tv Public Affairs Events CSPAN December 27, 2016 2:00pm-4:01pm EST
live now to the floor of the house here on c-span. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's rooms, washington, d.c. december 27, 2016. i hereby appoint the honorable george holding to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, paul d. ryan, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: the prayer will be offered by the guest chaplain, reverend gene hem rick, st. joseph's catholic church, washington, d.c. the chaplain: lord, as we begin
a new year, please bless our congress with the holy gift of selfless service that generates goodness, beauty, unity, and the pursuit of truth you desire for all humankind. may the work of congress be blessed with god's inspiration, strength, and zeal in dealing with the challenges of 2017. amen. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to section 2-a of house resolution 944, the journal of the last day's proceedings is approved. the chair will lead the house in the pledge of allegiance. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
pursuant to section 2-b of house resolution 944, the house stands as journed until 10:00 a.m. on friday, december >> on january 3, c-span will have live coverage of the opening day of the new congress with the swearing in of new and reelected members of the house and senate, and the election of the speaker of the house. live coverage of the day's event from capitol hill, beginning at 7:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span at c-span.org, and the c-span radio app. republicans proposing a new rules package that will punish house members for live streaming or other disruptions on the house floor. that proposal in response to the democrats hour sit in staged, depending a vote on gun control legislation. members of congress could face a
$500 deduction from their paycheck for shooting video on the house floor. subsequent violations would be $2500 under the proposed rules. proposal, ato that spokesman for house minority leader nancy pelosi said quote sadly, the first action of the new congress will be the passage of changes targeting democratic members who participated in the 25 hours that in following the horrific pulse shooting in orlando that killed 49 and wounded more than 50. house republicans continue to act as the handmaidens of the gun lobby, refusing to pass sensible, bipartisan legislation to expand background checks and keep guns out of the hands of terrorists. that statement from the spokesman for nancy pelosi. >> the c-span video library is an easy way to search and view c-span programs, and to help with its use is dr. robert
browning, executive director of the c-span archives. and look outan.org on the front page. on the left side are all hearings, and the presidential events of that day, political campaign events. and then right underneath that on the left side is a link that says recent events. with its use is dr. robert browning, executive director of the c-span archives. >> go to c-span.org and look out on the front page. on the left side are all hearings, and the presidential events of that day, political campaign events. and then right underneath that on the left side is a link that says recent events. they appear in the order they were on the network. you can search for a person's pagesevery person has that contain all the video. on that page is a link, a search box where you put in words. let's say you want sheila ,ackson lee, you put in a word with say they talked about climate change. >> members of the congressional black caucus tomorrow will receive the signatures of public statements of those demanding that this body. for president obama's clean power plant. , who talks ted poe
about iraq, that will get you to particular small pieces, almost like paragraphs, where they made the remarks. >> the soldiers were members of the third battalion, second armored brigade combat team and the first cavalry division. were american soldiers volunteers who swore protect the united states. , with a link top that says all. you can find all the clips, available for other people to look for. >> who leads first? >> i hope it's a solid -- it's assad, but i don't think so. >> there's another tab that says mentions or quotes. >> what was our decision -- a bizarre decision to invite donald trump down there.
side, therer left is breakdowns like you would find on any other shopping website. you say was a particular person's name or a particular senate committee, or a tag. the left side is very valuable for narrowing down. >> search click and play on the c-span video library at c-span.org. >> president obama and japanese prime minister shinzo abe our meeting today in hawaii. at 4:10 p.m. eastern, they will lay a wreath at the u.s. s -- uss arizona. the resting place for soldiers bombing in 1941. , they deliver remarks.
today marking the 75th anniversary of the attack our live here on c-span. >> "washington journal," will devote the entire program facing -- two issues facing the trump administration. we discussed how energy and climate issues might be impacted by the new congress and the incoming administration. thursday, we talk about immigration and how president-elect trump and the new congress might change immigration policy. on friday morning, we take a look at the future of the affordable care act and how a republican congress and trump administration will repeal and replace the aca, and the key players to watch in the month ahead. be sure to watch "washington journal," at 7:00 a.m. eastern. continues. wrap up our program today on the "washington journal" with a roundtable policy.on on trade we're joined by dean baker, he's co-founder of the center for andomic and policy research gary hufbauer, senior fellow at
the peterson institute for international economics. hufbauer, we've been talking about nafta this morning. onald trump vowed to it up if e nafta, rip he can't get a better deal. as an authority on presidential trade power, can he do that? guest: yes, he can. nafta itself has an article, 2205, which is the termination article. giving six r of months notice to the other mexico and he withdrawing. he has that power. who 's some legal scholars nafta gued that since agreement itself is not u.s. law, it's the nafta implementing act passed by congress, which is u.s. law and because of that, should, or must, consult with congress. i disagree with that legal can pretation, i think he do it by himself.
nafta, then minate the question is what happens to trade restrictions with canada and mexico. host: i guess that is the it, in n, should he do your opinion? guest: oh, no, i think that is a very bad idea, terrible idea. i don't think he will do it, but e will use it as a threat to gain concessions from actually three parties. mexico. two, to a lesser extent, canada. nd three, to a very large extent, u.s. companies, as we've seen with carrier. with u.s. at way company? guest: he'll tell them, you better open a plant in the better keep , you the jobs in the united states, which ll do something, will make your life more difficult by way of trade with canada.r host: mr. baker, should donald trump renegotiate it and if he it t get a better deal, rip up?
guest: i'm be more agnostic on a clear idea ve what renegotiation with donald trump and the white house would look like. aspects would be great to change. the dispute mechanism under which the united states is being sued for canceling the keystone pipeline. this is something done for i never ntal reasons, hold anyone ever say it is a company, we're being sued on that, that is absolutely nafta. because of getting rid of the special treatment that investors have in good thing.e a it would have been great when they negotiated nafta, labor improved ements largely, some people talking the europe an union, you have to guarantee to weeks vacation a year your workers, not necessarily in nafta, but an example. labor rights. if unions were victimized, they mexico or ize in
canada, they were actions you could take within nafta. additions,d be great my guess is that is not donald agenda. host: what do you think his agenda is? guest: i don't know, he may be mark in terms of threatening companies. again, watching the carrier, we hand, good the one to see president-elect go to bat workers. on the other hand, the idea we ill do trade policy, case by case, president threatens a company, not a good way to do things. a shift radical between one administration, outgoing administration and is this administration when we come to trade policy between the obama administration nd incoming trump administration, anything you can compare it to in past transitions? guest: we haven't seen anything this in our lifetime. now maybe there is some very viewers here who remember the great depression. you'd have to be well into your i suppose, to do that.
hooverwas a protectionist and signed the holly tariff act, brought ariffs to amazing level and made the great depression great. when roosevelt came in, he but t immediately reverse, within a few year, he persuaded congress, we were in a great had to do things ifferently, to pass the reciprocal trade agreement act, which led to negotiations one by countries, that is the biggest reversal in what i would call somewhat modern times, back to the 19th century or the early 20th if i can throw in a little more history. trader wilson was a free and one -- his republican redecessor were protectionists and so he helped reverse the law at that time. going more in the century
back with the underwood tariff. onst: i think the difference the, not particularly defend the tariff, there has been research that, the economic historian at university of california and ley have done research i think everyone agrees, bad policy, but the idea that was ajor contributor of the great depression is questionable. didn't help, but i don't think story had we the not had that, the depression would be over in two or three ears, i don't think that makes sense. host: invite callers in. republicans, 202-748-8001. democrats, 202-748-8000. independents, 202-748-8002. dean baker is with the center for economic and policy research that aren't familiar, what is that? guest: an independent think been around since 1989, last of the internet start-ups to think. host: and mr. hufbauer, the peterson institute? founded in 1980.
it is, you know, going on more and it is a now center of the road, but on the the agenda.side of host: the two gentleman will be end the 45 minutes to program this morning on the "washington journal." first, glen is in pennsylvania, independent, go ahead, we're talking about the future of trade policy. question?ur caller: my question to the two gentlemen is that when president was in the white house, out the chinese economy, that was $8 billion. out the economy. he bail out singapore and he out japan and canada. now and of these country pay money yet? i don't know if american people now this about what president clinton did. these two gentleman might know, like knowledgeable
gentlemen. the american people clintson bail out the chinese, mexico economy, singapore. glen. got your point, guest: one country, mexico, we nafta ans to them, after came into effect, we made loans back.were paid the big story, not sure if this referringe caller was to. the east asian financial crisis, we did through the international bail out those countries. we helped the country, the of the bail out were owner us, we saw after 1997, a their tradeshift in policy. so in 19nech, if we look at korea, s like south had trade they deficit. they were importing more than exporting from the u.s., europe, rich countries, that
switched following 1997, i think big problem, when the trade deficit began to explode. i think that was a very poor decision, the nature of the bailout. wasn't we gave anything to the ountry, quite the opposite tochlt my view, the correct policy would have been we have written down large amounts of you could have normal pattern, developing countries are borrowing from countries, rather than the reverse. host: mr. hoffman, why did trade deficits matter and is there such thing as a good trade deficit? guest: yes. to give you the to-handed economist. reflect justficits consumption binges. o it is kind of like a household, which spends far more than it earns and finally goes into bankruptcy. is one extreme. the other extreme is trade deficit, which reflects investment. boom. a two-investment boom
and money is put to productive se, for example, in this country, railways in the 19th recent but other more examples, what is wrong with that, the investment will pay can pay off you he interest, as well as principle on the debt. there is a third deficit, which categories andwo that is the u.s. case today. we are the research currency of world. that is the dollar is the research currency of the world. the nies want dollars, for reasons dean said after the asian financial crisis they got hard shellacking from the international monetary fund and own ries wanted their reserve necessary large amounts against to self-insure the next crisis. where did they get the reserve? dollars. how did they get reserve, exporting more than they a peculiar at is situation with the u.s. as
eserve currency, we tend to have a system trade deficit about his year will be $500 billion. host: mr. baker, some viewers currency ght about manipulation, can you explain what that is and why donald focused on it?so uest: i prefer management, manipulation implys they are doing something in the dark. in chien athey are most visible, the biggest country and the largest trade deficit. the idea, they target the value the currency against the dollar. i'm saying management, it is not have to not like we catch them. are you targeting the value of currency? they are trying to keep currency below the market value and the complaint is that result of having a lower valued currency, our exports to expensive.re they need more dollars, if you are live nothing china, thinking buy some part in
america, the currency is more them. more expensive for flip side for us, the currency has low value, import is cheaper the united states. that would be the argument as to why we don't like it, contribute tac large trade deficit. host: does donald trump right to concern body this guest: i argue he is n. china, they have been trying to keep of currency up, rather than down. that was history. havew paul crudeman, who i a lot of respect for, i think he's mistaken on this, the say that, you can look at the flows and currently they are selling reserves, trying to up.p the currency they are sitting on $3 trillion trillion and 1.5 solid wealth fund. a country you would expect half that lion, one trillion, keeps the value of currency down. and the analogy i like to make, reserve board just raised interest rates earlier in the month, they want to see rates. interest i don't know any economist in
the country who would say the actions t the feds today isn't to hold interest rates down, the reason is the 3.5 holds somewhere around trillion of assets. saidu snap your finger and no feds, the assets go on the market, that will drive interest rates up. same story with china. host: mr. hoffman, your take on level of ell, and concern from the trump administration on this issue. manipulation.rency trump said he will declare day 1.y manipulator on i think in fact, wait for -- to confirmed as treasury secretary and lynchen will do it after he takes office. won't happen day 1, but it will very quickly. the label currency manipulator not carry an immediate penalty. or like we put up a tariff anything like that.
it is a slap in the face to china. they regard this as quite an affront and they will be i think he'll then use it as a bargaining chip. to emphasize what dean said, but going further, i don't you can call china currency manipulator on any test. yes, they did in the past, they are not now. might in the future, let's wait ntil the future when they do it. i think the only country which you might conceivably call manipulator is possibly korea, which is going through the ical transition at moment. so currency manipulation at the not a big deal except it is a big deal politically. host: back to the phone. robert, a democrat, good morning. caller: good morning, gentlemen. if i understand ricardo's trade premise that ic
nations should produce goods and ervices in which they have comparative advantage. i would to know what industries or the united sectors states has comparative advantage in now. it seems like it is all services now and how that keep all these folks can't compete in those sectors, employed? there was a book titled some is over," "average well, it is not over. there are a lot of average do they t there, where work? host: i'll let you start. guest: couple things, people sectors, you find in a lot of high-tech, we're share to china and all countries, the idea
the smart people are in the u.s., no, plenty of smart people in china and india. you go to silicon valley, a lot of people are born in china and india. not clear where comparative advantage will be. you know, one point about the ricardo, you are referring to theory, one key point, it assumes fully employed economy. withmists felt comfortable that assumption, we are close to that, i always was skeptical of story. i think in the wake of the great recession, clearly we talked economists, many prominent conomists, the former chief economist of the monetary fund talked about secular stagnation, period where the economy operates below full employment. problem.s a that is contributing to lack of demand below full employment. concerned about trade deficits, in terms of comparative advantage, ki give a you know, y about, our pat not policy and other that,s, maybe we'll get to it is not clear, i don't feel comfortable saying here is a comparative advantage. host: do you want to jump in?
guest: we have a comparative dvantage in a lot of industries. medical equipment, high-tech so rials, ceramics and forth. boeing and caterpillar and the true, es mentioned, it is we have a strong comparative advantage in financial services. comparative a huge advantage in entertainment, huge omparative advantage in education, how does that show snup a lot of foreigners come to paying universities, money, full tuition to do it. so we are strong in a great many industries, that isn't to say concerned about the trade deficit, i don't want the out from my mouth that the u.s. is a nation of it's not. host: schoolcraft, michigan, charles is waiting. charles.nt, go ahead, caller: three things real quick. one, corporations with money of the country, once it
going ght back, are they to buy stock, pay more dividends with it, are they going to buy companies with it? as far as nafta, after mexico capitalized, why didn't they south?ing further these companies and corporations, why didn't they go turningsouth instead of to china? china, they ing is, left because of the labor, now several millionaires, probably as many as the united states now. obviously that means their labor is increased, as far as pay. why aren't american companies deciding to say, okay, we're to make america again and start shipping over there. to a is fwing to be able afford these products. host: charles, before the panel answers, would you prefer
companies to have continue to look to mexico for the placement china?ory necessary is that what you are saying? guest: no, i'm trying to say after they develop in mexico, country guess further south, where there was ample bakerdown there, like mr. was saying in these other countries down south. baker start. guest: i think the story there, one was that the labor in china, to 2000, after china got into the 2001, i should say, trade organization, labor in china was probably just about as cheap as anywhere in the world. that was one factor. china had a well developed set up ucture, you were to companies could move there and count on not having confiscated, stable work environment, some things we may not like. they didn't have union or free unions. china offered them very stable
low-cost place to operate. one point i should make on china, this is a really good start, impressive start, china made incredible progress in raising living standard of typical workers. report three or four years ago that showed real 2000 in china tripled from to 2012, and there is a lot of here, say t issues they are off by 20 or 30%, that is enormous increase in living a short period of time. for that, i think that is a great story. try to start with the corporations with money right, on the viewer is there is about 2.5 billion dollars held by u.s. corporations abroad. comes to taxi think laws and here is an area where i happen to be in agreement with trump eral trust of what is saying. we have a system whereby firms money back, get hit with extra tax, why bring it back? we have the highest
tax rate for corporations in the world, practically in the entire world, why invest? i think here, if we here are two ills in the system, we might get coming back and u.s. investment is very low. 15%, gross domestic product in investment, research development and hard capital plant and equipment. so there is a lot that can be one of this could be trump's big success areas. on why riefly comment not go further south. every company faces this issue it looks to loretta lynch:ing any place. of is the productivity improve nd how can we that and what is cost of workers? go further south, oftentimes you find absence of infrastructure which dean just mentioned, it doesn't compare with china atul. work habits which may
china, very ame as dedicated work force. you have corruption, which is you have chinar, which tends to be one stop shop latin ruption in many american countries, you don't will end up paying. these have all been weaknesses of the further south countries that you mention. i think that explains as well as has dean said why china been a favorite destination. host: go ahead. we largelytax story, agree on this, i qualify a ittle bit, i'm less concerned about the tax rate. almost no one pays it. average corporate tax in the other wealthy o countries, france germany, we in the middle of the back or the middle. it is a good idea. everything will be in details. one aspect of tax reform,
enormous amount of money spent gaining the system. incredible waste. a lot of people are devoting themselves to figure out how to it so general electric doesn't pay taxes, that is and major waste source of inequality. private equity industry to a large extent are tax avoidance industry. have a lot of rich people in private equity partners, fine if you can make that by being innovative and turning around companies. to get rich people by evading taxes. host: one thing the caller nafta.up is if donald trump goes through ith the plan to renegotiate or to tear up nafta, can mexico and if so, what court does that happen in? hat is the recourse for those country? guest: if he founds provisions within the agreement, six notice, they have no recourse within nafta. he has talked about punitive 35%, that will be wto violation f. we pull out of we're still in the wto,
f he were to violate wto rules they account go to the wto appellate process and would lose i don't like companies going to mexico. nafta f. nafta goes away, that goes with it. back to calls. tom in washington, d.c., democrat. morning. caller: yes, good morning. i love your show. i would like to start off by saying i drove by the old post office, the new hotel, all mexican workers. you know trump is a liar on that one. you look at all "washington post" reporter stated that trump office, he couldn't find anything made in america there. he said the only thing that was made in morning. caller: yes, good morning. i love your show. i would like to start off by america were the mints,
chocolate mints. look at overseas. i think trump, he is the messenger and he will be the leader. look at his supply line of else.s and everything it's the whole thing is a sham. you know, i mean this guy is the leader of the free world and talk about ringing jobs back and it is just not going to happen. you know, the guy is a liar. tom, do you have a question for the panel? caller: basically, if this guy of the free world and he's talking about bringing jobs back, you know, and tariffs, he doesn't live by what he's saying. lived by it. his whole career, the thing has been a lie and now all of a worried about trade. host: that is tom in washington, d.c. mr. hufbauer, anything you want to add? pretty e slammed trump good. giving trump his money's worth this morning. guess i would elaborate a little bit on what you said is that trump himself
is a multi national corporation located many hotel or hotels aroundmany the world and does it for the ame reason that many companies locate their facilities abroad, access. get market it is to get market access. there n the to produce and sell here, it is to spread trump.t and go back to trump spent a lot of money in creating this brand, you know, image and also all the facilities and so forth. he spent that once and he can tokyo, china, any place else. all the y applies to companies that he's slamming, so yes, a certain lack of consistency in his approach. guest: trump is trying to maximize profits, that is what businesses to do.
look, we're staying in america, is know, sometimes it because they want to help american workers, sometimes it is a marketing pitch. corporations in general go wherever they can make the most profit, that means produce the ng china rather than u.s., that is what trump did. host: chance to comment on onald trump's trade team, start, mr. baker. guest: unusual group and they standard economics in the sense they have been talking about protectionist measures. navarro and charles -- they are whether we like that or not, that is the story. what is their agenda? heard trump i've go on, as well as peter nava rro china.complaints against my view, i look at that, okay, china, negotiate with the first thing to publicly threaten them with tariff, i i'm not a negotiator, i don't know. a can't fw to china with laundry list, their economy is
bigger than the u.s. economy. ou can go there and say, we have a priority, for me that is currency, whether that is true with him, no idea. currency, you're not respecting microsoft's copyright windows, you don't respect pfizer patent on drugs, not to the financial industry, you can get one of maybe, give something, too, you aren't going to get all of those. host: what is an example of us to give?ey want guest: i'm not that sure. they have issues on market things, so i e you what would be their priorities, but again, i'm sure plenty of things when we sit down, not we, we will not be there, the u.s. sits there, there are things they -- host: we could host the program
from there. the viewers would like to join in. mr. hufbauer, a chance to comment on the team he's putting together. guest: i think dean hit it right on, it is an you what would be their priorities, but again, i'm sure plenty of things when we group, the ot we, we will not b billionaire wilbur ross who has china.usiness in we have robert white, speculated representative. very experienced lawyer, very experienced. ut his practice is entirely been on the trade remedy side, united imports in the states and then peter navarro writ dramatic titles like "death by china," and so forth. the trade flavor of team. what i would like to impress this, trump also has a financial team, wall don't oriented and i think these people subscribe to "death of china" or go out and hit them hard, monday, tuesday and wednesday, so who people?se peep -- munchen and hudlow, who may be of economic l
advisors. i think they are going to put a further i think trump has higher priorities in war with ig trade obamacare, action reform as she see its and infrastructure. the trade team is going to jump out of the box on 21st and terminate nafta tariff on china, i think they will be somewhat slower and more restrained. one irony since trump won the election is that the dollar up a lot in value. we see long-term interest rates rise, the expectation, no one, we're read nothing ideas about what the market expects, the will ation is that trump spend more money while tax cut something on infrastructure, who knows what exactly, that will to more inflationary environment, higher long-term raised values that of dollar substantially.
that goes long way if you are deficit.ody trade host: diane in douglasville, georgia. waiting, go for ahead. caller: good morning, gentlemen. inin ining -- going to saying. what i'm ask questions during that time, view.d like to hear their the first thing that i notice administration policy and i am at a loss as to what it is. believe c-span should really get in there and say to us, here would maybe fwif p more insight, i don't know what it is, what they are, right? person who just spoke, thebaker, please don't jump gun, okay. we don't know what the economy time.do in a month's we do not know if president barack obama is still president, in and told -- now it is
0,000, give him -- he has been much, much better. they are talking about that we'dnt, promised hear about technology affect americans you know, technology, people don't serve gas anymore, you serve new elf, you go to stores, york price check, we don't know how many employers are out of a that.ause of look at the garbage collector, 'm talking about the small man that we see everyday. hey do not have two anymore, they have automated, take up the and it goes in there. host: diane, you bring up a lot. let the panel talk through some of what you brought up. you some things donald trump has talked about on trade that might perhaps
address your first question. e suggested pulling out of the world trade organization. he's talked about leaving nafta if mexico doesn't agree to re the pac, talked about not signing the ranspacific partnership agreement imposing tariffs up to mexico, ina, 35% on declaring china currency if it doesn't change trade practices. mr. hoffman, start. guest: i would like to agree with the caller that trump isn't entirely consistent and right of he's xhupting to the rest us through tweets, which are very short. there are issues on which he's or modifiedposition his position both during the course of the campaign and since being elected. she's quite right, i think there more uncertainty with respect and there presidency
as been with other recent presidents. i think there is a lot of uncertainty, i'm in total agreement with that. up on the to pick point made about technology and tie it in with trade. a very important point. that e entirely correct cause of is the main loss of or change of jobs and jobs.f manufacturing we are tremendously innovative productive nation, but that means many people had a job and now the arned price check at cv s, or any replaced that job with a scanner. you can go to the whole list and i just want to throw out one statistic, not to be too boring. was a kid, about a third of the work force was in that was back in the '50s.
10%, about 9%.er and most of that, by far the majority of that is because of technology. we produce more manufactured by far, but we do it with ar fewer people and that same technology ripples to the service industries, which you mentioned. thank you very much. host: mr. baker, respond as we showing chart manufacturing jobs in the u.s. rom 1994 through 2016, 1994, the implementation of nafta. the blue line is manufacturing. have dippedhow they jobs.0, under 12 million the red line is retail. to t: i wish you went back 1970, i agree in some part with mr. hoffman. employ manufacturing frment 1970 to 1997, it was very downs.change, ups and
during upturn, we have more, uring the downturn, we have less. roughly 17.5 million as of 1997. sharply over the next decade. that wasn't technology, deficit, fromtrade 1% of the economy, $180 billion 6%, close economy to to $900 billion in today's economy. amount of huge construction jobs, disruption in that was ennsylvania, trade, that wasn't technology. of the story.part the other point i was going to make, a lot of confusion on technology. technology as bad. the point i would make, for talk ofgy to -- for all robots and artificial ntelligence, relatively weak productivity growth. that is what automation is, that lowed to a crawl over the last decade, 1% a year over the last decade, compared to 3% a year in as golden age o
-- 1947 to 1993. unemployment in the late '60s, good wage fwroeth up ladder.n the income technology doesn't have to be the enemy of workers. it, but make sure workers share in the gain. the policy of pursuit over the few decades led most gains from technology from productivity growth to go to top end. trade is part of the story. host: under 20 minutes left in the program. bill, a democrat in georgia, go ahead, bill. had r: gentlemen, glad you that format today. a lot of people call in talking epa, getting rid of the energy department, education department. what effect will that have on trade? lot of companies have us billing their company and just sewers that loc at citizens have to pay for.
thank you. host: mr. hufbauer, do you want start? guest: you are right. a lot of people want to get rid of these departments. the designated secretary of the energy department was famous, perry, for saying that was one of three departments he anted to get rid of when running for president. he forgot that one. it was very much in his mind and he will be secretary and epa is not one ow, that of the favorite departments. one comment on education. the federal government is not a in education system n this country in the localitys. i know they want things to be done and every person wants education. in maybe trump will change the education system dramatically, historically, it's a state and local matter. lot of think there is a
resistance, including in the including the y, republican party. think, you know, cutting back, reducing the scope of these departments, which you have mentioned, agencies and so it is not nd something trump can do, not one f his presidential powers, it requires congress. i just don't think it is going to happen. host: one story on front page of washington times, dean baker, and then respond. epa is looked at in this story in the washington sets up role pa reversal in climate battle. talking regulatory agenda in courts, focusing on energy and we ronmental issues when take up those issues in this week, discussing policy matters the trump administration, today we're talking about trade. yesterday national security. tomorrow energy and
environmental issues mrchlt baker. guest: glad have you it tomorrow, that is huge. will do deal with that here. epa, second, not dealing with specifically.sue we hear talk about cost of regulation. most of them have some cost. otherwise, businesses would do it already. they have benefits and remember 1990, the clean air act limited partick lutes power plants could emit when they burned coal. did studies on the benefit, health effects and found ratio to cost of 100 to 1. trillions of dollars of benefit people y terms of fewer dying, fewer people getting, laces like west virginia, the idea that somehow it would be boom time. want eminded, we don't regulation. in west virginia, coal miners that weren't nes properly regulated and waste pilled in west virginia and people weren't able to use their
water. regulations have a purpose. find one, two,an three problems regulations are excessive. excessive defend regulations, but getting rid of blanche, jeopardizing lives. host: how big priority negotiating tpp, to bring up environmental standards in other country? is that getting lip service or was it part of this? that, we may differ on definitely in the lip service story n. nafta, it is always a side agreement. investor rights, special tribunal, their own good enough, we will try to do this and that, better than nothing. selling point to certain constituency trying to move trade deals. environmental groups haven't generally been buyers. uest: back to the transpacific partnership which trump rejected and not going to be ratified. good as a very environmental chapter, by far
the best. is that it requires countries respect the multi environmental agreements which they sign on to and then tpp would have enforcement echanism between countries to pull up the socks of countries n their exception to environmental agreements. it has further encouragement for countrys to sign on to the range of multi lateral environmental 20 or so , like around. we haven't had anything like that before. is very different than the side agreement in nafta, which i we've ith, dean, and written, was basically clinton's fw getting nafta through congress. lot, it t do a whole does commission studies, but this is a much stronger one. is possible if trump,
nafta, hisenegotiates team discovers what is in the know, bring y, you that chapter in to nafta. and i would say actually the labor, but i won't take up more time. left if ut 10 minutes you want to get your call in. republicans, 202-748-8001. democrats, 202-748-8000. independents, 202-748-8002. wait nothing newtown, pennsylvania, independent. ahead.o caller: good morning, thank you for taking my call. i have to comment on lack of of your callers this morning. the caller from washington, who the post ove past office that trump hotel in washington and saw nothing, but workers. guess what, the companies that bid on the hotel, they are the one, whoever won the bid are hiring mexican workers. why? because obama administration is
not enforcing e-verify, that simple. trump's hotel, house tlt keeping services, you think he hires each individual person? no. that is outsourced. idded like ara services and companies like that, bid on housekeeping jobs. they are not using e-verify. if i could comment, the department of energy and the epa, guess what. started the department of wasgy, the goal and mission to become energy independent, after how many decades, how is that working out? the reason it is not working out, everything the department epa ergy wants to do, the comes out with, that is why we eed to drain the swamp in washington and you people aren't getting it yet. concentrate on facts and don't go off on tangent like you do. thank you for taking my call. host: we don't know how that knew it was all mexican
workers when he was driving by. hufbauer, if you want to start on this response? guest: sure. in part.ith the caller e-verify, employers checking on employees, is the right way to immigration, not a wall, .ut on the employment side have not e note, we had net immigration from mexico, mexicans do come and go back, but not much net immigration in years.t five persons in illegal the united states is about 11 million and has been and mostly mexican mexican. independents, i was in the and r administration remember that episode quite
well. caller is right, the energy department has not brought energy independence, but guess what fracking is doing it and we are, net imports of oil are way down and it is conceivable that another five or ten years we will be energy independent. doesn't mean independent of world prices, but it does mean we may not have much in the way imports of oil. guest: i would like to agree on both points. with immigration, it is unfortunate, close to bipartisan agreement, the second president bush was in the white house, setting up path to you know, on, citizenship for people here ndocumented and wanted to stay here. only humane thing to do. also having the system e-verify employers would be responsible to make sure people were here going to they were hire them and be held
accountable for not doing that, wasteside.y the i hope whether donald trump is repared to go that direction, doesn't seem that way, that i think is the path. independence, i don't see that as a good argument. i remember richard nixon talking but that aside, the idea of being energy independent makes no more sense than producing or whatever. security we can't get the oppositead, in direction, we want to have oil in the ground fwe drill it out today. go, we don't want to import it from saudi arabia, let's 15, 20 somewhere 10, years ago, for oil. strategic reserve? guest: that will last a few months. if we're talking about long the worst thing we could do is drill it out. think we will 't be in that situation, but if
that is our concern, we're fwing the wrong way. donna in chicago, illinois, republican, go ahead. you r: good morning, how doing, everybody. everybody's comments are great. this is the situation, they're paying attention to what is going on on these jobs. too many mexicans in key positions stopping american white and lack and all other ethnic groups from getting hired. had to ride e who to the company and get a white resumeual to look at her to see she was qualified to do the job because they would not at the desk cause the hispanic human resource her that there was no jobs. host: donna, so i'm clear, illegal immigrants taking jobs? jobs in llegals taking key positions because people hiring them in and doing paper to give them the job.
we need to wake up. not only that, they are stealing the american companies. -- you go to ng ndiana and look at what that walmart was 10 years ago, it is not anymore. happened.ople what they were stealing so much out of the stores hiring their own of their own kind. host: all right. donna in chicago, illinois. immigration discussion we're having today. anything you want to pick up on? a st: yeah, there has been lot of research on impact of immigration on wages, most find effect, much find no effect. less educated workers, workers without a high school degree, there has been negative effect. i don't think that is the major of workers not getting jobs or seeing pay increases. normalize thet to process, e-verify, a good see immigration having disaster for the country.
hufbauer, victoria, a democrat. please bearntlemen, with me. i have a couple questions. donald trump wanted to put a 45% tariff on 25% on mexico. consumers, wouldn't prices fw up for us? also, wouldn't it be beneficial, you asked the gentleman, maybe calls ago, would you rather have jobs sent to mexico china?sed to mexico say, send them to because i think maybe if you sent them there, they have cheap maybe we wouldn't have so many immigrants crossing the border. thank you and i'll listen. host: mr. hufbauer. victoria.
guest: thanks for that question. first of all, i don't think the tariffs, the really high tariffs on mexico and china are good idea. they would cause prices in a lot people buy in walmart, other things in, you know, vegetables and so pretty sharply. i think once it happened, there around a big turn tlt in opinion. ut in addition to that, these countries are not going to sit by. hey have political leaders, have to respond because that is what the political system does. by they will respond retaliating and they will target retaliation in places where they think it hurts politically in the united states, which be some red y states and maybe some of the ground states.e
we've done work on this at the peterson institute and the disruption is eally substantial when you're talking tariffs at high levels 45%.5 and now, i believe in the free market. in companies competing with each other and kind of may best company or country win. but on your point of china mexico. it is true, that every mexican mexican imports in the united states have a 40% content. in other words, tremendous we send to mponents mexico, textile, electronic the united back to states that m back to the united stat states. with china.true probably the comparable figure 7%.china is about
that might make one feel better. host: mr. baker. on tariffs, i t want to make the point, if we et closer to balance trade, imports cost more sdchlt that mean people are hurt by that? some will. some won't. the analogy, we have protection people like people, those sitting around the table. you can't be a doctor in the play a tates unless you u.s. residency program. much as arn twice as doctors in other countries, $100 y, canada, cost billion in higher medical cost. suppose we snap our fingers and healthcare for g lower prices. tell doctors, good news, you are aying less for healthcare, which they could. they are net losers in the story. we could have a story with import prices, large segment of the work force, up facturing workers end better off. host: mary anne has been working. democrat.
go ahead. talking aboutd in comparative advantage. i may have missed part, i think americans part most don't understand, not the advantage piece of the in piece of the ts other countries, but the the ive opportunity within opportunity cost within a country, at least 40 years ago economics, and so this country never come to grips be sure thattem to the opportunity costs are some t here that we have mechanism for dealing with it to areas where trade is a huge benefit, so that those benefit is not a huge can also share and it is based not comprehending what comparative advantage, the role of comparative advantage and why here is an advantage to the world in international trade. host: mr. hufbauer, our last give you first 30
>> this week "washington journal" will devote each program to key issues the trump administration will be devoted to. we will discuss how energy and climate issues will impact the new congress and the trump administration. we will talk about immigration. friday morning, we will look at the future of the affordable care act and how the republican congress and the trump administration will repeal and replace the aca and the key players. "washingtonatch journal" at 7:00 a.m. eastern.
c-span, where history unfolds daily. in 1979, c-span was created as a public service america's cable television companies and is brought to you today by your cable or satellite provider. and look at waikiki beach in hawaii where president obama and his family are vacationing in the aloha state as they do every christmas. this year is the 75th anniversary of the japanese bombing of pearl harbor that led to the u.s. entering world war ii. prime minister is visiting hawaii. he will meet with the president this afternoon. at 5:05 p.m., obama and the japanese prime minister will deliver remarks in pearl harbor to commemorate the anniversary, and we have life coverage here on c-span. sunday "in depth" will
feature a live discussion on the presidency of barack obama bound. include anill universityrinceton professor and author, and a pulitzer prize-winning journal and author. th" on sunday on book tv on c-span2. micah, you have foresentative your district 12 terms. what has the adjustment been like you to realize you are not going to be coming back to
congress? every minute.yed i've had the incredible opportunity to serve not only district the seventh district of florida, but serving congress for a quarter of a century. got to serve five years as the chief of staff of the u.s. senate, for years on the florida legislature, and four years in local government. i have had an incredible career. have also been in business for about 20 years. career both in the private sector and in public thisce, and i have enjoyed and been blessed by every minute of it. spent a lots were in this room. you were the chairman until 2013. before that, serving as the top republican. willlegacy you think you have, what imprints on this -- this can be in transportation
policy? >> i have enjoyed being on the committee, the transportation committee, since the day i came to congress 24 years ago. i was a developer and i heard you could do projects with opm, other people's money. i had the opportunity not only to build an infrastructure, but projects in my district, regarding the interstate, setting up the legislation to allow jet public-private partnership, the first commuter rail fixed transit system in thatal florida, projects double the capacity of one of major airports, and build an airport from basically an in the northern part of the district. so some of those projects excite me, and then the biggest
project, the capitol visitor center, the largest addition in the history of the capitol building, 580,000 square feet. systemifornia did we a where we connected all the systems. no onethe airports -- could have had an opportunity to impact the infrastructure of our country on a larger scale, whether it was my district or
from sea to shining sea. the capitol visitor center. how did it come about? >> when i was elected, i was a history buff. i went over to the library of congress. and saw a lot of books, papers and artifacts that are never shown. we had no place to show them/. i saw the capital building and people standing in the rain, the snow, the cold. there was only a half a dozen restrooms and the facility built 100 years ago. i started it, the democrats were not too inclined to move forward. newt gingrich helped with the deal with the money that was helped to raise. the other portion would be paid for by the tax. we were balancing the budget at the time in 1997. my bill was heard in the committee room.
we came a long way, we built into. we did in incredible job. it is an awesome structure. it is for the people. the rest of it is for the members of congress and it is a working historic holding. i've proud of that addition to the u.s. capitol. >> what was the cost? representative mica: originally it was $100 million. later we had 9/11. we would only open 60% of it. they said for about $80 million we could open the whole thing. i insisted on excavating every square inch. you do not dig up the front of the capitol that often. that added to the cost. the tunnel to the library, the tunnel for service of the large
service vehicles that would pick up the garbage. that does not take place anymore. so it was about $620 million, which seems like a lot of money, but today, a billion dollars just to renovate the cannon office building and older executive buildings. it was a good deal for the taxpayers. it is built to not just be a drop ceiling and drywall venue. this is something generations can be proud of, and millions of americans come here now. they can see the artifacts, they are accommodated. it is their capitol, and i am proud of it. >> you do seem proud. representative mica: to me it is an absolute joy. impacting the district, little things took me some years. union station. you used to have to go to a greyhound station several blocks away, grab your luggage.
they said you could not fit all they said you could not fit all of the bus carriers are all on the second floor. we made that truly intermodal if you go down the street, the trump hotel, did two hearings there and the vacant post office. where we did the hearings in february was the first we did after. it was vacant for 15 years. 400,000 square foot holding, half of it empty, costing the taxpayers between two and $6 million a year. lights are glowing, it is employing hundreds of people. it is a great success story. the cotton exchange, you can see the for sale sign. largest piece of property in washington. up in georgetown, the power plant. it will be hundreds of millions of dollars in development and jobs in that location. across the nation's capital, and
in my own state of florida, i got in may to turn over to my alma mater in miami. i worked at miami-dade community college. and imagine giving them the old federal courthouse is a legacy. i did it i guess it was in june of this year, to give to the president. a federal building that is vacant, causing $2 million, going to my alma mater. preserved and then going to my alma mater. cool. >> anything you did not accomplish? representative mica: there are some things underway. started the privatization of air traffic control. and the current chairman is
doing a good job of moving that forward. you look at what is available around the world. we got the unions and others to look at canada. it is just a step of head of us in the operation. the technology, so, and traffic control modernization, privatization is up. in the next generation, air traffic control is very important. we have backslid since i left aviation that is taking us from a ground-based to a space system and that technology if we also lean more toward the private
section with the trump administration, we will get that in place, making our aviation system very safe. it is very safe now because of some of the things i did as chairman. every week, things were scheduled, the first week in, then chicago. we do not do that. we stopped that. we do it on a risk-based system and since then we have not had an incident. commuter, a number of crashes there. we did a commuter airline and we had charlotte, the buffalo, all of those commuter crashes. it has cleaned up the safely. a lot of things we have done but we can go further. i got into rail as you probably heard. our passenger system, passenger rail system, at least i'm on the republican side of the aisle of public transit but in the last transportation bill that passed, i said, all this time and we get
the northeast toward her corridor privatized. i call it our train system and it is still basically government-run. now this administration coming in, we have a chance to start some remarkable service in the northeast corridor. the senate agreed to put in provisions, surprise it has three money-losing long-distance commuter rails. now, we will work on it with mr. oberstar, the first in a decade of amtrak, we put in a northeast corridor and they can help run that but that was hijacked by amtrak. now we can move out of that and bring america into the 21st century of transportation and that will be exciting because we are so far behind the rest of the world. that is something that is not white done that needs to be
done. >> take me back to when you first decided to run for office. why? >> i had a teacher that made government and public service, alive and since then i have been a political junkie. i was very successful in business which allowed me to serve i naturally without any obligations, and i just relied on public services as a vocation not it has been no only an avocation, but an opportunity to serve. again, i have loved every minute of it and it is an incredible honor. i probably would not have run
beyond this term but again, there is a time and place for everything. i am probably going to step into the private sector. one project i have not finished is taking the federal trade commission holding a the street from the west wing of the national gallery and i am a history buff. the national gallery is an incredible treasure. it has the east wing, but we have not had an addition in generations. across the street is the only holding that can accommodate that. across the street was built in the 1930's. so we wanted to add that. we will have a tunnel under the street. great plans with that. move the federal trade
commission to the north end of the department of commerce. there is a million and a half square feet down there being redone and enough space to add to commerce the federal trade commission, so you have them all together with a nice view of the white house, and the bureaucrats can sit there, but millions of people can come and we will have a world-class national gallery to compete with the louvre, the prado, any galleries in the world. and we should. this is the nation's capital. we should be proud of it. we have a collection that is awesome but a lot of it really is not shown. i will spend a lot of time on that next year making sure that gets done. >> you're not leaving washington, d.c., then.
what will you be doing? representative mica: i will come back to get things done. i will be working with rusty powell. david rubenstein is the chairman. i would like to complement their work. we have plans now to try to move the ftc there. the national gallery will raise the money to renovate the building. the taxpayers will probably save $200 million there. it saves money but it also gives us a place to finish the location of our national art treasures. >> you are a land owner of some washington, d.c. property. representative mica: you know you are not allowed to talk about when you're going to do until after i leave office on january 3. i do have an interest still in transportation issue.
i don't need to be paid for my work but there may need to be some opportunities in the private sector to complement what i would like to do. one will be the national gallery. making sure some of the provisions for getting america and to the century of transportation, passenger rail is so exciting. finishing things in air traffic control. but i will try to assist the trump administration. assist where i am allowed by members of congress to move forward. >> our viewers know you -- representative mica: callers from all over the country. tjereeven without a phone in the
-- some we hope there's not a full moon. >> they have also seen you in hearings and you were fond of props. tell us why. representative mica: in these hearing rooms you can cheddar and talk and people do not pay much attention but when we had secret service here and we were listening to the testimony and they were talking about bullets hitting the white house and not knowing about it for two or three days, i said to the staff, if i could blow up a copy and they brought it out and i held it up and that went viral. people can identify with that. here's the white house and the security system does not detect bullets hitting the window. if i have a cracked window at my house the alarm goes off. we have a very sophisticated system. the public can relate to you.
when comey came before us -- i had a mayday scenario. that was one of the questions in people's minds and they could see a method. it was a graphic or a prop that helped the interns having been part of helping me develop that. those are some of the things that, you know, you highlight. i remember holding up -- it was not a real marijuana cigarette, but when they were looking at legalizing marijuana, when you holding marijuana joint, you could let people know you could
have 22 of those according to what the congress proposed in that area. so it graphically portrays some of what we're trying to get across. i tried to do it reasonably, but the other thing, my family comes from an area where people have a good sense of humor. you always try to keep your sense of humor. i am part italian, part of slovakia, the part of the slovak republic used to be the austrian empire. they say the people are wise but also have a sense of humor and that fits me perfectly. i will miss the fundraising. i won't miss the late nights. i won't not miss the press, they are sometimes very tough. i do not know. some of the relationships will still carry on. your friends will still be your friends.
i don't know. i walked to the capitol every day and i saw the sun setting. i said to my family, i said the mica career sunset is just beautiful. but i will stay not too far from the capitol, so i will see it. again, i have no regrets. not a moment of regret. there are some things i wish i could've done even more for my him and could've done even more for my district and the country, but again, you only have one lifetime and one 24 term of service. >> who will you miss? who were some of your friends on capitol hill? representative mica: some of the florida delegates. one i served in the legislature with. here we are going out together.
he went voluntarily. my was not quite as graceful. i got hit by redistricting. a lot of people we were just cowls -- pals with. virginia foxx is a wonderful lady. she will be the chair of education and labor. robert and his wife. wonderful, wonderful people. if americans could see the folks that represent us, they would be so proud. but there's also a few people who do not meet expectations and get sometimes all of the play -- it is about the same percentage but you walk down these force and remember. i am still and not, 24 years later, at the people they send here. it is a remarkable system. it is painful and the media now today, with the instant media,
it is all out there and it is out there immediately so people should not get frustrated. the founding fathers had to be divinely inspired to put that system together that would work for over 200 years and with all of the changes we have had with technology and life and all of the things that have changed, the done thing still works very well. >> tell us one of your favorite stories that you were fond of telling constituents, something that perhaps happened in these halls of congress over the years. representative mica: something that happened, i do not know. there are some many. every day has been chock-full of adventure. i took some people on the floor showing where you file a bill. the clerk was still there, we had just closed the session. i had been here 24 years.
and i said, the older folks remember when you put the bill in a hopper. i was showing them the hopper at end of the clerk's table at a bottom of the tiers of the podium at the front. the clerk was still there and she said, mr. mica, i stay here for 15 minutes after it, and i have never given a thought that the clerk would leave immediately. so every day is a learning experience. it takes years. i am not in favor of term limits. i think they did a good thing in terming out chairmen. i had my six years. i have had five leadership positions. newt gingrich made me the chairman of civil service first. the first republican in 40 years.
i got to do neat things. him him i put life insurance up for a bid for the first time in 40 years. this is an irony. i started the long-term care program. i was looking at the private sector and what was available there. here are 2 million federal employees and retirees did not have a long-term. i actually started the long-term care program for federal employees, which i am told is the largest in the world now. and so here i am, john mica up making a decision on whether to sign up for the program. it is a good program for public employees and was available on the private sector. what i did for veterans' preference, very proud of expanding that and childcare. there are a lot of things you can do. a meeting with the president of columbia.
i helped with columbia with the then-speaker and others. it took a nation who was being slaughtered by drugs and narcoterrorism. i will never forget, i was i will never forget, i was in -- when i was chair of the committee and i saw what had changed. a reporter asked me what did i see different and i was so choked up with the motion i could not respond. to go to medellin where they were killing each other, death and destruction. and to have helped that around that was awesome so in each , role. aviation, changing out the safety system, where we made dramatic changes. we passed to faa bills. i think democrats tried 20 times
on the second one and they could not do it, and we were able to go. it took a couple weeks but we got it done and we passed good legislation. >> is that what you stayed 24 years? representative mica: yes. i never meant to stay this long. i did not think i would be elected. i was in the republican party and i went to someone's office and try to record him to run for congress and he said, no i am running for legislature. and now he is in congress ironically. but i am leaving, so there is a lot of irony to life and politics. you never know how it will turn out. >> what you plan to do next personally? what is on your agenda?
representative mica: my wife has booked a cruise, so on january 1 we will go on a little cruise. i will go to the inauguration. i got in a lot of trouble supporting mr. trump early on. of course the hotel, which i thought was a big benefit, they try to rep that around me is giving him some special opportunity which actually the obama administration awarded it. i just kept hammering it to get it off the taxpayer money-losing world, and they did a fabulous job on it so i have no regrets there but we will be up and watch. can you imagine i am leaving and they have the house, the senate, and the white house because i had to struggle with that deck and of cards being dealt to me, but we got a lot done and you can work with people. you know, my brother dan was a democratic member of congress.
and my other brother was in the white house for the first time tonight. he was a democratic aide to lawton childs. so i have a bipartisan family. if i can put up with them, i can put up with this. some of my best friends are democrats. as i am leaving, some of them have come up to me and they have had very gracious words for me which means lot. >> congressman john mica, thank you for your time. representative mica: thank you and great to have served for 24 years in the best institution you can imagine. coverage of the opening day of the new congress. what's the official swearing-in of the new elected members of the house and senate and the election of the speaker of the house. our coverage of the events from capitol hill begins at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span and www.c-span.org, or you can listen to it on the free c-span
radio app. >> followed the transition of government on c-span as president-elect donald trump select his cabinet. we'll take you to events as they happen without interruption. watch live on c-span, watch demand on www.c-span.org, or listen to our free c-span radio act. -- app. president obama and his family are vacationing in hawaii . this year the 75th anniversary of the japanese bombing of pearl harbor that led to the u.s. entry world war ii. japan's prime minister is visiting hawaii and will meet with the president this afternoon. later the president and the japanese prime minister will deliver remarks to commemorate the anniversary, and we will
have a live right here on c-span. it live right here on c-span. hisohn boehner talked about last five years in congress. he sat down at the city club of cleveland recently to talk about his time in office, his relationship with president obama, and what he expects from the incoming trump administration. [bell rings] >> ladies and gentlemen, i would like to welcome you to the richard w. and patricia r. pogue endowed forum, where, today, we have the great fortune of having the speaker john boehner here to address us. [applause] mr. nance: my name is fred nance.
i'm the global partner of u.s. finance llp. i'm going to share with you that, of course i have prepared extensive biographical information, which the speaker obviously more than warrants. but the speaker said, "fred, don't do that." so i'm going to give you the much-abridged version. there is bio information in the pamphlets on everybody's table. let me simply jump forward and say that when john boehner became the top republican leader in the house for nearly a decade, he eventually became the speaker at a time that was obviously very challenging, very difficult for our country, and his laserlike focus on economic development, removing the impediments between business and government for the creation of jobs, and focusing on the reduction of our debt were things that were priorities for our country, but it was his
interpersonal skill set, his ability to reach across the aisle, to try to bridge the divisions both within the party as well as across the aisle that led to the success and the leadership that we are very grateful to have had and are looking forward going forward. i would like you to know that he has a special place in our firm. he joined us as a special advisor based upon his extensive experience. we are very happy to have him. indeed, the firm has been privileged to have him. the city club is privileged to have him. and i daresay america has been very privileged to have john boehner as our leader as the third most powerful person in our government for years. and today, he will share his comments on the future of our
political system, in case there happens to be any question about that these days. ladies and gentlemen, i give you the retired speaker of the house of representatives john boehner. mr. boehner: where do i begin? big thanks, fred, for your short introduction. i think you did a very nice job without getting too carried away. let me thank the city club for the opportunity to be with all of you today. i especially want to thank the host. dick has been a longtime friend, supporter, and i did not know this was your luncheon. but thank you for having me here. i was here six years ago, right before i became speaker. i came at your invitation to an
economic speech, where i called on the president to fire his economic team. they did not like that. they savaged me afterwards. but i think i was right. but here it is, six years later, no longer the speaker of the house after spending some 25 years in the congress. as i told the students at notre dame -- notre dame gave vice president biden and i the laetare award. i told these students, you know "laetare" is a latin word. in english, it means "rejoice." exactly what i have done every day since i left. people stop me and think i'm going to go back into the government. i had the cab driver wondering if i was running for the senate next year. i was, like oh, no, no.
i'm supposed to talk about the future of politics. i thought about this and thought wait a minute, i am no expert on politics. i have never even taken a political science class. on top of that, i'm the son of a bartender. what the hell do i know about politics? for those of you who do not know much about me, i grew up in cincinnati. i have eight brothers and three sisters, and my dad owned a bar. and i tell people there are a lot of lessons i learned growing up that were lessons that really helped me do my job. i grew up in a big family, learned to get along together, get things done together as a family. you grow up in a bar, learned a couple lessons there. one i learned the art of being able to disagree without being disagreeable, something that probably helped me with my political career than anything else. if you run a bar, or a bartender, you can disagree with somebody, but you are going to
have to put up with them all night long. so you want to be nice about it. i think the best lesson i ever learned growing up in a bar, where i mopped floors, waited tables, tended bar, is you have to learn to deal with every jackass that walks through that door. trust me, i needed all of the skills i learned growing up to do my job. but i never thought in my wildest dreams i would ever get involved in politics. like a lot of you, i worked my way through school. went to moeller high school. with my eight brothers. played football for jerry faust. sorry, fred. ignatius boy. worked my way through xavier university, found myself in a small business that i bought. i grew it into a successful business. along the way, i got involved in my neighborhood homeowners association and ended up as speaker of the house. this, too, can happen to you. honestly, i never in my wildest dreams ever thought i would do anything like this, but i was
kind of made to do what i ended up doing throughout my career. and i am very happy about it. what a political year we have had. well, no, i knew there was something i forgot. i want to congratulate cleveland on the biggest year you have had in a long time. [applause] mr. boehner: i thought cleveland had a great year when johnny manziel signed up and when lebron james was coming home and there was this announcement that the rnc was coming to cleveland. that was a big year. but winning the nba championship, then going to the world series, and then hosting the finest republican convention i have ever attended -- i tell you what -- everybody i talked to around the country after the convention had been here could not have said nicer things about cleveland.
how nice it was, how nice everybody was, how safe it was, and none of that nonsense that people talked about, none of that ever really happened. so congratulations on a really good year. and i am sure donald trump is going to be pretty happy. he had a pretty good year as well. now, something is going on around the world. it is not just here in the united states, where a guy named bernie sanders, a man who was elected for the first time when i was elected for the first time in 1990. and he was a socialist from vermont and came to washington, old liberal curmudgeon guy walking around. trust me, the most shocked people in america are all of us who serve with bernie over the last 25 years, because bernie did not talk to anybody. walking around. now, he might have been the most honest guy, though, running for president, because he actually believes all that crazy stuff he says. but you can't help but love bernie.
and then donald trump, really. he is a friend of mine, we had played golf over the years, but i never really thought donald trump was the kind of guy that ought to be president of the united states. matter of fact, in a conversation i had with him in spring, he says "hey, can you believe this?" i said, "no." he says "no, i can't either." but it is not just here the united states. you watched the brexit vote that went on earlier this year in great britain. you watch what is going on in france, in germany, a look back to the arab spring. there is something going on in the world. and i kind of would boil it down into two big points with a subpoint. you look around and you have eight years of very slow to know economic growth. as a result, middle class -- the middle class and their standard
of living here have really fallen, not just here, but around the world. so you have a lot of frustration that americans are not doing as well as they would like to be doing. and the kind of job migration we used to see in our society is kind of disappearing. and after eight years of your income sliding, your standard of living sliding, you can imagine that people are frustrated. and it's not just here. i think it is elsewhere around the world as well. secondly, look at how the media has changed. how we get information. i just go back a couple of decades. a couple decades ago, we had one radio talk show host in america that no one ever heard of. we had one cable news channel that just did news. we had an internet, but only a couple of geeks in palo alto, california, were using it. and now where we are today, with
hundreds and hundreds of radio talk show hosts spewing out all kinds of noise. look at all these cable news channels. they do nothing but politics 24 hours a day. you have an internet that allows people to talk to each other, to organize themselves, platforms that people never had before. and then you have got facebook, youtube, twitter, linkedin, a whole long list of other places that spew information. it is just intense. and if you think about it -- we would never have known about a policeman being shot in dallas, texas, 30 years ago, because it would not have been in our papers. it probably would not have been on the national news. and so now we know everything that happens in america, we know everything that happens all around the world, every day. and when you look at all this information coming at all of us,
you realize that people are probably getting 100, maybe 200 times more information about their government than they have ever gotten, certainly more than 20 years ago. now what makes it even crazier is that people get to choose where they want to get their news. it used to be we had three big tv networks, five big newspapers, and a couple big radio stations. and they pretty well set what the news was going to be for that day. now you have all this information coming at you, so people get to choose. some want to go to buzzfeed, some want to go to fox news. i asked an early 30-year-old this fall, "where do you get your news?" he said, "oh, 'comedy central.'" now, that thought ought to scare people. we have all of this information, and what i said before, it allows people to organize themselves. i had a few knuckleheads in
washington. they were on the republican side. we always had a few members who were off the reservation. but they never had any kind of platform. the media kind of ignored them. but today, they can create their own platform and grow their own movement. frankly, much like donald trump created his own movement, or bernie sanders created his own movement. but what makes it even more dangerous, more difficult is that the speed at which people get the news today is instantaneous. you know, i remember a time when i was serving in the state legislature with pat sweeney. sitting over there. thankfully, you don't look any uglier than you did then. that's just me being me, sorry. but, you know, back then, sweeney and i, we could work something out, cut some deals. and it would be a day or two before it would end up in the press somewhere.
not these days. i remember, when i have to go meet with president obama, and i have to organize a way to sneak to the white house, because if i walked into the white house like i would normally do, the right wing press would just go crazy. "oh, what's he up to, he's going to sell us out." frankly, the left wing press would go after president obama. "oh, my god, he is meeting with boehner. boehner's going to roll him." all of a sudden, you have no room to maneuver. when you add all of this together, you can kind of begin to understand that we are in the midst of a political revolution. and in the midst of a political revolution, trying to govern is next to impossible. and it is going to make it more difficult, i think, in the coming days and years for the people in public service to actually be able to govern and do what we really expect them to do.
well, we had a big election this year as well. and back in the spring, i would talk about the candidates who were running on both sides. i mean, it was pretty clear to me that hillary was going to be the democratic nominee. you know, i was not -- i told donald trump after i said i would vote for him, i said, you know, you were not my first choice. matter of fact, you were not my second choice or third choice. but you are the nominee, so i will vote for you. i told people back in the spring, listen, anybody that doesn't think donald trump can't win, you are wrong. he can win. people would ask me, "could donald trump win ohio?" i said, "of course, donald trump could win ohio. in fact, i will predict donald trump will win ohio." you look at where the demographics in ohio are, the top third of the state,
toledo, akron, cleveland, youngstown, those are the most democratic areas in the state. when you look at the people donald trump was appealing to, they live right here in the top 1/3 of ohio. and what trump was able to do was get their votes, frankly, early on, all of those retired auto workers, all of the rest of the union guys and gals that are up here. but where he actually won the election was in the fall, in october, when republicans started to actually come home. but over the fall , i did a lot of public speeches, made it clear that i thought here he was going to win. i thought it was a 60-40 chance she was going to win. but i said remember this -- polls do not decide elections. voters do. and while pollsters, they think they can model who is going to show up, it is just their best guess who is going to show up.
i used an example that i have used many times that polls don't decide elections, voters do. my first race for congress, i was in a race with an incumbent republican in a primary and a former republican member in a republican primary. it is hard for people to vote for somebody when they can't say your name. you know, my name looks like "bean-her," "bond-her," "boner." but i was running against this former member, his name is tom kindness. kindness. i never had a poll showing me within 80 points of winning. but we turned out people who would not normally vote in republican primaries. i had 500 volunteers, each got 10 of their neighbors, who
happened to be independents, out to vote for me in a republican primary. i won by 5000 votes. nobody was more surprised -- i thought i was going to win, but i am eternal optimist. but my poor opponent must have been totally shocked, because there is no way you could lose when you are up 82 points. but when you look at this election, once again, i told audiences this fall, look at the enthusiasm gap. how enthused are you about your candidate? trump led the whole fall. you go back to the spring. the turnout in the republican primaries was up 40%. turnout in the democratic primaries was down 20%. and so it really should not surprise a lot of people that he actually did have a chance. well, he won. now what? you know, something has happened
in washington over the last -- i don't know -- 5, 6, 7 years, where it was almost impossible for me to do a deal. and when i talk about doing a deal, i mean about coming to an agreement with the president on doing what we both think is in the right interests of the american people. and people would just have their pitchforks out for me and for the president, because we were able to come to an agreement once in a while. and i've just got to tell you, i just think it is wrong. now we've got a guy who is got a book called "the art of the deal." and donald trump is going to do anything he has to deliver. people would ask me, well, with what advice would you give each of these candidates, depending on who wins? i said i would give each of these candidates the same advice. and that is presidents don't have much power to do things on their own. if you really want to get big things done, you have to find a
way to work with the other side. you need to find a way to work with congress to change the laws to make real changes. and to do that, you have got to have honest relationships with both sides of the aisle and the leaders in the congress. and if you do that, there are a lot of, frankly, big things that can happen. i always thought it was very important when i became the speaker that i had good relationships with my colleagues, my other leaders, and, frankly, for that matter, the president. now, you know, the president and i've butted heads a few times. but the president and i learned to get along with each other, learn to get things done together, not that we always agreed, because our job was not to agree. our job was what can we agree on? i did not expect him to change his principles, and i don't think he expected me to change my principles or to compromise my principles or his. but the american people elected him president, they elected a republican congress. and our job, on behalf of the
country, was to find the common ground. where is it? and so, finding a way to cut a deal is critically important if we are going to be successful in america. and i, frankly, like to think donald trump has the opportunity to do that. you know, he is kind of a democrat. he is kind of a republican. he has no ideology. he's got nothing that is going to bind him from cutting a deal. but he has got to cut the right deals. when you look at congress, you know, the congress is a committee of 535 people. anyone ever see a committee of 535 people accomplish anything ? except the american people expect great things out of that congress. this is why the leaders have to be able to look each other in the eye, trust each other in order to get things done. when i announced i was going to retire, i got more than a few phone calls.
but the first phone call came from one of my dear friends, george w. bush. i can't tell you what he said, nor what i said to him. the second call came from president obama. "boehner, you can't do this, we got to get this done. we have to get a debt deal, we gpt to do something about the debt limit" -- he was going on and on. finally, the president says "hey, boehner, man, i am going to miss you." and i said, "mr. president, yes, you are." you know, we knew each other, we understood each other, and we could talk to each other. we had lots of disagreements. but remember what i told you earlier, one of the lessons i learned growing up in a bar -- the art of being able to disagree without being disagreeable. you know, there are a lot of people i used to have to work with -- nancy pelosi, harry
reid -- wait until i write my book. you get to read about a lot of these people. you know, over the years i spent in washington, i have to say this. 95%, 98% of the people i worked with, on both sides of the aisle, are the most decent, honest people you could ever find. fighting for what they thought was right for their constituents or for the country. and just because you are a democrat or republican does not mean the other side should excoriate you because of your view. you have got a right to your view, i have got a right to my view. the president has an opportunity to reach out and work with congress. there are big things he can get done. i think tax reform will be hot on the congress' agenda. i think immigration reform will not go away, and it has to be dealt with. i think infrastructure is probably one of the first things that will happen.
we have huge infrastructure needs, but we have no way to pay for it. all infrastructure is paid for with the gas tax. but all of our cars are getting more miles to the gallon. the gas tax revenue continues to drop year after year after year, and they will continue to drop. and we need to find a new source of funding for our infrastructure. but in the meantime, dealing with the fact that there are $2.5 trillion of u.s. corporate profits sitting overseas that will not come back because we have excessively high taxes, i can see a deal being cut where money will flow back here at a lower rate, will fix the system so we do not have to deal with that long-term, and they will find an economic analysis that says this will produce $100 billion or $500 billion in new revenues and then use that money to fund a longer-term
infrastructure program. it would be a great way to get started. i think there would be great bipartisan support for a plan like this. you know, donald trump sees himself as larger-than-life. as you might imagine. you know, it kind of reminds me of looking at a teddy roosevelt. you know, teddy roosevelt, this guy was a lot like donald trump. larger-than-life. when teddy roosevelt became president, teddy roosevelt wanted to do big things. and frankly, he did big things. and i think there is an opportunity in this new political order to do big things. but big things only get done on a bipartisan basis. i went round and round with the president over this in 2011, when i became speaker. if you go back and look historically, big things get done when both parties have thfi