chance to talk about. sorry, matteo. >> very briefly, i think, i'm confident this time obviously the situation in greece is not the situation in europe, is not the 2011. it is not around the world like 2008. so it is different time. but, we must absolutely, strongly work to achieve an agreement. to achieve this agreement, it is important that the greece government respects not all of the agreements of the past. because, in the european council, we accept a very normal principle, if there is a moment of election and there is a new leader, it is correct to respect
the votes of citizens in this case, the vote of citizens in greece but there are a framework of agreements in the european institutions, which are very important, greek government must respect. at the same time we must for the future write a new page in the european economies. i absolutely am confident about this. it is finished the time of austerity in europe but to achieve this goal, the local g overnment, the national government, must do reforms. this is important, first of all for italy. we're absolutely committed to realize every problem to our citizens, not european union but to our citizens then we can finely open discussion about austerity and growth in the
european economy. now it is time to respect the new framework of agreements and, we will work in this irection. [speaking italian] >> mr. president, some of your promises already brought investors from the u.s. to to italy. now these investors would like to know when all these reforms are going to take place? could you give us a better idea? you spoke about austerity and growth. the markets are preoccupied. we have public finances in a difficult situation.
how can you reconcillate this austerity when our public finances are in such bad shape? and i would like to know what you think about the ttip? >> you complained time and again about germany, holding europe hostage to its inflationary obsessions. now you have just heard from mr. renzi things are changing in europe. that there are pro-growth policies especially with the ecb taking action with qe action. is that enough? have europe and italy done enough? is your complaint over germany over? and did you agree or did you discuss sale of drones to italy? thank you. prime minister renzi: three questions in one you just asked. three questions in one. first of all, the timeline for reform i think that i can safely
, say that the american investors who wish to invest in italy, italian investors as well, finally have a labor market which is more flexible. this has been achieved. let's say that we have -- they have an institutional system the taxation system, structure in the next six months everything, all this reform will be done. so, what needs to be made absolutely clear even if the people would like to start from scratch again, reforms have begun. they're on their way. and there is no way anyone can block them. people who wish to invest at this time find a labor market which is simplified. they also find the quality of the engineers, the people who work, people in italy in
general, very high quality people but i think that what will be necessary in the next few months is that you, is education, education, education. investment in this field because in the global world, in order to be a leader and italy number of inhabitants we're not that many and perhaps it is not just simply the position even though we are in a strategic position. what really counts whether italians can offer human capital, ideas, development in the future. now in terms of the austerity policies, i think that is important to bear in mind something that is quite simple. i mean if, i know, that we have to be very clear in our counsel, but we have to bet on growth. the united states are our model in the last meeting of the european board of directors.
the president and draghi showed us slides with the results in the united states and europe in the last seven years. obviously this is, this is a test to the respect for the united states but it proves that just based on austerity in europe, this is not going anywhere. we spoke about this in person and we have discussed this with president obama. we can not just look our budget as of course, a important limit. italy is fulfilling all of its obligations and it is the country in europe that is fulfilling all of its obligations and all the rules but in terms of ttip, it is very important that we believe that 2015 has to be the turning point, the year of the turning point as the italian government, we are pushing for determination because we know that with ttip
italy has everything to gain from the trade and economics and also because we believe that when the united states -- establish trade agreements with china, with asia, with other areas of the world, i think that it would be fundamental as a key principle, having the same relationship in the logic of our historic friendship and with the united states. now going back to our own party we represent the party in at italy which i would like to call the democratic party one day at a european level. our party also maintains the position even though there are resistances from the german social democrats. i'm fully determined to find the agreement. we will talk about this during our lunch hour as well.
president obama: >> well, first of all let me correct the impression that i consistently criticized germany. chancellor merkel is a great friend and ally. from the time i came into office when we were in the midst of the great recession, there have been competing economic theories in terms of what is the best way to pull us out of a financially-induced crisis of this scale. and it was our strong belief that it was important for us to make the invests to boost demand, to put money in the pockets of consumers, to strengthen and fortify the banking system so that we wouldn't see a repeat of the kinds of bailout practices and
irresponsible practices on wall street. and that the best way to bring down the deficit was not just to him cut spending, but to grow the economy. as well as initiate the kinds of structural reforms around health care and education, research an d development that were going to be important for long-term growth. i think we have largely succeeded in stablizing the economy and putting it on a growth trajectory. we have now seen five straight years of job growth. we've gone from 10% unemployment rate down to 5.5%. and we have done this while reducing the deficit by 2/3 primarily because the economy grew much faster. and it has been my view, with
respect to europe, it is not an either/or but both and situation. sometimes it gets framed as what is the right answer for europe? is it your tate or is it structural reform? my attitude is that you need structural reforms of the sort that matteo is initiating. if the labor market cans are too stuck, it is particularly hard to hire, particularly for young people. if there is too much bureaucracy to start a new business, then businesses will go elsewhere or talented entrepreneurs will start businesses someplace else. so i think, prime minister renzi's government is on the right track initiating the kinds of structural reforms that angela merkel and other economists have called on for a long time. but, what i've also said is that at a time of such low demand and hence, of deflation, that we
were seeing in europe over the course of the last several years, boosting demand is also important. having some flexibility in meeting fiscal targets is also important. that the sustainability of structural reforms depends on people feeling some sense of hope and some sense of progress. and if all it is just getting squeezed, but there is no growth, then, over time the political consensus breaks down and not only do you not get structural reforms but you also end up reverting to some of the old patterns that didn't work. and so, i think that the approach that matteo is describing is the right one. move forward on the structural reforms but have flexibility and
a strategy for increasing demand, increasing investment. if, and by the way, here in the united states we're not done. would i like to see us rebuild our infrastructure across this country. that's a smart investment to make right now. it would put people back to work. it would boost additional demand. more workers would be employed. they would spend money. you get a virtuous cycle. but it is also something we need to do to stay competitive. so it's a smart combination. this is not just a criticism of europe. i think globally we all have to recognize that global act aggregate demand is weak. china is making transitions towards a more demands on consumer based but not export based economy. suppliers of raw material to china are seeing their economies soften.
what i have said to the europeans is, don't expect that the united states will simply be the engine for everybody. don't want, don't expect you can keep on selling to the united states. but we can't sell anything to you because your economy is so weak. that won't benefit anybody. and those are concerns that i have expressed across the board. this finally, the last point i would make, this applies to greece as well, i think matteo is right. greece needs to initiate reforms. they have to collect taxes. they have to reduce their bureaucracy. they have to have more flexible labor practices. and, when the new prime minister came in, i called him and i said , we recognize, you need to show your people there is hope and you can grow. we will be supportive of some flexibilities in how you move forward so you can make investments.
it is not just squeezing blood from a stone. but you have to show those who are extending credit, those who are supporting european financial system that you're trying to help yourself and that requires making the kinds of tough decisions that i think matteo is beginning to make. we did not discuss drones. we did not. last question from this side is margaret teller. >> thank you, mr. president. prime minister renzi. mr. president, i would like to ask you about iran but before i forget i'm hoping at end of your answer you might also bring up to speed on loretta lynch's confirmation as your ag.
>> have you done enough? what do you make of republicans most recent moves? where is this thing going? on iran so much has happened. this will be one of my three-part questions. the cardin-corker compromise this week was really pretty significant concession from you. what i am wondering do you believe you have weathered anymore congressional bids to derail this? or are you concerned that because israel and iran have become deeply polarized issues there will be more to fend off? you have suggested but you have not said explicitly that there must be a phaseout rather than the immediate lifting of sanctions in order for to you agree to a final deal. can you be definitive on that in exchange? might you be willing to release part or all of that 100 billion or so in frozen oil assets that iran has in offshore accounts. and you seem to be floating the idea that you might want to say something about the russia lifting its ban on the sale of missiles to iran. so i will throw that your way. prime minister renzi, i want to ask you about drones, since that
shockingly didn't come up, there are, there's been some deeply troubling news about some migrants coming to italy. violence by muslims, you know, pushing christians off the boats. what i wanted to ask you is, how are you managing this? are you confident that italy is able to control the risk of extremists coming into europe through italy? thank you. president obama. i wrote them down. on iran, i thought bob corker and ben cardin came to a reasonable compromise. i had two concerns from the start. with respect to any steps taken by congress, the first was to
make sure that their actions did not derail or prevent us getting the best deal possible. and john kerry, when he is in those negotiations, not being hobbled or his life being made more complicated by congressional actions until we actually have a deal done. my basic argument was, let us show you if there is a deal or not. if there is, you will have ample opportunity to review it, and opine on it. but right now we're still negotiating. so have some patience. and i think the final product that emerged out of the corker-cardin negotiations, we believe will not derail the negotiations.
so that checked off one box. the second concern i had was the issue of presidential prerogatives. there were a number of people supporting corker's legislation, suggesting that as a routine matter, a president needs to get signoff from congress to negotiate political agreements. that is not the case. that has never been the case. this is not a formal treaty that is being envisioned. and the president of the united states, whether democrat or republican traditionally has been able to enter into political agreements that are binding with other countries without congressional approval. and i still have some concerns about the suggestion that, that
tradition was in some ways changing but there was language in the legislation that spoke to this being directly related to congressional sanctions. and, that i think, at least, allows me to interpret the legislation in such a way that it is not sending a signal to future presidents each and every time they're negotiating a political agreement that they have to get congressional authorization. so, the final thing i will say about the corker legislation is that both senator corker and senator cardin, at least in my understanding, agreed that there is not going to be a whole bunch of poison pills or additional provisions or amendments added to it and they will be protective of this being a straightforward, fair, process for congress to be able to evaluate any deal tlat we may
come up with and and then register its views but that it is not going to be tilted in the direction of trying to kill the deal. i take them at their word on that. we'll continue to monitor that. but assuming that whatever lands on my desk is what senators corker and cardin agree to, i will sign it. and, that will then give congress an opportunity to see do we have a deal that reflects the political agreement that i talked about earlier? i expect that it will. with respect to the issue of sanctions coming down, i don't want to get out of ahead of john kerry and my negotiators in terms of how to craft this. i would just make a general observation. that is that how sanctions are
lessened, how we snap back sanctions if there is a violation, there are a lot of different mechanisms and ways to do that. part of john's job and part of the iranian negotiator's job and part of the p5 plus one's job, is to sometimes find formulas that get to our main concerns while allowing the other side to make a presentation to their body politic that is more acceptable. our main concern here is making sure that if iran doesn't abide by its agreement that we don't have to jump through a whole bunch of hoops in order to reinstate sanctions. that is our main concern. i think that goal of having in reserve the possibility of