tv Public Affairs Events CSPAN November 10, 2016 5:02am-10:01am EST
to estimate everything else. how soon as it doesn't show up on the mortgage on the credit report soon transportation and living expenses which is not described. the formula is pretty simple to figure out remaining in him after all those expensive. subtract those formal debt obligations and other living expenses is the amount of payment you can take. what this is showing us for a typical payday loan applicant to is hundred $89 before they pay off their credit card bill before they pay other living expenses. after they pay the mortgage and
other food and transportation including expenses, that is the fringes feel the lender gets to play with. it's not even based on the average. if you look at available estimates of what the household house, and the 90th percentile of the common a household would have $218 a 10 percentile with $1611 in remaining income. it is far too crude based on existing average data about consumer remaining account. the point is widespread market. the largest payday lender called it a win-win. their loans, $121,250 loan for
the monthly payments of $370 to pay the loan back. here's an example of islam example of a monthly fee popping up on the opposite end of the spectrum are the lender is structured to last a long time. $300.18 months $49 to stick within easily. the shortcomings of motion before it difficult to enforce because it's daunting to enforce because there's no clear standard and they will continue using the loan. i am short on time so i will just mention there's a flipside to this with the rule is trying to whack the bad guys but it makes it difficult. banks and credit unions don't want to get in the market unless they can do it with clarity
because there's a lot of regulatory risk worth payday lenders have high appetite. i'm going to mention its consequences as i went to tea up discussion on this hopefully. unless the bureau strengthens the role to be better like in the bad guys and let them lower cost with a lot of money coming to consumer benefit is unique because of this rule. that makes it difficult. that makes it difficult to justify the rulemaking in the face of what are going to be very aggressive challenges from reform. the cost benefit analysis is difficult on fairness purposes to fairness purposes improving use in stopping abuse will be difficult. thank you. sorry i went long.
[applause] >> thank you call again for coming. about a year ago this fire arrived at by moscow office and i had to take a picture of it. the flipside says the exact same thing in spanish and it's about when you look at it to my students sometimes when they come into my office asking about consumer protection and consumer credit. if agnew and as most of you knew the train to have a complaint function weapons numerous and admit particular products or services under its regulatory structure and in the course of
submitting their complaints write a narrative about the problems they are having which is sent directly to the company. my broad project in the paper for this symposium focuses on the narratives written in conjunction with that complaint function. but there was a flyer that got me thinking about the place of writing a narrative in the cfpb goals of advancing consumer protection. i want to talk about the tell your story featuring how it fits in with the complaint database. bit of context. this is a snapshot of the webpage tell your story on the cfpb website. it has since you can see as they circled in red a prominent place that sends consumers to the complaint function. it is part of the cfpb's broader goal of hearing consumers and
also allowing for the tumors to hear each other. you can tell your story, but they really would like you to submit your complaint. if you go to the submit a complaint website, you come up with this front page. it sends you an event box back to tell your story although it's a little less prominent and also directs people to the complaint database if they want to read about what other consumers have said about their experiences. otherwise they can have a problem with the click on the link and get a web forum allows them to check some boxes in some instances, a few boxes in other instances that although web forms include a large space where consumers have been more problems they are having a narrator in place. where i can find data from, this is the front page of the
database where consumers would go to see what other people are writing. i've note the cfpb says consumer narratives allow others to learn from the experience. please let us know what's going on. also importantly help fishery and to improve the financial marketplace. those began taking complaints basically the moment it opened and started publishing the database in june 2012. it wasn't until june 2015 about a year ago that it started publishing consumer complaint narratives for public use in public consumption. but i would call straight from the consumer's keyboard. this is what a consumer with seed with a bunch of them wind up if they were to put the
narratives in the complaints right onto their desktop or their computer. consumers must consent to the narrative being published. it is scrubbed of any personal information and more often than you might think offensive or seemingly offensive language. that was my entrée into what people are thinking. more than half of the people who submit complaints online say that their narrative can be published in the people who submit complaints are minor about half the people come a little over half the people who submit complaints in general to the cfpb appeared in total that amounts to 5000 complaint when narrative is published online per month. because the cfpb recently began publishing these narratives, they haven't been assessed on a systemic weakness. which is what i mean to do for this symposium which is turned
into a much broader project because as you can see there's a lot to work with there and a lot of ways to think about the data. what i want to do is describe the data and what i think the data sent to us and get your feet out on what i have and where i might go with it and what you think it also is showing all other avenues that could go down with it. i want to talk about how people are using the complaint function to first voice their problems and help in a variety of ways which can be thought of as an expressive element of the complaint function. the expressive element has been brought up in prior work about the complaint function in general. but it was mentioned in prior articles that focus on consumer protection.
i want to take them and see how it aligns with the cfpb's role in taking and processing complaints and what it suggests about how the cfpb could tweet how it addresses the complaints and for the general advancement of consumer protection which again is the main question raised in prior articles and is the cfpb's main goal. quickly beginning with my data, what i did was downloaded every complaint that they narrative filed in the period between may 1st, 2015 and april 30th , 2016 which is a total of 23,000 complaints with narratives. at that point i took a random sample of 20% of them because i wanted to read what the consumers were singing once they have done a first sweep of the coating. the table on the left of the side breaks down my sample byproduct and it was the best way i could think of trying to
get a relatively good sample of the complaint the cfpb is getting overall. the table on the left or the right breaks down tree into data about complaint product volume by volume for 2014 and 15. as you'll see slightly more complaints about mortgages and slight if you are about credit reporting and payday loans which may be a function of who has access to the internet and the ability to write a complaint and also who will check the box that says you may publish my complaint. to move onto my empirical strategy before we tee up what is going on, one of the goals we had is how people are telling their stories and voicing their problems. what i did was create a primary scheme based on major emotions through the narrative language and there's a whole emotion and
law and scholarship that pulled this emotions out of. the fear, disgust, shame and guilt are six of the major emotions. as i was looking through the narrative which is not an emotion but it's angrily. one of the first narrative where there is clearly anger and words that trigger anger and the narrative. there still is a frustration expressed by the consumer as compared to the southern clip of a narrative i had on the slide for the consumer is simply singing a member of the tear i never worked here. there's really no emotion in this narrative to code in a way that i coded it. about half of the narrative say things like this and the other half of the narrative by representing the first narrative where there is clearly a big story going on.
so once i did that, i got this table. the emotion and the sample of narratives expressed through the language. this table tells you nothing at all. what is more interesting is to go through each of the narratives and read what the consumer is singing. and then to see what is going on with them. so when they narrative expresses anger, frustration and to a lesser and discussed which doesn't come up all that often, the consumer story is about the company and how they are treated by the company and they are really speaking to the company or in some instances feeling that the company. but when they express sadness and fear, what comes up more often than you would think, they are not talking to the company or the type of the company and
then they move on to essentially a very sad story about how they are company has intersected with their life and impacted their life. so they focus on their inability to provide for their family such as food. there's a whole lot about not eating and problems that have affected them medically, physically and mentally. at this point, a more rigorous qualitative content analysis will be one avenue to pursue in some end that i need to pursue. that is for another paper. instead what i did is i added a layer to the analysis that speaks directly to the role in these complaints. it forwards the complaints to the company. the company response in the consumer can respond to the company and also looks at the
complaints to figure out some enforcement and otherwise regulatory efforts. but i looked at was the deference to the company. i dialogue with what they mean by deference. please help me personally with my problem. did the narrative mention a legal claim and get it mentioned bankruptcy? this table shows what i call coming to law, using the narrative to say a company you are violating a federal voice tape and also i filed for bankruptcy. bankruptcy outside of the analysis here because i think when you look at the percentages that mentioned bankruptcy,, not what admits to file complaints. if you look at frustration and anger, you see those are the ones that mentioned law.
it seems like if people are turning to the narrative space intohe company, they are more likely to say company, here is the legal violation by legal claim i would like to raise them this is the avenue i'm going to do in the first instance which is actually one of the benefits of the complaint function. the resource to raise the claim to begin with. but at the claims are dealt with in the process is an open question but for now i will note that. and contrast it with narratives asked the cfpb for personal help, which intercept weighs more with sadness and fear. if they narrative and language that talks about 24% of them right now.
fred buford says and you can look at this is the consumer is asking for help personally, what percentage of those have been emotion in them pay 20% have no emotion of sadness and fear stand out. this is language with the cfpb personally for help. not simply thank you for your time and consideration i like what you're doing after that paypal will an enforcement action that you didn't do more to help others they do something that the regulatory enforcement functions, not help me which has nothing to do with the complaint function and the first in the database. quickly, what does this all
mean? this is where you need the most help. i think what the narrative language shows is to completely separate ways that consumers are using the complaint function. first there is a batch of consumers that are expressing anger and frustration with the company and saying this is the way that i'm going to be able to speak to you in the first instance. please help me and the benefit of telling the story that also love with these narratives in a broader way you could look into this company to the benefit of all consumers can't be underestimated and also in court late it tracks the function of the cfpb's complete database and processing mechanism. however, if you take sadness and fear as proxies for telling your story about the impact of credit and debt on your life in a broader and stand than just with
the company has been doing to you or how you perceive the company is treating you. adding on to consumers bad make sure they have food and otherwise are able to live their lives. if they don't receive the assistance, but they contemplated from the train to come a day might become one the solution which could backfire with what the cfpb's function as and taking the function. this may offer an avenue for the cfpb to start focusing on which companies enforcement action might be worthy of being prioritized or at least looking to first in terms of what companies, what products are and are set in with peoples lives in
a way that makes them reach out through the narratives to the cfpb appeared with that, i am out of time and we will move to the question-and-answer period. [applause] >> so as moderator, i would like to take a moderation go and see if anyone in the idea first was like to ask any questions that anyone. >> page from vanderbilt law school, thank you for the panel. really fascinating and packing of what the cfpb was doing. a couple questions first via chris, i wanted to ask you what you think wells fargo how it fits into your analysis of the future of the cfpb defensive end abuses enforcement action. and i guess for anyone, it's been a really interesting way
for the public enforcement action, for those of you following a payday role, the cfpb had a public interest and action which has pitched itself is a nice air, friendly or lender. it is a very public enforcement action against a company that many of us thought was one of the good guys. i wondered if any of you had thoughts about what that might mean for smaller companies trying to work in the consumer credit space. >> first-out with respect to linda, my recollection is the $9 million penalty. in the grand scheme of things, it is not that much money. i mean it is not a big case. on the other hand, the penalty in the wells fargo case was
$130 million. much larger case meaning more people affect it. i guess they would resist the sort of impulse to say good company bag company. the question is whether they violate this law and the fact show they violated the law. it may be a good company, may not be. it isn't a job that we are to decide after the question is whether they violated the law. my recollection is the scalable as i'd buy that they use on the web page i think violated the truth in lending act if there is some potentially misleading practices they engaged in. that doesn't mean they don't have a lot of things to upgrade may be a good guy as you say. also if you took a look at the press release, compared to maybe if you read a lot of press releases as i have during the
study, the bureau pulled a punch on that press release. i don't know if that makes you feel any better about it. your question about what the wells fargo case said about the future of the bureau. the wells fargo case is that interesting legally. the case is interesting because wells fargo is one of the largest financial institutions in the world and is traveling to find out thousands and thousands of their customers or employees were engaging in fraud and identity theft. that is what is troubling about that case. the echo of the financial crisis just as the largest financial institutions in the world for underwriting mortgage loans, pay option, interest-only exotic mortgage products without any documentation nakedly committed fraud. it turns out wells fargo is also creating bank account that consumers did not agree to. that is illegal and has always
been illegal. it is only interesting because of who the defendant was. whether or not the wells fargo cases interest and i think we'll have to follow the bureau -- the bureau will have to follow the facts on that. other financial institutions doing the wells fargo did that may signal something about what is likely to happen in the future. if other financial institutions are carefully monitoring their cross-selling and packages for their employees and their branch and distributed branch network, the wells fargo case is not a harbinger of things to come. >> yeah, so i'm very curious about this. for nick i think increase to some extent. the idea that the payday borrowers are not using these
loans for and expect it expenses but for regular run-of-the-mill. the data is all over the place on this. some people say it's an unexpected expense. some people say no they use it to pay their rent. first of all, what is the methodology? are you asking people what they are using it for? are you actually looking that finances because i wonder could she be taking out a loan because there was a none expected expense but to pay your rent. that money is actually going to pay your rent that the reason you have this $500 shortfall is because something happened this month. whether it's even possible to take out that exogenous factor that is causing you to take out the loan. however when sort of -- everyone has studied this comes out differently and maybe depends on what you think about payday loans. maybe makes it more you can be
opposed to them if you think this is an unexpected expense that you're taking it out to pay for general. >> yes, obviously that is happening. appointed mr. lehman on it the way that we did and we did this initially through 22 focus groups throughout the country over the course of a couple years to hear people talk about it directly and ask questions directly and we did a variety of survey work on payday loan borrowers. we wanted to dig in and asked the question many different ways and sometimes in ways that had been asked before. if you talk to somebody in a focused in a focus group, why did you get the payday loan, it was an emergency. tell us about that. i couldn't pay my rent is the second month in a row is past due. it was an emergency. why did she get this load? was an emergency? yes. that doesn't tell the whole
story. we just dug in and asked a simple question. when you got the you got this on what you got the phone what did use the money for? seven out of 10 said it was for some sort of a bill. sometimes they had an unexpected emergency and couldn't pay the bill. but the bigger picture and i think what we all agree on mostly it's the reason people are getting payday loans is because they might start financially difficult and messy and they did not laugh ballots really easily when they have a mistake or about god as their hours change. that is the narrative we agree on and we have come to helping people but only if it's structured a certain way. that means it has to have an affordable payment that takes only a small percentage of their paycheck. not 36%. most borrowers can't afford more than five in our research.
it's a reasonable amount of time. not to be expanded the $300 phone that lasted 18 months is crazy. $500 about six months is the right time to pay it off. policy should be pointed towards getting us to that position because that's what leads to better outcomes. >> did you look at states that don't have payday loan operators -- [inaudible] tissue survey in the states? >> our survey work doesn't answer that question. i can really answer up more qualitatively with focus group findings. the way that i think about it and i think it is reflective of reality. some people told a story like this. i'm trying to solve the problem and not shopping for credit but the payday loan. we talked to some people in new
hampshire for example. they don't have the stories have the stories available. what you do now that you don't have loans available? i'm trying to solve this problem. i need $400 to pay my mortgage. i could ask my dad. i could sell my stereo. i cannot eat dinner three nights of the week. we said which one of those you choose? all of them. 50 bucks for my dad if i can't a dataset canton of the candles on my stereo. the payday loan is another option on the table for people who are trying to solve a problem. it is very little use if not the least the other stuff. that's part of the reason i say in an examination process it's really hard to see where the harm has occurred. nothing to do three nights a week does not show up on a credit report. examiners don't see a when you necessarily sell your story or forgo selling your home because the blog is taking too much of the money.
>> i would love to get your thoughts. when doug frank was being drafted, the back-and-forth of the cfpb being run by a three-person panel, five person panel and finally to a single administrator. what are your thoughts on what had originally been in a three-person panel? i know there's some legislation pending to make a three-person panel to oversee the agency. >> this is the sort of question that for five years i've dodged and had a good excuse not to. my first comment is whether or not that's a good idea depends whether or not you get somebody to run the show. for the past five years they have this guy named richard cordray who was my boss past two years. he is in my view one of the most astonishing unremarkable human being i've ever met.
the guy asserted genius of our performer has attention to detail and recovery and his ability to process information in unlike just about anyone i've ever met. he has unimpeachable integrity and honor and a higher emotional eq guy. he's just a remarkable person. my sense is if you get somebody that does a good job in this thoughtful, has integrity, approaches the project with the thoughtfulness that requires them the confidence that requires that the individually led organization is more efficient because someone is accountable and get things done to the problem with conditions as they split and deadlock and that's where often times they don't mean to cast aspersions, but the wonderful people at the sec and federal trade commission. the criticism that has been leveled not by me but by others is that they often times are a little bit hesitant perhaps or maybe not sufficiently asserted
in their enforcement actions in dairy farm work becomes stale and creates new products and things that are not deterred. the downside of conditions as they can be inefficient. that being said in the trump administration perhaps a single individual director could be particularly harmful to the interests the agency was created for. service and benefits from both sides and i think the importance of actual individuals and their capabilities is undervalued in that conversation. in my view. >> richard. >> i'm curious about the enforcement actions. you categorize them by the nature of the claim and it adds up to much higher than 101st time. the deceptive unfair or basically the same number. what i'm curious about is
whether the claim, was an add-on claim were they added on to something else or how often it was independent in the sense that the other consumer statutes can be extremely technical. i don't know anything about this scenario, but it's certainly possible for someone to violate a consumer statutes and not be a political diatribe in the sense you could form correctly, nobody reads them, you don't show violation of the statute. so how often are they tacked on as just an additional claim and how often were they independent? >> recalling the tacked on claim, kind of getting it backwards.
so there was that chart that that chart that i showed in some other charts in another piece they have coming up that are maybe a little more illustrative on this. there was a charter show the book of enumerated claims. the thing i highlighted was the total amount of consumer relief and redress in those cases. if you just look at the rate of cases out there, there are just a larger number of cases producing much more in return. and most of the cases you're going to find a mixture of enumerated claims. but not at all. they're definitely some cases. it's an interesting question. we should see whether or not there are any enumerated only claims. off the top of my head the only one i can think of, they may
have been sent equal credit opportunity fair lending cases and i think that may be the only example. hopefully that responded to that. >> so when i was looking at the complaints you are talking about and i had the potential of emotional destruction that some people have a remedy. do people ever get any monetary compensation when they have a complaint? they weren't in debt. is there any compensation for emotional distress that the come to me gets and if not they beat the cfpb taking some sort of role to collect some sort of compensation at the company is getting long. >> in terms of the role of the cfpb, which sort of goes along with telling the stories and how
these narratives and people are interacting with the function. the cfpb since the complaint to the company. it is very clear every homepage now, the first read usually in a box says the company has 15 days to respond to you in u.s. consumer can respond to the response effectively. the complaint database itself has split the company said an assertive result of the complaint in very broad categories. so say it was settled with monetary relief company disputes and then a few other things. that is the only markers in the database. i didn't really look at it for that. do people understand what they are doing and when they don't understand what they are doing,
how might that affect the cfpb's role in taking processing these complaints and how my cfpb and turned look at what people are saying to figure out how to allocate its resources to enforcement and regulation because part of taking this is to look at what people are complaining about. in the paper i use paypal as an example and there's a whole lot of narrative about it so i think you could track activities of the cfpb with what people are saying. in terms of who don't really know what the end result is and maybe even she can speak more to this which is one of your papers about the end result. >> yeah, the companies provide relief and that is where the database stops. you don't see if the cfpb
intervened after this dispute and you don't see at the company to the company resolved the problem after this dispute. in interviews that cfpb officials got the impression it was likely to pull that complaint and actually look at it. but it was not completely clear. i will say that the relief that was granted if you break it down into product and sub product is most likely to be granted when it is smaller than when it's less meaningful. credit reporting agencies the highest rate of grant is released in the highest thing that they gave relief granted for is maintaining credit report. that's an example. credit reporting agencies credit cards are comprised almost like 45% of their relief when there is a small percentage of the claim with mortgages and provide much less the relief and that
would be very meaningful. >> had a question for you as well, pamela. i was wondering whether it was hard to code the emotions or i guess where they're outlawed of things that were on the edge between anger and frustration and if he thought of any research strategy to minimize coding errors. >> i didn't have time to go through it and i'm still sort of working through it again. there are narratives of word that is basically synonyms for the emotions. they are just six main emotions that i use to know what the wind you can actually have a software and initially coded for you and that would be more of a qualitative, quantitative analysis. that is what my research assistant did initially with the emotion expressed in the narrative. look for actual words and
discuss is actually an easy one. consumers say i am disgusted. there's a few synonyms for anger. but as we went to narratives, we realize there's anger in there. lots of exclamation marks and those are the ones that we tagged as frustration almost manually. if you take frustration out of the analysis and just go with a pure anger, you still see the same two type of narratives coming through and i think that is absent anything more rigorous way of doing it. that is how we went through and did it. >> chris, you mentioned something that was really interesting to like to hear you say a little more about it. the lack of the bureaus use or a power gives rise to the need for them to explore that more and they develop miniature is
%-percent-sign unreasonable taking rings true to me in many ways. i'd like you to say more about that. >> so recalled in the abusiveness standard from the three of four potential problems contemplate one of the elements of an abusive claim involving some form of unreasonable vantage taking and it's not defined beyond that. to my way of thinking unreasonable advantage taken, one thing that might tend to show that is price gouging are taking too much a form of compensation that is unreasonable. at the same time, the bureau can't establish a user than that. a user limit historically and legally the particular and specific thing. it's an interest rate limitation. i know that because i've read them all. in one and parra placentia did a few years ago, when read all 50 state used within minutes. we know what those are.
the universe of potential price gouging is not the same as the universe of interest rate limitation in our law or in the history of user relies. if you look at the bureaus enforce network and also the one rulemaking that the bureau has announced is the one that you focused on, the payday role. their disclaimer, that is obviously something that worked on. the bureau has been reticent to list excessive pricing as a justification for action into his supervisory highlights in the rulemaking or enforcement actions. it seems to me that is internalizing were taking too brought a few of what a user event it is. it is just a prohibition of an
interest rate above a certain specified level of nothing else. >> you think when a consumer is willing to take a high-cost loan that is indicative of them being inherently financially fragile and maybe a red flag that they are more prone to be taken advantage of? >> yes, nick, i do. >> satellite. >> i take reasonable advantage and i think back to elizabeth and i think if the company knows more than you do and take advantage via behavioral economics. we know how you'll react to that of that is why we set up our products so the benefits are up front in the costs are hidden for a while. you don't read it that way at all? >> it's not that i don't read it. there are four different problems but with look at the third one which says
unreasonable vantage taking of a consumer's inability to protect their interest in a selection or use of the product. the behavioral piece, the process peace. likening the standard to unconscionability which seems a similar idea, the process part seems to me to be built-in to the individually at the consumer to protect their interest. it doesn't seem to me that unreasonable advantage taking is limited to only send behavioral process. i don't disagree that it's clearly something and they were talking about. but also, senator boren and professor burkle also highlighted payday lending is a particular example of an exploding products. if you go back and look at the article, they were concerned the laws were expensive. >> one of the things i have her consequence is the new payday role is you are basically going
to guarantee putting out of business too small payday lenders with maybe four or five payday operations in the state, things like that. and what the model you showed from missouri up there is basically going to guarantee the only product available for consumers are going to be national major organizations that can spread out the risk. is that better for the consumer? they have everything controlled by national companies versus smaller mom-and-pop organization that actually get to know the consumers? >> i don't agree with the mom-and-pop businesses out of business is. it is yet to be seen. nationwide in any given state about 30% of the stores are owned by operators that have maybe four or five stories. what we saw in colorado which in 2010 change their state law in
ways that look similar to what the cfpb is pushing the market towards. some of the small guys went out of business now about 25% of the stores in colorado are owned by those types of smaller businesses. the cfpb rule is a lot to burden some then the colorado law was. it stands to reason that will be harder for lenders generally to comply with it. but by the same token, that means a lot bigger opportunity for data providers and solution providers to come in enough return key solution for complying with the ability to repay. i have no reason the smaller lenders won't be able to do that. >> i will chime in on that, too. that sounds like industry propaganda frankly and it depends on what the law product is that they are offering. if you have a small business
willing to make a 5000% interest rate loan to consumers that is a longer duration loan for an open and line of credit that doesn't take a leverage payment documents and such a preauthorized ach debit or lien on the borrower's vehicle, the proposal and it's not a rule. the proposal is silent on that. the notion that you couldn't run a business to the mat is facially false. if you are going to make unsecured loans to consumers and feel like you can underwrite and collect those stats based on the consumers individually authorized voluntary payment, the regulation simply does not touch it. as soon as they figure that out, i don't see what the compliance costs are for that business and those are legal in many states including my own home state. there are businesses that engage in precisely that type of when
and in fact some of those laws were cited in at least one component of the federal register. that being said, if you try and make loans that do take leverage payment mechanisms and you want to fit into the framework of the regulation because the mechanism is so important to your collection strategies, it is the case attempting to verify the borrower can repay 600%, 400% interest rate on is more complicated and burdensome than in the past. >> i have a question for angie if we have a little more time. i remember when they presented the paper two years ago in draft form at the symposium. so i was wondering, do you think as time went by she would continue to be as optimistic as i remember her being that the
symposium in light of what she was talking about? was she right the same paper, which you write the same paper? >> yes, it seems the supervision process appears to have continued as we wrote about it and so i think yes, she would be disappointed on the lack of abusiveness actions and she was, not to come back to this, but one of the people who influenced in thinking this is behavioral economics. so i think she would be disappointed that it hasn't moved at all certainly. >> you think the examiners are doing more than enforcement officers? >> we don't know. >> they are two separate issues. to be excited that process is
continuing, but she'd be disappointed about abusiveness at least in public actions. >> i was wondering whether or not you will get the cfpb is not the correct body to implement payday lending rules precisely because colorado seems like a success story but it's only a success story because it deals with the problem of high prices and the cfpb doesn't have the ability to do that. maybe that should step back, not regulate payday lending in states that have or alternatively get rid of that and use free limitation. in light of that limitation, it sounds to me some and both of you are saying prices the problem and it doesn't seem like that is going to get solved. >> i emphatically not saying the price of the problem.
it is a problem, but it's not the problem and it's not dispositive of anything. several mechanisms in place with an affordable payment, a reasonable time to repay. a price that is not unnecessarily high in order to make the credit you want to be made available available. colorado's success story because they really comprehensive often incorporates all of this, the cfpb can't regulate rates that they can regulate other things and they can impose a different set of rules of affordable payments in a reasonable time to repay the upfront to rigid nation fees that are fully earned and so on and they could really improve and clean up the market and i think they are within range. i think if they made some key adjustments they would dramatically improve this market. more importantly at the end of the day they could open up this
market to be a much more level playing field among all types of lenders which i think speaks to the right role of the could play here. focus not just on standby since bad guys if you will, but make a rule that banks and credit unions can use it for given the market the ability to make loans profitably in the state is lower costs. that is really what at the end of the day could save millions of people millions of dollars because that banks and credit unions have checking accounts offering them a better alternative. the reason in a nutshell is that it's not happening what today is this a federal guidance for it and the lack of guidance is keeping the banks and credit unions out. >> i'm just responding. i'm a huge fan of nick and the nick and the pew general trust work on payday lending.
the resources they've done in the leukocytes they've created are just astonishing. wonderful scholarship. nick is without question among the foremost thinkers. that being said, i sometimes feel that you're a touch unrealistic about the legal risk associated with that rulemaking. it is the first rulemaking under the decaf authority and there has to be substantial evidence under the apa that justifies any of the things that it designates of unfair practice. that has to be admissible evidence for experts on what not can testify to it. some of the other things you're talking about, other potential
lovers has to be justified based on empirically demonstrated evidence. i also don't mean to defend unequivocally the bureau proposal. i learned that sausage also gets made in the executive branch sometimes. one distinction with colorado and its complicated framework has a price limitation but a lot of other things. if you take the price limitation out, i'm not so sure the pieces continue to function together. it's almost like taking the bottom of the bucket out for an essential piece of the framework that they have. if the bureau doesn't have this thing that binds it all together with the price limitation, but it is a little bit tougher than abc just to get all the pieces together in light of the
litigation risk that the evidence having to justify all those mechanisms. when you put those pieces together, it's an extremely difficult rulemaking. >> no doubt say in a policy can't book that is not a price limit can't solve this problem and i don't think that is true. if you don't think -- if you don't think that is true, the logical conclusion is maybe the rule will be so difficult and the enforcement overhang will be so scary that he pushed the lenders out of the market which is also not going to happen. the rule allows lenders to take a quarter of a person's paycheck. a writes in the commentary of the rule. the point i wanted to make in terms of the legal risk is the
cost benefit analysis that they are just have to prove includes consumer benefit. if the consumer benefit can't be shown in a great way, yet there is, as you said and i agree, there is a very severe regulatory overhang cost associated with this rule. the cost benefit analysis becomes really dangerous and i think the bureau made its rule stronger to promote better consumer benefit. it has a stronger case against the payday lender lawsuit. >> i'm not going to defend the bureau's rule on this issue. i was merely raising the point that you have to recognize there are substantial legal risks with some of the things. >> three minutes left. a couple comments or questions
and finish up the panel that way. david and then page. >> from the base angle where the idea that this is driving up credit unions and small banks to induce lung is another one of these industry myths. very few credit unions are in this market. there's about 100 cdc unions. only five of them engage in small lending. the credit union between 10 to 20 goldman sachs markets product. they are not doing payday. i don't know of any other banks that want a sort of lungs. do you have any other data or research that shows otherwise that they are actually engaged in this?
>> the federal credit unions are allowed to land in up to 28% of the payday alternative loan program. that market you are correct in suggesting is quite limited. it's under $100 million a year nationwide which is quite small. before the federal deposit insurance issued a regulatory guidance on big payday amounts, that was a more robust market. some of the large, not just large cfpb banks, but the largest banks, at least one of the largest banks is offering a product to millions of consumers. they can get there if they are allowed to do so. that being going forward for them to sort through is how they comply with the bureau's
ultimate rule once it settles on it, just a proposal as well as the fdic guys in a complicated overlay. add to that now the military monday match goes into the new and improved regulatory version of the military monday night goes into effect next monday and that is another segment of the market that makes you have to carve out her jilted in some ways. it would be logistically difficult. the banks are not willing to invest the load in the capital they would need to build a compliant, robust system until the bureau settles the market. >> to would have to be a lot more clear in terms of what was expected in terms of monthly payment and they would have to have an ability to automate about more than the rule would
allow. they do prescreening of customers and that automate the offering and origination of these phones. they can't make a loan for a fair price unless they only spend two or three of $4 originating it in the only way to do that is automating it. there is no regulatory path to do that. i think at the train to offer that streamlined path, that would go a long way to help banks and credit unions cost loans. >> so we are out of time. if we want to stay here a little while longer, we can continue the otherwise 15 minute break in recess for the next panel come down to continue the conversation in the meantime. [applause] [inaudible conversations] ..
welcome to the national press club where news happens and has happened for last 150 years. i'm david hodes. immunotherapy is approach that empowers human immune system to overcome cancer and other debilitating diseases. researchers discovered human immune system, that includes disease fighting cells and proteins is well-known for the remarkable ability to locate, recognize and attack invaders like the common cold however the immune system is not always able to eliminate cancer cells when they form. once tumors dell they use a variety of tactics to out whip the cells. thanks to continually evolving research at the fred hutchinson cancer research center in seattle, founded by two brothers
in 1975, bill hutchinson and major league baseball pitcher who died of lung cancer at age 45, they tapped into inherent disease fighting power and give it the upper hand of cancer. breakthroughs have happened at fred hutch. fred hutch researchers were the first to show rare disease fighting cells, t sells, extracted from patients multiplied in large quantities and infused into patients. researchers at fred hutch after t-cell infusion can enhance survival and help shrink tumors. from a cancer moon shot summit at fred hutchison center to hundreds of simultaneous gatherings at 50 states. convened scientists physicians and or the top minds from fred hutch partners and seattle childrens to discuss how their combined research can save more lives and reduce more suffering.
this event was the largest vice president joe biden, cancer moon shoot initiative, five years and one billion dollar research infusion and tight collaboration. at the event biden announced other cancer research partnerships including actions to make clinical trials more accessible to patients bring together hundreds of cancer researchers, computer scientists and engineers and super computing capabilities to analyze data from models and cancer surveillance data across-national laboratories and create open access resource sharing cancer data. the goal of this cancer moon shot double rate of progress toward a cure to make a decade of advances in cancer prevention, diagnosis and dream for five years. here today two doctors working on front lines of independent mine know therapy with important announcement of their work in seattle and treating cancer. dgary gilliland, president of
fred hutchison research center. dr. gilliland spent 20 years on faculty of harvard where he is prohave you ever professor of medicine at harvard school and stem cell and reagain tiff biology. his book focused on reagain tiff basis of blood cancers. he was at the center war bone narrow transplantation provided reproducible evidence that the idea immune system can fight cancer. dr. david maloney immunotherapy researcher and oncologist at fred hutch. including anti-body based treatments leading a clinical trial evaluating t sells that carry synthetic tumor seeking molecule represents a model approach. at fred hutch his primary clinical. a few procedural notes before i turn the floor over to the speakers. turn your cell phone to mute or
turnoff any noisemaker device. once our second speaker, dr. maloney complete his remarks i open to questions. it will go to priority media and national press club members. identify yourself by name and organization. dr. gilliland. >> thank you very much, david, for that fantastic introduction. i think you covered most of my talking point so, but i am gary gilliland. i'm the president and director of the fred hutch. my colleague dr. david maloney and i are absolutely delighted to be here at the national press club for an important announcement and i will start with what david alluded to which is the fred hutch has been in existence for 41 years. it is the place where bone marrow transplantation was invented by dr. don thomas. dr. thomas went on to win the nobel prize for the work. which patients with lethal form
of canners are treated with radiation therapy and chemotherapy, such high doses they would die from treatments to eradicate if they did not have bone narrow infused to rescue from the chemotherapy. what we didn't appreciate at the time but gain ad understanding of, it was donor's immune system was so critical in the curative potential for bone marrow transplantation. we didn't understand how that worked at the time. this was decades ago but over the years we and others have a deep and broad understanding of how our immune system works around the mechanisms that activate a immune system and turn the immune system off. tumors have a way of turning immune system down, bid thatting the mechanisms we develop novel therapeutic approaches that harness the extraordinary power of our immune system to fight
cancer. based in part on those insights, dr. maloney and his colleagues, stan ridel, phil greenberg, have developed approaches for treating cancer where we remove immune tells, telecells from a person's body that has cancer -- t-cells. we use innovative technologies to seek and destroy cancer cells. they are expanded and given back to patients as a single dose, one dose of a medicine. the dose of t-cells that we give is about the size of a grain of rice. it's a very small dose and for patients who have acute lymphoblastic lukemia who have not responded to any of our treatments, some cases not responded to bone marrow transplantation, who have the worst of worst diseases who have weeks or months to live will be injected with the t-cells, in 90% of cases, we see complete
responses that are durable. and that is another way of saying from a clinical perspective these individuals may be cured of their disease. they have complete responses where we can't detect any disease. that is just astonishing. when you see that type of result not like anything i have ever seen in many years and decades that i have been working in this field of cancer research and treatment. you need to act on it. you need to move with it. because we can see curative potential ahead. now to facilitate this effort, we have recently completed the building of a new immunotherapy clinic at the hutch. brand new construction. there will be a formal hoping on december 12th this year with scientific symposium i invite all of you to attend. this will be named the bezos family immunotherapy clinic. this is in recognition of the extraordinary contributions that the bezos family made this
effort. back in 2009 when immunotherapy was hardly a household word, the bezoses believed in investigators at the hutch that they could develop re-engineered t-cells. at the time it was thought nearly impossible. they believed in us. the family is not adverse to risk. they're not adverse to failure. through their support we've enjoyed extraordinary success bringing these new treatments forward into patients with certain types of blood-borne cancers like acute limo blastic lou couple yeah. we're excited about the -- lymphoblastic lukemia. this is the first of its kind, state-of-the-art 15 bed unit, patient centric, we bring everything to the patients including new therapies that require intensive monitoring, as much as for stem cell
transplantation in early days of those problems. we're sure this will propagate across the country as our bone mayor re transplant programs did but we're exciting to be on the very leading edge of innovation in this space to treat patients with these new i am moan know their puttic approaches. we're especially grateful to the bezos family for believing in us. they don't provide resources to name something. they are actually providing resources to shine a spotlight on the science, the patients, the investigators. we're delighted to continue to work together with them towards developing curative approaches to cancer. so what about that cure word? it is a bold and provocative statement to say we are on the cusp, we're on an inflection point where we can anticipate seeing more and more curative therapies for cancer evolve.
we're curing people already. that is not the point. we may have new curative approaches based on these immunotherapies. that challenge in this space to expand the treatment so that every patient responds. 90% of patients respond with all, acute lymphoblastic lukemia. 10% don't. how do we mitigate side-effects of unleashing maelstrom of immune power to destroy what is pounds and pounds of tumor cells in some patients? there is a lot we need to learn. how do we expand this into all types of solid tumors in addition to malignancies. those are not intractable and things we believe. we put a stake in the ground if we don't develop curative approaches to all cancers in next 10 years, i would say shame on us because we do have the capacity to move this field
forward a rapidly. that is what this community will help us do. the other challenge how do we enable the technologies to move forward. the immune though therapy unit is one small part of that. david alluded to the moon shot effort we participated actively. we just met with vice president biden's staff, with greg simon yesterday. we've been actively involved in that process. it's a fantastic mechanism for supporting awareness and for enhancing and supporting collaboration between the various cancer centers both here in the united states and worldwide. so we're very appreciative of the support that the moon shot brings. there are also other enablers that the moon shot highlighted for instance how do we make sure all patients have access to the sophisticated treatments if they can't come to seattle, for example? we need to make sure there is
access. we need to insure these are trackable from a health care cost effective perspective. these can be very expensive treatments. are they worth the value? we would argue if you're curing people, yes, those are cost effective, but we need to solve for the challenges in a context where oncology costs are rapidly spiraling upward. there are a number of policy issues we need to address. we're also very grateful to the fda for their support of rapid development of these new treatments. where you can move drugs forward through a mechanism they developed called break through status. which means you got a drug that really has dramatic effect. they have helped facilitate the development of those drugs. i had that experience when i was senior vice president for global oncology at merck with a drug called ketruda this is another therapy that is one that was used to treat president jimmy carter.
and that drug was approved based not on randomized phase three trial but it was approved based on b-1 expansion study. because the fda was supportive. we're excited about the doctor's leadership in bringing together in oncology at least, in the device unit at fda responsible for developing biomarker tests and diagnostics and drug development and put that on one oversight responsibility. that is another fantastic enabler. we also need resources to the support of development of these new treatments. nih budget is something we're very effective competing with. we're grateful to senator cantwell and murray and others who provided for increase in nih budget. but we rely on sources including philanthropy and business development. i conclude my comment there and pass the baton to my colleague
david maloney to tell you about inner-workings of the immunotherapy unit. david? >> gary, thank you. pleasure to be here and named the medical director of the bezos family immunotherapy clinic. this is a unique effort we taken in seattle based on encouraging activity we've seen with immunotherapy. there are many things encompassed in immunotherapy and focus we're having here is really on cellular immunotherapy. there are three basic types of approaches we're going to be conducting in the clinic. the first is received the most press recently and that is the gene modified or so-called, antigen modified t sells which stands for car t-cells. we take normal t-cells from a
patient with cancer, insert receptor and modify the genes to the cell make as receptor so it attaches to a target on the tumor cells. these cells can be grown outside of the patient's body and given back and attract and attack the cancer. like any other cancer therapy this is living therapy and as dr. gilliland said we can give almost minute number of cells which multiply in the body and track and seek out cancer cells. they will go essentially wherever the cancer cells can go. this form of therapy has yielded unprecedented responses as you heard. about 90% or over 90% of patients with even end stage lukemia can go back into remission and early on after this treatment. now there is still a lot to be done so we're seeing a phenomenal signal on that, that the power of the immune system of these t-cells in their
ability to get rid of large volumes of tumors especially in lukemia are very impressive. we're also seeing result, not quite as good but encouraging signals in other diseases including non-hodgkins lymphoma and chronic him foe citic lukemia. the key for this clinic and further development of the technologies is to figure out why they work so well in some cases and why they don't work. we have seen relapses in some patients. when some patients relapse we need to understand that. another form of therapy is called tumor infiltrating lymphocytes. you collect lymphocytes trying to attack the tumor, expand them in the laboratory and give them back. a third subset would be t-cell receptor modified t-cells. and that is another approach that we're seeing some activity now in another form of lukemia called aml.
the, what is unique about our center is that we believe that the types of t-cells you use to modify, attack the cancer is crittably important. we actually will select a type of t-cell called a helper t-cell and a type of t-cell called a killer t sell and gene modify each of them and give them back to attack the cancer. in laboratory studies in the lab by physician scientists we find giving equal mixtures is way better than random mixtures you get if you're unselecting the patient population. now why is that important? that's important because for the first time we've been really able to identify a dose and response relationship as well as a dose and toxicity relationship. what does that mean? that means we can tailor the dose of t-cells to avoid
toxicity and maintain the efficacy. that is one of the examples how the approach is different in our series. now the clinic will enable us to translate research from the physician scientists to the clinic a more rapid, more rapid pace. so it is important that we can treat more patients and it is important that we can get new clinical trials on board. right now the focus and all the buzz has been on the malignancy ies, lymphomas that are not the common type of cancers. the most comen are breast cancers and lung cancers. we're developing car t-cells and in the clinic with those diseases as well. the future is extremely bright we translate the encouraging results into lukemia and lymphoma into the other cancers. the purpose of the clinic is be able to translate early phase clinical trials from the
research labs into patient clinical trials, obtain samples from the patients, blood tests, tumor samples, analyze them in the laboratory and make advances and go back and forth. because we're marking our own carr t-cells we have the opportunity to modify procedures and come up with advances. what does this mean for patients? again i think this means that we'll be able to treat more patients in the clinic and have more clinical trials open. now personally for me i've been involved in many cancer therapies over the years. i was involved in the development of a anti-body against lymphoma which changed the history of how we treat lymphomas but to actually see patients now with literally pounds of tumor have this melt away within three to four weeks and have patients going into remission is, extremely gratifying and but which have a long ways to go. we need to learn, we mead to
learn why it works in some patients. we need to learn why it doesn't work in some patients. why the cancer can't come back in some cases and be able to make this more generally deliverable to patients. again that is the purpose of the center. we're starting off small. we're starting off as one center but that is the again way bone marrow transplants started and available in most countries throughout the world thanks to dr. thomas's leadership. i think, i will stop there an we'll take questions. >> okay. we're going to take questions from the press first and then anybody else who has any information they want to. we have a microphone please. >> thank you. i'm alan kotok with science and enterprise. i know spin-off company from
your medical center, juno therapeutics has licenses the carr-t technology and has been conducting the some of the clinical trials. are there other, are there other licensing activities planned and will this help speed up the development process? >> well, thank you that is ater it risk be is a terrific question. the commercialization of these novel medicines is one of the most important aspects of what we're trying to do. to the point i made earlier, that is how we get this out to
the general population. we're delighted to be able to license to partners like juneau that are expert in commercialization. in a way i can tell you having industry experience is something we're not capable of doing in the academic environment. so we continue to look for opportunity to license our technology, to enable the, most importantly to enable access to patients. patients are at the top of the list for us and the companies that we do partner with, some license, are capable of executing in that space. i don't know if you add anything to that, do you? >> [inaudible] are there any other licensees in the works or is juno the only one? >> well, we spun out about 42 companies in the history of the hutch. so we have many licensees and we have a terrific vice president
for business development, nicky robinson. and there are always licensing deals being discussed or going on. so yes, we're very actively engaged in that space. >> lauren nigard with the associated press. why did this start with the blood cancers? is there something unique the t-cells work better with those that prove to be a larger challenge for solid tumors. >> i will take a crack at that one. that is a great question. it started basically because that's where we had monoclonal anti-bodies were the most effective. if you go back through the development of immunotherapy in the '80s and '90s we really developed the concept of monoclonal antibodies. that took a long time to take off. the reason it finally took off, the targets and lukemias and
lymphomas were very well-defined and we could develop antibodies against those targets. what a carr t-cell is the recognition part of the carr is a anti-body. the portion of the anti-body that combines to the target. so it is natural that the carr t-cells will follow the trail of what antibodies have been developed. that has been predominantly in the hematologic antibodies. leukemias and lymphomas are often blood cancers in the bone and marrow, they can get to the tumor, if they're injectorred intravenously they can get to the tumor very quickly which is not really the case in a solid tumor. so they're likely challenges ahead to translate this into solid cancers because the, we have to worry more about the micro environment of the cancers and whether the t-cells will be able to get there and do their
duty. that is a good question. >> sara chako with "the hill" extra health care. you mentioned the fda break-through on approval process an how helpful that was. are there any things you need from the agency and fda to keep this therapy development going? >> i think the fda has been quite proactive late approving oncology drugs through break you through status. a number approved in a fairly short order. in fact light speed compared to the typical time from enrollment of a first patient in to registration path for the drugs. it is one example, well the median is about 8 1/2 years in the industry from first in humans to fda registration.
keep in mind 90% of drugs go first in human fail to register. only a small fraction that get through. the fda chosen those designated with breakthrough status with a high degree of efficacy. the path to registration is much more rapid. that has incredibly important impact for patients waiting to get access to these medicines. i do think as i mentioned bringing, we now know we can stratify oncology patients for response to drugs, we need to have a biomarker test or diagnostic test. i think having that development process synchronized with the development of the drug under the leadership of the doctor will add value. from my perspective they are doing a terrific job. >> tibbits news service.
there is another heem toe logical, on cological form of cancer i am familiar with i haven't heard mentioned this regard and wonder if it is applicable to the subject area we're covering and that is multiple myeloma? >> yeah. that is a great question, we're actively developing clinical trials in multiple myeloma including development of carr t-cells that are active in this arena. clinical trials done at nci and other centers, that are beginning to show some act in that regard. so it is, it is a matter of identifying again those target molecules on the tumor cell that you want not to be on any other normal tissues. so that the when the carr t-cell or the t-cell attacks the tumor it doesn't cause too much
collateral damage is the best way to think about it. so we're actively working on targets and hope to have a program open in the next six months or so with testing carr t-cells in that malignancy. that is a great question. >> i'm carol james, member of the club, an independent. looking at how you seek to grow your model, how will you extend your consortium, collective, cooperative, whatever to other academic centers of immunology across the country? . .
and centers that have the monitoring capacity to treat and monitor patients receiving the therapy will spring up across the country very widely. >> is the process predominately competitive rather than collaborative? >> i don't think it's completely competitive. it is collaborative. we are learning from all the clinical trials and there's clearly the groups involved, the major groups involved are comparing notes and, obviously, trying to figure out which process is the most effective and the most active. >> those are very important
questions entity think we will not be successful unless we are highly collaborative. we do need to interact across centers. that's what a great attributes is this an emphasis on making sure we collaborate. to david's point i don't think it's lack of good intention on anyone's part. it's that we've got competition data sets. we've got differing electronic medical record systems. how do we think about working together. the main point is competition is cancer. our competitions are not in the medical centers. that's our focus. >> my name is jerry. i'm founding editor of the circuit bar journal and i'm an attorney here in town, for the last 30 years and retired from government in 1986 after arguing cases before the appellate courts in washington, and helping the solicitor general
argue a case in the u.s. supreme court. that was called the birth of biotechnology by some. it may have been, 1980. today, both of you are referring to your collaborations with other organizations, of which you are a part, comprising in the national cancer center network i believe there's an abbreviation for. might come close. but anyway, instant collaboration and telecommunication of knowledge back and forth from the various clinical trials that each of them is now being involved with. there's about 26 centers. you are one in seattle, but there are others. memorial sloan-kettering, india
anderson, kendall back up and baltimore. massachusetts general, all over the place and you will be communicating with an awful lot of fellow scientists in the future. >> you make a very good point and we already have active and ongoing collaborations. as you know the fortitude designated comprehensive cancer centers are highly collaborative and interactive. that's part of the mandate of the support from national cancer institute. so point well taken. >> can you tell us a little bit about where the kills withstand? >> it has shown remarkable effectiveness in some allen of those and we're investigating them in other cancers. they are not quite as potent in
general as car t-cells at least in hematological malignancies. we are excited in moving that forward. as you know they were developed largely at the nci and we've seen dramatic impact in some of these cancers. >> so there is not really a new focus? >> we are continuing to do them with those diseases and we're trying to use more targeted t-cell therapies if possible once we can identify what's attacking. they ourselves and know that are affecting, trying to attack the cancer but if we can figure out the targets in the can modify cell specifically to attack that cancer. >> i had a question for you, either one can respond. if there was a silver cloud to
the scourge of these epidemics it was that there was more focus on t-cell research. how did that form on what you're working on now? >> will thank you. that's a good question, david. i think our understanding of broadly based mechanisms of immunology have come from a variety of sectors, including the incredible work that's been done in hiv-infected patients. it's led to some fantastic new therapies for hiv. we have the coordinating center for the worldwide hiv vaccine trials network where we are trying to develop a preventive vaccine for hiv. so there's a lot of cross talk about fertilizes our approach to the diseases. but the point i would like to make emphatically is that a very significant portion of cancers are caused by viruses in humans. about 25% of cancers in the
united states that includes, for example, cervical cancer caused by human papilloma virus, head and neck cancers of which about 30% are caused by missing. when you realize the cancers are depend on the virus for the propagation is you can use the same techniques were used to treat infectious diseases. so we can vaccinate. hutchins center was a very active participant. that has the potential to eradicate cervical cancer worldwide. the only thing went to do is get the vaccine out. but it protects against 90% of cervical cancers. if we can vaccinate girls and boys can we can prevent the development of cervical cancer and that's a lesson that's been learned from our understanding of our pathogenic of disease. discipline i would make is where the center that we just opened as part of our understanding that whatever responsibility to the international community in
all gone to, we built a building there in collaboration with uganda cancer institute. 60% of cancers in sub-saharan africa are caused by viruses. we believe there's a tremendous opportunity to anything both with preventive approaches, and some of these immune therapeutic approaches are triggered and activated by viruses. that gives us an opportunity for therapeutic intervention as we well. >> i was on a cruise of the summer and that of their geneticists who were i think affiliated with university of california, san francisco, probably in their fresno shop. ious their first names, bjorn and cindy -- ious. bjorn traveled to africa extensively to work with hiv
patients in africa. i suspect some of the work you've just described is work is now doing. i don't know that but trying to develop vaccines for hiv or for any cancers caused by an hiv virus your i don't know if that's -- >> hiv does contribute to the developments of cancers, including cancers like hep c sarcoma. cancer is the leading cause of death of patients with hiv which is something we need to work on but it's a sign of progress in hiv-infected individuals are no longer dying from infectious complications. but to point this is a worldwide effort and we are very excited to be a part of that. there is a direct interface between treating viral immediate
diseases and treating cancer. >> anyone else? >> i've got a load of questions spent i think we should talk to after the conference, if you like. >> i think a lot of times we've heard that cancer will be eradicated in our lifetime, only to be disappointed and ones that really meant. can you comment on what we can be expecting in the next five or 10 years? >> and we are putting the burden on our shoulders and say we expect a spectacular progress in the next five to 10 years. i applaud the vice presidents goals of moving progress forward in five years, with what would've taken 10. that's a difficult thing to measure. we are targeting cures for cancer in the foreseeable
future. i also, i would say that we do not want to over promise and under deliver. but compared to other promises that have been made in the past, and the vice president has made this, in his speeches, that when nixon declared war on cancer in 1971 he had good intent your butt we had a posse of knowledge about the molecular underpinnings of cancer, and as vice president biden said he didn't have an army for that more. we now have an army and window where we need to go. we understand the mechanisms. so again, i would not want to over promise and under delivered by do think we need to put a the stake in the ground and say this is the time we need to move forward. >> anyone else? we have a question up here.
>> was reading your literature about women's health initiative and kind of the success you've had in dealing with breast cancer. i was one if you comment on the work you were doing their and leverage which are targeted in a new therapy to break down the instances of breast cancer. >> thank you for that question. the women's health initiative is a fantastic study and it's another example of how we are focusing not just on how do we treat cancer but how do we prevent cancer. it's much better than to prevent cancer than it is to treat it, and the human papilloma virus vaccine is one outstanding example of that. initiative was a study funded by the federal government that evolved 160,000 women who have been followed now more than a decade. it has led to remarkable advances in our understanding of women's health writ large but also about how we can prevent cancer.
for example, the study demonstrated that we were using too high a dose of estrogen in symptomatic postmenopausal women, it had increased the risk of breast cancer. that had an enormous impact of course on the patient's lives most important but also had an impact on the cost of health care and productivity, families, all the personal things that go along with breast cancer diagnoses. it's been estimated that although the study costs upwards of $200 million thatcome in terms of lives saved, that there's been a $37 billion savings in the cost to our health care system. so just emphasizes the importance of prevention, that if we can get out in front of this from ever happening again that's always going to be the most cost-effective approach. we have very active smoking cessation programs because that would have an enormous impact on the incidence of lung cancer. we are focused on both ends of
that. will look at early detection methods. we hope to come to a time when we don't need to therapies for cancer because we are preventing them from developing a we are planning against both ends. >> we have a question in the back. >> thank you. speaking of estrogenic compounds, are they still a loud in the foods that we eat, cows, milk? a lot of the farm animals. i know they have been pretty bad many years ago and i know that they are very good promoters of breast cancer and prostate cancer. >> thank you.
i must tell you that i'm not an expert in that arena so i wouldn't be able to provide a definitive answer but i can find out for you. we will shortly try to look into that. i don't know the answer to that. >> if there are no more questions, we can conclude this newsmaker. thank you for all the work you're doing and we look forward to more developments. thank you. [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]
>> we are waiting fo for the stt of this daylong conference looking at the results of the 2016 election and considering the impact on health care, immigration and other domestic policy issues. this is hosted by cq roll call and should start in just a moment. while we wait with a pending change in presidential administration a look at a discussion with former administration officials talking about the presidential transition process. >> ensuring a smooth transfer of power in setting the tone. it's really important the president do that and do that well. and by extension that they give direction to all other staff not only in the white house but to the departments and agencies as well to be open and transparent and providing all the information that incoming team would now. what are the greatest obstacle for an incoming team? greatest obstacles is they don't know what they don't know, and
particularly if it is a troubled presidency, -- trump presidency because this is been an election based on dramatic change, and overhauling the government from top to bottom, the anticipation -- >> start over. now you can hear me, right? i'll start again. i want to welcome you to the election impact conference at this moment is time in american politics. donald trump made a lot of promises on his unlikely path to the white house.
weather was a pledge to build a wall along our border with mexico, a day when commitment to repeal obamacare, or tariff trade agreements, his big ideas clearly captured a sizable part of the electorate and propelled him to the presidency. so he won the vote, lease enough in the electorally important state's two in the presidency. but now he needs congress to be successful and deliver on those big ideas. sure, mexico will pay for the wall. at least in theory. but what other commitments on security in the border, selecting contractors, overseeing the work, checking quality? the old maxim that the president proposes and congress disposes holds true even today and even for donald trump. and even though republicans control both the house and the senate, it doesn't guarantee smooth sailing for trump and his
ideas. today we will be discussing a whole range of all the issues facing our new president with distinguished guests. we'll have panels on what happened and why, the broader policy agenda, and focus policy analyses on health care, energy, cybersecurity and defense. to put all this together we have the help from two very valuable sponsors and the like to thank them. that taiwan civil government is in education and advocacy group founded in 2008 by doctor roger linn to normalize taiwan's legal status in the global community. to that end, the taiwan civil government holds weekly educational courses and i want to promote its internet and legal status. i like to think julie on land and her husband for their support of this event. campaign and election is the preeminent how-to resource for the political consultants.
established in the spring of 1980 by stanley foster reed, they focus on the tools and techniques needed to manage a political campaign. their conferences bring together strategies, campaign staffers, elected officials, public affairs, technologists for networking opportunities and campaign training. we would like to thank campaigns and election for supporting this conference. the sharp analysis you will hear today is part of the cq tradition of nonpartisan coverage of the federal legislative process which stretches back 70 years. cq which was launched, first known as "congressional quarterly" was established by nelson poynter in 1945 and he summed up his reasons for establishing it sustainably, quote, the federal government will never set up an adequate agency to check on itself and the foundation is too timid about.
so it had to be a private enterprise beholden to its client. clients. as the top editor of manager of cq roll call i'm charged with upholding his company's reputation for independence. i hope you find this event a valuable resource as we embark on one of the most challenging periods in american political history. i'm convinced our mission to focus on policy and its implications will remain a vital resource for those you care about how washington really works. and our first panel is going to look back on what happened, why and what's next and i'd like to hand it over to our moderator, my colleague, roll call columnist david hawkings. >> good morning. thank you, david. we should just come it's a very packed schedule as david describes a we'll jump in the quickly. the title of this panel is sort of now what and what did we choose? can this country be governed?
or after the revolution, what's next? very quickly yo you've got themn your program, jeff weaver, the personification of the bernie sanders campaign. doug usher, purple strategies and filling in this morning for a woman named shelburne are delighted family emergency, my colleague, why discourse by the john bennett. of what you start with you, because you are representative of the second, third or fourth most reviled industry in america this week, the polling industry. should all just declare collective bankruptcy and go home? what's next for the polling industry? what did we miss and keep it snappy. >> we are shooting for number one on -- make polling great again. [laughter] there's many stages of grief and i'm still in the denial stage. i will also set a couple things. first is the polling failed but
here's what it failed out. it failed to give certainty to an uncertain event. i think that's in a lot of ways the problem with polling right now. we can go to the mythological issues. and it's a well-worn territory, something when you think of in the industry but for all of you, you also need to think about what you are as a consumable and what you're looking for. and i'll say this going into this election, a judge when called and said what's going on, what's happening? the question isn't really defined what's going on and what's happening. is to reassure them that they can know what's going to happen. and to that end i think we created an illusion for polling, which is that that thing is happening down the road and because we done this many polls and because with this much data, we have certainty. and for better or worse polling has never been and isn't now very different from weather
forecasting. village of is that each day as an opportunity for new weather and new forecasting. but even on the day of the storm, even on election day, the exit polls got it wrong. we all went to those of us in the liberal media elite and i will plead guilty to being a member, we all essentially wrote stories saying she won, because us with the exit polls polls we're safe to start writing. >> it's possible the issues we talked about, which go beyond land lines and cell phones and online polling and all the rest in trying to reach different audiences, but go do something else which is willingness of people to take polls, is what i think led to the most misleading outcomes. and i will say willie briefly i don't think that there was people lying and saying that voting for clinton versus trump. i think a troubled but it was never a reluctant council voted but is reluctant are difficult to reach your that's a problem
that we can't solve by either adding more calls or by just turning to the data into higher levels of analytics. >> jeff, what's your view of the polling industry? >> i think we should separate exit polls and all the rest. exit polling this entire election cycle have been disastrously bad. they over represented young people, a lot of other problems with exit polls. new york state which were lost by 13 points, the last exit polls had us down by four. i got a congratulatory call from the media. i have had a lot of confidence in the exit polls from the very beginning. in terms of other polling, when you look at what is a use for that's important thing. people want a crystal ball but in terms of the campaign will use multiple is not the horse race. the horse race is the least important part. you want to allocate limited
resources and persuade as many voters as possible. what polling will tell you is bernie sanders hasn't our stump speech. you can' can cram it all into a 30-second speech. what partial most persuasive with which voters? effective in telling us what we should do in regard. >> so let's move on to discuss what is, in the aggregate, what do all the polls, should they tell us about where this country wants to be taken next? >> the most important goal is one which is that on tuesday which is the pull of the american people. i think that's the one we should look at in terms of where the country should go spend the one in which 47% voted for hillary clinton and 46% speed is absolutely. that is the important goal because that's the poll that matters. and clearly, we can talk about this more in depth book with the democratic party has lost touch with rural voters. these are many of the flaws
exposed in ivory campaign with bernie sanders, not in touch with rural voters. working-class voters, with young voters and those problems persisted throughout the general election. >> i'll just add one thing to that which is i think there's a real good in washington and the domain as an outsider from washington, i mean from someone who lives here and is from there but we talk about bipartisan compromise, talk about people come together and everybody wants that but there's only one issue over the last 25 years that has had consistent bipartisan support, and that's trade. there's only one issue bipartisan support in washington and there's only one issue that brings together centers of supporters and trump supporters, it is the thing that is activating and getting people going more than anything right now, and that's trade on the opposite side. people make the argument they just don't understand how trade helps them. certain point after 25 years of
doing the same thing and sing the same result, we have to realize that maybe in washington we are really not hearing people you can educate people out of the firm believes. you have to figure what's going wrong. >> you think the obama white house feels like it understood of the american electorate and kill the and, and how, what would be their message to, what would be the president of message to mr. trump today? >> i believe the obama white house thought they understood the electorate, at least to the point of helping hillary clinton get to 270 electoral votes. until about a week and a half ago, and while you may have heard on cable news that president obama is having so much fun on the go and let's play this clip and he's so good at this, and oh, my god, he is a happy warrior, he's going to
push her over the finish line, i saw something else. i believe i saw a president for what he was, a campaigner in chief for what he was, leader of the democratic party for what he was. i believe he realized we could have maybe a week ago that she was in serious trouble in pennsylvania, in michigan, in north carolina, and florida. but i think what may be woke up the president are really acting out there like we saw him last week was michigan. and i think the numbers scared him to death. and you saw the president talking about the republican, the world is teetering on this election. a lot of criticism, but he says what he's thinking and feeling. he does not posture à la. and i think that was really striking in his rhetoric on the stump last week. >> 's what do you think he will tell president trump today in
terms of i wonder, do you think he will say here's what you need understand about the country you are taking over? or will it just be promises of constitutional responsibility for transition? >> i think the latter. president obama was very impressed with how president bush handled and his team handled the transition, was very impressed. on it was thorough, professional, very in depth and he said we were ready to roll on day one. they want to ensure, they talk about this for months and months, even when secretary clinton was comfortably ahead. they want to make sure that the trump administration is ready to go on day one. the trump administration to feel even more prepared than they were coming in the door. i think that's what today will be about, making promises that whatever you need, whatever your teammates, i care for you, i told my team x, y and z and that's what, he wants continuity to the greatest extent they can do that.
>> thank you. so the country, the base of trump supporters and the part the allies, collection of your supporters, trying something new when they guess i see that both want to roll back the economy to the last century in some way. that's not happening. so how can -- >> look, first of all i think the way you put is completely wrong. in fact is why people in washington so they don't understand what's going on out in the world. all of the things that are manufactured in the world are still being manufactured. they are just being manufactured somewhere else but people are buying the products used to manufacture them. it's not like we are not making television anymore. no one wants to go back to make products no one uses or wants but there are tremendous amountt of products we all buy.
many industries you cannot buy an american-made version of the product. people see all these products you buy the spots, not making these products. i remember a very funny story bernie sanders went to china to visit -- you into a wal-mart in china and he was regaled by the american gem of congress about what great was what wal-mart in china as one of so forth. we will break into the chinese market. he said how many products in china in this wal-mart are made in america? 1%. the problem is people's office parks, they'r they are not makim anymore. look at michigan in many ways a classic example. if you go back and look in the newspapers, you see these 1950s sort of ozzie and harriet cars and suburb but they're all african-american. one of the reason why hillary clinton in the primary and general election had problems
with michigan. was because it was within that community there's a number of an industrialized middle-class of african-americans has been decimated by these trade deals. so people, they don't want to turn back the economy. they just want to be up to make some product that the family buys. >> let me go in a different direction and get into the notion of what pollsters are looking at, which is how they feel about the economy, how they feel about their job. the reality is the promise of trade has been that you will have better jobs, smarter jobs and more jobs than the alternative. that's the promise, and also you be able to buy things cheaper. leadinleaving the third piece a, people did not foresee either any sense of just security, and in a sense of the job they have to do something they want to have for the long-term. you put those two things together and you have people
who, most people have a college degree and some people with a college degree have no idea what things look like in three years. and to say to folks the answer is to have more trade, not talking about what people expect protection for i'm talking about the visceral reaction of people raising a family. when you talk to them, we need to do more listening in addition to bowling, either and uncertainty, why would i trust either side? neither side has delivered for me. i'm not saying that means roll the clock back whatever we want to talk about it but people want something real and tangible. i think that's a reason why voter turnout was so what -- somewhat lower. >> thank you for mentioning lower turnout. it was significantly lower. am i not right that mr. trump actually received 2 million fewer votes than loser john mccain? >> control for growth and
population to look like 2004. 2008, 2012 and 2000 that some are together. 2004, 2016 look similar. >> but in terms of actual human beings, he got fewer votes than john mccain and also from romney? >> that sounds right. >> sorry, that was a digression. can any of us think of something tangible that we could have the trump administration due to address the issues that you two gentleman described? >> you are looking for a job, go work for him. >> i think, the truth is as you point out both bernie sanders about to talk about trade. think our approach is different donald trump is talked about putting -- the guy who made his career with the company's apart and firing people. i don't know if that's necessary to guide you while protecting the middle class or trade negotiations. i think bernie sanders would
have a different group of folks in the negotiating it. i do think these trade agreements, and less people want to keep losing elections, that's what you do in a democracy, but ultimately people want to be elected have to listen to what people feel in the country. we live in a rarefied environmeenvironme nt. i come from a small town in vermont. i live in a nice beautiful affluent suburb in in virginia. it looks like the gilded age. drive through iowa, try to michigan, drive through wisconsin, very different reality. >> i don't quite understand i guess two girls to bring you back to all these jobs. number one, how is any administration going to bring back as many jobs as he's talking but in so many different places? that automation and corporate profits. companies want to make money and having a big staff, i've been
told by bosses, my entire career that people are my biggest expense. and automation you can make things faster, cheaper more sufficient with machines these days. i think those are big hurdles. >> i hear that. it's likely to be true but i will say one thing that i did probably unintentionally is when he did what many would argue was a relatively failed outreach to african-americans, he said to them, what do you have to lose? do you know who heard that? everybody else. we can say to sound racist. we can say that it was clearly he had no understanding of the community but i will say a lot of people that you're talking about here that and say maybe they don't have anything to lose, but i hear that argument that says there' there is no hor jobs, what do i have to lose? go with the guy who says there could be jobs.
>> i'll start by spinning way down the track or least two years down and then maybe we will come back. what happens, you to sort of avatars of the outside, what happens in two years when the mine isn't reopened and the wall is not up? >> that's a great, you can imagine democrats will do well in midterm but that assumes he has not solidified his base. babies the wall will be a. that's something that could be created. i devote to be supportive but it's a concrete a competent that could be done to shift the question of old losers. >> and willingness of a republican fiscally conserve small government congress -- >> i heard mexico is going to pay for it spent theoretically what if that doesn't work out? >> first of all i think to go back to your earlier question,
away he could make progress to make a lot of people happy i think it satisfies voters and many people who didn't vote for it would be to push for infrastructure. but you're right congress become against which goes back to the panel which was originally called can you govern? as i was going through this regardless of who won, the answer is you cannot govern but you can get things done. i think that's what we're seeing. the notion of governing in the traditional sense, the notion of we have a leader and debug peope disagreements but in the end they fall a line and when some handholding at some point, that's not there right now. that might change but as of today it's not there. >> i agree on infrastructure. the first of hillary administration, could inhabit both sides to do some infrastructure work. >> i think there's an appetite and i said a minute ago but there's an appetite among trump and among actually nancy pelosi is to sort of reached out to him
on that one point and said we can probably work together on infrastructure. but his alleged colleagues in republican majorities, they are not in the mood. paul ryan said flatly that's not part of my agenda. we just did a highway bill. we just been $300 billion. when are going to spend $5 billion which is the number that trump has been throwing around. site guest i wonder, does the electorate wants this? where is that the for this? a narrow loss in the popular vote. does he have a mandate? >> everybody who was, try to think of a candidate who is a major candidate who do not advocate something significant increase in infrastructure spending is certainly bernie sanders was out there, hillary clinton had a plan. trump had a plan.
i do think this is an issue of which there was at least among the people running for president pretty broad consensus that need to be an efficient it brings together industry people, it brings, unions will get behind it. the players in washington who are around us will come together pretty nicely. it is the painful part that becomes the messy part. >> the reality is we don't know which trump are going to get because angry drunk which is part of who he is companies can be looking to punish the republican party and parts of the democratic party and sort of giddy as it gets paid. if that's the case that nothing is going to get done. there's another side of trump which we can agree with is, the guy loves to build big stuff. we can argue about how he does it and who pays for, that type of thing but he has pride in standing beside big holes and new bridges and things like that.
and so if that's the trump it gets there and give us to stand in front of his now tells, that i think there's a chance he would do that. this is something we want to do. and i think republicans will come in line. as much as we talked about how hillary won, republicans would be a huge obstacle because she has the support. if he doesn't jump, they will say how high. spent it will be interesting to see, it's entirely correct, he loves to stand in such projects are completed, how does he respond and does he respond when congressional conservatives say no, we are not voting for that, we are not paying for the. and if he doesn't get his infrastructure bill, how does he respond? the trump presidency, i would hate to see first term but it could pivot on how the re-exported in the city, the vengeful trump?
>> i think from a polling perspective if he came out strong on infrastructure and actually started to say we're going to build this wall, i think that his numbers would go up. and i think that is what will make congressional leaders change their mind. >> the other thing is not a traditional type of personality. we don't know to what extent is willing to put together congressional coalitions that may have majority of democrats involved, like republicans have traditionally not pushed majorities. to what extent is he willing to say i have a third of republicans and a group of democrats willing to come along and i will put together a coalition, what's his willingness to do that? >> and what is paul ryan's willingness to can pass bills with democrats pushing them across the finish line speak with you all would agree that he is, would you all agree that he is the least ideologically
rounded candidate, resident since clinton i guess, or maybe before? is he a non-ideological president? are we actually going to get this sort of break of the gridlock because he's a non-ideologue? >> so far we've talked about the optimistic side of this i think is a real fearful sight of the. i wouldn't want to put them in that box because some of what he did and talk about on the campaign trail scares folks here i think scares people who understand both foreign policy and domestic policy. side don't think he's driven by ideology. i think is driven by ego and by his beliefs about what's right at any certain time. so certainly in terms of the traditional way we think about ideology, absolutely. >> this is a guy who used to be for single-payer and for getting rid of obamacare.
he said some pretty negative things about gay rights is the support of gay rights and it has been used to be pro-choice and pro-choice. what is ideology, if he has wone at all and is there one or was it just a performance? is trump just performance art, right? i think that's an open question. >> we don't know if trumpism is an ideal just hoping to find double kind of come will fill in for lines as we go starting in the 70 something days, or easy going to shoot more closely to the traditional republican or even something farther to the right? i don't think we know that yet. >> where else do you think of it in infrastructure which was the one thing he did mention in his victory speech on wednesday morning, what's your best sense of where he wants to go with top priorities and where they think the electorate says he shouldn't go speak with i think it clearly wants to go around taxes,
initially talked a lot personal and otherwise during the campaign. obviously, it will be a tremendous amount of pressure from the republican establishment to push for some kind of tax reform, particularly at the corporate level. trade he talked about briefly. in this sense is a mandate from sort of the grassroots, people who vote on small towns in wisconsin and michigan and other places, north carolina. it's on trade. he has to start doing something on that fairly quickly or think his credibility with that constituency i think will be very, very quickly. >> what trump wants to do, if you look day-to-day he wants to argue any what's to negotiate and he wants to build stuff. the best opportunities for all three of those are infrastructure and trade. i think also the area of foreign policy becomes a place what is going to become interested in a real hard because of the way in which he's going to have unilateral control over a lot of those decisions.
i think that's what gives a lot of people pause right now. we talked about paul ryan. we talked about mcconnell, of the folks that can do checks on the. i think that's a place where for another panel but where he may find he can do things he likes to do. i think that's in the in a lot of what i think people across the i would agree pricing to do what he does, so do what feels good to have feels what's right. >> they do have a plan to do things. a huge push in regular shoot at the beginning. executive orders, the repeal of executive orders about a whole host of issues it will happen very, very quickly. >> yes, the president has spent so much of the second term, the pain, though, the microphone. it will be interesting to watch whether a republican congress that was so angry at president obama for his aggressive use of executive power, whether they
will be consistent or probably not consistent at all and welcome in a donald trump using a sort of executive power. >> if you look at the number on executive orders, they're becoming more and more popular for presidents can not just president obama. president bush, even president clinton. the thing about lawmakers, they hate executive orders except when the guy is one sign of them. donald trump, he's a business guy. he's accustomed to making the call, and i don't think there's any reason to believe he will not use executive orders liberally. maybe not at first, maybe once you start to do with congress and sees a difficult it can be to get things done, maybe in a year or two i would look for that rate to pick up speed you all think that the electorate was voting for somebody who which is come in and company,
assert himself and, that while the one congress, they want washington to work, which those of us wh who live inside the doorway and inside the bubble, took a piece of x., means one thing, but maybe the country thinks something, it means something totally different which is just some guys could come in and get it done all by himself? >> let's go back to the most important part which is, remains incredibly divided electorate. he doesn't have a mandate in terms of the traditional notion, in terms of lyndon johnson 1964, ronald reagan 1980 type of mandate. having said that yes, i think a lot of people who voted for him because they want to break stuff. most importantly what to break stuff because they don't believe the consequences will be worse. by telling people who are desperate, who see their lives coming apart at the seams and see their future coming apart, to say to them, you don't know how much worse it can be, the response is no mike, you have no
idea how bad things are right now. so i think that is a mandate for both parties for the next couple of years and four elections going forward. >> they used to pull george w. bush and he was popular at one point and then they pulled these issues and they're all unpopular. barack obama won in 2008, not a particularly ideological candidate having sort of super detailed policies. the clinton would tell you to have many more detailed policies than he did. people vote for a lot of different reasons, leadership. they want somebody like. this time i think they probably proceed both candidates as not particularly likable. but likability is an important factor. leadership is important factor. all of these intangibles that go to picking a president i think in many cases become more important than where you on this issue or that issue. >> interesting to note one bit
of the exit poll which i think is being repeated by everybody, so he gets 46% of the vote from an electorate, 63% of what you think is temperamental unsettled to be president and 60% think is unqualified to be president. so let's discuss, what is there to say about that? >> not necessarily -- i think another thing that is important as we think about the trump presidency and that's what people say when they came in is a lot of the norms we come to expect in washington, i think people have been pushing the edge of the in washington and they think they are finding it's not -- i would go to the supreme court, i would go to the notion of executive order and things like that, that it's becoming pretty clear that the idea that we need to have a fully functioning supreme court, when he did not have executive power and things like that, that that gets lost and that the norms that have held us together, if
they get broken can actually cause electoral consequences. >> we may have done for a couple of questions from our audience to give anybody a feeling particularly frisky. please go first to the microphone there. thank you. >> i'm julie with price their pitch. decent budget deficits matter anymore speak with that was going to be the next question, thank you. speak is that from a political standpoint or from an economic standpoint? those are different questions. >> of course the matter from an economic standpoint but from a political standpoint. does trent lott and the republicans have to behave for tax cuts, for infrastructure, repeatedly obamacare, cbo said costs billions of dollars. >> i think from an opinion perspective on the way people process things, but issues like
debt an issue like trade inside washington and think about a lot of folk he said were taken using the word that and people understand the consequences our benefit. i think for most voters they are just a piece and you need to go the next step which you to say what the consequences. ever the reason i don't think that per se, i don't think the trade per se, go either way on them, causes the the opinion shifts our electoral shifts. running up debt would be a problem and i think if a president trump said i need to write up debt to pay for the infrastructure and to put a down payment on the wall before it gets payback, people will accept that your. >> it is not, this election cycle was not a driver of them among people i met out on the trail or encountered. part of the problem is, and is now, both sides incurred immense
amounts of debt. nobody pay the political price. apparently there is a one. >> is someone else standing at the microphone? >> yes, two questions. first of all, given donald trump's own background that many of its products were made cheaply overseas and daddy bought chinese steel instead of american steel, given his own background, why then would he consider such an effective messenger on trade when his own record didn't really match his rhetoric? that's the first question. the second question is, now we have had two elections in the past 16 years where the popular vote has been different than the electoral vote. why are we still holding onto
the electoral college, something that many argue isn't, is a very outdated at the democratic system. >> jeff, you represent the candidate is not electoral system was broken in some way? >> it's broken, we can hold for our panel about the democratic primary process of how that's broken, but i mean, have lots of money and what have you. but in terms of translating a messenger, i think he was effective in single, operate in a certain way, i hung out with rich people, gave money to candidates, including the clintons because as i was forced to operate. as president i will change all those rules and then i would function differently now. i didn't find al it all that convincing but i guess many people did at the end of the day. they said we understand you are a business guy, got to love, to although things we find this
days and that's the nature of the be. for the electoral college i think it does have be some kind of reform. i come from vermont. small states deed in lieu more impact by do think we need to do something, if it's on to cut some kind of proportional allocation of electors within a state and i believe that's the first that i don't know. i would not be opposed to abolishing it. you have to look at the applications of doing that. with 20 some battleground states, people running around. if you do away with that are you just going to candidates only advertising and any out in populated centers? think about the ramifications not only of the election of candidates relate them to people in the states, where are they going to campaign, are some people could get left out? i think there's a broader revocations of making changes we need to think about but i think change is necessary. >> that's precisely right, take the money and allocated off to
california, new york, texas and florida. as opposed to being in places like florida but and also other parts of the country. you have to pick your poison. there's one other real quick thing that goes back to the first question is we've had two elections where the popular vote differs from the electoral college but three of the last five elections have been elections in which one side though they one and the other side thought they lost. ..
so now what we do that, i just wanted to have a little bit of housekeeping detail. the three panels in the morning, coffee breaks during the day, lunch at 12:45. if you miss them when you came in ,-com,-com ma three things at the conference brochure has all of the bios of our distinguished guests, the latest rollcall which has been redesigned and refreshed and has wonderful election. this is the new members guy. the conference has been held by every other year since 1980. inside is this a terrific amount
of information about every to elect a member, power structure of congress and where the landscape wise. i am going to join my distinguished guests. i think i may have to be -- can you hear me? this gentleman doesn't need much of an introduction so i will keep it short. eric cantor is at the moment a vice-chairman and business executive. he was the majority leader until 2014 in the u.s. house of representatives. started than virginia house of delegates and 92 and moved over 2,002,000. 2001 when you entered office. you have a reputation for progrowth policies and sticking
to principles and you are the early warning system of what we had happen on tuesday because you lost in 2014. let me start with where the other panel ended. do you think to country can continue to have the most about that doesn't take the office? >> i think that our constitution is quite the document and there are parts of it that some speak to and say it doesn't work. my sense is if we want to change the document that is a tall order, uphill climb. i do think that if you want to go and concentrate all the dollars, all the conversation, all the money on the coasts and
in the big cities, that is what you'll do if you get rid of the electoral college. the beauty of our country as it is diverse and part of that diversity is geography. clearly one of the schematics coming out of this campaign is there is a lot of country out there that is not think like this campaign thinks that, like new york thinks, l.a. part of the richness of our culture and brilliance of the business of our founders was to make sure we didn't get so single vision and maintained that broad sense of vision that the country can offer. i am thinking we are fine. >> okay. ms. fitzgerald said to me, and he said you should always start by saying how is your day. so i wanted to ask, how is your day yesterday? >> listen, i'm good. i'm really good.
>> how surprised were you? >> well, i started the day by thinking and listen, i am no stranger to elections that can give you a surprise. you know, i talked to my kids. i have three kids, two of them in this panel, one in palo alto. i told him look, because they as you know, there's been a lot of chatter. there's been a lot of that did the deed, especially san francisco, washington, new york where there were heavy concentrations of hillary clinton supporters and that is not taken to the streets in demonstration. my kids having been through two years ago what my family went through and a real shocker, day two stay low, worse things can happen. we live in a great country. life will go on.
i saw the election like many of you probably couldn't sleep afterwards because of all the thoughts that conjured up of what is laying ahead of our country. as the republican in a very heartened to see that both the house and senate republicans now able to work with the republican white house. i did caution myself in a positive vein of thought and said there are no excuses now. my party has to act. >> david hawkins who ran the other panel got up at 3:00 the morning and said you broke it, you earned it. i know you wouldn't agree with the first part of that phrase. >> listen, we can have that discussion. >> let's have that discussion. how do we put this together? one of the reasons i'm excited you are here is you are now a businessman as well so we are going to get into that.
the election both primary and general revealed a real gap between the political class and middle class america. so let's start with that. if you're advising the democrats, and you say jerome and hope his obstruction and if so that just perpetuates the broken nature of the institution. >> well, you know, when you look at this election and i can see if i asked this question of who's read that book called hillbilly allergy. but i just finished the book and i don't know if it was purposely written and published around this election, but it is sort of indicative i think of a culture in a certain region of the country that perhaps is reflected elsewhere but a broad swath of demographics that really has been justified did
and left out and from a variety of reasons, generational, just hasn't seen that kind of hope and aspiration and ability to rise but i think most of us would like to say that we or our kids have. that is what donald trump tapped into, that disaffected sense, that anger, the notion that washington is really broken when it comes to searching problems for that group of people. if you look at the way that he spoke to the voters, listen, i was one of the first when he would say some of the things that were vulgar or distasteful to speak out as many people in this town did on my side of the aisle and those kinds of things. peter teale said about the
convention in cleveland, something that was very wise and that was media for many in this room, media took trump literally, for voters to them seriously. that is something to think about because when he said some of the things that and so outrageous there is a sense he was constrained to people who may not living in this bubble of washington, new york, l.a. and the rest. it is about not speaking in this washington garbo, approaching problems in the way giving our society today of the 24/7 rapid information low that penetrates through a tube demonstrates that you hear somebody. now you get to the point where you've got to go and execute on
those visions you put out there because there's not a lot of granularity yet as to what exactly that means that the trump white house. >> absolutely. do you think the legislative agenda is really going to be provided by paul ryan? >> i know that paul of the house ways and means committee are working on tax reform now for some time and in fact goes back to when i was leader and dave campana presented the initial weight paper and so i think i'll be ready. most of us were taken by surprise with the outcome of the election and i guess no one or neither party is ever really ready until the time comes. but i know that some smart mines, hard-working people on the hill are ready to take the man on the drive. donald trump seems to me to be one that clearly is going to have been made to where he wants
to take things. having worked in congress have been elected during the bush years when we controlled everything, i look back in those years in the white house has a lot to say and a lot of influence on what happens. i do think there will have to be some initial strategy feel to roll his life and how it's going to play out. >> let's talk more about politics. on paper, donald trump is last vessel for discontent. early dinner, and would seek on the television guy famous. and people who come from much more modest circumstances who are traditional politicians weren't able to speak to that. how does the republican party absorb process and speak to that legislation over the next two years? >> if you're going to ask how absorb it politically, i would save god because certainly donald trump has brought those voices, those people with that
incense into the republican fold. you put your finger right on it. that is the challenge for the party now is how do we go when and i say more practically respond to the problems that exist and not always adhere to justice strict ideological view. so much of what i remember the struggle was when i was in office and in leadership was to try and say to fellow republicans and conservatives, we need to be able to put our conservative principles of limited government, individual empowerment, free markets to work for people and we've got to be able to demonstrate the benefit of those principles, not just say because it is limited government because that will work towards balancing budgets is necessarily good.
i do think that donald trump probably has a much better way of the to convey that. >> i don't think i know him very well but the thing i really know about him is he wants to be a winner, and ideological purity may or may not be the path to being a winner. when in on legislation, jobs and of course winning on reelection. >> the firm then and now it's on the yours as well, he actually was not one of donald back a while back. he actually predicted a month ago or so at another press outlet event in new york that donald trump is going to win. again, many of us were obviously as the prior panel said, most people say that wasn't going to happen. he said because what donald is selling is not just yes we want to win and americans like to
win, but also he was so late i am a good deal maker. i know how to go and get you the better deal. if you think about the swath of the electorate that came out with the party has had difficulty bringing out, especially in the rust belt it over the last several decades, that is what they are looking for. they're looking for the shot in life. somebody to say i am going to deal you a better dad. i'm going to give you a better shot to climb up the ladder. so yes, i think it will probably be the narrative of the prism through which the white house is going to look at what happens through the legislative process. >> let's talk about the junior partner in all of that which is the democratic party. it seemed to me in the last 36 hours people have been in the fetal position. there has been a very low
representation of lawmakers, party leaders out in about. they are still processing. we do want a two-party system, even you. so if they go to obstructionist, that may be the first instinct. was that the right thing for them? >> no, listen. the obstruction and again much longer discussion about how that obstruction and how the minority party that i was part of in 2007 through 2010 was in the beginning we faced in incoming president obama with 70s% approval rating and we were able to -- we had to do the same thing. we had to pick ourselves back up and say how are we going to work together? there are plenty of attempts on
my part, john byers part, to say to the white house and the president we want to work with you after they invited us in. and we tried. many of you remember the day it was the stimulus, obamacare, doug frink. the first shot of the ballot not one was this e-mail is bill. i remember vividly the president coming over to leader boehner and i am saying come to the white house, present us with your ideas. we are putting together this bill. shortly after the collapse of the market and 08 and we want you to be a part of it. and we did. we had session after session in the roosevelt room of the white house. i remember being so anxious at the time i even brought in a one-page white paper. the president even said there's nothing crazy in here. we got a little juice out of that thinking okay. at the time the discussion with
republicans was are we going to advocate for the eliminatieliminati on of the capital gains tax and all of that knowing full well you are dealing with the one-sided town here. and we didn't. but again, all of that goodwill dissipated very quickly and obviously we have our interpretation of it and they have theirs as to why it and we were left out of the bill, which got started we are going to be against what you're doing is you're not bringing this and, which snowballed in the overreach that occurred in my opinion those two years in 2009 in 2000 times a lot for the rebounding of the republican party and the house that i think that his lessons here for my party now is we don't want to go and connect in overreach as a party. the democrats owe it to their constituents and the country to
try and be a part of things and that is try and work. president-elect trump has said he wants to do that and see if we can make it work. my sense is the country has really had it with blaming two parties believe in each other and basically leaving so many people out. >> let's talk about specific policy areas. trade has been a bipartisan consensus area. sounds like the election has a strong signal that a lot of people feel it's not working for them. i thought months ago trump had been winning the argument on that and shifted ground. u.s. someone in the business environment now care very deeply about trade. how do you square those two things now? >> and spending a significant amount of time in asia both in southeast asia and china, hong
kong, japan, there is a real priority that i see one i see when i and they are being placed on tpp prospects. as much as been written in this country with a timid notion that more than just a trade sort of blueprint, they see it as a demonstration of american commitment to reach and that is why most in the foreign policy arena in my opinion think it's a really important thing. foot back to the voters that really came out the selection and said you know, trade is not working for me. i think first of august claimed that, there's no question, no trade and there's no tpp in my opinion it's going to happen. with donald trump and his assistants we are going to go win and reworked trade
agreement, i don't think there's many people that disagree you can improve upon the existing agreement. i think it all depends on what you mean when you say we work them. with the sledgehammer to the situation is really bad for our economy and for america's role as an exporter and the imports and what that will rebound to the american consumer. i do think there are ways to actually deliver on his promises depending on who the ustr as and how they work with individual to go about effect things in a positive way. the sledgehammer now. very damaging for us as a country. >> space-bar in a crisis. the first diplomatic challenge. these are the red nations so he has two find a way to do it but
the sledgehammer. >> i'm good. >> said taxpayers, tax reform has been on the table with all the bright lines in the party. what are the parameters they are? repatriation, infrastructure. >> i heard one of the individuals on the prior panel of the question being are republicans going to pay for tax cuts? when i was there and still today , the rules are we don't pay for tax cuts and that was contrary to the philosophy. but the infrastructure bill is something else. the infrastructure bill would run into an insistence by the party that infrastructure be paid for and not just be borrowed and that is why tax
reform can come out and that's when i think they have a married map and democrats and hillary clinton were out there saying he wanted to see an increase in infrastructure. that will be the test as to how much of an appetite areas on the part of the fiscal hawks on the hill to go for that it began related to tax reform in particular the international peace when you get to the repatriation. the very controversial subject for 300 plus in terms of infrastructure package for most of the number will be. that is a money is because i don't know where else to get it.
and drive the infrastructure package. kevin brady, paul ryan others in the house to design above for a real tax reform. afraid of the idea of repatriation. the generally accepted number is about a chained dollars overseas that could be brought back in a favorable holiday for a lower rate. did you ever have any interaction with shimmer and the democrats? >> absolutely. even two years ago when i left about to marry enough of those two things. there's not just a packed holiday. it is putting in place an entire new regime who don't get mixed on the scoring with two of say not necessary revenue that show.
you need to go look at this one time tax on profits abroad in exchange for a reduced rate here at home for corporate america in the insertion of territoriality into the system and set of the worldwide tax system now. those two things in broad speed are very controversial and that will have to be worked out and sensing that again when we go back to the states and talking to the type of voters that came out this time and talking to them what matters to them, this i just went through is really not relevant that needs to happen in order to produce an infrastructure package to people around the country can understand and enjoy when they see improvements in their homes. >> you work with a bipartisan policy center on infrastructure. what is your view of how much we need to get the level playing of
95 and not be frustrated. how much money do we need? >> the estimates trillion dollars plus be at a lot of money. the directive counselor for their eight ceos and we would go around the country to denver. i took them down to richmond and host them there for virginia student of public or the partnerships. my sense is there is liquidity out there in the dirt and a lot of the institutional asset managers ready to deploy capital to really match long-term capital up with their long-term pension commitment. insurance companies the same way. the capital keeps saying there is not first of all a pipeline of projects that exist across
the country. and there is a lot of risk associated with that capital particularly because of politics and permitting. the work of the executive council and report out there that some suggestions heavily weighted to the state as to what you have to do to streamline some things that the state level so you can see these projects come forward and the process be more amenable to someone looking to undertake some risk in big numbers to address the need. >> infrastructure, there's a lot of car bullies to get to the new bridge pier and let's talk about something that's very hard and emotional we don't need a lot of jargon. now you were a supporter of jeb bush and he supported trump when he triumphed in the primary process. you tweeted him on -- tweaked
him on twitter. let's talk about the politics of that and see a possible consensus. long road. >> listen, it certainly played a role in my primary loss. we need to do something that moved the needle. as later i want to try and address the kid because i never believe our country had a policy or law that allows us to a kids liable for illegal acts with their parents. is this survey. legal standpoint if you don't even want to get to the human aspect, let's see if we could move that way. that was that the memo because both sides got upset because it is standalone. it wasn't comprehensive that it was considered amnesty.
look, short of the first initial for authorization to build that wall and the money, there is money needed into mexico sends its check. you know, we'll see. short of that legislative action , most of the immigration politics will be dealt with at the administration level. i do think it will be an executive order in the last 10 on wednesday said one party doesn't like executive orders and the other doesn't. i do think the integration piece will remain in that realm and funding the appropriations and necessary at the border for building that wall. >> what does that mean?
where is he going with that? >> will have to say. there are things said in the campaign in terms of refugee come of that aim and other things that really from the initial position that donald trump steaks out on immigration, a sort of gravitated back to the center over time. if you think about the tools and that is what that was when you save a covered trust me i am going to be tough on this. i have outpaced anybody on this by taking the position over there and we would get somewhere that make sense over time. those are questions i know all of us are asking because there has not been a lot of definition around the policies that will be pursued under a truck
presidency. >> we are leaving this briefly for a pro forma session of the senate which is meeting every three business days to prevent recess appointments by president obama. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the presiding officer: the the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c., november 10, 2016. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable pat roberts, a senator from the state of kansas, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: orrin g. hatch, president pro tempore. the presiding officer: splendid. under the previous order, the senate stands adjourned until 5:30 p.m. on monday, november 14, in the year of our lord 2016.