tv Politics and Public Policy Today CSPAN December 5, 2016 10:07pm-12:01am EST
very opposed to block grants for medicaid. i nevermer governor, did subscribe to that. i said listen, i think we can design something that helps my state more. i cannot fit in every hole you have there and i have to fit in this whole in order to get this reimbursement. mary knows exactly what we are talking about. we are 50 states that are all different, not the same. said that has some appeal. [applause] tobut where we are going find a lot of common ground is in economics. disagree respectfully among ourselves with regards to the health care bill and what we need to fix but the area where we can agree is the economy. creating new high-paying jobs for a lot of folks. the president campaigned heavily ruralt especially in
america. there is great opportunity in agriculture, fisheries, energy. great opportunities for a lot of folks in this room to rally around and in fact that all of us could rally around quite frankly they could put us back to work in a serious way and frankly and power and i think get people feeling better about themselves and where this country is going and that should be a big focus in what no labels is about. respect each other. we want to see everyone in america succeed whether you are in the city or the farm, everyone has an opportunity. i think that is something we should put a lot of focus on and it is a good partisan outcome we can get going forward.
is a message the president-elect out about putting america first. do not forget, senator sanders was on that side of the message, it too. that is where the public is right now they want us to focus firstputting the country so whether it is infrastructure, tax reform, health care, we inwardbe focused on that for a wild. >> that is ending on a high note. panel.ncludes our if we can just give a round of applause. [applause] >> thank you very much for joining us. let me give you the details of where you are going next which i am not sure about. oh, everybody is staying here. that makes it easy. please stay in your seats. ♪
announcer: president-elect donald trump holds a victory rally tuesday in speaks to supporters in fayetteville, north carolina. see it live starting at 7:00 p.m. eastern on c-span two. primeormer british minister tony blair on the u.k. vote to leave the european union. topics included the impact of the brexit vote on the nation and the growing rise of populism around the world. this was part of the no labels conference in washington. ♪ >> good afternoon. is this working? not yet. fantastic. it is now. my name is gillian tett. as you just heard, i am from the financial times. i run our editorial coverage
across the americas region and i am absolutely delighted to be part of this today because despite what some of you may be feeling about the media i heard , the comment earlier this morning, are absolutely committed to providing fair, credible and informed coverage of what is going on, not just for our american region, but around the world. i'm sure many of you are feeling right now that you have lived through a political earthquake in the last month. are living through a political earthquake. well, i've got news for you. britain got here first. first.re because as you all know, there was an earthquake earlier this summer in the u.k. in relation to the brexit vote. there has just been a new vote on the leader of the opposition labor party and the hard left, jeremy corbyn, has been reinstated with a big majority.
and the earthquakes are continuing across europe. you will have hopefully seen the result of the italian referendum on sunday which indicated quite decisively that the italian people like the american people, like the british people are voting against the establishment. there are more votes looming next year in the netherlands, france and germany. of course, we have the austrian vote which is more establishment but still right now we have want one establishment result and three antiestablishment results. so i can't think of a better person to tell us what is going on, not just in america, but to put this into an international context and perhaps even offer some of vice for the man who is now heading to the white house, than tony
blair, the man who's in charge of uk politics for a long time and did not simply run the uk but tried to set a new type of politics, a new political center. but before i start the questions i want to quickly start with the protocol question. our american friends in the audience often have the mistaken impression that we are very, very status conscious and very formal in public, because it all world watched downton abbey. [laughter] and if any of you have ever been on a platform and the uk will know that it is 100% wrong because there is nothing that shocks a british audience more than to use a title, particularly a previous title i. so my first question is, do you want to be american today and beat mr. prime minister, arguing to be british and the tony? we can take a vote on it.
tony: nope. i think it's time to be tony. what i found when first left office was that people in america continue to address you as prime minister. the british media had a field day with it saying that this guy is so incapable of understand he has left the job. [laughter] tony: as i said to them, scrap this big they became that i was so depressed i couldn't hear the word prime minister. feeling a sense of this bond and see so tony is fine. gillian: tony, how would you explain the series of political upsets we saw this year. i mean, if we ignore austria for a moment, apology to any austrians, if we ignore austria for a moment, this years been absently shocking and, frankly, could well continue that way. tony: yes. and look, there's a lot i think we started trying to figure out because undoubtedly we are in the news political situations, which is god, in europe at
--st, a lot of dangerous which is good in europe at least. and there's no doubt in my mind that something different is going on in politics. having said that i think it's very important to emphasize several things. the first is populism is not new. concern about immigration is not new. i remember at least the 1960s , when politicians warning about the ways of black immigration come in the uk. this would produce rivers of blood. immigration is not a new topic. globalization is not new. and it has affects. if you look at the changes and bring in the 1980s, there will coal mining community and still communities that shut down. so what is new i think two things. first of all i think post financial crisis and with all the change in the world people are insecure and anxious.
they see their community and society changing around them. and there is an immense amount of anger that we don't seem to be able to provide for people in the way they wish. there's no doubt about that anger. secondly, i personally inc. social media itself is a revolutionary phenomenon. i think it changes everything. it changes to the way politics works. gillian: do you tweet? tony: not voluntarily. [laughter] gillian: i think so that the president-elect does, but anyway. tony: by the way, and you see how it is used and its remarkable but it's a new phenomena.
is also interlaced with traditional media. financial times, this is a little aloof from all of this but in the sense -- gillian: i'll take that as a -- le, but tony for example, when i was : first printed in 1997 the bbc nightly news has an audience around 12 million people. that was like one conversation in the country. today the figure is just over 2 million. this is a big, big change in the way politics is conducted and when information flows. so i think parts of this that are very new, parts of the that are not new but i'm actually convinced the only way to confront the anger is to provide the answers. that's why a a strong sentiment among my is only way to do that we need a center that is not a flabby, wishy-washy. we need something strong and must do it that is providing answers to the challenges people face. gillian: well, you were very tactful as a politician figure wearing a tie that is a nice mix of red and blue. a perfect mix of red and blue. so your tie is wonderfully
centrist. but when you were in office, he tried to create a supposed new vision of politics which perhaps we should explain to the audience, it was called the new way, the third way. which is time to be if you like a centrist left agenda. you were trying very hard to get beyond the right and left. some people might see the development of politics in the intervening period since you left office as essentially a sign that attempt failed. what we have today in the u.k. is essentially a very left wing left party, a right wing right party, and the center that has collapsed. tony: yes. i know that there is a tendency to say that the reason why the defeats are happening should relate to those who achieve the victory. but i actually think what i
, worked on this i worked with president clinton here, and we had a goes around europe. but what's very important, i always say this because people say we can't go back to the third way type of politics. i say distinguished policies which are good for one time with a philosophy that, in fact, is good for most kinds. i think it is good for this time. what we had at that point and in my view, at the center has to be captured is we the center, forward momentum. we were the changemakers, right? we were not the guardians of the status quo. you said austria was an exception but it's an exception in the sense that the green party candidate beat the kind of neo-nazi candidate or the far right candidate. it's not a victory for the old type of politics but the two centrist parties were nowhere in that election.
so i think there's no doubt at all what people feel is the center has not been providing that dynamism and that leadership going forward. if you take the case of europe, i mean, i'm passionate about the reason why europe is in its present predicament. it's because it's not reforming. it's not changing. you only have to look at the way that the euro zone prevailed, have produced these agonizing situations with countries when what is required is profound structural reforms, fiscal stimulus and monitor policy that allies itself with those two factors. that's what the center should be provided but we are not in europe at the moment. gillian: well, you know it's a very different political were bloomwood all looking to austria as a beacon of hope. [laughter] tony: now you really have a offended the austrians. gillian: anyone here austrian? no. so we are safe. but in terms of what advice, i
can ask you in a moment what advice you'd give donald trump but unlike before that, what advice would you like to get the people here in this room? i think what you have here is basically a self leftist -- self-selected audience that for the most part probably kind of agrees with you. you are preaching sort of to the converted here. so if you had to sort of tease out the top three points that you think everyone in this room should heed, what would they be? tony: first of all i don't really offer advice. i offer friendship and partnership because i think no labels is a great concept. i love the whole idea. i was listening to the discussion previously about health care and infrastructure and finance. i was just thinking how invigorating it was to have a discussion about practical solutions. i don't offer advice but think the challenge is for us are the following.
i think along with economics we do have to understand the issues of culture and identity. people, take european situation. it is not irrational to worry about immigration. now i am pro-immigration to i , believe britain is a better country because we have waves of immigrants that come into us. i think london, forgive me with this audience, is the greatest and most vibrant city in the world, precisely because of the contributions of a broad range of people from different cultures and races and faiths. but i think we have to accept that people will only put aside prejudice if they think there are rules. when people see their communities changing, they worry about that. is extremely important.
we also have to deal with globalization. not just in terms of trade, but technology also. there will be many communities affected by this. i think they have got to know we are not indifferent to their plight, that we are prepared to get alongside them and help them through these issues. and certainly we need to understand this is the moment, where there is a paradox actually that i see in politics today. at one level people are getting more and more partisan and the effect of partisanship is often paralysis. or, things don't happen because of partisanship. on the other hand, i think one of the reasons why people elected all top is because the actual so this is we are going to fix it. just drive through and get it done. i think what we have to be is in the center, we have to have strong solutions. they have got to be solutions that will make change. one of my passions what is in government after government is
education. and education policy. we need to educate the broad mass of people well. we need to educate and not just in the conventional sense but in terms of skills and training an aptitude for a changed world. we need a revolution in this area in order to be effective. these are things i think we need to be addressing. and we need also, to be absolutely blunt about it, usedics is -- you know, i to discuss politics with a famous soccer coach in the u.k.. he had a great sort of psychology about soccer and about working with people and about strategy and the difference between strategy and tactics. you know, i was having a discussion and he said to me once, he said so we've got the best strikers, the best goal
scorers in the premier league and we have a great team. i said yes. he said no. we have a great team if we have the best strikers in the best defense. which is obvious when you think about it. the point is, if you are fighting this populism, there's a part of politics we have to be smart enough and capable enough to keep your flanks protected. right? so if you got people worried about extremism, you've got a policy on extremism and it has got to go to the heart of the problem of extremism. if the public in today's world has any sense of what they call political correctness, stand in the way of solutions, they will march you down. so part of this also frankly is about making sure the center is not just dynamic, stronger and moving forward, but has its
flanks where they will be properly defended. so, four key lessons. one, recognize that cultural identity matters. the honest about globalization and, in fact, three, have strong policies, don't get wishy-washy. and number four, think of soccer, not football and think about your defenses. what i want to ask you about, actual ask you briefly, if you were donald trump walking into the white house in january -- tony: this is an unlikely hypothesis on many levels. gillian: i get paid to think of unlikely hypotheses. what would your opening speech say? tony: i think the issue, it's interesting having that discussion before. the issue is whether he's just going to focus on getting the most practical solution for getting things done. that's what happens, then he's
going, the country will move forward. i think it is interesting hearing the democrats. let's wait and see. let's wait and see what happens. there is no doubt part of all this is about making change and a sense of movement forward. i mean this is definitely i , think what people wanted to see and not just america but elsewhere. so when it comes to things like on.frastructure and so there is a real need for it but have you got a practical plan and can you break through the layers of bureaucracy? one of the other things by the way i think, for the center is the essential com is how do we redesign government itself? this is something we over the years engaged with. but for example, if you take, i a supportivent in sense. i mean, for example if you take in our case at least, things like public services around
education, health care. i think we're often not asking the right questions. nevermind providing the answers. technology alone is going to be potentially could have a transformative effect in a way government works and the way public services is delivered and in the way we reduce some the cost and burden of the public sector. if i was back in politics today, certainly i am not -- gillian: would you like to be? tony: nope. [laughter] gillian: are you sure? tony: sure enough. sure enough to be sure at this moment anyway. [laughter] tony: so i think if i was back, i would be trying to drop also what are the questions that we need to answer. certainly something like the uk health care system.
i would be looking at redesigning it, taking account of the changes, the technology can bring about in our world. really it's, i think if people feel that the center ground is the place where people come together and work together to get things done in the interest of the country, i think most people respond to that. it's also important to realize these things, your election was close, in america. brexit was 52-48. it wasn't like 75-25. there's a lot of people out there who, you know, are still capable of being persuaded. gillian: right. i'm going to turn to the audience in just a moment for questions. i am sure you are ready for questions. but given that we have three potentially crucial elections next year in the netherlands where a nationalist to secure the most popular person, and isfrance where marine le pen riding very high --
germany where angela merkel is in trouble, do you think there is a chance that the euro zone could break up? tony: i think it won't because i think despite all the problems of the euro zone and i think it was designed flaws in it, and i think the thought of breaking apart and going back to individual currencies is too great. and when greece was in crisis, if you think of the pain that the greeks have suffered into economic adjustment, it's more than frankly, i don't know what we would have done it in britain facing those types of cuts in spending or you here, but it's interesting, whenever it comes to the point, the greeks don't want to go back to the drachma. people say,whatever i think the italians would want to go back to the lira.
and so on. i don't think europe will break up but we are in uncharted waters and are very dangerous things. i think europe, this issue is to do with immigration culture and identity. we've got to look at the position of france. it's not surprising given what french have been through over the past couple of years, that these issues are powerful. you are not going to succeed in a french election unless you're showing pashtun and less you are -- unless you're showing the awareness of it and unless you are addressing the issues of culture and integration. particularly parts of the muslim community being apart from the rest of the community. and if you are well coming in to the middletion east, particularly syria, you are going to have serious security concerns about that. it would be bizarre if you did not. so any politician is going to fight to win an election in the circumstances is going to have to have their policy absolutely
in a position which as i say is not in any way compromising with prejudice or disrespect for human values, but understand you've got a country that feels insecure and part of it angry. gillian: well, the hot new phrase these days and european circles is not so much brexit but frexit. france is pretty much creating the next revolution or the next shock. but anyway, we can turn to the idea stuff for a few minutes of questions. i think there are some microphones around. it would be courteous but not compulsory to identify yourself, and please keep the question extremely short because i can already see several hands waving. >> thank you. how would you deal with the challenges of expectations that are short-term and yet challenges are so structural and long-term? for example, really the only way
to deal with the technology disruption of is through education and retraining. and yet the expectation of change, how do you deal with that? tony: that's a very, very good question. i think you obviously have to be able to explain to people and the value of long-term structural reform, but at the same time i think you've got to help people in the immediate sense. so i think, sometimes policies are of a generic in nature but sometimes you need specifically to identify the communities that are going to be most affected by change and go with a package that is directed to that community. but what you can't do is simply say to them, look, i know life is terrible in the short term, but wait 20 years and it
will be better. that's not an election winning slogan as you all know. [laughter] tony: so i think it's partly around that, but also, here's what i think it's very important to look at how government itself changes. i think if you're asking everyone else to cope with change and people feel government is not changing, they are saying you are not having to change, i am having to change. so, i think that's also very important. gillian: any more questions? question right at the very back. pedestrians.org. this inclination to go towards strongmen and get things done, what are the applications for civil liberties and civil rights?
tony: when we're looking at what's not be and what is new. what is new and what is very, very troubling to me is that if you look at the analysis that has just been done of support for democracy and democratic countries, i mean, some of these figures are to me quite shocking. there is a poll in france recently where i think a over 30% of the french people doubted whether democracy was the right system. that's a large number of people. so this strong man type of authoritarian figure, this is one of the reasons why, for example, president putin is admired in parts of european politics. it's interesting how many people reference that quite openly in a way that i think 10 years ago they really would not have spoken like that. so this comes back to my mind, i think there is a real risk that we forget what liberal democratic values are about. and we just, we don't understand that these values are absolutely
fundamental to the human condition improving. but i think it all comes back to what is going to be the alternative to the strong man? and the alternative to the strong man can't be a weak center. it can be a strong center that is obedient to the basic liberal democratic values but is nonetheless showing how consistent with those things could be made to move. this strong man idea, and you see this around the world today. take the president of the philippines. a classic example. i think you would have to say that is strongman type politics. but i mean why? why when you talk to ordinary filipinos away from the camera as it were, away from the public arena give some support. i don't how long that lasts but why? has for years they were not getting with the problem of crime and drugs and a feeling that the system wasn't working
for the ordinary person. and this is where the social media aspect of this is also very important. today, people know or think they know about the world. right? and they get, they break into self- conforming groups that almost, they share the same opinion, they reinforce the same opinion, and they become very angry about the way the world because they don't see politics as a difficult business way, having to grind out results in take difficult decisions. they see it just in terms of instantaneous like or dislike. this is why, the answer in my view, is the center, if you want to push away and defeat this type of strongman politics, the center has got to be strong and vibrant and dynamic. otherwise you will find the
situation where people say, this is most acute among some people who are young by the way, well, i have particular adherence to democracy. i just want the job done. if this guy says he can get the job done, let's get him elected. gillian: it sounds like the center needs a tweet as well. tweet that. [laughter] gillian: any more questions? we have a question right in the front, i think. do we have a microphone? be,ink this will have to sadly, the last one. >> immigration is very important to all countries, but canada has a way of accepting immigrants but being able to bring immigrants that are going to integrate into country and are going to be efficient in
industries and whatever, wherever they are needed. will britain do something like this? the immigration of people that don't integrate, and very often impose their way of life on the british. there's no question that they're going to bring in a lot of anger by the british. tony: to state the obvious, britain and canada have one big difference. there is a lot in canada. there's a big space. but your point about immigration is actually correct. the thing is that we've got to be very, there's just been a report published on this i think
today in the u.k. i think we've also got, it is what people expect the conversation that the problem of integration we have is with a part, let me choose my words carefully, with a part of our muslim community. now with all the laws of the all the laws of the committee but is not really with the indian community or other communities. so i think the best, this is were i think, this isn't the only we did with these problems. you put all of the problems on the table and work it out and deal with it. it's when we can't, appear to hesitate, what you have is the probable problem i think. correct andctually that is the way. this center was a mighty when people come into your country from diverse cultures and diversity a think as a strength not a weakness for a nation that you have to be very, very clear. you have to say here is the space of diversity. people practice their own faith in their own way according to the own religion, and religious conscience, and that's great. but here is the common space. here is the space where we
agree we all share these values. respect for democracy, respect for the rights of women, respect for the law, respect for the basic rhythms of our country. basic freedoms of our country. i think in europe today you could galvanize support around those principles, but if it becomes a situation where people are either pro-immigrant or anti-immigrant, that is in my view, a dangerous situation. because you lose the ability to create the necessary space that people hold in common so that integration happens and that people feel equal citizens of a country because they actually all share that common space. this is the only way it will work, it in my view. gillian: thank you. given that this entire day is about celebrating common space
in every sense, looking for, championing it and upholding it, that's a fantastic now depend on. thank you on behalf of all of us for offering your insights, being an insider outsider can sometimes be a very valuable perspective to have. and in the meantime, prime minister, tony, i look forward to the day when you start tweeting voluntarily. so thank you. [applause] ♪ announcer: president-elect donald trump holds a victory rally tuesday and speaks to supporters in fayetteville, north carolina. see it live starting at some :00 p.m. eastern on c-span two. announcer: c-span's washington journal, live every day with news and policy issues that impact you.
up tuesday morning, north carolina republican congressman walter jones is joint by california democratic congressman to discuss their bipartisan efforts to reduce -- reverse a rolling on contributions to political policies. both say it allows super pac's to politicalimited parties. then, the foreign policy institute. he sure to watch c-span's washington journal live beginning at some :00 a.m. tuesday morning. join the discussion. joins thesas governor mayors of oklahoma city and dallas to discuss how city's plan to work with the incoming trump administration. former new jersey congressman moderated this discussion as part of the no labels conference in washington. ♪
>> first of all, let me just say it is governor asa hutchinson. like tor thing i would know is, in the introduction you did not hear our or d after any names and that is significant because as a governor or mayor, whether you are republican or democrat really does not matter all that much. programsto deliver that work for all of your citizens. democrats, republicans, independents, whatever. you have to deliver. not say it and think, might this work? is this a nice way to put this budget together? is this a nice way to put this program together? i used have to say, is this
actually going to work and make sense? in thisope we will do panel is talk about what that relationship between governors and mayors is with the federal government. what you all need in order to make dings work and i would like to then throw it open for questions. let me start with governor hutchinson. i guess i am showing my highest. nothing against mayors, but particularly when we have a mayor that is chairman of the conferences of mayor. not just any mayor, the mayor and spokesperson. we will start with you. >> thank you. when i think about no labels. first, i believe in the two parties.f the convictions are important but whenever you look at china to accomplish things and i am delighted that president elect trump has put infrastructure front and center in the possibility of things to get
done. a specific area that we can set aside differences and say, we agree on this and we can find ways to get this done. it is an essential need of our country. from an arkansas perspective, look at some of our huge infrastructure projects. not just highways. that is the most significant, the highway trust fund. you also have to look at water projects. we have a grand prairie project that is federal and state money devoted to it to alleviate the decline of our water stable in the eastern arkansas which we upon in ourdent production. it is a federal project, a state budget. it determines the flow of money. it is an example where we have made an investment that don't have enough money to complete the project so that is another area of investment besides
highways. a broader range of infrastructure projects. we are looking at investment for these from the time its sector. we are looking at the public sector. in we looking at the opportunities also for foreign investment whenever it is appropriate. i look at china which is subject to great controversy these days, but we obtained a $1 billion investment from china into a bio-product miller and south arkansas. -- huge investment that creates jobs. so it is the foreign relationships as well as federal government, private sector relationship, all of those taken together allows us to succeed. we have one of the largest new steel facilities being built. almost completed in eastern arkansas, big river steel.
fundeachers retirement invested in it. when you are a small state, you have to rely upon a whole arena of investment opportunities for huge, big infrastructure projects whether they are private sector driven or public projects as well. so we did a highway improvement plan and arkansas that was bipartisan that we just passed in a special session of legislature that creates $1 billion in new money for highways in arkansas. combines federal and state money. we are moving forward and i think there is incredible excitement among the states going to have an administration that understands that health care, more flexibility has to begin to the states whenever you are talking about infrastructure it is going to be a strong partnership to get the job done. so we are sitting on pins and needles to see how this
develops. i want to end with one thing before i turn it back, i served in congress and the 1990 plaza and in 2000 i joined the george w. bush administration. when i was in congress we were able to set aside some differences and accomplish some great things. it was the last time we had a balanced budget and our nation. back to that. i think there is opportunities that now we can work together from whatever political thingsion to get some done, particularly infrastructure but it has to start out, any bipartisanship starts out with a process. you build the framework for an initiative by working with the other party from the very beginning. bipartisanship is not -- this is an idea, can we get your support for it? that is not true bipartisanship. i hope we can move in the area
of infrastructure with a bipartisan process and outcome so we can do something great and take advantage of this opportunity. you. thank mirror, you are now the head of the conference on mayors. contentious election. how has that been reflected at the conference and what do you see from your fellow americans as far as what they expect, need, and want to see going forward in washington? >> like most of the country, time whena 24-48 hour people were just stunned. people contacted me in the next few days saying look, it is over. mirror's know about it election. when it is over, you try to hit the reset button and say, what do we do now? we're trying to hear more about the president-elect's ideas for
infrastructure. the need israel. mayors know the water systems, the bridges, the roadways are in dire need of attention. cities, east coast largely, there are billions and billions of dollars of deferred maintenance buried in the ground where you can't see it where politicians through the decades did not see any political advantage to fixing it because no one would know if you fixed it or not. the deferred maintenance built just anilt up and it is issue we are handing off to the next generation and children if we do not do anything about it. i think the nation's mayors would love to work with the trump administration on beginning to address that. one final question to president-elect trump is there have been talks amongst candidates and amongst the
sitting president about removing the tax exempt status for municipal bonds. that would drastically cut in the amount of infrastructure dollars we are able to build with. 5%-10% of our projects would no longer be able to be it said that is really important was that that tax-status remain on municipal bonds. rollins, you are the mayor of one of our largest most vibrant cities. what do you see is the hope, the concern, what do you want to feel is getting accomplished? go is no magic to the first 100 days i think we all know that. people have picked that up since it is a round number, and sounds nice. a getting things done takes a much larger longer time. but what do you expect of dallas, a city that is had a lot of challenges but has seem to overcome much of them and seems to be growing at a rapid pace? mira romans: i hope nobody screws it up for us.
mayor rawlins: i hope nobody screws it up for us. our revenues are growing at a rapid pace. believe isreasons, i we're a very centrist city, ok? we are a blue city and a very red state. tactical and very i believe -- i am a democrat, but i believe staying in the middle of the road does two things. first of all, i think it is really responsive to taxpayers. i think that is what taxpayers want. they want things to happen and they do not care about ideology. ok? they care about results. and so when you bring people together, things actually happen.
they are happier. also, when you're in the levee road you can go faster, ok? host: everybody else gets out of your way. wlings: everybody gets out of your way. i am very enthusiastic about this movement because i believe it is the next wave of what is going to be happening in america ground on find common infrastructure, all right? not only do we need infrastructure but it is really what we will elect to to do, build for the long-term. building for the long-term for america is a challenge. education will take care of us. lastly on infrastructure, and we do not talk about it enough, is the return we're going to get on that investment. , not only this right our jobs created by property values go up. .usinesses move businesses grow. you drives the way
it. it is not just an investment because things are decrepit, but it is making things happen. you are talking about water. i joined the u.s. council of mayors and did not realize we have a few cities in the nation that have wooden pipes. what it types. host: when abraham lincoln was president. back a year or two. rawlings: get back in the middle-of-the-road, keep it simple, make some happen and you could make some progress. it is much more informative and useful to everybody to open it up for questions from the audience. we can bridge this gap a little bit. there is a lot more we can talk about. do you see any need on the definition of infrastructure for internet improvement? infrastructure is another area
as we try to tease out a more focused agenda, potential agenda for congress? >> that is a good example of where there is so many silos. you look at internet access, vertically important in rural areas of our country. you have the department of agriculture engaged in this. the fcc and engaged in this. we have really got to make sure that is highly coordinated. then of course you have the private sector that has to drive it as well. we have a number of initiatives to arc and talk, first 100% our schools which we will have by the middle of next year and then we want to make sure it gets to our communities. this is a very significant and it should be included in infrastructure probably right at the top of the list. >> one of the big issues i think we all agree in america is gap between the haves and the have-nots. in the information age, that cap has got to be closed.
we do not have to bring down the house, we can just bring up the have-nots. in thet it a wonderful 20th century to have president trump be the eisenhower of the highways, the eisenhower of the digital age. i think it would help a lot with that issue. >> i agree. because it affects our schools. it affects our libraries. it affects people's everyday lives. how many of us to not bring our phone that is attached to the internet? in the last 10 years that has become so overly viable in our lives that it has got to be included. it is different because it is largely private-sector driven on marketplace but sewer are utilities and a lot of other projects. host: what must question, the privilege of the chair. we have not discussed a lot about tax reform. are there particular taxes from there aspective out
governor and mayors, the eu would like to see address? >> in terms of federal policy, the idea of being able to re-sure the money from companies that has been over seas -- that has been overseas and restore it, i think that is an example of tax reform that president obama talked about but obviously president trump looks at that as well so that is one you want to be able to get quick agreement on. let's do that. let's get that money being brought back. stimulate the economy and use a portion of it for infrastructure. >> i am in a weird place because texas tax policies are pretty good. we do not have personal income tax or commercial income tax, you know. are pretty simple in that way and i think we should -- as a democratic think we should still be simple but i'm going to add a mixed point.
we can tag about infrastructure, we take away those tax-free bond statuses, it is going to hurt infrastructure and a major way. so we can't. we have to watch out for unexpected consequences. >> i think we need tax reform to create jobs. the tech system as it is exist -- the tax system as it exists today is a lot like the health system. if we were to start from scratch it would not look like this. every time we address it, we just kind of week it. i don't think we make it better. i don't envy anyone trying to take on those challenges because the outside noise it comes in every time you try to address change in either of those entities is enormous. i do not believe we are going to move the economy at 2%, three percent, 4% without significant tax change. host: questions from the floor. is there a microphone?
there. >> ken.uld like to know i want to know whether you would mind identifying infrastructure projects in each of your states that would be critical to the existence of your economy versus this kind of general expenditure across all of the water mains and all of the internet infrastructure or whatever. is there a single project in your state that is absolutely on the highest priority -- whatever the cost? dam or whatever. for example in new york and new jersey we have a tunnel. all of the freight in the
northeast and all amtrak trains to the north east and the mid-atlantic states would come to a halt in a few years if we do not spend $30 billion to rebuild it. so, with the help of the port authority in the states and now have of it from the federal government, that is now a highest priority project. would you favor that kind of approach where you identify the 50 most critical projects as a priority, given that you have a finite amount of money available, or do you feel that we have to have a broad shotgun to use thisitically finite amount of money? thank you. >> go ahead, mayor. mayor rawlings: i don't think it ed.uld be shotgunn
i would go to the 50 largest cities as opposed to state and that's where people are living today. so, prioritize that. i really think what should happen though is a commission should be set up and we should really run the numbers on all of the infrastructure projects, understand the critical needs of them and the return on investments and make it very transparent for everybody so it is not everybody gets a little piece of candy at christmas because we won't make the biggest return on that investment. that's my thought. in 2009, the stimulus back shirt -- package came out and mayors asked for a significant portion to be funneled straight to the city so we could get the projects done. at the end of the day, the projects went the way most of them do, and that was to the state. ,hen it was all said and done cities did not get their share of the needs.
most went to the rural areas. i think we would have a similar message. really, if you really want to have the largest impact on the largest numbers of people, the cities need a larger specific share of the funding stream. moreot saying that we need than the states. we could use a formula to make sure that some of the money goes straight to the city so they can direct it to the most urgent needs. inis a problem if you are washington to figure out what the most important needs are. local governments will be able to do that more specifically. there is a role for states and cities in this, but if we have the funding streams the same way we did in 2009, i fear it will not have the impact people perceive it is going to have on the front end. host: governor? we need moreon: consistent policy and terms of
highway funding. theeed more coordination in expansion of broadband access across the country. we need to have the water projects, we need all of those. you've got to be able to cover a broad range of infrastructure. but then i also think it would be good to have the super project list, and that is where you need special attention -- i would be happy if we could list the top ones here in arkansas, is a specific list of priority. would it be different in the cities? you know, i think there's probably a lot more agreement. one of our projects would be a bridge across the arkansas river. that helps cities. it helps the cities all along, but it's a state priority project. and so, there's a lot of coalescence and agreement as to what those projects would be at the state and city level.
just adding a little bit to that, one of the important things is to allow as much decision-making to come down on those priorities to the states and the cities. i just think back to the days -- it's a completely different area, but still it spoke to the ability to come together to make things work and how the flexibility made a real difference in states. that was welfare reform when we had bill clinton as resident and newt gingrich in the congress. -- bill clinton as president and newt gingrich and the congress. we tried three times to get a bill the president would sign. the states were able to meet the needs of their various populations. i interpreted new jersey quite broadly, and it made a difference. there were other states that were tighter, but it made the difference for them. yes,ey will be, i believe, you need to have that top list
so people will have the confidence that there is an in -- there is a return on investment, even if it is not a dollar return, but you need to let the states and the cities have a certain amount of flexibility. mayor rawlings: and, governor, i think there is room for federal grants. it's a partnership. and, governor,t: i think there is room for federal grants. it's a partnership. we have some skin in the game. host: a question over here? a big supporter -- im from new york. i'm a big supporter of infrastructure investment, -- i am from new york. i'm a big supporter of infrastructure investment, but i'm also concerned our national debt, at a level that is higher
than any time since world war ii relative to the economy, how are we going to pay for this? and we often talk about, well, we can use a portion of that money that is repatriated from overseas. the truth is we can use all of that money that is repatriated from overseas and that will only address a fraction of the infrastructure we have been talking about. they're up in a number of suggestions of using private enterprise to fund at least a part of the infrastructure needs that we have. if you look -- if any of you look at some of these proposals, and do you have any interest in them? gov. hutchinson: absolutely.
the projects i have mentioned, we create a revenue stream and use the private sector to accelerate the project. that is one of the real key deficiencies we have in our infrastructure now. there is too long a time frame. costs go up or you don't get the benefit from the economic growth. so, yes, that to me -- if you are going to be at the federal government saying, we can put this project together, it should be timeliness, it should be partnership with the private sector, and those that can be shovel ready the quickest and have the greatest economic impact ought to move forward. i agree with your point about the federal debt. in arkansas we have a lot of problems. we got down to a 3.8% unemployment rate. the first quarter, we have the highest economic growth rate of any state in the union.
if we can use the infrastructure investment that spurs the theomy on, that will reap benefits in terms of the national debt as well. mayor rawlings: i went to a conference of the white house where mayors were introduced sovereign wealth funds, large pension funds, and i realize there were trillions of dollars -- trillions -- sitting on the sidelines wanting to invest in the united states, and we can figure out how to talk to them and put these deals together to read and probably one of the most important things the secretary of the treasury howhelp us do is figure out to do that. what gets in the way his ideology, because people run on this notion that we don't want to privatize something, ok?
and there's different models to do it on both ends, ok? i agree with the governor that we need to figure out how to get that money working here in the united states, and it has to go it has to go to washington. i agree with the governor. we have a good bond rating. we can borrow all of the money we want. we have to pay back. i have a very conservative will not be all fired up about that. i think we need new creative to just terms of how we will create revenue. are there ways to have tax credits to address the jobs created by the construction of the infrastructure? and that somehow be generated back into the revenue stream? i think there have to be
creative tools out there. win fors like a win- everybody. on the as we rely taxpayers to pay the entire freight, it's going to be hard to borrow enough money to buy our way out of it. host: i want to go back there. i can't see. [indiscernible] john with pedestrians.org. how has your city, your state changed its approach to transportation in the last 35 years and has federal policy helped you make those changes, or do they need to make changes at the federal level to help you make those changes? well, i wills: take it on first. first of all, congress did away with earmarks. -- gov. hutchinson: well, i
will take it on first. first of all, congress did away with earmarks. you could not just wait on him marks. it was not going to happen. if you're going to create that growth and infrastructure, the highways, you had to figure out a way to do it on your own. we had a bond issue, we had a half cent sales tax increase statewide. the voters supported that because they see the benefit from it. there's two changes i would like to see. to thet have to go back earmark days, but i would like to have a new federal highway ill that has more funding sources -- federal highway bill that has more funding sources so re robust. it is distressing to me it takes so long from approval to delivery and breaking ground on it, and i think a lot of it has to do with restrictions on
federal policy and not providing the states that flexibility. those things should be addressed. mayor rawlings: i am pleased with a republican governor. he stepped up and said we should be in the highway building business. we have been. we got a statewide referendum passed, and now i think we are on the move again. i do think with state transportation for our cities especially, we have to think bit.de the box a little it's not just highways. we've got to focus on mass transportation. we've got a project underway, high-speed rail between dallas and houston that is going to be privately funded, and ways that we can do that. so, i would hope that gets part of the dialogue a little bit more. so, i do think we are making progress at the state level. i also agree we
are making progress, but you know, on the transportation side, figuring out ways to fund it, in oklahoma, we have a penny on the dollar sales tax. we passed a series of initiatives about how long the taxes going to last and how much is the money if they extend it to us. they have passed every one of these. we built convention centers, parks, we built 70 five schools, we build what are projects, sports arenas. thatitizens seem to like the taxes going to go away unless it pays for something else, and they also like the pay-as-you-go philosophy. it takes is a little longer to build the project, but in a verys, conservative climate like oklahoma, we can get those initiatives passed. have i'm afraid we only time for one more question and it's going to have to be -- the
answers are going to have to be brief. >> water systems in the internet -- which i agree completely with. does something called hardware in the loop. i was just wondering, mainly for the mayors, it seems to me the water system, the surgeon water systems that are also hooked up to the internet are incredibly at risk for people being able to go in and hacked those systems -- hack the systems and direct the equipment to do something you would not otherwise wanted to do. it to do. want all the companies i have worked with, highly classified, had in norma's amounts of cyber attacks on them. i'm just wondering what your
thoughts were about the safety of these systems now and what needs to be done to enhance that safety. because every investment is something we need to address. i think is as: vulnerability none of us want to talk to much about it because we don't know. you don't know what cyber terrorism looks like. don't forget the autonomous vehicle is right around the corner. those are, i think, susceptible to reprogramming -- host: i would add something to that. right after 9/11, one of the things we were able to do at epa was get the targets hardens in the water system. we worked very closely with the water affiliates, associations and they really took steps to harden themselves as targets and they have been constantly upgrading and watching. barrier,e you put up a the bad guys figure out another way to go in. you're constantly at it. me isre concerning to
chemical site security. that is an area we have not been able to get consensus on and we do not have these same kind of chemical site security. example of thean kind of thing that can go long and how devastating it is. at this point, we are out of time. of that to keep us on schedule. but i want to thank a fabulous panel. -- i have got to keep us on schedule. but i want to thank a fabulous panel. [applause] ladies and gentlemen, was this not fabulous? give it up. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> president-elect on jump as a victory rally in fayetteville, north carolina. see it tuesday at 7 p.m. on c-span2. >> coming up, vice president joe biden on the dodd frank regulations and the future of financial regulations in the
trump administration. by jon followed up huntsman and joe lieberman on the first 100 days of the trump administration. >> c-span's "washington withal," live every day news and policy issues that impact you. coming up morning, north carolina republican congressman walter jones is joined by california democratic congressman ted lou to discuss -- ted lieu to discuss their bipartisan legislation. then a look at foreign efforts to spread fake news during the 2016 election cycle with clint ross from the foreign policy -- clint watts from the foreign policy research institution. journal" liveton tuesday at 7 a.m.
hearingp on tuesday, a on the allegations of data manipulation by the u.s. geological survey. the deputy director testifies before the house committee live on c-span3. consider theers influence of iran over certain terror groups in the middle east. we are live with the senate foreign relations committee tuesday at 2:30 p.m. eastern. follow the transition of government on c-span as president-elect donald trump selects his cabinet and the republicans and democrats prepare for the next congress to read we will take you to key events as they happen without interruption. watch live on c-span. watch on-demand at c-span.org. listen on our free c-span radio app. now vice president joe biden speaks about keeping the dodd frank financial law intact in
the trump administration. at georgetown university also focus on preventing another economic crisis. this is 50 minutes. [applause] >> good afternoon, everyone. as our semester comes to a close, i wish to thank all of you for being here today. we are especially grateful to the director of our center for financial markets and policy at our mcdonogh school of business and vice provost for faculty. in 2010, thending center has served as a forum for regulators, policymakers, and industry leaders to come together to engage in rigorous debate, discussion, and research
to guide policy and practice. to allto say thank you of our colleagues at the center who have helped make this special gathering possible. we come together today at gaston hall. throughout our history, this hall has served as one of the most important places for political discussion here in washington. it reflects the commitment we have as an academic community located in our nation's capitol to engage on a national dialogue on the issues raising her country. last month, in a message to our community, i reaffirmed a responsibility to bring the resources of our university into engagement with the challenges in our nation. and one of the ways in which we realize this commitment is through fostering and promoting the debate and dialogue that takes place on this hilltop. honored to welcome
two individuals who have played an important role in shaping and directing economic policy for our country -- former chairman of the federal reserve system and the economic recovery andsory board paul volcker vice president joe biden. mr. volcker and vice president biden have been long-term leadershipin intended to promote the andrishing of our economy promoting transparency and become ability and our financial system. we are honored to welcome vice president biden back to our hilltop and we look forward to his reflections in just a few minutes on the importance of sound financial sector regulations. first, i would like to offer a few words about our distinguished guest who will
introduce him, mr. paul volker. a graduate of princeton, he began his career as economist at the new york federal reserve bank in 1982. since that time, he has held numerous positions in public and sectors, including the vice president of forward planning at chase manhattan bank, undersecretary of the u.s. treasury for monetary affairs, president of the new york federal reserve, and for two terms, chairman of the board of the federal reserve system. he has provided counsel and guidance to national organizations, sharing in 2004, -- chairing in 2004, the independent inquiry to midi and in 2007 a world bank panel reviewing operations of the department of institutional integrity. in 2008, president obama asked him to leave the present's economic recovery advisory board -- the president's economic recovery advisory board.
he is served on a number of advisory boards, including his own nonpartisan, nonprofit group the volcker alliance, which he established to address the challenges of successful implementation of public policies and to help rebuild public trust in government. speaker he served as and received an honorary degree here at the commencement ceremonies of our mcdonogh school of business. it is an honor to welcome back to the hilltop to -- to welcome him back to the hilltop to address our community together. please join me in welcoming paul volcker. [applause] mr. volcker: thank you very much president degioia, students, staff others who might be here. i'm introducing vice president
biden to read on the special occasion, it is a really big privilege for me. i think i ought to begin with a revealing anecdote. one day, if i recall correctly, , sittingber 2009 quietly in new york, i got an unanticipated telephone call. vice president biden was on the line. that was the one and only time for me. he went to ask me whether commercial banks shouldn't be with speculative trading was catching on. idea, but is a good had no horses to sell it. the vice president immediately responded, don't worry about that. i will be your horse. that he was. , thenk on the skeptics and now, in the administration.
he gave the proposal political weight. president obama soon announced his support. surprise, they labeled the new law the volker rule. been labeled b biden rule. the no one would have the nerve to question it today. [laughter] mr. bogor: now we are approaching an unexpected new mr. volcker:n -- now we are approaching an unexpected new administration and there are questions, not least about financial reform. no doubt there are those who would like to see large parts of the financial reform set out in the dodd-frank act set aside, seemingly oblivious to the lessons of the near breakdown of the financial system in 2008. we escaped a great depression, but it took an enormous intervention of government funds to protect the banks and the
.conomy from that threat we don't want to repeat that experience again. there's been a lot of comments and concerned, i know, about the greatvely slow so-called recession. in my view, not enough attention has been paid to the fact that we have in fact reached close to full importance -- full implement. our performance stands out in contrast to the rest of the industrialized world. to my mind, it's very important that we have reached that point of full employment consistent with reasonable price stability and the prospect we can maintain that in the months and years ahead. i realized, there are large questions about the future. of expansion has been
long by historic standards. productivity growth is below earlier experience. i suspect it is hard for the statisticians, as much as they try, to keep up with the cyber economy and measure its output. the result may be lower statistics than the real economy justifies. but i'm not here as a prognosticator. economic sounder footing then when president obama and vice president biden took office. so, i greatly appreciate the opportunity not to introduce joe biden, who needs no introduction man.me, but to thank the he has given his professional life to public service, his personal life to a strong family. has had its share of
satisfaction and joy, but tragedy as well. biden asice president you leave office, you leave with a sense of personal contribution and satisfaction that only a and life with family love public service can provide. ladies and gentlemen, welcome the vice president of the united states. ♪ [applause] vice president biden: don't jump. thank you.
please, please be seated. mr. chairman, what a high honor and wonderful complement for you to introduce -- wonderful compliment for you to introduce me and save the things you said. i hope as i leave this office my ability to stay engaged in the affairs of the country is partially as meaningful as yours has been. you have never, ever stopped serving your country. you have never, ever stopped anyone from going to you to ask your advice and input. you are one of the most respected economists in the country and you are one of the most respected men in the country. thank you. [applause] goodpresident biden: it's to be back up on the hill. [cheering] vice president biden: it's good
to be back in gaston hall. [cheering and laughs] vice president biden: my son hunter -- as a matter of fact, 5 bidens have graduated from this great university -- [cheering] vice president biden: i think based on the to wish and at least a sidewalk should be named after me. the tuition, at least a sidewalk should be named after me. my son, and two of my sister's children and two of my brother's children, and it has served them all incredibly well. i was thinking president degioia , as -- i was thinking, , when i walkedia on the stage the first time i walked out here was when your predecessor was president. my son joined the jesuit
volunteer corps, and there was a isreat, filled as this hall the today. i was also my father whether i would come and speak on how my faith had informed my public policy. i had spent most of my career, all of my career making short i never let the twain meet, to never talk about my faith as it related to public policy. it was personal. but i didn't know how to tell father o'donovan no. [laughter] vice president biden: and i worked very, very hard. i mean this seriously. i spent hours and hours turned to figure out how can i do this question mark and as we catholics say, as the nun used to say to us, "i examined my conscience." thing thatthe one informed my public policy been
most was my faith and all of the great faiths -- abhorrence for the abuse of power. so the subject matter, it ended up being a significant moment for me in realizing all of the myngs that have ever gained emotional commitment and intellectual effort all related to the abuse of power, from the time i got involved as a high school kid in the civil rights movement to the women's movement to the abuse of women and children, and that are, as well is the abuse of economic power. , that is whatense i will talk about today. and, mr. chairman, i want to poker alliancehe -- the volker alliance. -- the voelker alliance.
volcker alliance. released an statement on mitigating risk. i did is a very important read for financial leaders, reporters, epidemics -- academics, and students, for anyone concerned about the future of our economy. from my perspective, it comes, i think, at a very pivotal moment. we are in the midst of one of the longest recoveries in american history as the chairman pointed out. there are still a lot of people being left behind. but it wasn't an accident. it happened because we made some very tough, very unpopular -- they turned out to be the right call on balance. and one of the first people the president went to was chairman volcker tochairman
lead a group of economists. it is a recovery that requires us to know how far we have come and how we can't afford to go back to policies that nearly brought down the entire economy just eight years ago. that's what i would like to talk to you about today. president obama and i were forming an administration eight years ago. the financial system was crumbling and the economy was on the brink of collapse. we can't ever forget the turmoil. people were terrified of another great depression. over 3 million foreclosures a 2009 until 2011. bank runs -- thought to be at past -- were back.
the 1930's, our grandfathers, great-grandfathers withdrew their money. i was criticized for hyperbole when i called it "the great recession." there goes biden again. another biden gaffe. i wish it had been a gaffe. large institutions were taking their funds back. but it -- credit markets dried almost impossible for small businesses to keep their doors open and meet payroll. for prospective homeowners to get a mortgage, car buyers to get a loan, and right before election day, lehman brothers collapsed, unleashing a real, actual fear the whole financial system could come crashing down. it's hard to remember that right now, thank goodness. across the country, people are rapidly losing confidence in the government's -- were rapidly
losing confidence in the to stemnt's ability panic. the real consequences for american households, american businesses outside of wall street, awful wall street. we had already lost 695,000 jobs . good thing, middle-class jobs. when barack and i placed our hands on the bible as we were 20, 2009, we or had already lost almost 700,000 -- at that moment -- and we by thep losing 800,000 end of january. -- poverty rate exceeded 15% that's the highest level in decades. the stock market plummeted. it's hard to believe it now. it was going to fall below 6000. that was the debate. trillions of dollars of wealth
lost. savingsof retirement lost overnight. i think we are still feeling the lingering effects in terms of how people conduct themselves. falling real estate prices left nearly a third of mortgage homes underwater. toillion homes lost foreclosure since the start of the great recession. gm and chrysler -- iconic automobile industry of the united states -- headed toward and chrissy risking the livelihoods of 1.5 million workers -- headed toward bankruptcy, risking the livelihoods of 1.5 million workers. this did not happen by chance. notemember why it happened to hold people responsibly specifically, but make sure we do not commit the same sin again. it was the direct result of shortsighted, irresponsible, and i would argue greedy actions by wall street and washington's lax
regulations over a 20 or 30-year period. that fixing knew the real economy meant stabilizing the financial system. mr. chairman, i remember that conversation we had, but i also remember the meetings we had to figure out what to do and how we leaned on you. i remember the first meeting the president-elect and i had with our team in chicago a month before the inauguration. we were told that tens of millions of americans own more on their home than they were worth and we were told we might need well over a trillion dollars to fix the banks. the good news, we were told, and i remember sitting in that room -- you were there, you were back in new york, i believe. i'm not sure where you were, but the economic team we have put together, the advisory team, we were told -- the good news, the mr.ning comment was, " president, we have good news.
we are not going to recommend --"call the banks whoa, what do you mean? [laughter] vice president biden: there were considerations that we recommend a bank holiday. that is what president roosevelt was told during the great depression. we knew our regulatory system was outdated, designed decades ago and ill-equipped to monitor the modern-day economy. we had seen this play out before in major economic crises driven by insufficient regulation. i was there in the united states senate when we dealt with the savings-and-loan crisis in the 1980's. i was there when we had to deal with the failure of long-term capital management in the 1990's, and i was there in the aftermath of the enron debacle in 2000, which reminds me of that old bad joke -- claude and
mod in the late 1990's thing on at porch, and claude looks maud and says, remembered wwi, i was gaston you took . me? and matzos, remember we bought wet little -- and remember bought that little drug store, and he goes through all of these things, and then i got drafted lost2, and that's when i to be as fingers on my hand, and i was thinking. you are bad luck. maybe i am bad luck to have been through all of those. i was there. [laughter] vice president biden: when it comes to the great recession of 2008, we knew the specific underpinnings were complex, but also that we could avoid repeating them again. banks and other financial companies knew that they could
turn around and sell these loans in a heartbeat. so they often through lending standards of the window, making billions on loans to people who were completely unprepared to make the payments. i remember a fellow who was a classmate of my son who became a very successful real estate man. and i remember him telling me, you know, i and a housekeeper, to me and say, guess what? they're going to give me a $300,000 loan. he said, how can you pay it? said, they told me i would be able to. i'm not making this up. a time and again, they gave insulated ratings to get -- inflated ratings to get business. they are taking on risky investments, putting the whole system at risk.
there was a debate in the white house whether i should say that, but i say what i believe. that was the worst vote i ever cast in the united states senate -- repealed glass-steagall act. it allowed investment banks to operate with too much leverage, too much reliance on short-term debt, and very little supervision. across the board, a shadow banking system operating with limited oversight, the last of -- a systematic regulator overseeing mail financialw exotic products, widely misunderstood, not subject to regulation. the structure of executive pay creating incentives for ceo's to take excessive risks. this was not about allowing banks to take on more risk. shifting the risk from the banks to the taxpayer.
that is because the federal government lacked authority to manage the banks. they knew a hat -- they knew they had a backstop in the american taxpayer. the administration and our democratic allies in congress knew we had to protect families from the immediate damage, but help prevento future crises. saw the beginning of the crisis in knew he needed wayct even though he had no to know its magnitude. so he started the troubled assets relief program, so-called tarp, which in some cases financed toxic assets from the banks. and before stimulus was a dirty word, president bush pushed for checks to taxpayers to jolt the economy a little bit, and president obama and die, along with the republican congress,
continued the tarp -- and i, along with the republic in congress, continued the tarp program. mr. chairman, you know voting for tarp, bailing out banks was putting a stink in everyone's living room. i really mean this. the folks who caused the crisis all of a sudden, we're making sure we bail them out. it's hard to explain to average, well-informed americans. but it was necessary. it was the right vote. it helped save the economy. tarpall was said and done, amounted to $400 billion. they got it all back plus $15 billion in interest. we rescued the auto industry, which was not at all popular, among democrats or republicans.
six in 10 people did not think we should do it. it was on the brink of bankruptcy. today -- i know i got blamed for pushing that a lot because i middle-class joe, i'm the guy with the manufacturers -- well, you know -- [laughter] ice president biden: understand, and universities in particular and washington in particular, to be middle-class means you are not this is dictated -- you are not sophisticated. but i know when the middle classed as well we all do well. we do well when the poor have a way up. we have a social contract with the growing middle class. jobs added since the automakers emerged from bankruptcy, the fastest growth on record. an.-frank was the centerpiece of our plan to stabilize the financial system and prevent a -- crisis -- anddodd-frank -drank was the
centerpiece of our plan to stabilize the financial system and prevent a new crisis. the law did everything from helping students get the best that, to making sure creditors operate within the law . pretty important stuff that is taken for granted again. but i don't know how many times my son, who was a decorated officer,he was a jag spent a year in iraq -- i remember how i had an opportunity to see him several times because i was responsible for iraqi and i traveled to iraq and afghanistan attila 20 times. i would see him. he was a, dad, -- he would say, dad, soldiers would come, panicked to see me -- they are foreclosing on my house. what do i do?
they have brought more than 11 billion dollars of relief to americans what protecting consumers from harmful practices thedodd-frank also created financial oversight council to see where the risk might arise. the goal is to monitor when a failure by a single company could end up affecting people who left nothing to do with that particular firm or company. the law of regulated derivatives, like credit default bringing them into exchanges to increase transparency and brought oversight to the shadow banking system. the federal deposit insurance empowering itdic, to deal with bankrupt banks and increase the amount of insured deposits from $100,000 to
250,000 dollars, giving people peace of mind the banks were safe. requiring better capitalized banks, making them hold more capital and subjecting them to the stress tests. enforced conflict of interest prohibitions with rating agencies to restore confidence that their evaluations are fair and unbiased. they put in place new regulations to change the culture of executive compensation like say on pay, which allows shareholders to say whether executive raises are appropriate. like law backs, which regulates the ability to clawback bonuses from underperforming executives. i will talk about this later, there is morely, that needs to be done raining and ceo pay. this was all part of a nationwide effort to rid our financial system of reckless behavior and fraud that nearly brought down the entire economy,
not just here, but worldwide. let's be honest. there were some -- myself, the chairman, and some others, including states attorney generals -- you did not think we went far enough. [laughs] my son calling me. dad, i can't tell you what i'm about to do because it may be a conflict of interest. thedad, i want to warn you, administration is not going to like it. i'm not going to settle with these banks. leahy, senator rick cooper of north carolina -- senator roy cooper of carolina, now elected, and beau biden went , bringing over one hundred million dollars back to delaware in several billion to all three of those states. but none of this happened overnight. stabilizedal sector much more quickly than our critics thought it would. at
allowing american commerce to get back on its feet. mitch mcconnell, who was a friend and truly is a friend, john boehner who is a friend, paul ryan who is a friend, the entire republican caucus -- i remember when the media thought it was exaggerating when i called it the great recession. the same people said that dodd-frank would restrict credit markets. but today, credit markets are functioning again. the chairman of the house financials service said that -frank would crush small business funding. today, small business funding is back to pre-recession levels. so much for the disaster. he and so many other republicans said it would crush community banks. they are expanding significantly.
he and other republicans said it would make the banking sector riskier. the banks are better capitalized today with an initial $700 billion protecting against the downturn. the number of bank failures decreased from 140 a year when the president and i took office to eight last year. and because the cost of federal , aurance fell $30 billion decline of 98%. and so much for the republican party orthodoxy that says dodd- frank would be disaster for the real economy. as my friend john boehner said, here are the facts. i know a lot of people, and probably some of you do, many of your parents lost their jobs and were hit hard. but today, we have witnessed the longest streak of job growth.
and the unemployment rate is 4.6 percent. at the time of the great recession, there were too many retirees who lost their savings and laid retirement. today, most retirement accounts of been restored. we know that not everybody got back their homes. housing prices are up by about a third. is those folks who lost their homes never having missed a mortgage payment -- and then they ended up underwater and lost their homes, never able to get back into a home, they are not benefiting from that additional money that is back. now that it is $19,000, they are not benefiting. there's a lot of people we should be paying attention to,
that quite frank with, neither party paid enough attention to. every time i talk about this, its middle class joe again, but the truth of the matter is, a lot of people got hurt. some workers deserve more pay for the work they do. this is the fastest growth on record. yearages rose by 3% this alone. even after up 11% accounting for inflation over the course of this administration. though, there was undeniable yearsss the last eight and the president and i both acknowledged it's not enough. not enough. that is why we proposed a number of things i will speak to. we are a lot better off today than we were when we took office or it i don't say this in defense of the economy. i say this in defense of why we should not be changing the fundamental way in the ways that
suggested. we are now on the cusp of resurgence. we also know the path to this resurgence has included real hardships for americans, some of whom have never really made it back. they still feel left out. they're very reason to ask why. the first truth is the american economy cannot prosper in the middle of a financial crisis, period. our capitalist system is the greater -- the greatest allocator of capital in the history of the world, but if you protect from abuses it helps create jobs and the middle class. we need it, but we need it to function a way that will let everybody onion to the financial sector can be robust -- let everybody i hear and so the financial sector can be robust and lay the groundwork to rebuild the middle class. the second truth is more should have been done.
even on top of our trillion dollars stimulus, even on top of the largest tax cuts for the american family history, even on top all the lifeline to automakers, the president and i tried to do more. we tried hard to push the american jobs act of 20 11 that provided billions and training and unemployment insurance, tax cuts for schools and businesses. all told, it would have added 2 million jobs and generated 1.5% economic growth. our friends on the hill said no. we knew in order to prosper we needed a 21st century infrastructure. we were 26 in the world, the united states in transportation and infrastructure. i got in trouble when i said if i blindfold you and put you in an airport at laguardia and then an airport in aging -- in beijing, to do therefore in the -- put you there at four
clock in the morning. everybody disagreed. this is the united states of america. we pushed for an infrastructure package that would have put millions of american workers back to work. no.blicans on the hill said we proposed billions of tax cuts for working americans. again, the hill said no. make two years at community college free, paid for by closing loopholes. republicans said no. does anybody believe in the 21st ?entury 12 years is enough does anybody really believe that to be true? that 12 years of free education is enough to compete in the 21st century? differente study a the president -- six in 10 jobs require more than a college degree. excuse me, a high school degree. some of the most
qualified women are staying out of the workforce. why? the cost of childcare. have twogton, if you kids, the cost is $22,000 a year. we wanted to triple the child tax credit. people -- add 100,000 100,000 women into the workplace. our friend said no. when reagan was president we had billion in tax loopholes. now we have $1.3 trillion per year. tell me you can justify more than $600 billion to $800 is generating a social good or productivity? incentivize companies to bring profits home, bring operations back home. our friend said no. in the end, we just didn't have the republican votes in the
congress. so, let me just say to you all, this is not your father's republican party. all of a sudden -- i remember all the years i served in the senate. infrastructure was pushed more by republicans than by democrats. literally, not figuratively. there was a consensus on a range of things, like the basic partnering. you got to share in the benefits. that was the basic bargain. democrats and republicans from 1972, when i got elected as a 29-year-old kid, and 20 years before, 30 years before. which leads me to the fundamental question. where do we go from here? the people have spoken. i happen to support the electoral college. i come from the state of delaware. 2.5 million people spoke for the
editing of the team that got elected. forget what caused this god-awful precession eight years ago. it was the same policies that are being proposed now. half the rate on dividends. cut the top income tax rate. dramatically reduce the state tax. i wanted tot and clear the rubble. the on that, we wanted to build a new stadium. forgot say, if we can't do that, let's at least ensure that the field callinghe balls and strikes and is wearing a striped shirt. that is why we cannot allow the repeal of dodd frank. we can't go back to the days when the banks were free to take your depositors money.