be deciders of their fate. and i'm curious about a comment that was made that the european union is better for the usa, quote/end quote. my question is why? what can you share with us that would help convince me that it is in america's best interest to have a european union as opposed to not having one in as much as our relationship with europe was good in both contexts? >> i think i said let's all take a swing at it. the eu whatever its current problems may be, is a major economic block in the world and major trading partner. >> is that good or bad for us if they have collectively xr more strength? >> a prosperous european economy and european growing is one that american businesses can send and sell more products to and investors can make money investing in europe. >> do you have data that shows europe was growing slowing before the eu as opposed to after the eu? >> in the 1990s in grew quite well as did we. he has had it happened problems since 2008, we recovered more quickly than europe has. >> this is outside the framework of this hearing, do you have data that backs that up the history of that we're talking since 1945 that would be somewhere in the neighborhood of 70 years? >> the lowering the trade barriers throughout europe, part of the original european project clearly helps stimulate economic recovery throughout the 1950s and 1960s. it was very beneficial for europe to essentially allow freed trade within europe and allow economies to grow. second thing is as has been said here, the european union has been a source of stability within europe and the community was also very instrumental in helping the transition from communism. that's good for the united states because it has been until relatively recently a part of the word we didn't have to worry much post break-up of the soviet union. other parts we're concerned with. if europe began to spiral back towards real national rivalries, american policy makers would have to spend more time worrying about that and less worrying about other problems. third, i would say that europe has been a strategic partner of ours for a long time. and if europe is internally preoccupied and increasingly divided, when we try to deal with other strategic problems in the world we're going to get even less help from europe than we do now. >> one of the important aspects of our relationship with europe is our military alliance particularly nato. it seems that under the european union, defense spending by the collective of european nations declined as opposed to when they were a part of the european union, thus making it less able to help america in troubled spots around the globe. i just mentioned that as a concern of mine. i want to focus more on my remaining time. in the greek bailout, we've had our third one. first one in 2010, and 2012 and now 2015 and there's hope maybe this one will stick when the two prior ones did not. what is the monetary exposure to the united states of these bailouts failing? >> i guess i can take a stab at that. the direct exposure to the united states through the breek bailout comes from the im and 70% ownership that -- >> 17.69%. >> that given currently that exposure is about 25 -- i believe $25 billion, so 17% of 16 to 17% of that, however as we're seeing in the last -- in the agreement this weekend, actually the europeans made it very explicit that they are going to pay essentially give greece the money so they can repay the imf which means that in -- >> in my remaining few seconds, is the imf involved in the third bailout? i believe they will be. >> that will increase the amount of funds to the third bailout? >> it will not necessarily increase it because existing loans would be paid simultaneously -- zblo do you know the net? is it going to go up or down? we've got the old bailout numbers and new bailout numbers and payoffs of some of the old but got all of the new. is it going to be a net up or down? >> i actually don't know what the request from the europeans will be. it all depends on the size of greek privatization proceeds et cetera, i would say for the next three to four years probably it will be about even after which it will decline quite rapidly. >> my time has expired. thank you for the indulgence and extra 45 seconds. >> so we have the -- so the united states will be paying for the -- some of the bailout because we are part of the international monetary fund, no? what is it? >> we are, we are 17.69% is our quote ownership of international monetary fund. whatever the assets are in the imf and their obligations to greece, there's an impact on the united states. >> of this -- what is your guess, then, if you say that there's going to be a certain amount of bailout, and how much of that is the united states going to end up paying? >> the range that was mentioned in this -- >> through this -- you know -- >> the range that was mentioned much the agreement over the weekend was 60 or 82 to 86 billion euros, which is about 90 -- just over $90 billion. >> right. >> so then however, subtracted from that will be whatever the proceeds -- a certain number of greek government privatization proceeds from privatizing state owned enterprises et cetera. how much that will be is unknown. but the target is 50. i certainly don't believe they would reach 50. let's say it's 20. that takes you down to sort of in the mid-70s or $70 billion. one third of that would be for the imf to cover. >> how much of that -- one third of that is what $20 billion $25 billion? >> yeah give and take -- >> let's say it's 22 -- >> and then 16% of the 22. >> 16% -- what does that leave? about $5 billion, just about? >> something like that. >> so isn't that wonderful that we're getting to bailout greece and our friends over in europe for $5 billion? isn't that wonderful. we can't find any way to use that money anyway, you know -- >> it is important to recognize that if the bailout deal were to work, then it's not a handout. it's a loan against re -- that gets repaid. do you think this is likely to turn greece around and finally allow it to pay off its debts -- >> when you talk about this debt -- excuse me and we'll go to our last member of the panel here, but what is -- these banks, when you're talking about we're bailing out these european banks there, people that were being bailed out said the banks are getting the money, are these privately held banks or banks that are owned by the government of france and england and et cetera? >> the bailout in discussion is not a private banks that own the debt. there was that issue in 2010 when there were clearly some european banks that benefited from that. they were mostly private banks. in france and elsewhere, but clearly the european government entered into this process because they were afraid that otherwise they would have to bail out these banks themselves and make them so to speak -- >> we're not bailing out any private -- this money for bailing out greece does not include money that's going to privately owned banks. >> no, there are -- >> is that right, the other gentleman, is that true in. >> i don't think that's entirely true. it depends what you mean by privately held banks. some will help greek banks that have no cash on hand at present. that's why -- >> it sorts of makes it even worse, doesn't it? >> thank you mr. chairman. i wanted to follow up on some of your previous comments about being better for us if the eu stays together. if you could answer the question in the opposite way of talking about how we can measure what the impact on our economy would be if the eu completely dissolves or if it ends up that the uk ends up exiting the eu. what kind of impact would that have for us? >> in terms of purely economic terms, i think that would be a blow to the eurozone and the eu in general as an economic actor. i think it would lead to slower economic growth within europe, which is already relatively low. but that in turn reduces economic opportunities for the united states because if the -- euro -- the eu is growing at a half percent a year, there are far fewer american firms that can sell things and far fewer europeans will be buying american products. we would be better off if europe had a rapidly vigorously growing economy and healthy demand for american products. >> do we have any idea with a little more specificity on what kind of impact that would be? obviously you're saying there would be some loss here but -- i'm trying to look for a little bit more -- >> i can't give you a figure a macro economic estimate. i don't have that of what the actual impact on the u.s. economy would be but i know that anything that hurts the european economy will also hurt the united states, not perhaps as much, but it has a negative effect on our economic prospects as well. >> it's very difficult to put numbers on this but i mean the united states now dealing with one economic block. so when the u.s. trades with the european union and trade negotiator, it's one on one. the european union breaks up 1 on 28. 28 separate setsz of bilateral agreements the u.s. has to work out with these countries. also access to one big single market of 506 million people, a u.s. corporation doing business in any one of the 28 countries has access to the entire market. if this breaks down or splinters in some fashion it adds that much more level of complication in terms of dealing with these entities. >> with regard to what prime minister cameron has before him, what do you assess he will be trying to renegotiate with regard to britain's commitment to the eu? >> i mean, i can take -- what he has -- it's a little unclear precisely what he's asking for at this moment from the eu authorities but what he has mentioned is he would like to have britain exempt from the working time directive which is essentially a european regulation that says you cannot work more than 48 hours a week. and then there are other specific types of eu regulation or eu law that he would like the uk to be exempt from. he may also -- it is alleged seek to have the eu exempt from the opening clause of the eu treaty, which talks about an ever closer union, which would be purely symbolic politics but nonetheless that is very important in the referendum campaign. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> we're going to have to go break quickly here. i want to confirm this so we're talking about the greek bailout, $5 million coming from our pockets, i'd like to again go back to who this money is going to. it's going -- the bailout -- first of all, is it accurate to say that the bankruptcy can be traced back to policies of the greek government? >> in my opinion yes. >> okay. so the greek government had policies that put us in a spot where banks -- the banks that will be repaid now because they have been spending this money, to keep the greeks afloat these banks are -- you're saying they are not private banks they are german banks french banks -- >> no this is in 2010. today the people that are going to be repaid are in fact among other things the imf itself. it is also other official sectors of the euro area and relatively small amount of total outstanding debt about 20% of greek debt is still held by private investors. >> okay. >> there's no direct so to speak -- >> the last bailout we saw private banks being given money and bailed out -- the bailout with the greeks but give it to the private banks. are they profit making institutions or government related institutions? >> they are overwhelmingly private institutions. >> how much was the last bailout? >> well the original bail -- the total bailout so far is about 240 billion. >> $240 billion. of that $240 billion, how much went to these private banks? i think i don't have a number off the top of my head, but i would say if you look at the direct exposure that these banks had to the greek debt that was restructured, it should also be known these banks took -- as all private debt holders did a 50% haircut on the debt -- >> their haircut depends on if it meant that they are still making a profit or whether it means they are going to eat into the resource. if a bank or if any other private institution or at least in our owe site it's supposed to be, if you take a risk, you're taking your money because you're taking a risk and giving your money out. and if the federal government or if the european union simply bails out anybody who is taking a risk and makes up for it with public funds, i don't see why we're -- why are they making a profit then on this stuff? you're saying those banks didn't make a profit those years? >> well, i'm saying that they -- they are profit making private enterprises. they definitely did not make a profit on the greek debt holdings because they were compelled to take a debt restructuring in 2012. >> i'm wondering i can see why a lot of people would be very skeptical, regular working people, be small businesses or whatever, would be very skeptical in hearing about the transfer of all of these billions of dollars and a lot of it going -- bailing out really very, very wealthy people who control the banking system mr. meeks, you've got one last -- >> sorry. it seems though from what i'm hearing, that the risk to the united states as far as us it's minimal if anything. it's not substantial. and the likelihood of us having to pay anything especially with the special fund that the europeans have set up to make sure the imf is paid. the only exposure we would have is through the imf and that seems to be backed up already by the eu in this agreement saying that they are going to make sure that the imf is paid. that would leave zero dollars that the united states is -- as far as being -- is that not correct? >> i absolutely -- it's very important for me to emphasize that the imf is the senior creditor and there will be a firm commitment by the euro area to ensure the imf is paid off and the actual exposure to the u.s. is as you said close to zero. >> i remember when we bailed out mexico -- >> you had your time already. >> all of the money went into american banks that never actually left our shores at all. >> all i know, is what we had a financial crisis in the united states also in 2008. and what we had to do is bail out banks to keep our economy afloat. the banks ultimately paid things back. that is not something unusual as far as dealing with a current economy, something they are not doing anything differently than what we had to do. we rebounded and now have to get reform necessary and it is best because when you look at the eu as a whole for us you're looking at what's in america's best interest, we've got to hope we're also doing what's in european best interest. i don't think -- look at america's best interest it's for us to deal with europe as a whole. for example, one of the next big issues that we have to deal with in congress is going to be another trade agreement called ttip and it would be best for the united states if we negotiate that deal that we do it with the eu as a whole because that gives a greater market for our businesses to try to make sure we are getting the best deal to create jobs here, et cetera. is that not correct? >> that's correct. >> thank you. >> we have skeptics over here. i'm one of them. thank you very much, mr. meeks. thank you to our witnesses. we have a vote so we have to run. thank you. republican candidate jeb bush will be in florida this morning to give a speech on his campaign priorities. we'll have that live from florida state university in tallahassee starting at 10:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span3. tonight on the communicators, we'll speak with the wall street journal's information age columnist on why he thinks washington is a danger zone for innovation. >> i think if you go back to earlier technologies like railroads and the telephone monopoly, those were regulated as common carriers and they set prices and terms and rules. we all know what happened. there was very little innovation in railroads and trucking and telephone until they were all deregulated. and all of those common carrier statutes essentially undone by congress when it was so clear that innovation was being suppressed and that the u.s. was falling behind in its competitiveness. that was the back drop for the bipartisan consensus in the 1990s that the internet was going to be different. this is during the clinton administration. a clear consensus democrats and republican, that unlike those earlier technologies the internet was going to be largely unregulated. >> tonight at 8:00 eastern, on the communicators on c-span2. >> vice president biden addressed an audience of young people on thursday. he talked about climate change gun violence, lgbt rights and campaign finance. from the center for american progress in washington, d.c., this is about 40 minutes. >> that was a great introduction and i appreciate it very much. you are working on something that has been a project of mine and near and dear to my heart since i was in undergraduate school before there was a thing called it's on us and before there was an issue of people willing to face the reality that of the millions of women that were being victimized by social standards and cultural standards that are anty quaited and had to be changed. i want to thanknera and ann johnson on everything from student loan reform to it's on us. it's really great to be back here. and in a sense we used to say a point of personal privilege you take me back. you remind me of why i got involved in the first place. it was -- i was going to say it wasn't too many years ago but it was 200 years ago i sat where you are. and i know you've had a full day. you've heard from a lot of great american leaders today and you have gotten a chance to speak together in breakout sessions and you know you've -- i basically came to say thank you. you show your passion on issues that are the same issues that an animated my passion and concern when i was a kid in wilmington, delaware getting involved in public issues. for me it started with the civil rights movement but moved on from there. when i got to the senate as a 29-year-old kid just turned 30 by the time i got sworn in the first bill i ever interest dugsed in the senate was a bill to -- for the student loan program for middle class guys like me and my sister. because i remember when we talk about student loans an access to college, you think of it only in terms of the qualified student. will be denied an opportunity. but like a lot of you, i think of it in terms of the mother and father who dream of opportunities for their kids but feel incredibly inadequate because somehow they can't find the resources to get their child to school. i remember when my father went to get a loan for me to get to college. i was a pretty good athlete and had some opportunities and but i still needed money. my dad, i went down to where he worked and asked his secretary where he was. he's outside the side of the building. i walked around to see him and he was pacing back and forth this is an absolutely true story. he saw me and looked up and joey joey, i'm so sorry. i thought, god, what happened to my sister mother, day before cell phones, did something happen? what's the matter, dad? honey, i went to the bank to try to borrow money to get you to school, they wouldn't lend me the money. i'm so ashamed. i'm so ashamed. so sorry. when we don't give a child qualified an opportunity not only deprives that child of an opportunity, but deprives a parent of the dignity that they are entitled to be accorded. there's nothing worth repairing when looking at your child when they are sick or otherwise and know there is nothing they can do to help. that's the first bill i ever introduced. all the way to it's on us. when i wrote the violence against women act -- [ applause ] no, i don't say that -- i'm not saying that for -- i hope it doesn't come out the wrong way. i'm not saying that for credit, but i want to remind you of why what you're doing is so important. when i wrote that act, no one was for it. every woman's organization opposed it. they thought it would take the focus off of issues from gender equality to women's rights that led to reproduction. i was told there was nothing we could do about it. but i didn't believe that like you don't believe it. we persisted. criminal justice reform, for 17 years, i was chairman and ranking member of the judiciary committee. and what you're focusing on was my passion for all of those years from reform to dealing with gun violence, which i've been in some cases extremely successful on in the biden crime bill which expired under george bush, to the efforts to rewrite legislation, which we've not been able to get passed in this administration. immigration reform which is an issue in my first campaign because chavez was trying to organize farmers into my agricultural state of delaware the way -- [ applause ] the way migrant workers were treated was an abomination, to lgbt rights, for me for the last few decades, has been the civil rights issue of our generation. look ultimately all of this is about making sure that people are afforded the dignity they deserve and middle class has an even shot a level playing field, which they don't have anywhere near now. the deck is stacked against them. i know i'm referred to and it's almost a joke in washington i'm middle class joe. in washington that's not a compliment. it means you're not sophisticated. but i am middle class. the reason i always talk about the middle class and have my whole career, is simple. when the middle class does well,le f the wealthy to very well and poor have a way up. that's what it's about. and they are all of the things that are an mating your passions. it's a very simple proposition. my father used to say every single person is entitled to be treated with dignity. and the absence of economic opportunity, absent economic opportunity, there's no way to be afforded the dignity people deserve. so i applaud your passion. i really mean this. i applaud your passion. and i urge you to never ever apologize for it. never never never try to explain it away. because passion is what ultimately changes circumstances in this country. what i'd like to talk to you about today, how you translate that passion into real meaningful progress for the country. it's the only thing i probably know more about than you because i've been hanging around a long time. you know, it takes a lot of moral and political courage. it's about asking what you are willing to lose over as much as what you're willing to fight for. because i got elected when i was a 29-year-old kid not old enough to be sworn in senate, since that day, everybody who ran for office in delaware would come to me and say what's the secret because obviously there had to be a secret i found out. i'm serious. i'm serious. what do i have to know most. you have to look at one thing and i urge you all to think about this ever run for office or not, what are you willing to lose over? what is so important to you that you'd rather lose than capitulate. if you can't answer that question, you're all in the wrong endeavor. you won't be happy if you have to constantly compromise what you believe because of pressure and interest groups and money. here's the truth. no major issue of the day, no major issue of the day, do the american people disagree with any of the things we're fighting for, you and me. marriage equality immigration reform, raising minimum wage early childhood education, gun violence pro vengs i can go on and on. somewhere between 55 and 90% of the american people agree with what you're fighting for and we're for on every one of those issues. so it's not a question of convincing the american people were right on the issues before. it's a question of demanding political courage from elected officials. to meet the expectations of the american people. courage only find if the people you, demand them to demonstrate it. you should have proud of how you already moved this country. you in this room with your generation, we had a huge victory on marriage equality last month, a battle waged for decades by heroic men and women of the lgbt community and as well as straight people. some literally risked their lives by the fight by coming out. your generation, you were the cultural tipping point. you changed the nature of the discussion in america. you altered it. now there's full fledged acceptance. it's because of you guys. but we still need you. because today there's freedom to marry in 50 states for marriage to be recognized. in more than half of those states, marriage can be recognized but that very same day you can be fired from your job, just because you are lgbt, just because you're any one -- you're a lesbian or gay or trans gender, no explanation is required in 32 states. you're fired. it's outrageous. the reason why it persists in my view is because the american people don't know it can be done, even in those states. that's where you come in you have the passion and energy to bring to the people of those states the knowledge that this can happen. i got criticized for coming out when others didn't -- anyway, for coming out on television for marriage equality. no, here's the point i want to make. thank you, but i don't -- i realize i'm an unusual politician trying to dampen applause but -- but all kidding aside, guys, i was absolutely certain it was taking no chance. as a matter of fact, i made a bet with prominent people you would know if i mentioned their names. that overwhelmingly the american people agreed with me and they did because they are decent. one of the things you can do better than anyone else is give voice to what's happening. because the american people at the core of basically decent. and once you give voice to it consistently enough unrelentingly enough, the public will demand of their leaders that they respond. fighting unemployment discrimination is the next big fight. but just as you made marriage equality the case of your generation, you can make gun violence prevention the case of your generation now. [ applause ] >> you can. in the so-called biden crime bill in the '90s, we made great progress. we eliminated assault weapons and had extensive background checks and so on and so forth. in order to get it done, and by the way, crime dramatically dropped during that period. but what happened? in order for me to get it done, i had to agree it had to be reauthorized in ten years or i couldn't have gotten it passed. ten years came around and happened on a republican watch. the tragedy of al gore having lost that election to the supreme court was tragic. because it would have been very different the previous eight years. but, but it all got wiped out. as the president says, why are we the only great civilized country where there's carnage after carnage and no response. after 20 children and six of those massacred in newtown the president asked me based on my work back in the '90s, to put together a legislative agenda. sensible gun control that we believe the american people would accept from banning military style assault weapons to strengthening background checks and making schools safer and mental health services and so on. so with a lot of help with a really brilliant staff i put together a package. we announced to the american people and went on the road to sell it. and we sold it. overwhelming to the american people, but we called on congress to pass it. it didn't move at all. we waged an aggressive effort to make the case to the people, and collectively we succeeded, 90% of the american people, 85% of households with members of the nra supported our background check legislation. let me say that again. 90% of the american people in red, red states. 85% of the households with an nra member in it supported rational proposal we put forward in background checks. but those public officials who were asked to step up, for the first time they didn't have to worry about being outspent because of a guy i like a lot, he's a republican but first rate michael bloomberg and because of two really fine people congresswoman gabby gifford and mark kelly. [ applause ] combined, it was the first time in a legislative shootout that the nra was outspent. we still failed. why? well, my opinion because of the political influence of extremely powerful groups, not just nra but the gun lobbying and manufacturers. enough elected officials were unwilling to risk their seats based on past examples rather than do what they knew was the right thing to do. even what their people wanted to do. folks, i've observed, there's a consistent attribute of human nature that affects the decisions not only of elected officials but with all of us. it's called rationalization. never underestimate the ability of the human mind to rationalize. i don't know how many members told me, joe i can't take the risk because if i lose, you won't have me here to help on food stamps or help on -- because they did other good things. it's called rationalization. you're all susceptible to it, everybody is. so something to urge you to do is first understand and expose those elected officials who are otherwise pretty good people, some of them, who are -- no, they are by the way who engage in this rationalization. and they'll do it with you. i can't do it in my state because of -- they told me. when i introduced the gun legislation, my state, if i'm not mistaken, the third highest gun possession in the country. the nra went at me hammer and nail and told the duck hunters i was going to take away their shotguns. but i'm living proof to tell you there's nothing special about me, if you go out and make the case, it is common sense and you stand by your convictions. we can win. if you help us make the case on national gun policy what it should be, it makes it so much more difficult for elected officials who don't have enough courage sometimes to not nationalize. the same goes with climate change. environmental awareness is what got my generation involved in public life along with the civil rights movement in the '70s. one of three issues i ran on, civil rights and war on vietnam and environment because i come from a corporate state with a lot of smoke stacks. but as important as it was to my generation, it's so much more important now. for yours your children and grandchildren and great grandchildren. climate change is real. it's real as gravity. [ applause ] >> it's real. why do most republicans who know that and understand the danger, why do they continue to persist in this fiction? since day one of this administration with your insistence, the president carried out the most consequential effort to curb carbon pollution and make our communities more resistant to extreme weather and make renewable energy here at home but again, i think the coordinated city by city state by state national attacks on common sense provided by billionaires and multimillionaires and interest groups has been extremely effective. and what happens again? what's the rationale when you spoke to a congressman or senator you know knows better, you know knows better. well, they'll say, you know, we can't do that extreme climate legislation because we'll lose jobs here at home. it's going to hurt our economy. you see it cost ordinary people opportunity, which you know none of which is true. none of which is true. so you and i, all of us particularly you we have to change the calculus and make it impossible for an entire political party to deny climate change as it ravages our cities and heartlands and coasts. we'll win this fight but we need to win it sooner than later. because every month every year, makes a difference. that's why we need you so badly to demand elected officials confront the truth, take away their ability to rationalize. point out to them that more jobs will be created in eliminating the damages of climate change and mitigating them than will be kept by nat doing anything about it. same thing in immigration. we as a nation we're the nation we are because we're immigrants. i know that sounds like the usual stuff. i recently had the opportunity to meet with lee quan yu before he died, referred to the henry kissinger of the east, wrote extensively on the future of india, china, united states and russia russia. i urge you to read his stuff. he recently passed away. i was coming from mumbai, india, heading to japan to meet with abe. and i got a call would i stop in singapore and sit down and meet with lee quan yu. i was honored to do it. we were talking about -- we were talking about how rapidly she has consolidated power in china and he knows i know xi better than anybody because i spent more time with him than anybody. we were talking about how quickly consolidated power. i said to him five minutes into an hour and a half conversation mr. president what are the chinese doing now? meaning, what are they contemplating next? he said, they are in the united states, looking for the buried black box. true story. i looked at him like you're looking at me but i can't see with the lights. i said i smiled and said -- this was the time aircraft went down in the ocean there. they couldn't find the black box. and i said mr. president, i'm sorry, i'm confused. they are looking for that box that's buried in the united states that contains the secret that allows america to be the only country in the history to be able to constantly be able to remake itself. and i said, well, mr. president i'm old enough to presume to give you an answer. they'll find two things in that black box. one is stamped in the dna of every naturalized american, an absolute skepticism for orthodoxy, as bad as education level may be, a child is never criticized for challenging orthodoxy in america. think about that. unlike any of the countries in the world including britain and france, anywhere else. that's how we make new things break old things, challenge orthodoxy. the second thing they'll find, before the declaration an unrelenting stream of immigration, not in trickles but great waves, throughout the history of our country, and why that's important, mr. president, is we're able to basically cherry pick the best talent from every culture. and i really mean this. you know a lot of people think that you know, people sit around at a bunch of poor folks in guadalajara saying around a table in their kitchen, i've got a great idea. let's sell everything we have and go to a country that doesn't want us, don't speak the language, won't that be fun? the people who leave to come here are the people with the best imaginations, the greatest amount of courage the best initiatives. [ applause ] >> that's a fact. that's who we are. so what we're doing is robbing ourselves of the life blood of innovation and progress and blocking immigration reform ignores 70% of the american people already agree with us. why isn't it being done? here there's resistance there's more than one reason. it's not just interest groups. there's a deep seeded anti-pathy, some bordering on hate and racism that creates stereo typical images about immigrants. all you have to do is listen to the republican nominating fight right now. i mean it sincerely. think about it. [ applause ] but folks at the ends of the day, what's thwarting our ability to legs late based on a clear consensus is the increased power and special interest group particularly focused on state legislative bodies. if we democrats had made any mistake, we focus on only the makeup of the congress makeup of the senate. but the koch brothers can go into illinois and pick eight, ten, senate seats spend 250,000 bucks a seat, which is more than anybody usually raises, spend less than 4 or $5 million and change the dynamic in the states. we've got to get smarter. all of the action isn't only here in the congress and federally. i can go on but i won't. let me ask you a retore cal question. if you could do only one single thing, only one, to increase fairness, he can quaut opportunity to middle class pass rashl gun control and deal with immigration, et cetera what would it be? i can tell you one thing i would do. it would be -- it would be get private money out of political process. [ applause ] the first bill ever introduced that i'm aware of at least in the generation at the time, was a bill i introduced in 1973 calling for a limitation on how much could be spent in a congressional election, in a senate election, guaranteeing that challengers would have as much money as the incumbent and -- and capping them. i ran in in 1972 as a middle-class kid who had just paid off his college and law school loans with a law firm that was just getting onto its feet, and i was able to run a campaign because i could organize people with $300,000. and won in a year when nixon was running, when my opponent was at least twice as well funded as i was, and was a 40-year incumbent who had an 80% favorable rating. today i ask myself if i were in the same exact position, 29 years old in delaware a little state, and i wanted to run for the united states senate with the same ideas and the same ability to organize, could i possibly do it. i would have to raise multiples, multiples of $300,000. and per capita delaware is one of the most expensive campaigns in the nation because it's the only place with no television and you have to pay for 10 million people 9 million of whom if they voted for you would be indicted because it's philadelphia television. so folks, what are we doing? what are we doing? you're cutting off access for so many of you, for so many young minds. the only you can get engaged is you have to go where the money is, and where the money is there's almost always implicitly some string attached. no one buys anybody directly. that doesn't happen. if it does it's rare. but it's awful hard to take a whole lot of money from a group that you know has a particular position. and then if you conclude they're wrong, vote no. so ladies and gentlemen i predict one day the american people are going to wake up and they're going to demand change. today it's going to require a constitutional amendment. a constitutional amendment with fitz hines. no no, we can't do that. what are you going to do? if you're running for the president, i can't disarm we have to do the same thing. you can argue they're less says-serving than the other teams. that may be true. but, guys why do you think the middle class think things are not on the middle level. what chance do you think we have of getting income tax that i've been fighting for my whole life? people aren't going to supply money against their own interest interest. they're not bad people. but i've been pushing to change for my entire career the way we treat our new income. it's outrageous. it's outrageous. but the people with a whole lot of money are people with moderate income as is defined in the code. why are they going to give their own money. >> folks, you're going to start your own party. at least in our own party fights among ourselves in primary sies that we adhere to a policy that doesn't rest on millionaires and billionaires. they're good people. they're not bad per se and i really mean it. but it's a helluva way to run a democracy. and so the first place you've got to start is in the democratic party. no matter how much you love me or somebody else you have to demand of us that we demonstrate, we understand. we can do something about the corrosive impact of massive amounts of money. we can demand the people who we support don't yield to millionaires and billionaires. take the money in limited amounts. but what are we doing? i know a lot of people read into this part of what i'm saying, something i'm not intending. i'm not talking any individual. i'm really not. but if they can't even start in their own party i'm willing to have people start in their own party and say, okay, in the general election, don't disarm, but do it there. but in their own party. look. we can -- we can get support. people we can outspend -- and this is a hyperbole -- if we have you, if we the party have you you, the young passionate advocate. if i have a chance to go on television with millions of dollars or take 2,000 volunteers on the street, i'd take 2,000 volunteers on the street for real. and so, folks, don't unts estimate your ability to influence all of us who are tempted to yield to the temptation to go ahead and do the same thing and, again rationalize, rationalize if i don't, i'm not going to be able to win and all the good i can do will be gone, even though the way i have to do it, even if it doesn't compromise me, convince middle-class average people that i don't care about them and that therefore, will not trust me. you know, we have to speak up. we have to speak up. i know a lot of what i just said probably sounds polly an issue to you. but i've been around all these other guys. i'm telling you it can be done. it always is done by generations like yours. i begin byend by taking you back to 1922 when the vietnam war was raging everyone criticized and everybody chanted in the late '60s drop out. . politics was viewed as dirty and corrupt and corrupting. so the temptation of that generation to drop out was no less than the temptation of your generation to say be damned with it it's not worth it, it can't happen. but a whole bunch of us disa greegree disagree, and we changed things. we ended a war. we completed the civil rights movement as it was pictured at the time. we generated genuine beginning of the women's movement and the environmental movement. not me. my generation. but if you go back and look at what the odds were, they were slim to none. so the only message i want to leave you with is this. you have the talent, the intellect, the passion and the commitment. i don't want you to get discouraged. i don't want you to get discouraged. i promise you if you keep doing what you're doing if you generate and increase your numbers, if you never apologize for your passion if you always gerd yourself against the temptation to rationalize, if you're oolz actually willing to listen to the other side to generate a consensus this can only get done. that's the only way we can make progress in this country. how can we do it without a genuine consensus. you've already made a great deal of difference in the lives of american people and that's not hyperbole. you already have. you. people in this room already have. if there's even more reason now to be idealistic and optimistic and tenacious and passionate and principled than any time, think of it this way folks, and i'll get out of your hair. if you're ever going to be involved in public affairs in whatever foray, this is the time to do it because things are changing. they're changing. they're going to change no matter what you do. the question is how they change. there's very few periods in american history. i call them inflection points. i remember my physics professor defining what a reflection point was. he gave us metaphorically it's like driving down the highway, 60 miles an hour, both hands on the wheel and you abruptly turn right or left. you can never get back on the packet you're on. that's what's happening. not because of barack obama or joe biden or anyone else because these are moments of great change. william butler wrote appropriate sunday, 1916. talks about the first rising in ireland in 20th century. in the file line he said all's changed, changed utterly. a terrible beauty has been born. that description is more apt today in the national world of politics than it has been. all has chamged in the last 15 years. but if we have our hands on the wheel, we have unlike in periods of status quo we have a chance to bend history just a little bit, just a little bit. but it's only going to be done by you. it's only -- i mean it sincerely. it's only going to be done by young decent passionate people of principle. that's how all change has taken place in europe. let me conclude by saying i came to thank you and tell you we badly, badly, badly need you. don't get despondent. don't get disengaged. disrupt the status quo. make noise. take everybody on. and don't ever settle for it can't be done. god bless you all and may god protect our troops. thanks. [ cheers and applause ] and c-span3 taking you live now to florida state university here in tallahassee florida florida. republican presidential candidate jeb bush taking on a sears of records and how he plans to control federal spending if he's elected. >> it started with a gielgd principle. government should not grow faster than people's ability to pay for it. you start with that premise, you reduce taxes for individuals, and you are frugal as it relates to government spending. >> when jeb bush was elected governor, he made very clear it's not our money. it's the taxpayers' money. if your project didn't meet the principles that he put forward he was going to whack it. >> the speaker of the house coined the term vito core leony because no one was safe. >> the spending didn't go through any process that would have made any floridian proud, so that budget discipline was important. >> in using the veto party. >> you can do this. it requires leadership. it requires rolling up your sleeves and trying to fix problems instead of talking about the problems on the sidelines. >> he changed the cull fur in tallahassee and he can change the culture in washington. >> ladies and gentlemen, please welcome former governor jeb bush. [ cheers and applause ] >> good morning. good morning, everybody. bobby. thank you all very much for coming on a beautiful florida morning. i get to travel around all the places. last week i was in las vegas and they always talk about dry heat like it's some really cool thing when it's 110 degrees. i kind of like humidity myself being from florida. and it's good to be back in tallahassee to see so many friends. where's ed burr chairman of -- i thought he was here -- chairman of fsu's board of truss tees. i saw edward benz, former chair of fsu's board of trustees. thank you, alan. i got a chance to see your great president, president thrasher who is back there. it's good to be here. i'm really excited to be with my friends. we're in the early days of a long campaign and i'm making my case to the voters all across the country. time having a blast doing it by the way. it is with such joy that i get to campaign for the presidency of the united states the greatest country on the face of the earth. people are ready to choose a new president. among republicans, they've got a lot of choices to choose from. they want to know the voters do, what we believe, but also what we've accomplished. and for me that story begins right here in tallahassee. in my eight years in office we didn't just mark time. we filled those years with hard work and real reform. it wasn't always a smooth packet. in fact, we used to call this city mt. tallahassee because it was remote from the people caught up in the subtle ways of a comfortable establishment. i was a governor who refused to go along with that establishment. i wasn't a member of the club and that made all the difference. should i win this election, you won't find me deferring to the ways of mt. washington. the overspending, the overreaching, the arrogance the sheer incompetence of the city are sometimes -- they're treated as though it's a fact of life, that nothing can be done about it. but a president should never accept them, and i will not. we need a president willing to challenge the whole culture in our nation's capital, and i mean to do it. name any excess or abuse in the federal government. in these past few years it's gotten worse. the rush to put up new health care when they couldn't put up a website to go with it. caring for veterans at the vchlt a. veterans died while waiting for help. but only two people were fired for lying about the wait times. two people. we trust veterans. we trusted them to fight for us. we should trust them to be able to choose their own doctor. and reforming v.a. will be a high priority. the partisan abuses of the irs and the coverup that follows, all of which to this day have gone unpunished, and there's the whole sale loss of personal and security information to cyber hacks in china because the political hacks in opm ignored the official warnings. you remember the warnings we got in the general departments? there was one for opm. id sate we have lax security and there's going to be security breaches. it had already happened by the time the report had taken place and today we now know 22 million people were affected and that the information taken includes intrusive questionnaires used for vetting purposes. i found out the vetting process is 100 pages long with all sorts of information a treasure trove of information for a country seeking to gain an advantage over our country. what does that say then with all the resources that the federal government has that they can't even protect vital data from a hostile actor. rarely has incompetence carried such a price in government. ineptitude of this order is enough to sound the alarm all by itself. but when it comes to the norm, when there's no accountability and few even expected anymore, that's when we really need to worry. it's come to the point with the current administration and with the entire washington establishment that it so perfectly represents that it's kind of like alfred e. newman. let me worry. it's always someone else fault. the challenge is more and more people don't believe their government works for them. i believe it can. and i will take the skills i learned with many of you in this room to make it so. don't get me wrong. i have not so fond memories but i certainly have memories during my time in government here when it wasn't perfect. but that's part of being a leader is to accept responsibilities when things go wrong. after the 2000 presidential election recount we moved decisively to improve our laws. when the tragedy of willie wilson took place and exposed the short comings of our child welfare system, working with the florida legislature, we stepped up our commitment to community-based care and made them much more responsive to children in need. and when senior people in my administration violated the public trust, they were removed from their jobs. when these problems occurred i took responsibility. that's what floridians deserved. and that's the kind of leadership that's been lacking in washington and that's the kind of leadershiply lyly lyly i will bring to washington, d.c. [ applause ] >> for anyone who wanted to see the federal government bigger than those it's supposed to serve, the other party will be offering that option. as for me i'm offering a different agenda awl together. it will be my intention not to preside over the establishment but in every way i know to december erupt that establishment and make it more accountable for the people. [ applause ] >> the ultimate disruption is to reject as i do the whole idea of the government forever growing more borrowing more, and spending more beyond anybody's ability to control it or even comprehend it is not the right way to go. i have no illusions about what reform really takes. the next president of the united states has got to confront the spending culture in washington, and i promise you i will do it. i think we've learned by now you can have a fast growing economy or fast expansion of government. you can't have both. you have to choose as i did as we work together when i was governor of the now third largest state. in my time in office florida's economy expanded 4.4% per year more than 50% more than the nanchal average. at the same time government spending as a percentage of our state's economy went down. in fact, that should be the aspirational goal for the united states of america and its federal government. economic growth growing far faster than the size and scope of washington an its budget. we balanced our budget every year i was in office and increased our state's reserves by $8 billion. who knows. maybe there was going to be -- who knows if there was going to wo b an economic calamity of epic proportions. who knows. we have hurricanes here. we were rewarred by being upgrauded to aaa bond rating and you compare that to the sorry state of affairs where our country hassed a a downgrade t first one in its history. i vetoed more than 2,100 spending items. that wasn't punitive. in fact i think speaker thrasher and benz agree i was an equal opportunity veto. this was to create a process so we could have $9 billion of reserves, wre we didn't have a government that grew faster than the people's income in the state. we need the exact same thing in washington. we should have, you know the idea of veto core lee ohlneyolney. i thought it was an insouth sult, but the fact is i liked it a lot. i cut the state bureaucracy by more than 10% trying to live up to my inaugural to make buildings around tallahassee silent monuments to a time when the government played more a role than it could deserve or adequately will. i city believe that as well. they don't need the kind of government we have. if we can build it by our very nature we'll all become conservative because the demands on government will subside. from the very outset as president i would single a new direction by supporting fund mental reforms that go to the heart of the problem. fins we have too confront and end the habitual practice of deficit spending. as long as deficits are an option, deficits will be the reality. . the reality i will support is balanced budget amendment. to be clear -- [ applause ] >> to be clear, it has to be properly designed so that it's a tool to limit government not to raise taxes. americans in every party are right to be worried about the fiscal integrity and solvency of our government. it needs to be fix. i will urge congress to submit a balanced budget amendment to the states and let the people decide. second, it is time to revive veto core leony. the president should be able to resolve waste 68 spending such as paul ryan has recommended to make sure it abide by our constitution. overspending is one of those problems where the president has to assert aings naal interest even if no one else will. the power to veto irresponsibility duty is part of the spending and i know how to use it, trust me. [ applause ] >> the third spending reform is government procurement. federal agencies spend billions and billions of dollars on ee equipment and services follow complicated procedures no company would use in a competitive environment. the process is slow and too often it holds no one accountable for being over bunt. one of the most trackic examples i've seen o the road is a v.a. hospital many years in the making that was cupsupposed to cost $2.8 million. now it's $1.8 billion. the defense department is still operating by the procurement methods of the cold war. in some cases by the time new equipment reaches our troops it's almost obsolete. so here we are with a penalty gob that has to cut military equipment, pay, and health care all the while losing backward wasteful procure management proch sis. they're so swamped only a handful of giant con trackers can compete. that's why i support initiatives of the respeckive chairman of the senate and john mccain, a real hero, by the way. [ applause ] senator mccain and matt thornberry in the house to reform it to make it more transparent, more flexible and more competitive. competition reduces costs and ensures our troops have quality equipment that keeps them safe. it's not too much to ask for the people who defend our country that we eliminate waste so that we can invest in them. these problems are not unique to the military. the processes and procedures used to purchase information technology are fraught with cost overruns, delays, and outright failures. over the last five years the united states accounting office ha made serve real recommendation. only 23% of them have been fully implemented. we can apply these same principles that we used to fix defense acquisition to address the procurement of washington. this is something that requires leadership rj not just fighten an assessment a success but having on leadership skills to take an idea, put it in reality, make sure there's accountability and make sure we transform how our government works. by the way, i just got applauded by ben watkins who i think deserves a lot of credit. this is one state that's reduced its debt burden in the way that the rest of the state should floor. ben, you've done a great job along with governor scott. [ applause ] >> i do that because he's great public servant and he's really embarrassed that i've mentioned him out louchltd if we're going to make good budget decisions we need to deal with real numbers. the trick in d.c. is called baseline budgeting. it means the current spending level is the starting point for future budget. baseline like your kitchen budget looks like this right? the base in washington is like this. it automatically kbroes. the minute you suggest they cut it you're evil, taking away from someone else. it's a rate at farmore than the ability we can pay for u. i'll work with congress to change it. you know you've got a problem when standard accounting principles seem like a sub sersive idea. that's how it is with federal bunding. meanwhile all the taxpayers who underwrite it have to live in the real world. it's not as fun as working with make-bee leave numbers i've got that but it can get you out of trouble. real world pujting would mark a big step. in my administration, it will be the rule rather than the exception. you may remember some of this when it's coming up. when they asked if more deposit authority they should be required in detailed justifications why they need it and also to propose offsetting cuts. the short of it is we're going to turn off the automatic switch of discretionary spending increases and weigh budgetets only on its merits. too much of the federal government runs on automatic which means that things are happening with knob stopping to ask why. people are hired. they're promoted. they're given pay increases often route guard to performance. more than ever, it's a system in the old way ruled by inertia and unaccountable for the people. and with over 2 mill upgovernment employees on the federal payroll, these programs and these problems carry a heavy cost and a few serious reforms will go a long way. my first reform will be to place a freeze on federal hiring. we can expect that more than 10% of all the current work-force will retire over the next five years. it's a fairly safe bet that not everyone who leads needs to be replaced. exceptions for critical positions lee lated to our security and safety. only one new hire for every three that leave. we can increase the bureaucracy. with other reforms that are possible, we could reduce the bureaucracy by more than 10% within four years my first term as president of the united states saving tens of billions of dollars without adding to its ploim. we thae made those top cuts and we've made top market more accountable by defining them as at-will employees. we could be assured they would be let go if they're not doing a good job. the effect was to up everybody's game attract new talent and remind public employees they're there to serve. whether it's a company's employees we're talking about or a government work-force, the whole idea of management is to reward good performance and make the best the standard and that's not the system we have inwash washington, d.c., right now. let's just say they didn't have the taxpayers' interests foremost in mind. we have structural deficits that we have to address. it doesn't matter what the -- who's the cause of all this. it times to reform all of this to make governments smaller so we can rise up as a nation again. [ applause ] >> the system they have left us rewards longevity instead of performance. many federal employees are paid more than their private sector counter parts. federal employees earn a little over $1,500 per year in wages and nearly $16,000 a year in benefits. there are a lot of exemplary employees in the federal government but they're treated no better than the bad ones. job security is one thing. job entitlement is another. and every time a federal employee needs to be moved along, it shouldn't be a federal case. the system is so broken that in 2013 the number of federal employees term nate for cause actually fell to 0.18%. one-fifth of 1 low pressure. beyond that, the time it takes to remove an unproductive employee should be measured in weeks rather than years. just like in the real world come pe sane should depend on the time of work and the quality of the work. if the aim is to bring out the best in public servants and to improve morale across the federal work-force, then we've got tot get the enincentives right. no more doling out raises across the board. if we recognize skill, i promise you we'll see a lot more in the ranges of civil service and trakt new talent as well. we'll have enhanced financial incentives for managers whose skill and careful planning actually reduce spending. when federal employees are found squandering money, we should call them out on it. when they find ways to save money, we should reward them. it's great model we should bring to washington, d.c., to reward people who are focused on shrinking government. [ applause ] of course, the sheerest way to protect the taxpayer's money is not to take so much of it in the first place. the best way to keep the government accountable so the limit its acted to wreck late our economy and lives. in the coming months eibel setting forth my plan on a scale we haven't seen since the reagan year amsd i will be outlining the reform and major retirement programs and provide a replacement for obama kafrmt not to keep you in suspense -- [ applause ] >> not to keep you in suspense but the consent is to bring the golf back rather than catering all too often to special interests. [ applause ] after all, it's the relentless expansion of government that made lobbying washington's premier growth industry. spending on lobbying has risen by more than 45% in the past decade. translating to get this, 1$12.5 million per member of congress at last count. yeah. exactly. restrain federal spending and the bureaucratic med ling and they'll result on a big government. i saw how it works. over time lobbyists and legislators spent too much time getting comfortable. along with other changes we made the florida legislature passed a law that i've signed that created the strictest reforms in the country. i've signed it apd think they're significantly better. even before i took office i signaled a new way of doing business by forbidding lobbying by any member of my transition team. as governor we limited the alt of gifts. the reforms i signed into law. forced them to disclose information about their lobbyists and compensation. they were a little grumpier but now i've about noticed it's turned into a competitive deal. here's what i propose. every time a lobbyist meets with any member of congress that should be reported online every week on the members' official website that. should include, by the way, the ambiguous class of consultants who lobby but call it something else. the definition of the term "lobbyist" should be expanded to address the cadre of government relations and government affairs specialists populating the affairs capital as well. then there's those who quickly become lobbyists themselves as if merely moving onto the same business end. they need to discover life outside washington, d.c. which who knows, might be of great service for them. they do it with great talent and integrity and they can make a huge contribution to the communities in which they were serving and i believe they should be doing that rather than translating this staying in wac and trying to experience it. >> if if i'm introduced as president, i'llen clud a six-year ban on lobbying for members of the house and the u state senate. and we'll take similar measures at the white house. i will strengthen exhibiting prohibitions that depart executive employees from lobbying measuring in my administration. it matter as what example is set. it's easy to lay out standard on performance for others, but what are high standards worth if they're not applied to themselves. consider members in congress who sometimes seem to regard attendance and voting as optional, something to do as time permits. the reality is that congress is in session for typically three days a week when they're up there. so it's not asking too much that every member be there and work on thoebs days. and if it's an incentive they need, how about the one that pretty much every worker in america has in their job. if you don't show up you don't get paid for the time that you miss. [ applause ] a bill to pay might not pass the house or senate, i don't know. but at least we can get them there for a vote. if we can't get them on the job let's at least get them on the record. if i've learned anything as governor of florida it was never to take time for granted. e even kept on my desk where i always could see it a digital clock counting down the time left in my term to the last hour. i might just bring that clock along should i have the honor of serving the 1,461 days of the next presidential term. [ applause ] our leaders can be so immersed in coming campaigns and far off legacies as to lose sight of the present challenges and work needs to be done right now. things delayed in washington have a tendency to never get done at all. but in this era of excuses, we're drawing it to an end. there's no time -- there's no way to make up for lost time. we have to do it ourselves. we can no longer excuse away why our system doesn't work. more and more people are completely disaffected by washington, d.c., and i completely get this and understand it because all of us feel that way. but we can fix these things, i know it, because we did it together here in tallahassee. [ applause ] i know in my heart the real sustained economic growth is possible. i have set an aspirational goal of 4% per year. as far as the eye can see, e believe this country will be the first country so-called developed country, which means flat line, to be able to renew ourselves and grow as a shut stained rate where people will be lifted out of the povertity. but the driving force of this is going to be presidential level leadership, to challenge the culture of spending and reform the things that are broken in washington, d.c. this is essential and i believe achievable in one term. don't lehtonen tell you're-wise. we should have high lochte aspirations and challenge everything that we do to make sure that we make it happen. [ applause ] >> reporter: all of this is part of the case i intend to make across the state. florida's hugely important in case you didn't know in the pry may and in general and, of course, in our country. i'm giving this race my all. speaking to every voter of every background and being true to what i believe. here's what i believe and here's what i know. for all of us the coming years can be and will be the best time ever to be alive in this country of oursnd and i'm ready for the challenge. [ applause ] i'm ready for the challenge. i'm asking for your vote. and i'm asking for your help. god bless you all. it's great to be back in tallahassee. thank you. [ chatter ] ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ and jeb bush one of many republican presidential candidates seeking the nomination in 2016 speaking in tallahassee at florida state university. if you missed any of his remarks, you can watch them any time online at c-span.org. and taking like at noon eastern the cato institute for the discussion about u.s. drug policy and new synthetic or designer drugs and a conversation with the president of the new u.s. policy foundation and the fire next door. we'll have that live at noon. and then today the cuban flag flying for the first time in more than 50 years. the "washington post" reporting only a few early risers were on hand to mark the predawn transition, the latest in a step-by-step process to bury 54 years of diplomatic estrangement. a worker in a short-sleeve shirt slipped the single star flag into the national colors at the state department and the cuban officials officially nominating the full status which has served as cuba's intrastation for decades. a similar event scheduled next month in havana when secretary of state john kerry plans to visit cuba. the secretary and the foreign minister taking you live at 1:45 p.m. eastern on our companion network c-span. tonight on "the communicators," we'll speak with the wall street journalist's jordan crow vits on why he think it's danger zone for innovation. >> i think if you go back to earlier technology lie railroads and the ma bell telephone those were regulated as common carriers regulators set prices, they set terms, they set rules and we all know what happened. there was very little innovation in railroads and in trucking and in telephones until they were all deregulated and all those common carrier statutes essentially undone by congress when it was so clear that inl ovation was being suppress and the u.s. was falling behind in its competitiveness. that was the backdrop for the bipartisan consensus in the 1990s that the internet was going to be different. this was during the clinton administration. a clear consensus,dom carats and republicans that unlike those earlier technologies, the internet was going to be larmly unregulated. >> tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on "the communicators" on c-span2. next a look at how city mayors can affect national issues. l.a. mayor eric garcetti spoke in washington, d.c. on topics that include immigration and raising minimum wage. this took place at the national press club. it's about an hour. >> hi, everybody. >> hello. >> especially you, mayor. welcome to the national press club. i'm bob wiener and i'm host of this. this is a news committee event and we're happy to have you all here. we're especially happy to have los angeles mayor eric garcetti who will discuss the nation's broken immigration system and his plans to address immigration reform through his local auspices while congress remains in gridlock. he will also -- this year he launched the step forward l.a. campaign which raised nearly $4 million to help 100,000 angelenos work legally by the time his first term ends. mayor garcetti will also make the case for the $15 minimum wage that was recently holds the los angeles record with his mother for voter registration anywhere in the country you have remstered 100,000 voters. congratulations, chuck, on that incredible performance. so the mayor earned his bachelor's and masters from columbia university. as a rhodes scholar he studied in the school of economics and later the university of southern california. he and his wife amy elaine wakeland have a young daughter. he's a lieutenant in the national rye serve and an avid jads pianist and photographer and is very much in shape and an at voe cat of school. approaching in the corner, the national press club service winner of the year. the photograph of the national press club will be shooting. i mentioned autumn kelly. naomi seligman where are you? she was invaluable on the mayor's staff. the communications director and your whole team, thank you very much for making this happen. our team, chris anthony stotus, you are here who is a super clemson student just had a piece two days ago in the front page of "the washington times" for us. from clemson sylvaian stains, if you would raise your hand? i want to introduce my wife, dr. patricia burg, who suffered through all of this and actually kind of enjoys it, i think. chuck has said that mayor garcetti is the smartest mayor in los angeles history. i want to say my wife is the smartest in the whole country. she runs the lab at george washington medical center, discovered a gene activated in 80% of women with breast cancer. 70% of men with prostate cancer, had nor cameras at her news conference than dick cheney had when he was sick at george washington medical center. congratulations. so i think that covers everyone. so now mayor garcetti on immigration, minimum wage and the drought and we are so proud to have you. thank you for coming. >> thank you so much and a very good morning. thank you for coming out here. it is a little early for me on west coast time than for you. it certainly is a great joy to be here. i appreciate you coming here for my analysis of the historic iran/u.s. agreement and a review of donald trump's golf courses. we have a very exciting moment. i appreciate everyone being here in the midst of a very busy news week. it is important for the future of our country and certainly for the cities of america as anything we are talking about in the presidential election and in the coming weeks. it is a very exciting time to be a mayor in america's cities. i am the mayor of the largest city and state in the union and the second largest city in america, arguably the western capital of the you states and one of the great global cities of the world today. in many ways, i embody that city in the same way that city embodies this nation. i have an italian last name. i'm half mexican, half jewish. if that doesn't get me elected nothing will. i've been referred to as a kosher burrito. it is the multitude of what this country is about. we don't care where you have come from, who you are. we don't judge you by the zip code you are born in. the rhetoric of this nation is that we are a nation that really is about opportunity for all people around the world and around this country. it is exciting for the cities. in the '60s, america cities were burning. in the '70s, burning. in the '80s. a crime wave and in the '90s. more unrest and the last decade the most crippling recession. if you look at america's cities today, new york, which was synonymous with a mugging is a place with abundant investment. a place like detroit which saw its population cut more than in half is a playsce we see manufacturing and investment coming back and los angeles synonymous as the disillusion of diversity is seen as a model, a place that embodies what the world looks like today and what this country will look like tomorrow. i think we are seeing an economic resurgence in this country that is fueled by america's cities. the president and vice-president very graciously invited us to the white house to have a round table in the roosevelt room for almost two hours as we went, democrat, republican man, woman, black, brown, white folks from all over gay and straight, from this country that represented america's cities. in many ways what the world looks like today and what this country will look like tomorrow. and i think that we're seeing an economic resurgence in this country that really is fueled by america's cities. very different than the fight and the fright that america's cities represented over these past decades. in some ways this was most embodied when i came here to this city as the class of mayors, in town from pittsburgh, to seattle, to new york, los angeles, new mayors were elected in that year and the president and vice president invited us to the white house to have a round table in the roosevelt room for almost two hours, we went around, democrat, republican, man, woman, black, brown, white, gay, straight, from this country, who represented america's cities, and we have a lot of commonality on the issues that we talked about. the same ones that i want to talk to you about today. the three big i's. inequality, lack of investment and integration around immigration. the president asked me to take off the comments. i said if this was the 60s or the 70s, mr. president, i think we all would be here coming as america's cities as they were burning too, asking washington to save america's cities. but given what we all see as americans right now, that washington feels broken, that there's inaction, i said the formula has been reversed, mr. president. america's cities are here to save wa% part of that is just part of the job description. we as mayors don't have the luxury of being able to decide which issues are partisan. zooirks. >> given what we all see as americans, that washington feels broken, that there is inaction, the formula has been reversed. america's cities are here to save washington. i do think that innovation investment i do think think that policy work and the american dream in many ways is best embodied and most alive in america's cities. part of that is just part of the job description. we as mayors don't have the luxury of being able to decide which issues are partisan. i was elected two years ago as was mentioned by an interesting coalition where i did as well with republicans, independents and democrats alike. maybe i was elected because i didn't have the support of both the chamber of commerce and organized labor, but allowed me to come in an independent way. not in just a bipartisan way but a nonparcy pan way. partisan way. allowed a republican in a conservative part of my city to feel ownership of me as much as a liberal in a very progressive part of town. in some ways, it's the formula that mayors, whether they're elected in a partisan environment or not, must do. we're ceos, we have to fix immediate problems. we have to address ongoing concerns that people have and present a vision that will long last after us of infrastructure. ribbon cuttings we'll never be at, but things that we start and launch and hopefully will be able to live as private citizens in our own towns. it transcends geography and ethnicity. we don't ask people what ethnicity they are if a water main breaks. we don't ask what ethnicity. we have to fix it. when someone calls 911, we go there. we don't ask their income. we make sure an ambulance or fire truck or police officers arrives. but los angeles, i inherited a city and a city government that was very old. i used to say that we had cutting-edge technology from the 1980s. we had systems that dated back to the good government era of the 1920s and '30s. progressive back then, but never updated since. we had systems that were outdated. we have a bureaucratic culture that was os fied and an overall lack of enthusiasm and accountability from our city employees. people at the bottom didn't feel empowered. people at the top didn't feel like they had to be very accountable. i re-interviewed all my general managers and said, i want you to start counting, measuring, and sharing the goals and data we have in our city in the kind of hickenlooper, o'malley, bloomberg model of what the modern

Related Keywords

Vietnam , Republic Of , New York , United States , Japan , Germany , Iran , Philadelphia , Pennsylvania , Delaware , China , Florida , Illinois , California , Columbia University , Russia , Washington , District Of Columbia , Jordan , United Kingdom , Mexico , Mumbai , Maharashtra , India , Florida State University , Havana , Ciudad De La Habana , Cuba , George Washington , Villa Clara , Ireland , France , Guadalajara , Jalisco , Italy , Greece , Singapore , Italian , Americans , America , Floridians , Chinese , Greeks , Mexican , Greek , Britain , French , Soviet , German , Floridian , American , Cuban , Ma Bell , Fitz Hines , Matt Thornberry , Henry Kissinger , Joey , Gabby Gifford , Joe Biden , Lee Quan Yu , Los Angeles , George Bush , Naomi Seligman , Jeb Bush , Michael Bloomberg , John Kerry , Eric Garcetti , Ann Johnson , Chris Anthony , Willie Wilson , William Butler , Las Vegas , Dick Cheney , Amy Elaine , Bob Wiener , Ben Watkins , Al Gore , Paul Ryan , Edward Benz , John Mccain ,