because she is born as a child is born in a country denied citizenship by virtue of being born there >> children uncovered whose mother has not had a continuous one year residency in the united states. even though that mother may be of american citizenship. >> that's right. my point is her child may have, may face no risk of statelessness at all and yet the statute filled confers citizenship. >> some others can only pass on citizenship if she's been in the united states continuously for one year. prior to the birth of just the child, right? what happens to a citizen mother who can't meet that one-year requirements?
what happens to her child? >> that child would have to ... >> there is a risk of statelessness no matter what there is a risk of statelessness. the risk is created by these physical presence requirements that congress chose to impose. whether it's the mother or the family, the risk is greater with respect to the fathers. lesser with respect to the mothers buddies these physical presence requirements that create the risk ofstatelessness and that's why this scheme cannot be justified as seeking to reduce the risk of statelessness . we have no further questions, thank you. >> three minutes mister mueller. >> thank you mister chief justice. first on the merits, the provision here confers to substantial governmental interest. at the time the child is born and there is only the mother as a recognized parents, it is uncertain whether the child will ever be legitimized. congress has a substantial
interest in confirming citizenship on that child at birth if it concludes there's a significant connection to the united states. congress also has a substantial interest in not divesting that child of citizenship if the child is later legitimized by an alien father so there are two substantial interests that are further and it is better to take care of those two interests. >> if you consider stateless children in the world, then you have a problem with father's who can't confer citizenship in a country when citizenship goes by who is the father. >> if the father later legitimizes, is put in the same position if they were married at the time the child is born and we know from 1401 that that is ... >> there are a lots offathers who work after their children
and they do it purposely but they try . >> this will reduce that. take the same route, just put in father instead of mother and today, why is it any different? >> it isn't different, i just want to repeat again when the father legitimizes, there are two counts. >> i'm not talking about legitimacy. i'm talkingabout the surprising number of people unfortunately who never get married . and a lot of them do live abroad and they do have children . your words apply whether it was the mother and my question is do the same words , apply it where it was the father. >> i think it's of critical importance in citizenship laws to have a legal occurrence in order to pass citizenship and that's legitimation. your suggestion that the father could pass on citizenship without even legitimation which this court substantiates ... >> it doesn't say that.>> this is a question of remedy
and to the, and also in mayor versus robin, if the father filed a notice or file a document, but got notice of the proceedings, and details how the mother had before legitimization, he just got the parent to and that's what happens here when the father legitimates. he's not put in the same position as the mother because the two parents, it's a two parent family. with respect to remedy, let me point out in page 38 of our brief where statelessness is addressed, it's clear the interests that i identify that congress wanted to ensure the child has it is and ship at birth, not being divested. >> thank you counsel, case submitted. >> and looking at the shutdown of a portion of interstate 395 in washington dc, video posted by russia today reporter. the highway block by protesters open holding trump signs but all quiet lanes are now clear. that 395 was blocked around
exit 4. for the department said it was unclear if the protesters were demonstrating for or against the president-elect. some images showed signs that read stop tropism. the lanes were clear at 1:45 protesters remain on the scene. as of congress returning to capitol hill to finish out the rest of the session. the house is considering a number of suspension build. watch that debate over on c-span and the senate meeting tomorrow, live coverage on c-span2 at 4:00 eastern time. senators will debate a bill dealing with the library of congress oral history. coming up today, look at us trade policy. we will hear from republican punishment evan brady of texas and us trade representative michael froman as well as economic experts, they will discuss what to expect from a trump administration posted by politico. you have live at five eastern
on c-span2. president obama holding a news conference today, 3:15 eastern i had of his last trip abroad as president. live coverage of his briefing also here at c-span2. until then, keep up today at washington journal. >> joining us now, to longtimeobservers in congress . also with the incoming administration, of donald trump , francine kiefer is correspondent for the christian science monitor and deals with a staff writer for roll call, thanks for joining us. >> let me bounce a headline from this morning paper. gop, republicans lame-duck session sets the stage for donald trump. how much truth is there in that, francine kiefer? we are not sure how republicans will use the lame
duck session because the main job of the lame-duck session is to get the budget done and within the republican party there are conservatives who want to push that into next year so that they have a friendly president to deal with. and then the republican leadership wants to clear the decks, get the budget done now so they can have a new president start with a clean slate and it's not clear yet which side is going to win on this so my guess is the leaders will win out on it and they will do it again to move the ball along as speaker ryan says: the road running the new president next year. >> a loss of that might be up to what the president-elect decides to say. if the president-elect trump were to let it be known to say, the more conservative members of the house and his supporters, people would endorse him in the house of representatives if he wants, he's on board with speaker ryan and senate minority
leader mitch mcconnell and sort of a longer-term agreement on the appropriations so that he doesn't have to deal with that as soon as hetakes office . people will probably go along with it. but what's interesting here is that because the president-elect is a complete outsider to this process, and has never really made this sort of sausage before, the vice president elect certainly was in mister pence was in house republican leadership for a fair amount of time so he may be the one who was not necessarily calling the shots but may have influence in how this process gets done. that's really the question, is whether the president-elect, vice president elect will say anything and insert themselves into this process in terms of how they want to see this done. >> we saw donald trump last week making a visit to congress, both the house and
senate. did we learn anything as far as what mister trump was interested in and the reaction from the leaders he met with? >> he gave a list of three priorities, trump did, leaving mitch mcconnell's office on the second floor of the capital. he said he was interested in care, immigration and what he called big league jobs. he left sort of vague exactly what he meant on any of those three. there was some more detail perhaps in the 60 minutes interview that aired sunday evening but they're still is a lot of holes to be filled in and detail to be written. >> the big league jobs could include any number of things. it could include tax reform because republicans believe tax reform will stimulate the economy and create jobs. it could mean infrastructure
would would be a big job creator in terms of capital spending and bridges and highways and all of that or it could be rollback of regulations that republicans think are a precedent and keep the economy from growing so it's probably all those things because last night on 60 minutes, president-elect trump talked about tax reform specifically but others, mccarthy for instance, help house majority leader mccarthy talk about infrastructure so i think that big league jobs is a catchall phrase that includes all three of those things 20274 8001 four republicans and 202 four 8002 or independence, if you want to ask our guests questions about congress, the agenda for this year and how they prepare for president-elect trump, we will take those calls in just a moment. infrastructure, this is a
subject a lot of people can agree on what it comes down to one thing, it's the cost. what faces this congress and president? >> it's huge. one price tag that's been put on what's actually needed is $1 trillion. president-elect trump has been talking about half that much but even half that much is a very big price tag. one idea is to involve private sectors so that doesn't become quite as expensive for the federal government but you do have democrats and republicans logging onto this idea generally because the country needs it so badly, commerce has been pushing it forever. it's the price tag that's the sticking point. >> and once you have that price tag, then the question becomes how do you pay for it? let's say everyone were to agree that they needed half $1 billion used roughly with the trumpet figure of new infrastructure and public works. there are people who would say that that should be paid for by increasing the gas tax
but there's been absolutely no inference in that among republicans. there's been, there are other proposals, people who want to put more tolls on highways. want to reconstruct them using that source of revenue. then there's this whole question of whether or not you can repatriate foreign earnings, whether or not you can use proceeds that would come in from dollars have sort of been sure that might be part of a tax reform plan. you could use some of that to pay for infrastructure so there's lots of options out there but they all sort of involve the tax code and so no one yet has come up with a way of rebuilding highways and bridges and tunnels without going through the tax code. >> will even calls from our viewers but start in tampa florida on our republican line. go ahead.
>> good morning guys, thanks for taking my call. obviously this year is all very radical ideas and both the left and the right. what's the mood for donald trump politically speaking to bring the country together. we know that mike pence is going to lead the legislative aspect but what does donald trump do to try to bring the country together? thanks guys, god blessed. >> you want to send your thoughts on the legislative aspect because there's going to be infighting on the republican side on both sides but let'sget you started. >> i think there is this question of whether or not trump , when he becomes a president and obviously working with pence and the leaders on capitol hill, could start with something that has in terms of the legislative agenda, could start with something that has bipartisan buy-in. we know that one of the top priorities for the president-elect will have to
be this vacant seat on the supreme court. and every indication that he has given is that he is going to nominate a conservative in the mold of antonin scalia to fill the seat that's been vacant since kelly and i. so that's probably not going to be an area for broad bipartisanship so if you are hounding that you've got this one partisan item is going to immediately be on the agenda, you need to figure out something with respect to infrastructure or some other sort of job creation measure or something even that's been sitting out there. if for instance they don't get in the lame-duck session, despite the partisan package of legislation known as the cures act that is a big investment in public health research, if that didn't get done this year, maybe you pick that up in january and february to try to foster some goodwill.
>> i was speaking with senator susan collins of maine last week. she's one of the few remaining moderate republicans in the senate and she said quite explicitly that she hopes the first move would be on infrastructure because she said it's something that hides bipartisan support. speaking to what niels mentioned about bringing legislation back, if they chaired the cures act legislation in his lame-duck session which is what senator mcconnell's preferences, then maybe they might bring back something like mental health where there is agreement and they don't get it through the session, they could bring up something like that next session. >> from louisiana, ray, you are next. >> thank you for accepting my call. i watched the 10k for the republican party about six or seven years ago , you made a statement to the republicans that if they obstruct and block everything president
obama tried to pass and then come 2016, they would grant everything on the president and it really worked. because he saved the american electorate was so ill-informed and uneducated that they would say anything and i want to take my hat off to him, it worked. >> i think what we are going to face this time is an issue of high expectations for this presidency. the question is, can mister trump build his wall? can he deal with a real replacement of obamacare? the way the president is informed is interesting. you make votes by making build bold promises. he promised hope and change and mister trump is getting votes by his big bold promise of, the question is even with a united government under
one-party control, it's not so easy to get some of those big bold promises done to. >> let's take obamacare for instance. the reason why that was able to get enacted into law in the first place was because a democratic president combined with a democratic controlled house and a democratic caucus in the senate that had for a brief time 60 votes, the super majority needed to overcome filibuster threats. there are only 52 republicans likely in the senate in the next session . there's frankly, the caller from louisiana who is actually at least an outside possibility there's only 51 because there's still a runoff to be had in louisiana, the democrats are suddenly interested in it area but either way, it's such a narrow margin that people like senator collins of maine and other moderates,
more moderate republican members in moderate democrats will also have to be on board in order to get much done particularly and on obamacare because it's an easier list to just flat out largely bust the current program but that doesn't seem to be what mister trump is talking about so that may actually procedurally be more complicated than it would be to just sort of rollback what happened in 2009 and 2010. >> was that because of what he said about keeping children on to 2026 in the pre-existing conditions clause? >> right, the more provisions you keep in effect, the more difficult it becomes to craft a reconciliation bill which uses a budget procedure that allows you to pass the senate
with a simple majority vote. the more complicated the legislation is going forward, the more complicated it probably will be to get the parliamentarians to buy in to the idea that it fits within the confines of the arcane budget rules. >> we saw older this year republicans using a theory of policy papers to chart a way forward. does healthcare fall under that and is there a plan to do something else or something different currently that obamacare? >> figure ryan is proud that he's been busy behind the scenes getting republican by ends in his chamber on this program called a better way and that was what he could get a jumpstart should republican elected to the presidency. that includes things like tax reform, it also includes healthcare reform and actually, he and mister trump you have commonalities. they both for instance say that insurance companies ought to be able to work across state lines so that people can have, there would
be a larger insurance exchange to buy from. they both want to take the medicaid part of obamacare from the states and have them manage that but here's the thing, even though speaker ryan is very prepared with this buy-in about his broad sensibilities, none of that is in legislation yet. it's not a legislative language and that's when the trouble begins, when you start hammering out the details. >> i suppose that's what mike pence is going to be quite valuable in that crafting process. >> i think that's right and in fact, for viewers who didn't happen to see this, yesterday when speaker ryan was on one of the sunday morning programs, he got into a rather testy exchange, he was on cnn got into it at the exchange with race pepper about whether or not, you don't really want me to answer how you are going to pay for that, you want to know the answer to that question? there were questions he was
being asked about the particulars of how provisions of his health care overhaul would be paid for and ryan was insisting that the plan that he basically was saying, do you really want to sort of waste the audiences time with the details and the interview moved on. >> let's go to houston texas, independent line. reginald, hello there. >> good morning. good morning. >> go-ahead. >> i want to talk about, i think you should talk about repentance, about crimes against you mandy that america has exploited around the world against wars that shouldn't have been undertaken that he spoke on and eisenhower talked about the military-industrial complex. if we took a lot of that pentagon budget, you would find a lot of money for social services that would create all the infrastructure that would do like a roosevelt plan, a new deal. that also can help maybe some type of reparations of
something that could go towards blacks for all the crimes against the things they've been exposed to hear against the holocaust of slavery and things that are going on. so he needs to do well and now that we have this new moon here, since 1948, maybe he can shine some light on america we can build a better nation by taking care of this and have a true poor people's campaign. he had the boss of doctor king behind him. >> i'll take an element of what he said as far as senses concern. they had to deal with the national census authorization act and there's a story in the paper this morning that when it comes to defense ending in the future, maybe increases are anticipated. talk on those fronts. >> the trump campaign in mister trump, the president-elect himself and other people who work for him have been associated with,
rudy giuliani and others have been talking about increasing the size and scopeof the military , both in terms of manpower, ships, there's been a lot of talk about increasing thesize of the legal force . under president trump, and that's all going to be costly and it's also going to create this situation where it becomes less likely that one of the things we've had in recent years is that we talked about eagle cost increases, dollar for dollar between domestic spending, discretionary spending and defense spending. it does not look like that's the way we're going to be going. it looks like we will spend more money on defense and again, wondering how we are going to pay for it x i'd like to figure out what the caller also said on the other side, reparations, slavery. issues that african americans have with thispresidency . and that has been raised so
much in this campaign and over the weekend we've seen demonstrations and people have all over facebook and social media have been talking about heightened crimes and protests and against minorities and the way minorities are treated. i thought it was interesting last night that i was brought up in the 60 minutes interview with mister trump, asking about this, harassing of minorities has been reported in the last week or so. since the election announcement. and he looked straight in the camera and send it stop it. and i saw a facebook post from one of my friends who said, problem solved. so it's not that easy. i think people welcome that mister trump has made a direct statement about this now, that this is not
acceptable behavior but the problem is not so easily solved . >> francine kiefer from the christian science monitor, niels lesniewski. what's it like were what will it be like to be a democrat come january? >> i think democrats are going to try and look at this as a two-pronged opportunity. i think they see themselves as the last bastion against tropism, aspects that they disagree with but on areas they find common ground, they are ready to go forward and they also have a special challenge in that they have so many members of their caucus up for reelection in the senate in 2018, those are going to have specific and kind of unique leverage on what actually gets done. >> and these are not just that there's a lot of democrats in 2018, is that many of them are from states that, excuse me, president-elect trump carried and some states that he carried fairly handily.
there are democratic senators in places like indiana and north dakota and west virginia and they're going to have to on the one hand run on their own record, someone like joe mentioned who used to be the governor of west virginia has sort of a significant stake in his own state. everybody knows him. but there's going to be interesting movement on the part of some of those senators in terms of where they find commonality withthe trump agenda . on the other hand, the democrats know they may have to be at some time, may have to be a bulwark because some of the things that have been said by mister trump and by his supporters, bite certainly steve bannon who is going to be a senior advisor in the trump white house, a lot of these things are just
outside the realm of normal conversation in the united states. and so if they are taken literally or it looks like the white house is starting to take them literally, the democrats have a whole different job on their hands because they are going to have to be pushing back constantly. >> from mike in kentucky, republican line, good morning. >> good morning. i was calling regarding the taxes that this gentleman from rollcall or whatever was talking about earlier but the tax structure trump is talking about in regards to 10 percent for the working man and 15 percent for corporations, that alone is going to give a definite refund and then we've got the united nations that we give them 18 billion or 8 billion or something like that year for just no reason? >> number one, if i was
trump, i give a 90 day notice to requalify for unemployment , social security, what ever you are in. if i'm signing the check, you are getting the pink slip. you've got 90 days to respond and after that, you wouldn't want to get the check and lame-duck, whatever this thing is called. i have mike pence down there tell them guys how are we going to do this? >>mike, thanks . >> this raises the whole budget deficit question and what we spend our money on and that gets paul ryan that house speaker all excited because he wants to be able to reform medicare and social security, our main entitlement programs and that puts him in direct conflict with what president-elect trump said on the campaign trail which is that we got to
preserve social security and i will be touching medicare. i had an interesting discussion last week with one of speaker ryan's close allies, congressman cole from oklahoma who said or intimated to me that he felt the president would soon realize that everything doesn't add up and that these reforms are going to have to take place and my thought although i didn't embrace it to him was, i wonder if congress is going to have to change its view? because americans don't want to see also security changed and they don't want to see medicare change and the president is with popular opinion on this one. >> and if you were to as the caller said do something like, or if president-elect trump were to come around to the view that something needed to be done with social security, these are things
that can be done by one person. you can't actually just send the pink slip out to everyone and say there's 90 days, you don't get any more money. these are all things that require negotiation with congress. it's outside of the realm of the sort of phone aspects of the presidency. and we've gone probably far too long. we've been able to have that conversation but what we really need to happen in order for it to happen and not to be too pollyanna about it but build stories about president reagan and speaker tip o'neill getting together and talking these things out. what's going to be fascinating i think is the more general question, who exactly is going to be trump's democratic dance partner? i don't know of one yet but that may be a fascinating thing.
>> there may be a natural person for that would be chuck schumer. he would be the minority leader in the senate and they are both new yorkers so they had in new york thing going for them. he seems to be to be the natural partner.>> it sure does and the other question is, do they start leading, i don't know. i wouldn't rule out the possibility they start having sunday afternoon meetings at trump tower separate from anyone else. i'm not sure either ryan or senator mcconnell would much like that but we don't know and that's the best, it seems like the logical step. >> mister kiefer, you mentioned tom cole. his picture is featured in the new york times under a story, trump's victory could defend the anti-establishment trump caucus. especially among the insights missing from republicans. >> this is such an interestingpossibility. opportunity, i would say . but the hardline republicans in the house had just been a
thorn in the side of the speaker whether it was speaker painter speaker ryan and speaker ryan has gone to a great deal of effort to include them. since he became speaker, make them part of the conversation. saying some of the house rules so that is a group of republicans and this group of republicans feels that they are part of the game and in the game. as i mentioned earlier, this is often what divides this group. and what the whole office said to me last week was he felt the president, they could unite everyone on the hill. between republicans now have a chief standardbearer. it is the president and they have this opportunity to get some of their chief agenda items done. and that ought to be in cole's opinion, the unifying factor. there's this candy being dangled in front of everybody, they can make progress on taxes, make
progress of border security and this leadership from the white house ought to keep everyone in line and there's also the point that remember that trump is just as antiestablishment as the two-party folks who now call themselves the house freedom caucus. the problem is ideologically they're not always all on board so there's still tension involved in whether the possibility of progress on republican goals can unite them all remains to be seen. both because of spending issues i think. >> that's right and i think the other question on the other side is also whether the divisions in the republican party for the divisions in the democratic party on capitol hill are going to be more pronounced. if the democrats particularly in the senate probably but also true in the house are sort of standing united against the sort of trump
ryan mcconnell agenda or whatever it turns out to be, then the people in the freedom caucus groups and conservative groups need to really be on board because the numbers are such that they are necessary. if on the other hand you are doing things that are bigger infrastructure packages and whatnot, things that someone like congressman cole would probably be favorable to, you don't necessarily need the freedom caucus types in order to get something like that done because you will probably be drafted in such a way that you can pick up a bunch of democratic votes. >> back is up next from vermont, hi zack. >> high. hello? >> you are on, go ahead. >> good morning c-span. good morning to your guests. i would like to make a quick comment and the statement also. i predicted trump was going
to win the cause i knew, the country is divided. the united states is still recovering from the incidence, slavery that they have done to african-americans. and i knew that trump was taking advantage of that and i knew what a lot of african-americans like myself didn't go out to vote and that's why he's president. so the democrats are going to have to do some rethinking if they want to win in 2020, get anybody in theoffice , because the heat is going to do a lot of damage when he's in office. i know of the other color was talking about reparation. that's impossible. you will never get african-americanreparation. >> and i asked the caller ? >> in a couple of hours i willbe departing on my final trip as president .
while we are abroad i will have a chance to hear your questions but i figured i wait? i know there's a lot of domestic issues that people are thinking about so i wanted to see if i can clear out some of the underbrush when we are overseas and people are asking about foreign policy questions, people don't feel obliged to ask all these other questions to them. i'm aware but i'm trying something out here. first of all, let me mention to brief topics. first of all, as i discussed with the president-elect on thursday, my team stands ready to accelerate and make steps that are required to ensure a smooth transition. we are going to be staying in touch as we travel. i remember what it was like when i came in eight years ago. it is a big challenge. this office is bigger than any one person and that's why ensuring a smooth transition
is so important. it's not something the constitution explicitly requires but it is of those norms that are vital to a functioning democracy. it's one of the norms of civility and tolerance and reason and facts and analysis. it's part of what makes this country work. and as long as i'm president we are going to uphold those norms and cherish and uphold those ideals. as i told my staff, we should be very proud that their work is already ensure that when we turn over the keys, the country is in pretty good shape. we are in a stronger position today than we were when i came in eight years ago. jobs have been growing for 73 straight months, incomes are rising. poverty is falling. the uninsured rate is at the lowest level on record. carbon emissions have come
down without impinging on our growth and so my instructions are that we run through the tape. we make sure that we finish what we started . that we don't let up in these last couple months because my goal is on january 21, america is in the strongest position possible and hopefully, there's an opportunity for the next president to build on that. number two, our work has also helped us stabilize the global economy because there is one president at a time, i will spend this week reinforcing america's support for the approaches we taken to help economic growth and security on a range of issues. i look forward to my first visit in greece and in germany, i will visit with chancellor merkel who has probably been my closest international partner these past eight years. i will also signal our solidarity with our closest
allies and express our support for a strong, integrated and united europe. essential to our national security and is essential to global stability and that's why the transatlantic alliance and the nato alliance has endured for decades under democratic and republican administrations. finally in peru, i will meet with the leaders of countries that have been the focus of our foreign policy throughout balance in asian-pacific area i welcome change in the world but america salt has always been a pillar of hope to people around the globe and that's what it must continue to be. finally, on a personal note, michelle and i want to offer our deepest condolences to glenn ifill's family and all of you. for her passing. gwen was a friend of ours. she was anextraordinary journalist . she had a grasp on the fundamental responsibility of her profession, holding people in power accountable and defending a strong and free press that makes our
democracy work. i always appreciated gwen's reporting, even at when i was at the receiving end of one of the top and thorough interviews. whether she reported from the convention floor or from the field, either she sat as the debate moderators table or the anchor desk, she not only informed today's citizens but inspired tomorrow's journalists. she was an especially powerful role model for young women and girls would meyer connect in tenacity and intellect and for whom she blazed the trail as one half of the first all-female anchor team on network news. so gwen, she gave her country a great service. michelle and i joined her family and her colleagues and everybody else walter in remembering her fondly today. so with that, i'm going to take questions and because josh furnished has some pull around here, he just happened to put at the top of the list cody nelson of the wall street journal. i understand that this is
wrapping up your stint here and you are going to kansas city. josh just happens to be from kansas city. so i don't know if there was any coincidence there but we wish you the very best of luck in your new endeavors. >> you're about to embark on a final tour and trip. whatwill you say to other world leaders about your successor . they've expressed many of the same few have about donald trump. should they be worried about the future of us foreign policy and secondly, democrats after your shocking upset, what is your advice for where the party goes now and who should leave your pardon? >> one of the great things about the united states is that when it comes to this, the president obviously is the leader of the executive
branch, thecommander-in-chief . the spokesperson for the nation. lacks the influence of the work that we have is the result not just of the president. it is the result of countless interactions and arrangements and relationships between our military and other militaries and our diplomats and other diplomats and the intelligence officers and development workers. and there's enormous continuity beneath the day-to-day news that makes us that indispensable nation when it comes to maintaining order and promoting prosperity around the world. that will continue. in my conversation with president-elect, he expressed a great interest in maintaining our full strategic relationships and
so one of the messages i will be able to deliver is his commitment to nato and the transatlantic alliance. i think that's one of the most important functions i can serve at this stage during this trip is to let them know that there is no weakening of resolve when it comes to america's commitment to maintaining a strong and robust nato relationship and a recognition that those alliances are just good for your, they are good for the united states and they are vital for the world. with respect to the democratic party. look, as i said in the rose garden after the election, when your team loses, everybody gets to deflate and it's hard. and it's challenging. and so i think it's a healthy thing for the democratic party to go through some reflection.
you know, i think it's important for me not to be big footing that conversation. i think we want to see new voices and new ideas emerge. that's part of the reason why i think term limits are really useful things. the democrats should not waver on our core beliefs and principles. the belief that we should have an economy that works for everybody, not just a few. the belief that america at its best is inclusive and not exclusive. that we insist on the dignity and god-given potential and worth of every child, regardless of race or gender or sexual orientation or what
circumstance they were born in. that we are committed to a world in which we can keep america safe but also we recognize that our power doesn't just flow from our extraordinary military, it also flows and strength of our ideals and principles and our values. so if we are going to be a core set of values that shouldn't be up for debate. it should be our north star. how we organize politically, i think is something that we should spend some time thinking about. i believe that we have better ideas area but i also believe that good ideas don't matter if people don't hear them. and one of the issues that democrats half to be clear on is that given population distribution across the country, we're off to compete
everywhere. we have to show up everywhere. we are going to have to work in a grassroots way, something that's been a running thread in my career. you know, i won iowa not because the demographics dictated that i would win iowa. it was because i spent 87 days going to every small town and fish fry and vfw hall and there were some counties where i might have lost but maybe i lost by three points instead of 50 points. there's some counties maybe i won that people didn't expect because people had a chance to see and listen and get the sense of who used it for and who you are playing for and the challenge for a national party is how do you dig in their and create those kind of structures so that people
have a sense of what it is that you stand for. and that increasingly is difficult to do just through a national press run. it's increasingly difficult to do because of the splintering of the west and so i think the discussions that have been taking place about how you build more grassroots organizing, how do you build up state parties and local parties and school board elections, you are paying attention to and state rep races and city council races, that all i think will contribute to stronger outcomes in the future. and i'm optimistic that will happen. for democrats who are feeling discouraged, i've been trying to remind them that everybody
remembers my boston speech in 2004, they may not remember me showing up in 2005 when john kerry lost the first election. tom daschle is the leader of the senate had been deeply upset. kim salazar and i were the only two democrats that one nationally read republicans controlled the senate and the house. and two years later, democrats were winning back congress and i was president of the united states. things change pretty rapidly. but they don't change inevitably. they change because you work for them. no one said democracy is supposed to be easy, it's hard to and in a big country like this, it probably should be hard. mark. >> thank you sir.
mister president, what can you tell us about the learning curve on becoming president. can you tell us how long it took you because you are fully at ease in the job if that ever happens and did you discuss this matter with president-elect trump? >> about a week ago i started feeling pretty good but no , i think the learning curve always continues. this is a remarkable job. it is like no other job on earth. and it is a constant flow of information and the challenges and issues. that is truer now than it has ever been. partly because of the nature of information and the interconnection of , between regions of the world. if you were president 50
years ago, the tragedy in syria might not even penetrate what the american people were thinking about on a day-to-day basis. today they are seeing a child in the aftermath of the bombing. there was a time when if you had a financial crisis in southeast asia somewhere, it had no impact on our markets. today, it does. so the amount of information, the amount of incoming any administration has to do with today and respond to much more rapidly than ever before, that makes a difference. i was watching a documentary that on the bay of pigs crisis, jfk had about two weeks before he got reported on. imagine that. i think it's fair to say that
if something like that happened under the current president, they've got to figure it out in about an hour what the responses. so these are the kinds of points that i shared with the president-elect. it was a free-flowing and i think useful conversation, i hope it was. i tried to be as honest as i could about the things that i think any president coming in needs to think about. and probably the most important point that i made was that how you staff, particularly your chief of staff, national security adviser, your white house counsel , how you set up a process in the system for surface information, generating options for a president, and standing
hopefully the president is going to be the final decision-maker, that's something that have to be attended to right away. i have been blessed by having , and i admittedly unbiased. some of the smartest, hardest working, good people in my administration that i think any president has ever had area and i think as a consequence of that team, i've been able to make good decisions. and if you don't have around you, then you will get swamped. so i hope that he appreciated that advice. what i also discussed was the fact that i had been encouraged by his statements on election night about the need for unity and his interest in being president for all people. and that how he staffs the first steps he takes, the first impressions that he
makes, the reset that can happen after an election, all those things are important and should be followed. and i think it's important to give him the room and the space to do that. it takes time to put that together. but i emphasized to him that look, in an election like this, that's so hotly contested and so divided, gestures matter. and how he reaches out to folks that may not have supported him, how he signals his interest in their issues or concerns, i think those are the kinds of things that can set the tone that will help move things forward once he's actually taken office how long did it take before you were raised into the chair?
>> i didn't have time to worry about being at ease because we were losing 800,000 jobs a month. the good news is that in some ways, my experiences aided him. it's hard to find an analogous situation. by the time fdr came in the office, the depression had been going on for a couple years. we were in the midst of a freefall, the financial system was locking up. the auto system was about to go belly up. the housing market had entirely collapsed. so one of the advantages that i had was that i was too busy to worry about how acclimated i was feeling.we just had to make a bunch of decisions. in this situation, you are turning over a country that has challenges, has problems and obviously there are people out there who are
feeling deeply disaffected area and otherwise we wouldn't have had the results that we had in the election. on the other hand, we look at the basic indicators of where the country is right now. the unemployment rate is as low as it's been in eight, nine years. incomes and wages have both gone up over the last year, faster than they have in a decade or two. we've got historically low influence rates, the financial systems are stable, the stock market is hovering around its all-time high and 401(k)s have been restored. the housing market has recovered. we have challenges internationally but our most immediate challenge with respect to isil is we are
seeing significant progress in iraq and mosul is increasingly being retaken by iraqi securityforces . our alliances are in shape. the progress we've made with respect to carbon emissions has been greater than any country on earth. but gas is two bucks a gallon. so he will have time and space i think to make judicious decisions that incoming administrations don't have to put out a huge number of fires. they may want to take the country in a significantly different direction read they've got time to consider what exactly they want to achieve and that's a testament to the tremendous
work that my team has done over the last eight years, i'm very proud of that work. >> weiner jones. >> you had more than one thing but not that don't chocolate ever be elected president and you thought he was unfit for the office. now you've spent time with him for an hour and a half in the oval office, do you now think that president-elect trump is qualified to be president. the other question is you mentioned staffing and tone. what do you say to those americans who may not doubt that there will be a peaceful transition but are concerned about some of the policies and sentiments with respect to president-elect trump himself or his supporters that may seem hostile to minorities. specifically i'm talking about the announcement of his support of the all right movement, he's going to have a role in the white house
under president trump as his chief strategist and senior advisor. what does that say to the country and the world? >> without popping out, i think it's fair to say that it would not be appropriate for me to comment on every appointment that the president-elect starts to make. if i want to be consistent with the notion that were going to try tofacilitate this transition . look, the people have spoken. donald trump will be the next president, 45th president of the united states. and it will be up to him to set up a team that he thinks will serve him well and reflects his policies. and those who didn't vote for him have to recognize that that's how democracy works. that's how this system operates. when i won, there were a
number of people that didn't like me and didn't like what i stood for. and you know, i think that whenever you get an incoming president of the other side, particularly in a bitter election like this, it takes a while people to reconcile themselves to that new reality. hopefully it's a reminder that elections matter. a vote counts. and so you know, i don't know how many times we have to relearn this lesson because we ended up having 43 percent of the country not voting who are eligible to vote but it makes a difference. so given that president-elect trump is now trying to balance what he said on the campaign and the commitments
he made to his supporters with working with those who disagree with him and congress and reaching out to constituents that didn't vote for him. i think it's important for us to let him make his decisions and i think the american people will judge over the course of the next couple of years whether they like what they see and whether these are the kinds of policies and this is the direction they want to see the country go in. and then my role is to make sure that when i hand off this white house, that it is in the best possible shape that i've been helpful as i can to him in going forward and building on the progress
that we've made. and my advice as i said to the president-elect when we had our discussions was that campaigning is different from governing. i think he recognizes that. i think he's sincere in wanting to be a successful president and moving this country forward. i don't think any president ever comes in saying to themselves i want to figure out how to make people angry or alienate half the country. i think he's going to try as best he can to make sure that he delivers, not only for the people who voted for him but for the people at large and the good thing is there will be elections coming up so there's a built in incentive for him to decide to do that. but you know, it's only been six days. and i think it will be
important for him to have the room to staff off, figure out what his priorities are and be able to distinguish between what he was campaigning on and what is practical and what he can actuallyachieve . there are certain things that make for good soundbites but don't always translate into good policy. and that's something that he and his team i think will wrestle with. the same way that every president wrestles with. i did say to him as i said publicly that because of the nature of the campaigns, and the bitterness and ferocity of the campaigns, that it's really important to try to bend some stigmas of unity and to reach out to minority
groups or women or others that were concerned about the tenor of the campaign. and i think that's something that he will want to do. but this is all happening really fast area you've got commitments to supporters that got him here and he's happy going to have to balance those and over the coming weeks and months, years, my hope is that those impulses ultimately win out but it's too early to start making judgments on that . >>. [inaudible] >> i think that he successfully mobilized a big
number of the country, the bulk of them and he's going to win. he has one. he's going to be the next president and regardless of what experience or assumptions he brought tothe office , this office has a way ofwaking you up . and those aspects of his positions or predispositions that don't match up with reality, he will find it shaken up pretty quick because reality has a way of proving itself and some of his gifts and obviously that allowed him to execute one of the biggest political upsets in history, those are ones
that hopefully he will put to good use on behalf of all the american people. >> you are off to europe which is facing some of the same populist pressures in this country. when he spoke of the un, you talked about the situation of integration and building walls. and what place do you think the american people made last weekend is there still a chance for what you called a fourth election before europeans make some of their choices? >> i think the american people recognize that the world has shrunk. that you are not going to put that genie back in the bottle. the american people recognize that their careers for their kids careers are more dynamic .
then working a single plant for 30 years but they may have to change careers, they may have to get more education, they may have to retool or retrain and i think the american people are game for that. they want to make sure that the rules of the game are there. and what that means is that if you look at americans attitudes on trade, the majority of the american people still support trade area but there are concerns about whether or not trade is there and whether we've got the same access to other countries markets that they have with us, that they are just a race to the bottom when it comes to wages. i made an argument, buspar unsuccessfully that the
organization to organize tpp did that, that is structured workers rights. level the playing field as a consequence would be good for american workers and american businesses. but that's a complex argument to make when people remember plants closing and jobs being offshore. so part of what i think this election reflected was people wanting that core discretion that you described and the message around stopping surges of immigration, not creating new trade deals that may be unfair, i think those were themes that played a prominent role in the campaign. because we now shift to government, my argument is that we do need to make sure
that we have an orderly, lawful immigration process. that if it is orderly and lawful, immigration is good for our economy. it keeps us young, it keeps us dynamic. it keeps strivers to come here and who are willing to take risks and that's part of the reason why america has been successful. part of the reason why our economy is stronger and in better position than most of our competitors is because we got a younger population that's more dynamic. when it comes to, i think when you are government it will become increasingly apparent that if you were to just eliminate trade deals with mexico for example,
you've got a global supply chain. the parts that are allowing the auto plants that were about to shut down are now employing double shifts is because they are bringing in some of those parts that are assembled out of mexico and so it's not as simple as it might have seen. and the key for us, and when i say us i mean americans but i think particularly progressives is to say your concerns are real, your anxieties are real, here's how we fix them. higher minimum wage. stronger worker protections so workers have more leverage to get a bigger piece of the pie. stronger financial regulations, not weaker ones. yes trade trade and ensures that we've got a country to
change trade with us not engaging in child labor, for example. being a attentive to inequality and not tone deaf to it but offering prescriptions that are going to help in communities that feel forgotten. that's going to be our most important strategy and i think we can successfully do that. people will still be looking to the united states. our example will still carry great weight. and it continues to be, my strong belief that the way we are going to make sure that everybody feels a part of this global economy is not by shutting ourselves off from each other, even if we could but rather by working together more effectively than we have in the past.
>> thanks mister president. some of the harsh words you had about mister trump, calling him temperamentally unfit to be commander-in-chief, does anything surprising about president-elect trump and you had him in your office and also i want to know does anything concern you about a trump presidency? >> well, we had a very cordial conversation and that didn't surprise me to some degree because i think that he is obviously a gregarious person, he's somebody who i think likes to mix it up and to have a vigorous debate area and what's clear is that he was able to tap into yes,
the anxieties but also the enthusiasm of voters in a way that was impressive and i said so to him. because i think that to the extent that there were a lot of foibles in the trump phenomenon, that connection he was able to make with his supporters, that was impervious to events that might have sunk in other candidate, that's powerful stuff. i also think that he is coming to this office with fewer hard and fast policy prescriptions that a lot of other presidents might be arriving with. i don't think he is
ideological. i think ultimately, he's pragmatic in that way. and that can serve him well. but as long as he's got good people around him and he has a clear sense of direction. do i have concerns? absolutely, of course i've got concerns. he and i differ on a whole bunch of issues. but you know, the federal government and our democracy is not a speedboat. it's an ocean liner. as i discovered when i came into office. it took a lot of really hard work for us to make significant policy changes. even in our first three years, when we had a larger majority than mister trump will enjoy when he comes into office. and you know, one of the things i advised him to do
was to make sure that before he commits to certain courses of action, he's really dug in and fought through how various issues play themselves out. i will use an obvious example where we had a difference and it will be interesting to see what happens in the coming year and that's the affordable care act. obviously this has been the holy grail for republicans over the last six, seven years was we've got to kill obamacare. now, that has been taken as anarticle of faith . it's terrible, it doesn't work and we have to undo it. but now that republicans are in charge, they've got to take a look and say we've got 20 million people who have
health insurance who didn't have it before. healthcare costs generally have gone up at a significantly slower rate since obamacare was passed then they did which has saved federal treasuries hundreds of billions of dollars. people who have health insurance are benefiting in all sorts of ways that they may not be aware of, everything from no longer having lifetime limits on the claims that they can make to seniors getting prescription drugs discounts under medicare. to free mammograms. now, it's one thing to characterize this thing is not working and it's just an abstraction.now suddenly you are incharge and you're going to repeal it . well, what happens to those 20 million people who have health insurance? are you going to just kick them off and say they don't
have health insurance? then in what ways are there lives better because of that? are you going to repeal the provision that ensures that if you do have health insurance on your job and you lose your job or you change jobs or you start a small business that you are not discriminated against as you have a pre-existing condition that popular, are you going to replace it? are you going to change the policy that kids can stay on their parents health insurance plan until they are 26? how are you going to approach all these issues? my view is that if they come up with something better that actually works in a year or two after they replace the affordable care act with their own plan, that 25 million people have health
insurance and it's cheaper and better and running smoothly, i will be the first one to say that's great. congratulations. if on the other hand whatever they're proposing result in millions of people losing coverage, and results in people who already held have health insurance losing protections that were contained in legislation, then we're going to have a problem. and i think that's not going to be unique to me, i think the american people will respond that way. so i think on a lot of issues , what you're going to see is now comes the hard part. now comes the governance. we are going to be able to present to the incoming administration a country that is stronger, a federal
government that is working better, more efficiently. a national security apparatus that is both more effective and truer to our values. energy policy that results in not only less pollution but also more jobs. and i think the president elect like we would expect that he's judged on whether we improve from baseline and on those metrics or things get worse. and if things get worse, then the american people will figure that out pretty quick. if things get better, then more power to him and i will be the first to admit area. >> mister president, you talked extensively about the campaign, you feel you have any concerns about his behavior?
>> as i said when athena asked the question, whatever you bring to this office, this office has a habit of magnifying and pointing out and hopefully then you correct course. this may seem like a silly example but i know myself well enough to know i can't keep papers, i'm not organized enough in that way and so pretty quickly, after i'm getting stacks of briefing books coming in every night, i say to myself i've got to figure out a system because i have bad filing, sorting and organizing habits. and i've got to find some people who can help me keep track of this stuff. that seems trivial but it
ends up being a pretty big piece of business. i think what will happen with the president-elect is there are going to be certain elements of his temperament that will not serve him well unless he recognizes them and corrects them. because when you are a candidate and you say something that is inaccurate or controversial, it has less impact than it does when you are president of the united states. everybody around the world is paying attention. nationals security issues, require a level of precision in order to make sure you don't make mistakes. and i think he recognizes that this is different. and for the american people. i'll take a couple more questions before i get out of here . nadia?
of his rhetoric in this town and meeting the president-elect and the reality. there was a really well botched debate about the merits of the randy old before it was completed. and i actually was pretty proud of our democracy prospered, that was a serious debate. i think people of goodwill who are not on both sides of the issue, ultimately we were able to persuade members of congress and the public, at least enough of them to support it. at the time, the argument against it was around that it wouldn't abide by the deal. that they would cheat. we now have over a year of evidence that they have abided by the agreement.
not just my opinion, it's not just people from my administration, that's the opinion of israeli military and intelligence officers who are part of the government that vehemently opposed the deal. so my suspicion is that when the president-elect comes in and is consulting with his republican colleagues on a deal that they will look at the facts because to unravel a deal that's working and preventing iraq from pursuing a nuclear weapon would be hard to explain. particularly if the alternative were to have them free from any obligations and go ahead and pursue. keep in mind this is not just the international agreement between us and the iranians, this is between the people plus one in other countries. and for us to pull out would
then require us to start sanctioning those other countries in europe or china or russia that are still abiding by the deal because from their perspective, iran had done what it was supposed to do. it becomes more difficult i think to undo something that's working to undo something that isn't working. and when you are not responsiblefor it , i think you can call it a terrible deal. when you are responsible for the deal and preventing iran from getting a nuclear weapon, you are more likely to look at the facts. that is going to be true in other circumstances. for example, the paris agreement. i'll give you, there's been a lot of talk about possibly undoing this international
agreement.you've got 200 countries that have signed up for this thing and the good news is that what we've been able to show over the past five, six, eight years is that it's possible to grow the economy really fast and possible to bring down carbon emissions as well. it's not just a bunch of rules that we've set up. you've got these that are put putting in solar panels and creating jobs, you got automakers who have seen record sales and our overachieving on fuel efficiency standards that we set. turns out that people like not having to fill up as often and save money at the pump, even if it's good for
the environment. you've got states like california that have been moving forward on a clean energy agenda separate and apart from any federal regulations that have been put forward. in fact, 40 percent of the country already lives in states that are actively pursuing what's embodied in the paris agreement and clean power plant rules and even states like texas that politically tend to oppose me , you've seen huge increases in wind power and solar power and you've got some of the countries biggest companies like google and walmart, all pursuing and energy efficiency because it's good for the bottom line so what we've been able to do is embed a lot of these factors into how our economy works and it's made our economy
more efficient, it's helped the bottom line and its help the environment. what the paris agreement now does is they that china and india and other countries that have potentially polluted, on board. let's work together so you guys do the same thing. and the biggest threat when it comes to climate change and pollution isn't going to come from us because we only have 300 million people who are going to come from china with over 1 billion people and india with over 1 billion people and if they are pursuing any kind of strategies that we did before we became more aware of the environment, our kids will be choked off. and so again, do i think that this new administration will make some changes?
absolutely. but these international agreements, the tradition has been that you carry them forward across administrations. particularly if, once you actually examine them, it turns out that they are doing good for us and finding other countries in the behavior that will help us. last question. justin you're right about that. with respect to syria, in ben ghazi we had an international mandate. we had a un security resolution. we had a broad-based coalition and we were able to carry out the support missions that achieved the initial goal of preventing ben ghazi from being slaughtered. fairly quickly. it's no secret, you know this region well that syria is a much more volatile situation with proxies from every direction.
and so i wish that i could bring this to a halt immediately. we have made every effort to try to bring about a political resolution to this challenge. john kerry has spent an infinite amount of time trying to negotiate with russia and the iranians and the gulf states and other parties to try to end the killing. >>
i recognize that that has not worked, and it is something that is i continue to think about every day. and we continue to try to find some formula that would allow us to see that suffering and. but i think it's not surprising to you because you study this deeply, that if you have a syrian military that is committed to killing its people indiscriminately, as necessary and is supported by russia, that
now has substantial military assets on the ground and are actively supporting that regime. and iran actively supporting that regime. and we are supporting what has to be our number one national security priority which is going after i sold both in mosul and ultimately in rocket. this situation is not the same as a was in libbey. obviously, there's some steps we took and libbey. i continue to believe that was right thing to do although as i indicated before, in the aftermath of that campaign i think the world community did not sufficiently support the need for some sort of structure there and now is a situation where to get back into a better place. i've given you -- okay.
last question. justin at bloomberg. >> thank you, mr. president. i wanted to ask about two things that might be on your desk the next couple of months as you prepare for a trump administration. one, three course of undocumented immigrants to provide the federal government information about -- deferred action program. i wake you can reassure that or she'll that information from the incoming trump administration considering a stance on immigration and the second is the administration will maintain legal restraints on you by congress governing -- [inaudible] infringement on your rights as commander-in-chief. concerning the gradual transfer, unlikely continued under a trump administration it is this now the time to test that theory, two of the detainees from guantánamo?
>> they are both excellent questions. on the deferred action program we had known as daca that relates to dreamers are currently benefiting from these provisions, i will urge the president-elect and the incoming administration to think long and hard before they are endangering the status of, for all practical purposes, our american kids. i mean, these are kids who were brought here by their parents. they did nothing wrong. they have gone to school. they have pledged allegiance to the flag. some of them a joined the military, they've enrolled in school.
by definition if they are part of this program, they are solid, wonderful young people with good character. and it is my strong belief that the majority of the american people would not want to see suddenly those kids have to start hiding again. and that's something that i will encourage president-elect to look at. with respect to guantánamo, it is true that i've not been able to close the darn thing, because of the congressional restrictions that have been placed on us. what is also true is we have greatly reduced the population. you know have significantly less
than 100 people there. there are some additional transfers that may be taking place over the next two months. there is a group of very dangerous people that we have strong evidence of having been guilty of committing terrorist acts against the united states, but because of the nature of the evidence, in some cases that evidence been compromised, it's very difficult to put them before a typical article iii courts. and that group has always been the biggest challenge for us. my strong belief and preference is that we would be much better off closing gitmo, moving them to a different facility that was clearly governed by u.s. jurisdiction. we could do it a lot cheaper,
and just as safely. congress disagrees with me, and i gather the president-elect does as well. we will continue to explore options for doing that, but keep my it's not just a matter of what i'm willing to do. you know, one of the things you discover that being president is that there are all these rules and norms and laws, and you've got to pay attention to them. and the people who work for you are also subject to those rules and norms. and that's the piece of advice i gave to the incoming president. i am very proud of the fact that we will, knock on wood, leave this administration without a significant scandal. we've made mistakes, there have been the screw ups, but i will
put the ethics of this administration and our track record in terms of abiding by the rules and norms and keeping trust with the american people. i will put this administration against any administration in history. and the reason is because, frankly, we listened to the lawyers and where the strong white house counsel's office. we had a strong ethics office. we had people in every agency whose job it was to remind people this is how you're you ae supposed to do things. it doesn't mean everybody always did everything except ago it is supposed to because we've got 2 million people working in the federal government, if you're including the military. so we had just try to institutionalize it as much as we could, and that takes a lot of work. and one of my suggestions to the incoming president is that he
take that part of the job seriously as well. again, you wouldn't know this if you were listening to some news outlets, or some members of oversight committees in congress. but if you look at the facts, it works. and this is just one example of the numerous ways in which the federal government is much better today than it was without people really knowing. you look at va. people remember the legitimate problems that were publicized in phoenix. it was scandalous, what happened. want people to remember is that we've brought in -- what people don't remember is that we have brought in well over a million people who are getting benefits that were not getting it before,
driven the backlog for disability benefits way down, cut homelessness in half. just made the agency work better, not work perfect but work better your and one of the models on have with my staff was better is good. perfect is unattainable. better is possible. and so we will try to share the lessons that we've learned over these last eight years with the incoming president, and my hope is he makes things better. and it because we will all benefit from it. all right? thank you, everybody. you guys, some of you who are traveling, you'll get a chance to ask more questions come all right? thank you. [inaudible] >> president obama's first news conference since the elections. wilwe'll take your calls and fue thoughts about what he had to
say here today as he gets ready to head out. he scored on a national trip, greece, europe also going to peru. the phone numbers are up on your screen for democrats 202-748-8920 the republicans (202)748-8921 and independence and others 202-74-8892. givgive us a call and let us knw what you thought about president obama's remarks. he talked about the transition and his thoughts on donald trump taking office and how his team will be working to make that transition as smooth as possible. here is the tweet from a writer for the "chicago tribune." she says president obama saying my instructions to my team, we finish what we started. here's a look at something going on with the donald trump turkey released the transcript, the write out of his recent phone call with the president of russia, vladimir putin. trump telephony is no different much for coming a strong and
enduring relationship with russia. and this from the hill. trump statement is notable for its tone. doesn't sound like the two disagree on anything. a huge change from the way that the phone calls went with president obama. first vocal is with greg in illinois, republican line. thanks for calling in and what are your thoughts? >> caller: thank you. if you want to know why the republicans won, all you have to do is listen to the tripping content of the reporters for donald trump and donald trump supporters. i mean, the press is just beside itself. it has this contempt for the voters. it's in love with obama who, by the way, wasn't telling people the truth. iran has violated the agreement six ways from sunday. just the other day there was a report about iran acceding the
heavywater thing. and obama said he has met any scandals. what does he think syria and the mideast? this influx of people, the thousands and hundreds of thousand people being murdered in serious not a scandal? if the genocide. this guy doesn't know what he's talking about, which is why i am glad trump one. go republicans. >> host: democrat line, arizona. it's your turn. >> caller: i'm calling from chandler, arizona, where they still haven't finished counting all of the balance on this election and but anyway, i wanted to say that i cannot thank president obama more than just to say that he has been an elegant person. he has been very reasonable, and i couldn't be more proud that he is served our country. and i do appreciate that he is trying to make the best of the incoming administration.
and i hope that god blesses our country. thank you very much. >> host: thank you. independents and others. hello. what you think? >> caller: i just heard is pretty much explanation to most of the reporters there, but i have to say he was cordial as the president and truth be told, he could not really elaborate on what he said in the campaign versus what trump said in a campaign. but the viewers and the people voting are actually voting on what the scene media published. i can understand him in his position, but truth be told, we all know that, and for me, you say what you mean. you say what you mean.
you don't, our country as far as democracy is never, you know, sense of having the american dream has ever departed from saying and being who we are and what we are about. and that goes as far as interviews on trying to find employment to our need as humanity host the republican line, we have daily. go ahead, daily. >> caller: screw obama. >> host: deborah, democrat, kauai you? i want to thank you for gifting us with president obama. first lady, biden and all seven everything has done for this country in ages but i wanted to say this. i want, i have a need for the
first lady to represent me in a malpractice lawsuit for $45 million. and i also want the president to know that "dreams of my father" is one of his books, touched me so much to the extent that i wrote my book that said thou shalt not hate, and i would like to have his team to actually do exactly what they did for his book, for me. >> host: thanks for the call. and oki for the "washington post" writing, obama during his press conference talking about term limits being a very useful thing. he says that will be heard a younger house democrats clamoring for a leadership shakeup. here's another one, also obama urging the party to take time to sort out its future and will be interpreted the same way and, of course, i know a leader in the house nancy pelosi hoping to be
reelected on thursday. those elections happening this week that republicans will make their leadership elections on tuesday and the democrats on thursday at the next week the senate will be doing the same thing. santa in cleveland, isn't mississippi? >> caller: marijuana. >> host: i think we lost that. let's try fort worth, texas. go ahead. >> caller: i feel like when obama came in, things were already messed up. so now we are back to republicans again. so what hundred to get is what's going to go on your so as far as donald trump being in office, i think he's kind of afraid because he was like joking along the way. and now that he has the responsibility. let me give you the break right
now. my opinion is democrat, republicans, whatever, we need to come together and get along and make this a better country. but i'm for immigration deep or. i'm for this wall, but i want to be treated fairly. i've been out of a job since 2008 with a degree, and i can't even pay my student loan. >> host: thanks for the call. take a look at this. from the "huffington post" talking about one particular democrat that may be a problem for the president-elect doctor. democrats taking a problem donald trump's -- ally should come in once it was a committee to help donald trump and the children were not swayed business official. take a closer look at the of the "huffington post" and also just had we take your phone calls we will take a look at the conflicts of interest. tanner from virginia, democrats.
>> caller: how's it going? i just want to comment and say that i'm very proud of the way that obama has carried himself, and he was a good president for all eight years that he was in. i'm still a little hurt by the loss being a devout democrat but i will say that this did not come to a us as a surprise. we should reinvent the democratic party after this that we should not be so complacent. having a trump presidency for four years might seem a little far-fetched and off for some people, but the end of the day i think the best way to say this is hoping that he fails is wrong, because he is our president. we must give them a chance. if we do hope he fails, it's a lot like saying i hope the pilot crashes the plane that we are all on, you know? at the end of the day let's give trump a chance to speak his mind and see what he does with our country. i would love to see great success from him, and hope to
see a great four years. >> host: independent's line, florida. go ahead. >> caller: yes, how you doing? my time will be very brief. however, i would like to think that obama, he is definitely been one of the best presidents that we probably will see down in our presidential history. however, i know one thing that i'm so glad that he was president and this particular era, that he didn't really put us into a war like situation. however, i heard a caller say earlier that we should be concerned about what's going on in cedar you. we should be concerned about what's going on in iran. but i think we should be concerned about what's going on here in america, defending our borders. but i know one thing. give trump gets us back into the warlike mentality, and my son is called the war, i'm going to go to jail with my son just to keep them from not going to work at thank you very much.
>> host: one last call. charlie in wyoming, republican. you get the last word. >> caller: i'm just thinking to myself, i can't decide which is more delusional, the to college are talking about how rate obama's eight years were, or the president himself we stood there and said well, you know, laws have to be followed and we have to do everything in a constitutional fashion. this man used his pain and his phone to arbitrarily unconstitutionally change the health care law, change the immigration law. this band was a walking disaster constitutionally. and i just hope that mr. trump will take wise advice as far as being constitutional as the president. think you. >> host: thanks so much. a tweed quickly with a seeming to obama saying he will tell four leaders trump has a commitment to nato. of course, the president heading
out to more picky will be in greece, then heads on to germany. he will be meeting with chancellor angela merkel and also meeting with the leaders of france, the uk and italy. and then a meeting in beirut to disobey the asia economic summit which is where he will wrap up his trip. 5:20 p.m. eastern time vitamin c can. we will take you to political conversation about trade policy and possible changes to the policy under a president donald trump. right now though the from earlier today on a program washington to the. we talked about potential comforts of interest with donald trump and his business as hethel becomes the president. >> host: join us as a co-author of love and public officials and political a turn and got to talk about donald trump your how are you?ar >> how are you? >> host: when it comes to hises: businesses.
>> guest: it's going to be a challenge because he hasn't unprecedented number of businesses according to the report he filed with the federal election commission over 500. some of the more international. some our domestic. cannot particularly liquid.. they are real estate holdings, golf courses and other things. so this is the challenge because it presents an entanglement with the policies and activities as a public official to be facing once you sworn into office close to one of the terms is conflict of interest. what does it mean for donald trump? >> guest: it's interesting because the conflict of interest laws which are very strict inch the executive branch of the federal government that applied to every employee in the executive branch, the cabinet secretary, the undersecretaries on down, do not apply to presidents, to trump when his president. the president and the vice president are exempt. so the general rules about
creating trust and confidence of interest on domestic matters don't apply to him.ied to they have not applied to other presidents that other presidents have followed the tradition of l liquidating holdings, puttingg them in blind trust. ronald reagan, george h.w. bush, president clinton, george bush. president obama didn't do that. hteaches how this asset and a highly diversified like index funds and that type of thing, which is fine.pe the problem is that trump can't do that. he would have to liquidate, which is realistically not even possible am at least not in a short time. some of said why not put all in one big basket and go public with it and have it traded on stock exchange. i don't know if that even makes sense. so he has challenges, and they understand them and i appreciate them, but i don't think you can
just sort of big them because one of the problems is the, under the clause, in the u.s. constitution it literally going back to 1787, it says that a gov foreign government or a corporation that is controlled or owned by foreign government cannot confer a benefit on the president of the united states or an employee of the executive branch. it sounds like some ancient law. this is a very active love today. in the white house counsel deals with this regularly, and there are many interpretations from the justice department, there office of legal counsel. it's strictly applied. so for international holdings, if you some sort of business dealing with the government and a country where the government controls the company that he is giving with, he has to make sure that there is no benefit embedded in that relationship to
that's a real issue. so if i were advising him i would look internationally first at those and take i the bus because they actually carry some liability post but our guess is he to talk about the trump bes businesses potential comforts of interest that in my present for the president-elect. kenneth gross enjoyed as gif you questions on this topic -- we've heard the term icky sticky mentioned it, blind trust. technically what is not transferred a real blind trust in what i say real blind trust, i mean the one that is authorized blind trust, administered or at least proscribed by the office of government ethics, within the executive branch of the government, that's a very tough standard. i don't want those laws and they require not only the liquidatioe of your funds when you put the
ministry don't know what you put in because you are tagged with information you put in, but also that it is run i in independent trustee to end an independent trustee is something that a lota of people, particularly wealthy people are not that anxious to turn the assets over. is isn't a trusted advisor your baby with over the last 15, 20 years. is this is a trusty bachelor pad, not had a prior relationship with. it can be someone with a major bank that has good credentials of course, but that's a tough situation. what he has been discussing is his kids taking over, which is great. they are obviously trusted and have proven they're bona fide to the business world, so all that's great but it doesn't come close to meeting these standards.s.have but again he doesn't legally have to meet the standards because he's not subject to the conflict of interest law. so he can set it up this way ifw he wishes to, but he does, i
think it would be well advised to separate his political functions with his business functions. if he's going to turn it over to to the kids, okay, turn it over to the kids. not really a blind trust but do not conflate the two for its own good as well as of these legal entanglements. because he could be making aof u decision as the president of the united states that is perfectly in the interest of the country, and some would say, i know why you did that, because you some property in some country out there that seems to benefit fros this decision.cision he wants today, no, that was not the case. i did because i was thinking about the country, not about my business. >> host: the trump children were asked about this on 60 minutes. we will show you a portion of what the response was duringng that interview. >> we have an amazing company. one of the fortune things from a father and our father is that ie able to step out of the company to run for commander-in-chief and they think is going to rely on us more than ever.
>> so you will stay? >> we will be in new york and take care of business. i think will have a lot of fun in making very proud. >> people think you'll be part of the administration. >> i'm going to be a daughter, but i have said throughout the campaign that i'm very passionate about certain issues and i want to fight for them. >> but you will not be in -- >> wage equal to, childcare, these are things very important to me. i'm very passionate about education, really promoting the opportunities for women. so there are a lot of things that i feel deeply strongly about, but not in a formal: administrative capacity. >> host: if the children are burning the blind trust does that mean they can have nosi discussions with her father?at i know the rules don't apply tot him, but in a perfect world they would have any real discussionsf about the interest. at least what's going on with the company. >> guest: in a perfect world but there's no such thing as a perfect world.st so i think definitely barriers d
and should be built. they want to give this a look, this is a separate thing. he has come to the point where he seems to want to turn the business over. they kids seem ready for it. they said the right thing on 60 minutes in terms of not being involved in the government. i think that's very important. you still have that international issue because he's going to still own these businesses..he i he's not turning over the ownership of them.rs he's turning over the management to them which is a great startt and a great way to do it, but it doesn't totally take care of thr problem. there still some lingering issues. they are not insoluble butut they're not easy to fix thesearo are. >> host: . george is in ocala, florida, republican line. good morning.ng. you are on with our guest. >> caller: good morning, pedro.
you are really running a tight ship. you're doing a great job. i have a small sub s. and i wholesale to oems in 20 countries. i am dealing with wire transfers completed. i could make your. i could bake in the bombers. italy got in i was thinking about it but here's the thing. if they feel like trump will rein in all the offshore banking around the world, wouldn't that affect the massive investments internationally of the united states?think one of the think you probably think is silly. .. , why doesn't washington, d.c. sponsor an international lottery? host: thanks. , you werel, you know getting into very complex issues of offshore banking, which is a little beyond their topic today.
-- our topic today. things >> be this since he met with unprecedented obama how difficult these issues are. to fix this or fix that and if every time you pull ar, thread one place. >> aiding the former mayor michael bloomberg who is a businessman in his own right is anything from him how he managed? in my guess i represented mike bloomberg and apparently he had far greater problems than donald trump and the way we handled his assets as a matter of public record all large amount of his money was one business not 500 all over the place but that
disentangled from the city of new york through various process and beyond that we put his money into the index funds that was some investment that he made soa he created a blind trust for mr. blumberg and it worked beautifully and he separated himself for most major decisions like a total refinancing he was out of the day today function is sells like donald trump will do as well. but as big and complicated as to york is not the united states of america.ed sta so there is additional challenges. >> the line from florida you are next.
>> caller: good morning morning, like for somebody to tell me how is it that donald trump will cut taxes when i'm sorry i am little nervous. my comment is what he isap tax interested is to cut taxes for the rich people and his family this is something that people will -- were fooled by to help the poor people of this country he just wants to help his own people. >> that is off topic from what we're talking about zaleski to the republican line. >> caller: good morning. c there was the colorado last segment with the immigration >> host: we are not on that topic right now we ared ife
talking about donald trump business interests and conflict of interest. >> caller: that is what i am talking about but to turn over to the family membersce and elsie any conflict of interest he is an intelligent man is family is capable to run the business part but i m carious been of a lobbyist he will bring on board. >> host: as far as disclosure is he required to provide disclosure with his family or outside?disclo >> there is no restriction in that will be there anyway even if he doesn't communicate with the kids. just continuing ownership in the business.
and then to rely on the lobbyist. quote so released on the recent quotes it would be interesting because he has never been in public office before and he really does need the help of those who know how things work. to do what we have done before but just to bring in people who don't understand how things work will not be helpful to him he does need a certain amount of that. >> his disclosure when he was running for president is that open to the general public? >> 100 pages with the election commission is online and available it is a tough document. shows over 500 businesses he
has an interest in that has a 23% interest of number three or something liketh that.is then did value are between ranges. so you get a look at it we would see a lot more if we had the tax returns which he did not turn over that would fill in some of the blanks you'll never get a complete picture. >> host: baltimore you are on with our guest. >> caller: thinks to c-span i have not questionedprot is any different than he will profit from corporations that he owns of the congressmen taking money from the lobbyist the field
of money that they give themvote for should influence theirircert votes website think that is a much more serious problem than the population of the united states. >> edits an interesting point talking about the influence of money in politics as opposed to apostle -- possible personalisis conflict influenced to increase your net wealth we don't want that and that is clear even if the actual rule does not apply. >> u also raised the point of money in politics and campaign finance reform is an interesting topic because redo have limits how much a
can be sent to individual be ine but it is interesting to see how president trump approaches that he has spoken to the people then are not moving and shaking washington necessarily so of those restrictions are lifted through the deregulatory scheme in might not be what was said to the people but as promised as part of the effort to drain the swamp. that is an interesting point. >> host: the financial connection appears to have a conflict of interest. >> guest: yes. according to an article written in "newsweek" to show the interest that he has in russia, turkey commack azerbaijani and other countries that are not
necessarily friendly or they are unfriendly and that is an area of concern. if one of the country's that controls the company said he deals with sweetens the up, in a financial deal deal, that would raise under t issues under the clause. and in his own interest he doesn't want to say you took it easy on russia or turkey which may be the right thing to do for the country but i know what that was about it was about your company. that is an area where i think would be a priority to address ethics for himself. >> host: we think of the ones that are profit but what about the others? >> guest: that's right.
than your times has reportedrk m large loans from the bank of china that controls the chinese government that his businesses are indebted to. he can say i can get a better deal but we will reduce the interest-rate.ld that is an issue under the clause. so those loans maybe could be restructured. i am not advocating anything in particular but that is on the top of my last how-to handle these entanglements battered daunting but need to be dealt with. >> host: the independent line in ohio good morning. >> caller: the media announced that president trump said he would not take that for and thousand dollar per year salary and expenses
is that legal what about thel presidential pension? w >> guest: he could donate the funds toward the national debt or not excepting or a least having a dedicated to the national debt which is will not help that much but it sends a signal in terms of what he takes from the government. beyond at i am not sure of the implications i have not confd that. from businesses and potential conflict of interest we have our guest t
here within attorney from washington d.c. with experience in these matters the democratic lane from i was. >> caller: i am pleased to listen to you but the clause i was not aware had a look this up to find this in realtime on the internet. >> if you have a copy of the constitution handy look at articled nine or article one section nine clause eight to see what it says it is written in old english about the king's but there is some goo very good explanations in modern times because it is currently interpreted o frequently from theartmen
department of justice and a feeling he will be interested in what it has to say. >> what was the clause? article one, section nine, clause eight.e the other question is i read an article where the chinese investors bailed him out of a real-estate deal to make investments of california and other places in he ended up suing them. and is so hard to fathom that when this man is globalization and allied with the hillary votes went against the globalization.
so how will we sort this out? >> guest: on that comments i am the lawyer but it is true for those 75 lawsuits pending some of those are frivolous but some of those are not and we will be hearing about trump university shortly with that lawsuit. exten'r so to the extent of international, a week elected a businessman. inevitably they are entangled in legal actions in behalf not seen this before. it is unprecedented. to s >> what is the importance of the trump university lawsuit >> guest: if he is found to have acted improperly it reflects poorly on the
president so if they are pending against him i don't know what that will have other than the penalties to accrue m. belli ability of a civil lawsuit whether president or not. >> they say that they file papers to push forward that he is already president of united states. >> idol think the legal process will stop because he is president. we went through this with president clinton but most notably with the paula jones case went to the united states supreme court they try to put off the deposition because he was president, and too busy, andim the supreme court unanimously ruled thehe president is not above the of law if he is subpoenaed to call into core we will work with your schedule but
it does not mean you were off the of look. >> host: if he is found guilty while president then what? >> that is liability rather than guilt is a civil lawsuit just like any other citizen has to pay whatever one from the court of course they would appeal but it will play out as if he wasy an ordinary citizen which he should be.e but we know that is not above the of law. >> host: the democratic line you are up next. >> caller: mr. trump has a foundation could he donate the of profits from country your china or wherever thenco have scholarships in the course serious of the united states? like appellation or urban areas and because then he
could have his name engraved for history to take the money to say i made the concert contribution and call them t11 remember halliburton with halliburton they did some things n i racket were illegal and they moved the headquarters. i conti >> this is an interesting s idea of. may be the trump foundation will take you up on that it is possible to donate money abroad illegally to help poor people abroad in the form of scholarships for
believing that can't happen is a foreign country withhe the public employe eases the, u.s. >> host: next caller. >> caller: good morning. sixteen years ago george bush stole the election from all bore. to be concerned of the environment with our means of survival but here comes donald trump in to do the same thing and he boasts about polluting our air and our oceans under the guise of infrastructure.
>> it is so little bit off y topic but you do raise tangential lead that of the issue of the electoral college because the reference i thank you areking t making that both george bush election in 2000 and donald trump election that they lost to the popular vote that the opponents got more votes than they did it goes back to the beginning of our history of our founding fathers but it only happened once before in 1876 and suddenly then within our lifetime in a span of 15 years we have the popular vote not winning and people are upset about that to
change that would be very difficult are some ideas how to do that statutory first is an amendment in but we have had this happen twice within a 16 year.org. >> host: from texas the republican line. >> caller: thanks for taking my call i am making a comment i did read the art of the deal recently and was very intrigued so i industry and he could have access of holding zero world but my thought is dicey that as leverage because plainly he states his main objective is not so much the money but the deal making and if heea can make the deal to
increase his leverage that is good and that is my comment. >> i am not sure how that would play out and what i troubles me is it is important for him to disentangle the businessss from his political life because it will be a snstant for an otherwise fairly or unfairly and i am not exactly sure how leverage she is fighting to use his business acumen to cut deals to have good relationships with countries but not bring in the business interests as par of the deal. he runs on that he has the skill and i think he will play out but it is best not to carry out a foreign policy.
>> host: the democratic line. >> caller: i am trying to figure out when lookingon outside the united states it is on public tv that donald trump has a $1 million investment in the pipeline company in north dakotapeople would suggest to looking inside our country to see that there i don't understand why this is not illegal so what is the difference between this and the clinton foundation? >> guest: that is a very good point we should not just be looking international there are potential conflicts internal as well. the reason i think we have d
had a more full some discussion not only does it impact for relations but that emoluments cause there is some legal issues so he passes a law or pushes for a position that helps the investment that he happens to have north dakota or arizona or wherever if he is subject to the conflict of interest that would likely cause a problem the secretary of treasury comes into office economic own shares of the investment banking firm because he would be regulated from the secretary of energy cannot own shares in the energy company it is regulated the powers of the president are presumed to be so vast and
complex it is almost impossible to apply these to him and the vice president as well so for that reason rooted in the 1800's and toer be finalized people may bellyache but that is where we are and that is why it is t important to turn the interest over which he is to h his kids not really a blind trust you don't get amnesia when you put things in a a blind trust you still know that you own the building so these are entanglements that will persist fairly or not. >> so how does that work day
to day? >> he actually has tose liquidate or he would know the knowledge even with the totally compliant blind trust it would be visibleul only because he is exempt he would not have to liquidateere e but if he was the secretary of treasury he would have to sell those assets then there is some tax treatment that would be beneficial to defer the gains of it is sold with conflict of interest but he is not required. >> host: but the stories of the trump hotel that it was defaulting before that correct.scus >> there was discussionsi'v about that i'm getting calls from the press one said he will be the landlord and the attendant but it is true if
that property is leased fromom the u.s. government that is h a pretty good deal that he got. so suppose they get into a dispute or son issue that comes up with an easement? generally they would take care of that that day a point that head of the gsasa so what happens then? the meeting great effortsve from are made that it would be done at the arms length basis if they we're doing something to curry favor that could raise some questions. >> talk about the trumpnd lob businesses with the conflict of interest while president of united states now let's
go to your can dependent line.orning. >> good conversation if we look hypothetically to the electoral college in the gerrymandering yawned wither is that trend in eight or 10 years greg. >> gerrymandering is true draw the district's within the state's fabled tried to draw in a most favorably to their party to get them elected to congress because the number of districts within the state to
determine who goes to the electoral college by the popular vote of the state is broken down by the congressional district bois so gerrymandering can impact the electoral college only in those two states so i don't think that is going away with the majority minority districts with the certain types of voters were looking at a particular way tak they will take advantage of that summit will be interesting pdf.
>> with the democratic linemornn go-ahead. >> caller: good morning. i want to make a statement that mr. trump got away noth turning in his taxes so now if he doesn't get that check from his own business for if they don't believe that i have property to sell you he can get away with whatever he wants to get away with. so how does he get away with that? we sit here and talk about the business interest. >> now be will break away from this program and take
the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c., november 14, 2016. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable mitch mcconnell, a senator from the commonwealth of kentucky, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: orrin g. hatch, president pro tempore. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate stands adjourned until 4:00 p.m. stands adjourned until 4:00 p.m. >> so the senate in and out with a pro forma session. they're back tomorrow at 4:00 eastern right here on c-span2. a bit of work this week voting on legislation which would allow the library of congress veterans' oral history project to collect recordings of biographical histories by gold
star families. also senate republicans and democrats will hold their leadership elections next week. we're going to take you live to an event just underway about five minutes ago hosted by politico. republican congressman kevin brady and u.s. trade representative michael froman will join economic experts for a look at trade policy, a big issue in the 2016 election. live coverage here on c-span2. >> now, business has a real role to play in that. government and business have to work together to insure that displaced workers are retained and transition to the new jobs and careers that our economy is creating. with the election results behind us, mercifully, it's time that trade politics be replaced with sound trade policy. ripping up trade deals or raising tariffs on imports will not grow our economy.
what is needed to build greater support for trade is to adopt a comprehensive, pro-growth, pro-competitiveness agenda that will make the u.s. the most competitive economy in the world. domestic policies that build american jobs and energize the economy will go a long way to build support for future trade initiatives. expanding trade opportunities for americans has been a bipartisan pursuit since this country started, and that's why we at fedex are pleased to sponsor this evening's program and to hear from congressional leaders on both sides of the aisle who are helping to shape the debate and and to forge the path for how our country will address trade and american competitiveness moving forward. thanks, louisa, and i'll leave it to you to get right to it. >> thank you. thank you so much. [applause]
so before we get started, i want to let everyone know to tweet your questions. our hashtag is @tradepolitics. and without further delay, i'd like to introduce the moderator, my colleague, glenn thrush, who is senior political correspondent. you may not know him only from his indispensable coverage on politico, but also for his podcast called off message where he interviews newsmakers, including a certain president obama this year. when we were thinking about drilling down on the politics of trade, i thought about glenn and the events that he hosted with us at both republican and democratic conventions about the future of the republican party and the future of the democratic party, and i really see this conversation as part and parcel of that conversation that he started at the convention. so we look forward to hearing from you and your wonderful panel.
thank you, glenn. [applause] >> good evening, everybody. we'd like to thank fedex for sponsoring this event. first, i'd like to introduce the panel. sitting to my immediate right is linda dempsey, vice president for international economic affairs at the national association of manufacturers -- by the way, this is completely out of order, so -- [laughter] facial recognition software works to a tee. sitting next to her is my good friend, john ashbrook, who's founding partner of cavalry llc and a very familiar face on capitol hill in all kinds of interesting roles. sitting next to him is jill alper, a principal at the dewey square group, home to, i suspect going to be a home to many more former folks who worked in politics after this cycle.
and on the end there is my fellow maryland native, john judas, who is author of "the populist explosion." i will start off briefly by talking about a conversation i had in the white house right before i went out on the trail probably in february, february of 2016. actually, right before the primaries and the caucuses. so it was probably late january. and i was sitting with a senior administration official, because that's what we do, we talk to senior administration officials and never quote them on the record. [laughter] which i am not going to do now. [laughter] and i said to them president obama has clearly done very well in the last two years, you know, very well sort of objectively by asserting executive power in the last two years of his administration after a very rocky first two years after being reelected in 2012. give me the one to three, one,
two, three, your top priorities as he winds down. the administration. and this person turned to me and said tpp, tpp and t be pp. well, things turned out a little bit differently. [laughter] so i want to start off the conversation starting off with john and kind of working our way, sort of a general question here. how big a deal was trade in last tuesday's election, and what in general can you glean going forward? how is this issue going to play out politically over the next couple of years? >> well, thank you for having me. trade was a really big deal, and when you look at polls and it says people were worried about the economy, they don't usually include trade in those kind of issues, in those issues. so if you look at ohio, right? michigan, wisconsin, i looked at those figures when i was coming
over here. it's about, oh, i don't know, 52-30 does trade harm us or help us. and then if you look at that 52%, it's about 60/30 or something like that trump over clinton. and you have to remember, too, that those are votes that are salient, those are -- it's an issue -- it's much more likely that somebody's going to vote who's worried about trade hurting their jobs than someone who thinks that it's okay. especially in those midwestern states. so it was an enormous issue. and, of course, trump's advantage was that from the very beginning of his campaign he made it a major issue. i first saw trump in august 2015 in new hampshire, and i had expected more of a conventional republican or even tv celebrity, and here was a guy who was railing against nabisco for
taking their factory out of chicago and into mexico, ford for taking its assembly plant, again, out of the united states into mexico, leaving workers, leaving workers out in the cold who used the same metaphors as perot had used about trade and the trade treaties, nafta sucking jobs out of the united states. so while the most incendiary aspects of trump ended up getting covered a lot in the media, if the you actually go to the rallies and listen to him, three-fourths of what trump had to say was about runaway shops, bad trade deals and things like that. so i think that that was a big part of his appeal. i'm not saying it was all of it, but i think it was important. >> jill? >> yeah. i mean, i totally agree. i'm from michigan, and in michigan trade is often a big issue, and they're fighting words, you know? nafta and outsourcing and all
the rest of it. but many of the recent presidential elections not as much. we had a robust primary, trade was being talked about on both sides and clearly in the general election. it was a follow crumb. i think it was -- fulcrum. i think it was about anger. it was about him connecting with people who no longer, as their parents or grandparents did, could expect to have a solid, middle class way of life. they're worried about their pensions, the cyclical nature of the auto industry, they're worried about a dollar not buying as much as it used to. and so while i think a lot of folks thought there's a go-along/get-along crowd, and if you felt okay about where you were, things were getting better or things were going to pretty much be the same, then you were a hillary clinton voter. if you were angry and you were worried -- and in michigan that was about 25% were really hard core worried -- 70% voted for donald trump. so it's, it's an emotional
issue, and you saw it in the map. you saw higher turnout in rural areas and lower turnout in blue areas, and you saw the home of the reagan democrat go up as well x that led to a narrow, a narrow defeat. in that state for secretary clinton. >> and the final tally in michigan was, what, 20, 30 -- 20-40,000? >> oh, no, right now -- i mean, starting today it was between 11 and 12,000 votes, and they're still counting today and tomorrow to. >> and i will tell you that the clinton people when i talked to them on election night about why they thought they were losing in michigan, it had to do with turnout. mr. ashbrook, you just came off of a very successful -- congratulations, you had a really good cycle. you worked for rob portman and he, obviously, was able to kind of finesse this trade issue in a way that a lot of politicians were not. can you talk a little wit about that?
>> yeah, sure. and i can just echo what jill said. as an ohio person, i saw very, very closely this was an emotional issue for a lot of voters out there. and, you know, john had a stat earlier that so many of these voters out there think that, think of trade as something that sends jobs overseas. 48% of ohio voters, according to the exit polling, think that trade sends jobs overseas. so they just do not have a positive association with the topic. but among that same 48%, rob portman won, got like 75% of that vote. so he beat strickland by 51 points among that subset of the electorate. and he did it because he talked directly to people on their level about how trade is really a people issue. and, i mean, we talk about it as a jobs issue, but really it's an issue that people think affects their lives in such a powerful
way. and what he spent a lot of time talking about is how he was protecting them, defending them against unfair practices from overseas, from china and from other bad actors out there. and there was an ad with a very powerful testimonial from a local cincinnati steel company that has 90 employees, and portman fought for them at the itc, and it protected the company. this was an ad that that ran statewide, and it was written up, it was a very powerful spot, and it demonstrated to people that on the issue of trade, he's somebody that's looking out for them first. >> and tell me a little bit about just in terms of, linda, from your perspective at nam, obviously you have a political perspective. but what they're talking about is it being a proxy for a sense of a sort of generalized economic anxiety disorder, right? that it is a manifestation of that. but you are concerned about
specific policies. so from your purview, how does all of this kind of affect how you're going to move forward? >> well, you know, first i would say that, you know, elections are resets, and we have a incoming administration that has talked, is talking very differently on trade than we've seen past incoming administrations come in. we have some lessons learned about all the things my colleagues up here were just talking about that people are are seeing some of the negatives on trade but not seeing the other side of it. and, frankly, a lot of the substantial transformation that we see in manufacturing, manufacturing in the united states, we produce more than ever before. i don't think most of the voters in ohio or michigan understand that or see that. but we also at the same time, i think we need to recognize that we do face big challenges overseas be it china and elsewhere. so as we look at it and as we look at policies going forward,
we certainly agree we all need to do a better job and work with the administration and congress going forward to address some of these barriers that haven't been addressed. we've got big barriers this china and elsewhere. -- in china and elsewhere. but we also need to take a step back, i think, and look at the value that trade has had in the manufacturing sector as well as other business sectors in the united states. six million men and women in manufacturing today have their jobs because of exports. we get millions, billions -- trillions, actually, of dollars of foreign direct investments in manufacturing because people want to see the united states, and they want to be here. so how can we take what's good and broaden that out and address some of the challenges that we have. and that's what we're going to be looking to work with the new administration and the new congress on. >> well, while i've got you on that, put you on the spot here. when we were in philadelphia,
you know, hillary clinton, her biggest flip-flop of the entire campaign was on tpp which she had, as you guys know, called the gold standard of trade deals, and then she had read the fine print, and and it was fool's gold standard. in terms of a presidential candidate, do you feel you would have gotten a better shake from hillary clinton than you're going to get from donald trump? >> whoa. [laughter] look, i think we take, you know, we're a nonpartisan organization. we, we take our democracy seriously, and we are going to work with either one. i think it's hard to say. when secretary clinton was in the senate, she voted for some trade deals, and she voted against other trade deals. it wasn't a clear record. when she was secretary of state, she strongly supported some of the trade agreements that president bush had negotiated, but president obama made some modifications to and moved across the finish line. and she supported that for a
number of reasons. so, you know, it's hard to the look backwards. >> let me slice that one other way. [laughter] and i think this is a larger question that's really important in terms of moving this stuff forward. do you feel at this point in time given that the president-elect has backtracked on a couple of other issues, that he is somebody your organization can really communicate with moving forward? >> absolutely. i think we, what we've seen and, look, we've been in contact with the transitions, we've been in contact with both transitions, you know, we know a number of folks who work on these teams. some of our folks at senior levels and in our companies certainly know the incoming president. and we're going to sit down and talk about these issues and try to get to the solutions. because i think at the end of the day we want to get to the same solution, and that is to make america the best place to manufacture in the world, to make america globally
competitive on manufacturing. and if we can agree on that -- which i think we do -- then we've got to figure out what those policies are that handle it. you know, some of the trade piece, right, trade competitiveness has to do with other issues. a drag on u.s. competitiveness by regulation, by tax policy. those are issues where i think people are expecting to see some substantial movement. >> i should just say we're going to take a couple of questions at the end, so those of you who are ready and raring to go, prepare your question. john judas, let's look from the historical perspective of this. one of the striking components is you can close your eyes early on in this cycle, go to a bernie sanders rally, go to a donald trump rally, they're saying the same thing on trade. what's the difference? >> well, on that particular issue there's very little difference, i would say. and i think that both of them you could see as being a sense
of revolt against globalization and two features of it. i guess here's how i would make the difference. for trump, capital mobility is a key feature, again, from the 1970s. corporations are move wherever they want. a lot of the trade deals have as much to do with making it easy for corporations to move around as they do with exchanging goods. that was a key issue for him. labor mobility, immigrants can go wherever they want. that was also a key issue for trump, but it wasn't an issue for sanders. but both of those have to do with wages, both of those have to do with this kind of split in america between the 30% more educated, working in tech, working in high-valued services and the other 70% skilled, semi-skilled, only some college or high school. and, you know, again, if you look at a map of where we've lost manufacturing jobs from
2000 to 2010, i looked at this, the two key states are north carolina and michigan. and, again, if you look at that map and you look at where clinton lost and trump won, a lot of -- there's a, they're very congruent. it's the same kind of thing. and so i think over time we're going to have to figure out what to do about this split between the 30 and 70% and how we can somehow recreate the middle class. and i think that that's what a lot of donald trump was about. >> jill, the democrats use to own this issue. this was something that was a core democratic issue, and the notion of a mitch mcconnell being at the head of a party in the senate that is now lock, stock and barrel against, largely against sort of free trade is sort of amazing as a turnabout. how do the democrats reclaim this issue? we just had president obama give a press conference in which he said democrats have to get out
to these places they haven't been before. how did the democrats fumble this, and how can they reclaim it as an issue? >> yeah. i think it has to be almost simplified again to where we're with people in their communities, and we're meeting with them on an emotional level. secretary clinton had a very thoughtful plan about how to deal with the economy, how to deal with things. she went and gave a speech in mccolm county really putting all the details out. i think people couldn't hear it because they couldn't see democrats feeling their pain. ironically. and so, yeah, we have to get back out, and we have to articulate what we're about. and i think that we need to see that people have been hurt and affected get the help and support that they need, not just the advocacy that truly people are able to make their way in the new economy. >> the feel your pain part, we know where feel your pain came from, it came from her husband, right? >> right. >> and now she's feeling the
pain, because she didn't sufficiently feel other people's pain. isn't this just a matter of sort of a politician who has the ability to empathize? barack obama felt enough pain to win mccolm county, right? >> we were talking about this before, that in a lot of these races the way with things play out are tied to someone's character. perhaps if more people were aware of donald trump's actions in his personal life whether it was making ties in china or suits in mexico or using chinese steel in the buildings that he was building -- and, of course, that was part of the dialogue, but i don't know that that filtered to the ground. i don't know that that was in growth rating points in all of the key states through the midwest. people may have then had a real issue with him. >> would bernie sanders -- put you on the spot. would bernie sanders -- jill, no, till on you. [laughter] >> can't hide? >> you're not going away. would bernie sanders have been a better messenger in the general election on that? >> no. >> why? >> because i don't think he was
credible in the sense that people did want answers. people did want real world solutions. and that he fell, he could channel the anger, but people wanted someone who could go be the president of the united states, and hillary clinton won on experience, she won on being a pragmatist that gets things done. and so i think that would have been, that would have been trouble for bernie sanders in the general election. >> john ashbrook, these states are not one size fits all. i remember talking to a trump person after they had lost wisconsin and said one of the reasons they lost wisconsin because the trade issue doesn't cut the same way in wisconsin as it does in a place like ohio. there's a lot of dairy exports, for instance, that are advantaged under that stuff. talk a little bit be about, we have 2018 coming up, but talk about the microclimates in some of these states and how it differs from state to state and region to region. >> yeah. so we also consulted on the arizona race, for example, and the conversation about trade in arizona is different from the conversation about trade in ohio.
we also worked on the indiana senate race. it's very different from the conversation about trade in indiana just in terms of the intensity. it's just much more on the forefront of every conversation in both of these states, and you mentioned the 2018 math. you know, campaigning never stops in this town. already talking about 2018. and if you look at the states that are up, democrats are defending 25 seats, 23 plus the two independents, and republicans are defending eight seats. and among the 25 seats the democrats are are defending, it's ohio, it's indiana, it's michigan, pennsylvania, wisconsin, some of these same states where trump did so well. and i think that a lot of these candidates who are looking, who are either thinking about challenging one of these democratic incumbents or the democratic incumbents themselves are watched very closely this cycle to see how this issue is
litigated in a real way in these campaigns. and i think that, you know, for example, senator brown and senator portman have a very good working relationship, and i'm confident that senator brown was watching very closely at what senator portman did in his campaign. and i wouldn't be shocked if i see, you know, i wouldn't be shocked if we see him replicate some of the same tactics. >> linda dempsey, here's the many trillion dollar question here. tpp is dead, trump is talking about opposing some of the european stuff. how do you sell free trade? do you break it into little bite-sized portions? how do you see, just generally speaking over the next couple of years, how you get back boo this? >> so you've got to rebuild, right? you've got to rebuild the discussion, and i think we in business can certainly do a better job, we in manufacturing. what are the positives that we've seen out of trade and past trade agreements in terms of, you know, what is it we produce?
that dentist chair i sat two hours in last week, that was produced in the united states. the security devices you go through in airports, in federal buildings, that's made in the united states. people don't see so much of what is made in the united states, or they don't recognize it as such. but we've also got to be more clear-headed about getting at these foreign trade practices overseas and what are the best ways to do that. you know, there was a lot in tpp that would have gotten at a lot of very bad foreign bad practices, state-owned enterprises, theft of property, discriminatory tariffs, localization measures. what are the other tools we can do? this incoming president has talked about doing bilateral deals more than multilateral deals, you know? there's pros and cons of that, and i think we're going to have to take each one as it comes. but i think we've got to focus on getting those big markets where we have the biggest problems. most growth is outside the united states. if manufacturers just polled
ourselves, we -- just sold to ourselves, we wouldn't be able to grow. so we've got to have better access to markets overseas. and we're going to look and we're going to prioritize those markets and the barriers that we see and work with this congress and the incoming administration and figure out how we can tackle it. >> okay. on that note, do we have any questions out there? anybody? if we don't -- >> way back there. >> i saw a hand way back there. [laughter] whoever it is, speak now or forever hold your peace. >> [inaudible] >> yes, hi there. >> one sec, we have, we have one with a microphone. >> good evening. following up with ms. linda dempsey, could you please give us, if you will, a pitch about what we can expect that will really benefit the average person as far as how trade works and why we should be concerned about it?
so if you could tell us, make us feel good about trade since tpp, as you pointed out, is dead. what else can we do? >> so the united states has doubled manufacturing output since nafta. we have more than doubled our exports. we talk to small businesses all the time that have been able to increase their exports, increase work forces here or increase wages or keep jobs here as a result of agreements. we had, we have a small company that sells medical rehabilitation equipment out of maryland, and when the european union completed their deal with korea before we did, they lost i think it was 40-60% of their share of that market. once we got be our deal in place, they were able to grow again and take over and win back sales and increase.
we've, we have a lot of really great manufacturing in this country, a lot of high-tech manufacturing, a lot of manufacturing, as i said, that people don't see. and our companies want to get overseas, and we see more trade. and we have, you know, big agreements like the trade facilitation agreement that nobody wants to talk to that's going to make it easier for our companies to be able to sell. i'd say the other big thing is e-commerce. for small business owners, being able to get on the internet and put up their storefront just like in their hometown, they are selling more than ever. they are, you know, using new delivery meds and express deliver methods and other methods to get their goods to people all around the world. and so we're hoping to see a revival in economic growth, and we're hoping to see more of those exports. >> let's squeeze one more question in. no? this gentleman here. thanks.
>> hi, i'm jim callen. i just had a question about nafta if you could talk a little bit about the potentiality of renegotiating that, what that could mean. there's a lot of linkages, what are the implications, how is it benefiting the united states, what might happen going forward, if you could speculate a little bit, give us some insight on the time since -- >> right. and campaign officials with donald trump have said that canadian and mexican officials have talked about renegotiating nafta based on his kind of tough-talking rhetoric. does anybody want to address that? >> i -- [laughter] i can. there haven't been a lot of specifics out of the incoming administration about what is wrong with nafta, but we know, certainly as jill was talking about and john, that there's a view of nafta, and there's certainly been that stable transformation -- that substantial transformation in some of the rust belt states in manufacturing sectors. whether that's a result of
nafta, automation, china, other factors, i think, you know, we all need to figure out what the right diagnosis is of the issue. and we're just going to have to, you know, we're going to sit down with the new administration and congress, what are they talking about? what do they want to see changed? there's over two million manufacturing jobs in this country that are dependent on our trade relationship with canada and mexico. and so as we go forward, we certainly don't want to put those jobs in jeopardy. but are there ways toss improve our relationship -- ways to improve our relationship with canada and mexico? i think the path is a bit uncertain at this point. >> well, i would like to thank everybody for coming. that was a great discussion. and i'd like to welcome up my colleague, adam, a trade reporter for politico, who will lead the next conversation. thanks, guys. [applause]
[inaudible conversations] >> thank you, glenn, for that interesting panel. we're thrilled tonight to have on the stage chairman of the ways and means committee, kevin brady, whose committee is in charge of all things trade in congress and whose party will continue leading the house, so it'll be interesting to hear what he says on that. ..
priorities on trade? and that will fade into the background? >> think - - thanks for the update to be very encouraging. [laughter] i am still champion of free trade and so are republicans for the key reasons donald trump was elected to get the economy moving again. with tax reform, balancing regulation with goods and services part of the economic growth trade provides that opportunity but i look at mr. trump's from the enforcement first with trade policies to give this president or the new president the strongest enforcement tools ever to
pursue that and i hope to make the case that to grow our economy is just is not be enough. these trade agreements are done right strictly enforced level the playing field turning one-way trade allowing a number of jobs here so i not as downbeat as others are on the trade agenda. it is early to be assuming revenue administration will be i hope because the president lays out the economic policy to make the case wet is good about trade and improving the areas. >> what they do we have
heard from the campaign trail so that aid the district in texas is very connected to nafta. and what could be reflected with the old vision for trade and what that should be. >> but exactly where they would want to reprove and then to talk about to the negotiating table in the surplus with the nafta countries these relationships help frankly
to move through the worldwide recessions. i was encouraged to take a look at nafta went in the 1990's to be modernized. my advice if you are the renegotiated agreement you could be bolder about reducing tariffs and all direction with more economic freedom that consumers want to buy as well the fact is they're willing to do with nafta or tpp to open the market then that is will come. >> can you provide a specific quick. >> with those trade agreements with the tpp my
advice that this day critical market to hold half of the middle-class customers to abandon the field completely then china within a major way it is to renegotiate to make those challenges better for america the new i think it is critically important. >>: is that revisited at some point in the future? with that strong point what is the way to revise that deal.
>> so leading all at that and discretion running on trade he has to set the policy but to make sure adequate intellectual properties to make sure that financial-services are not discriminated against that there are real implementation plans with those key areas we are so interested and to begin with immediately that the white house continues to work with significant member concerns raced with the election the
agreement is on hold to lay out the trade priorities going forward. >> maybe this gets more specific but tpp to tackle the 21st century issues and that would be that a platform of the prohibition on the data flow so with the tpp into purgatory the forms of which they could be addressed to push the business priorities for word. senegal that level through
of a coalition of a the willing and especially in the regulatory area that is critical because those trade barriers and did is more sophisticated than that. what i like about ppp is it went beyond of border to create a process where in that past with a european soccer it they designed not to connect but that was the first agreement to connect those markets on the digital side and then beyond a level
playing field but if that agreement is not to be then to tackle the same issue. >> and with her shifting stance through the election but to focus on the future and then having a place in the edmond attrition heidi uc this approaching bad economic relationship? is a more transactional? or is there a bigger picture of those strategic locations >> he says a lot of things
on his campaign but how much of that will come to pass? so maybe just to speak of it to plant trade in the proper context so that is a hard truth with the international economic agenda that is divorced that we are pretty clear enough hell. we support large companies and real ourselves 1.1 negative to invest one without going after the
chinese so also about tpp has been distracted and it was built around i am not here to monday morning quarterback but, whether or not of that interest is firmly at the center and even have the obama administration. but that is not the way that we expected so in toby get our arms around the predicted impact that is
meant to be the model. >> when it comes to china this administration takes a hard stance trying to get china to address. >> i wonder if there will be more acrimony or if it will suffer in terms of tariffs just to make that productive or does that address that to capacity? >> to be clear i don't think over 80 years it is sitting on cases that could be bringing the tools but point
number one and you need to invent those tools. but even those of the most nimble may not get a hold of that. with point number one and i suspect the new trump administration may not be big enough because we could be in a situation where tariffs are preferable choice i am not sure i would go down the road but i do
want to remind everyone to hold the reins of adjustment and we should think creatively of how we hold that leverage like japan in the '80s at the most basic of all to repatriate of investment and we said okay. >> so maybe we have time before water to questions. with a focus on enforcement by the president-elect what about the trade enforcement
legislation? and neediest quick. >> both parties are strong enforcement he ran on the strongest enforcement of the two and i think most people agree that was a convincing part of this support nationwide. so i think given the opportunity of those that we had just given them less than 10 months ago he may find their tools he did not want but the dead buteo trade rules stand so he has these opportunity to aggressively pursue china's behavior that violate our
now that tpp is on hold and redone no how long the obama industry shin is negotiating maybe you could comment and where you see those going and do they need congressional approval? >> i think they do. to bring them closer to the finish line that china needs to step forward in a major way and europe needs to make sure those the today not of 20 years ago so i am hopeful of the mixed progress but if we are changing in that process it is very important
for trade and competition and lower cost is very important for the decisions that europe has made to require each country to create roadblocks making it difficult i think it has so much upside globally i am hopeful that progress can be made and the have robert very hard to continue those agreements fax indicate think we have run out of time. >> thanks for rejoining us tonight now level handed over to my colleague.
and now looking at a potential new era with the biggest trading partners and to travel all over the world i have had the pleasure to go around going all the way to colombia for talks on the agreement. but i mention that because they tried to take that agreement on hillary clinton for the record one to say was there the whole week but i did see ron kirk and the u.s. negotiator and michael was running the whole show on behalf of his friend president obama.
he went to law school with the obama way back in the 20th century. [laughter] and one last paragraph. he has started with international affairs which unfortunately we don't have time to get into today although i would be curious how it compares to washington. >> in new valley of the ambassador an opportunity to talk the obama administration once talked about the tpp and there were 18 rounds of negotiations and then was finally reached
after all of the work and a travel and end time is the agreement really did? >> thanks for having me. [laughter] first of all, things for having me back. with the work that has been done with tpp and opening markets for exports to create more good jobs with a very strong agreement. and then to convince people with the concerns they have raised but we are fully committed not to the region that is critical that a
strategic and our economic interest in whiff those kind of price standards that we could negotiate with tpp is what the american people want one of the things coming off to an whiff concerns that is not level or not there. to make sure we do open the markets since we are already in open market and we raise those standards of intellectual property rights so i am hopeful that over
time to see what is at stake with their own trade agenda economically and strategically and then put that into effect. >> not completely dead. >> but the previous panel somebody said purgatory. i think there is a lot in their indian their countries will lost a still they will move forward able go forward without a lessor of their own breast of the world that means we're left on the sidelines not only those opportunities that represents it is eroded by other countries in that i don't think it's in our interest.
>> one curious thing today with secretary bill sack met with the agricultural secretaries of the white house. >> it seems like the tpp event added asa crazy possibility. >> we made clear that we work to address the outstanding issues that the dairy farmers have issues that financial-services sector even on the major outstanding issue your publications as well as others showing the you were close to an agreement to the election but this is
fundamentally the legislative process left up to the congressional leadership to decide. >> what will happen with tpp leaders? will they make a statement crack's is there something they can do if the trumpet ministration was to take it up in the future? >> moving already down the line and then to approve the last week officer their own respective ratification unprocessed. and among those tpp leaders
in iran that it goes from here. >> and from the cato institute the trump pacific partnership could be reprinted. [laughter] >> we never thought about selling the naming rights. [laughter] and also with the canada institute to suggest. >> donald trump says he will renegotiate and address nafta to mexico and canada but didn't president obama say he would renegotiate that? >> he did and we did. and then to renegotiate and to be clear. because those labor and environmental issues of those that were not fully enforceable to treat those
then she tried to sell the tpp? for what was described? >> and as has been mentioned it is the most significant expansion of workers' rights of 500 million workers around the world. that isn't the only good for itself but to lower the of playing field to live in a world where we compete so what do you do about it? and to get other countries to agree with the
prohibition of child labor and forced labor slated is what is at stake to move forward. >> so those opponents the question is to delay tpp how they improve the workers' rights around the world quite. >> in the meantime why do we impose. >> if you think the tpp is an purgatory but to put that there? [laughter] r-utah king about divine intervention?
what we have seen is the rise of populism that was both the right and the left and that did not always permit and that combination for to get the message through. >> you know where you were when hillary clinton came out against the tpp? [laughter] >> i was probably at work. fu days after we completed the negotiation and then to go up to the hill xx remember how you felt? >> not to comment on any
to hear republican in democrats talking about how we need to do more wherever the change comes from that is an important debate going forward coming out of this campaign caught off trade is the wrong remedy. we know that. reexport over $2 trillion of goods and services cutting us off from the global economy is not the answer it is dealing with the other issues about transition. >> one bank of campaign has
suggested is the trade defense measures. what it you think about that idea? >> we have said very committed to trade enforcement there are more trade remedies by the of commerce department and on that trade enforcement side because 14 of those is every case has brought to conclusion so that is very important and then to be underscored by the campaign. >> i had a theory you had wondered to more that you would rollout.
>> we work with them on the ongoing basis we are confident they're ready to go. >> could we see more? once we are ready we will bring that. >> will the obama administration:a market economy? >> as china has recognized the determination falls under each statute we have criteria of the market economy and then i think widespread based on the criteria to have not yet
achieved that status but they're focused on what happens that the end of the year when that expires in how does that affect the future? that is what we will work through. >> so you could amass that change expected, . >> so what about the closing days of the administration? could need up of a conclusion of the bilateral investment treaty? >> back in september to underscore we are working to follow-up we have made good progress we still have a ways to go for china to play its appropriate role one potentially one of the
president-elect how the trade negotiators were can't you work for this industry shift for text of ids i have worked in other parts of of government with career civil service incredibly hard-working and dedicated to negotiate those strong trade agreements and i have every confidence that i was reminded in 2008 that we raised a number of concerns of those trade policies to work well with the new administration but they are very professional have every confidence they can execute
of that. >> we talk about how much you travel to you have any travel plans? >> i will be on a hammock on the beach for the undetermined period of time. >> uc gavin interest of wildlife conservation? would you do something in that area quite. >> that is a very interesting area. with my previous job at the white house with the link between development and trade and national security and wildlife that area that we focused was tpp.
>> and i mentioned people say focused calling for word >> so low there is a confusing situation some of the party votes the opposite way have reduced see that shaking out one? >> i have seen those polls his interesting the young democrats hispanics and asians are all more pro trade and they an average with a certain cohort of republicans that it wished we would do more in any the collective, led the
government, agriculture to continue to educate people about what is really at stake. we take for granted now our phones were the ecosystem that allows that to happen and if it will always exist but other countries are quite eager. to tax additional products and we take for granted the amount of farm and come but when that disappears even to the market share the same people and rural america will find themselves facing more challenges, not fewer. so to get the story out to get the facts out hope going forward we can have a factor based discussion about the benefits of trade battles of society to deal with those
who are impacted for by changes. >> thanks to the ambassador and also to "politico" everybody here today to spend time with us also for sponsoring the event in everybody on the political team who brought this even together. those watching a live stream and here in the room a quicker reminder please join us for cocktails at the back of the room have the great evening. [applause] [inaudible conversations]
a new set of standards that came out 2013 next generation science standards but we call that t6 with those areas we interested in and so this title to eventually make sense when i will get to the end of my talk if it doesn't hacienda may justify the means but the means never become the end. i may for for high-school algebra teacher i have spent in the profession over 30 years and i love science. this first picture of pir is to of my grandchildren and
public very often has to react about decisions of their personal life, what they eat and what they do. so science is critical if we like. who might emphasis is always on public understanding how science works and what implications it has that we hear about every day if you go to washington d.c. with the national academy of sciences so one possible answer to the question below bit bullish drastic it is a pretty standard definition
that is interesting thing with that is not so easy to define. when i was at oregon state university when there was a biologist worked with i asked him the question it was a little different than the first one that you saw. to be provocative he tries to get people excited by using lies to deceive the public but is trying to get people to wonder stand that scientists do the best they can with the david that they have. that is what he is really
trying to say so the difference is what we used to describe how that works with. but that does not mean that we are lying. if i was in a classroom or working with a group of teachers, i may show those the really eye focused is the three parts of science first, a body of knowledge in any text but chemistry physics the pages are filled . the new standards call the disciplinary core ideas to have you integrating neediest like equilibrium and homeostasis and osmosis
and filled with things like theories and that goes on and on. so the main interest that i have is in the second thing of how science is done traditionally the some dancing creek -- inquiry is called a science process. it is what they do to answer the question to develop knowledge that fills the textbook. the way that sciences done the implications for the end product that fills the textbook and that is the nature of science that take the characteristics that are derived from common
knowledge is developed michael scientific knowledge in is subject to change it is a function ban is based that they collect data they don't just make up things of how they think the world works so that is what they're referring to so now on the second to the all the science we have learned in school and television and museums and whenever we confront science we learn about science the goal is always scientific literacy.
to take the knowledge that they have and use it to make decisions of societal issues to be productive citizens. more importantly to know how it is developed with the characteristics of that knowledge. the same group of people of the national academy of sciences of scientific literacy in this long winded by the same as the sun is the same thing to use that knowledge to make informed decisions since the early 1900's we have not reached a
the goal yet we have not gotten there yet. but to be more specific about literacy behalf to learn how to ask and determine the answers to the questions we cannot describe for predict we will read newspaper articles or watched tv or engage in public conversation about the validity of the scientific knowledge to underlie national decisions
whether there is global warming or cooling that the scientific community that has always existed in the world that is the quality of the intermission -- information but none of that is critical but scientific inquiry. to evaluate those arguments that same idea just long winded so for that departure there are two phrases that you'll hear to use those interchangeably but they don't mean the same thing.
>> the decisions are not made because of other factors, political and social factors that are part of that decision. it is simple as we do not want to cut trees down anymore because we're trying to preserve the environment. i used to work in oregon and that was a big law that went on as many people were employed in the lumber industry. if you make a decision not to cut down any more trees put a lot of people out of work. and that's bad for the environment. in the national standards, there
is a stress on scientific practices and scientific inquiry and nature of science. the it says the nature of science has a different components. one is that all federal investigations use a variety of methods, not just one. one major misconception in the world is that all scientific investigations follow one set of steps known as the scientific method. in reality that is a misrepresentation of science. science. scientific knowledge is based on vehicle evidence. scientists collect data from the empirical world. it could be numbers or descriptions. empirical just means observations of the natural world. the knowledge and revision in light of new knowledge is no scientific knowledge is absolute. it changes. there are many examples of that.
we used to think the earth was flat, now we do not. there are many other more subtle examples where the knowledge of science has changed. up until 1956 and i just knew this a week ago we used to believe that human beings have 40e chromosomes. i just found that because i was reading an old science textbook over 1929 in the school system and we had 48 chromosomes. and what was that about? we are all born and raised that there is a 46 chromosomes. but it wasn't until 1956 where it change from the idea that there was 48 and now their 46. because of the advancement in technology and to be able to identify and count the chromosomes. sometimes technology is not involved effusively just reinterpret the same data and then you have a different view of how things work.
we used to think that dinosaurs were closely related to reptiles. now we believe they are more related to birds. there are many other examples. models of one theory are critical to science to help explain or provide a framework for the world in which we live. scientific knowledge and the assumption of science is that there is order and consistency in natural systems. if we find gravity here we are going to assume it's because -- rather than every location being different. that is something that is vague. it means a lot more than humans do science which is true. but because humans do science it has limitations, it has biases, it involves creativity, imagination, all of those human characteristics because science is done by humans. ice skipped over that bullet,
which is another vague term, what does that mean? part of that is the way science is done is different than the way other disciplines are performed. science addresses questions about the natural world. there there are many questions that are not answerable to science. what is love? what is good? what is bad? those are not scientific questions. when we talk about science practices in scientific inquiry, it can be vague. people have written books about this. even standards when they mention things they come out with an addendum redefining what they meant by it. in curriculum reform it is used in three different ways. one is a teaching approach, if your folks out there prepare to be teacher one of the things you probably are locked in your
classes is that you should teach science in a way that is race similar to the way that sciences that do science. you let students develop questions and collect data, develop develop research design and analyze data, and they come up with the conclusion and many argue about the conclusion. the idea behind it is if students design for a scientist do it will end up learning it better. and they still debate about that. i am on the increased side of that debate. there are two others. one is a performance one. this is giving your kids the ability to do the things that scientists do. making observations. making inferences. drawing conclusions. developing questions. that is the doing of inquiry. in the last part on there which is often ignored but it is central to the work that i do is knowledge about inquiry. stepping back and looking at what we just did and why we did it that way.
it is easy to teach students in school to design an experiment with the control group. it does not take very long to do that. if you have the students step back and ask them why do we need a control? they cannot answer the question. it is not uncommon for students in science classes to do something that they do not understand what they're doing. my focus is students understand what they have to do. often that is left out. students just do whatever the teacher tells them to do. welcomes down like a cookbook, a set of prescribed steps that they just follow. science practices the way there listed in the next generational science standards, i call this a list of verbs. students should learn how to ask questions. developing these models, plan
and carry out investigations, using using mathematics and competition thinking, analyzing and interpreting data, coming up with explanations engaging in arguments about their evidence because it is not uncommon in a science class if you are teaching, at the end of the activity not everybody in the class comes up with the same answer. usually that gets pretrade as someone did something wrong. it is very typical of science for people following the same procedures trying to answer the same question coming up with different answers. neither one of them did anything wrong. obtaining and evaluating and communicating information. these are things you can teach students to do that fits into the performance idea of inquiry. if you are not looking at the ngs, it's formatted in the way, i don't think you read everything that is there but it
is called three-dimensional signs learning. the one on the left where the science engineering practices or inquiry, the ones in the middle are the disciplinary core ideas, those are the foundational theories, laws, ideas and science, the one on the far right is called crosscutting concepts. these are overarching ideas in science that integrate all of the different science areas and are much bigger than individual factoids or facts. the truth, there labeled as connections of science. they are not considered standards. they are not necessarily things that kids will ever be tested or evaluated on. there are things that i feel right now are the new standards where we left out of the curriculum totally. when the next generation of science standards were being developed there were big debates
about what to do with the nature of science. it actually got pushed to the back, that concerns me because i been working in that area for 30 years. now it is kind of an appendix. whether we want schools to know about think worry when work with teachers, much simplified list is that all investigations begin with a question. it may not be a hypothesis. that's another misconception that you have to start with a hypothesis, very often in the scientific world there's just general questions without any production be in may. there is no single set or sequence of steps, we are not saying the scientific method does not exist, but but it is not an accurate representation of all science. agree procedures are guided by the questions which is why we have to start with the question that guides your investigation
and the data you collect and as we said before all scientist during the same thing trying to answer the same questions may not get the same results. there are people who interpret things differently. people look at some data maybe not all of the data. inquiry procedures can influence the result. research conclusions must be consistent with the data collected. i often have students say, we have known, we we do not get what we're supposed to. and i would say what you mean you did not get what you are supposed to? you got whatever data you had, the data are what the data are. like the previous speaker, it is just the way it is. so there's always a conclusion in the conclusion must be consistent with the data. data are not the same as scientific evidence. we get the data, but then the human mind interprets that data
and then it becomes evidence for your viewpoint, evidence against against and or can become irrelevant, so evidence is really data that is been interpreted by the human mind. and explanations developed in the combination and the data that we collected, these are things that you don't do like observing an inference, these these are things that students looking back of what they did they come to realize this is knowledge about inquiry, it's knowledge about science. historically the nature of science and inquiry have always been mixed up they've always been there but always been mixed up or combined, and project 2061 which is called benchmark it came about in 1993, the nature of science was an overarching theme within which inquiry was included. the national science education standards from 1996 put them
them together in a different way. inquiry was two separate things. they were related but there is a difference. the ngs s as a subset of inquiry, that is why the little red circles i showed you were connection of nature of science because they were in the inquiry section. interestingly enough, the knowledge about inquiry are a subset of nature of science. it looks like three or four contradictory but the key thing is that the word about in number four. number three is about doing inquiries and science, number four is understanding about what you did. but you can see from this that
nature of science and inquiry have sometime been kept separate, sometimes they're in a hierarchy with nature of science at the top. sometimes inquiries inquiry is at the top. they are always there but it causes a lot of confusion. what we we have found out over 60 years of research on scientific inquiry is that k-12 students, they do not have adequate perception is inquiry or nature of science. these two things are critical, it is not just knowledge, it is understanding how the knowledge was developed and what are the implications of the knowledge and how do i make decisions based on that. the the same thing is true with teachers. they do not typically have good understanding of the nature of science and inquiry. which is problematic because teachers are expected to teach these things. how could they teach something they do not know. it is not that they can't understand us, if if used think back to your science class you
really were taught anything about the nature of science or scientific inquiry. i wasn't. i did not learn about nature science and that inquiry until after i had a masters degree in biology. it was not included it in any instruction i had. now, people are learning more often it's actually in the goals of the science curriculum since 1907 but we but we still have a long way to go. teachers perception of scientific inquiry and nature of science are not automatically translated into high they teach. when i was a graduate student it used to be believe that if he understood the nature of science that would how you teach. it doesn't. they're really not related, they they should be, but they are not. teachers, and this relates to high-stakes testing that were getting more into do not regard understanding of inquiry and nature of science as having
equal status with a traditional disciplinary ideas that's because is typically [inaudible] the test and teachers tend to teach toward the test. sometimes because they want to and sometimes because they have no choice. but they do not value it to as much as other areas. finally, what we found out recently and this is part of my work and my colleagues work is that understanding science and understanding inquiry are best taught the way critical reflection that is the next lucidly in the classroom on what the student has done. we talk about the extent we just did and why we did it the way we did it, without that without that reflection students do not come to understand that. early on people used to believe that students learned nature of science in scientific inquiry just by doing science. there's many people that believe that today. but students do not go home at night and say you know my class
today not every group got the same answer. that's probably because we're different people with different backgrounds, we interpret the data differently. that is why we have different answers. that conversation does not happen automatically and frankly if all kids did that i would be worried but some of your best students will do that but most will not. they they just think somebody did something wrong. so the implicit approach does not work with respect to what i'm talking about, the historical approach is another that people talked about, and that is going through the historical development of a particular scientific idea. seems like it would make sense but the mind of works in strange ways and we tend to believe that what we know today logically progressed in a linear fashion to what we use to know earlier in time. the methods from the history of science approach tends to be that students can step out of
2016 a make believe that they don't know nothing and believe that people who believe the earth was flat and dinosaurs were related to reptiles were just ignorant or uninformed, which they weren't at the time that they came to this conclusion. the research shows it is possible for students to do that, we come to every situation was some kind of background knowledge and that background knowledge filters how we interpret what we see. 300 years ago if you looked up at the site sky and saw the white object and i asked you what it was you would say that the moon, you would actually you would say that was the planet but today you would say it was the moon.
the same object, the same place in the sky one time we call it a planet now because the moon. that's because 300 years ago we used to believe that the earth was the center of the solar system and anything that orbits the center is a planet. now we believe believe the sun is the center of the solar system anything that orbits the sun is a planet that's why we are a planet and anything that orbits the planet is a moon or satellite. so depending on what theoretical framework we have about the world it biases it guides how you interpret what you are looking at. there are no value free observation, they're all in the context of the framework you're working with. the explicit approach is one that treats the nature of science and treats the inquiry or practices just like anything else you're trying to teach, it's a goal of your instruction, it is planned for, doesn't happen, doesn't happen by accident, and that's what makes it explicit.
it doesn't mean a lecture, it means it is visible in the classroom and talked about in the classroom. hopefully more hopefully more so by the students than the teacher. the students don't have to use the words i've used, but what once they have gotten the idea conceptually then you can give them the word. unless that takes place they do not come to learned through science or inquiry and that is the focus of my work and i think what is going on in the next generation science standard has forgotten that idea even though there's 30 years of research on it. generally, and teachers and other students will not learn what is not taught, so if you want to learn something that needs to be taught needs to be included in the instruction, you may be able to read the fine print at the bottom which says generally speaking. students learn all kind of things that you did not intend them to learn. if you ever collector notebook and looked at what they wrote down after your class you'd be
surprised at some of the stuff that's in there. that's why generally speaking is in there. so don't ask me later unless you definitely talk about it kids will learn something that you did not attend, they they do that all the time. my big summary points are these, science is a necessarily a trend necessary platform about learning about scientific practices. i'm not advocating at all that we should stop focusing on kids doing investigations, i'm all for that. it's necessary, it gives them an idea or develops a skill that scientists use every day but it is not enough just to do the science doing science is necessary but it's not sufficient, it is a means, now
we get back to the title, it is a means to the end of students achievement of scientific literacy. if we want students to be scientifically literate we need to put them in situations where they can reflect back on what they did, develop their understanding of inquiry, develop the understanding of the status of the knowledge that was developed in the inquiry, realize it may change, realize it is not absolute, and realize that is partly a function of human imagination and inference and also a function of actual data from the real world. so we need inquiry as a platform for these students to refer back to. the general public, if you go home tonight and you see a debate on the news about whether genetic genetically modified foods is healthy or not, none of you will run out your garage in your backyard and do an
investigation. we put students in the position they are in so they have an idea of how science works and why it works that way and so when they are confronted with these decisions they need to make they use that to look at the evidence. but when we stop at students doing inquiry, if we stop at that point we are not going far enough. that's why said in my title the means which is critical as in the next generation of science standard become the endpoint. we stop at them having to do the signs practices. we are missing this other step which is absolutely essential for scientific literacy. the other steps in the last set of standards in 1996 but now they just say it was an afterthought in the next generation standards.
>> students need to critically reflect on the science i have done to develop understanding how science is done, its implications, the status and knowledge. they need to reflect on something but without that reflection they do not have the understanding they need to make decisions. developing these understandings along with the knowledge of a disciplinary core, the basic foundational science and -- enable students to make decisions about scientifically based personal and societal issues. it is a package, we need the knowledge, we need to know how it was developed, and we need to know what kind of status that knowledge has. so viewing science is absolutely necessary as a means but it is
not the end we desire. the endpoint always has been and probably always will be scientific literacy and if we just focus on the knowledge and the developing of knowledge we are missing at least two key components of scientific literacy. there's actually more more we have not talked about today. so that's my message. if you are becoming a teacher make sure you engage your students in discussions about what you have done and what that means to them and to their lives, if you are not a science teacher but are consuming science, think about and ask yourself how did they come up with that what was the data they used to come up with that and what does that mean? that picture on page five of your science textbook of the adam, you've all seen it it looks like the solar system, no one has ever seen an adam.
most students believe that somebody with a strong enough microsomal microscope saw that adam. the picture in the book is instructional but we don't even believe in adam looks that way anymore, that spaced on a model that looks like the solar system but the adam doesn't look that way at all. so the same thing if you are in a geology class, there's a nice picture of all the different layers of the earth all the way down to the center, it will even tell you what the center is made out of as far as i know. [inaudible] no one has been to the center of the earth. that's the inference we have made with various types of technology which has evolved over the years. but nobody has ever seen it. students need to know where that picture in the book comes from,
they need to know what does it mean that's an inference, that means if you change any have a different view of it, in fact, in fact we used to have a different view of it. and that becomes important because it helps guide future scientific work because all those models on the adam, on the side of the earth are the types of questions we asked, it's the answers that we considered acceptable or valid, there there really are critical things for students to know. if we want to get to the endpoint. so inquiry practice is a great platform and a great means but it is not the endpoint. the endpoint of scientific literacy. we cannot cut ourselves short. with that i will cut myself short. are there any questions?
learn about the philosophy of science to understand science, do you think it should be implemented into high school from an early age? >> this is a great question and the core of a continuing debate. i will tell you what the debate is and then tell you where i stand on this debate and why i stand the way i do. there many people that feel about that questions asked, a used to be science used to be very important for students to know. if they get a good understanding of philosophy in the history of science it will enable them to understand their science better and understand the nature of science. we always have to remember that we are teaching biology, chemistry and science are not teaching philosophy. many of my philosophy friends
argue for that point. we need to have more philosophy in our science classes but what happens is the people on that side of the debate have no experience in the classroom and they make recommendations of what kids need to know that are not developmentally appropriate. so some idea of the philosophy of science, some about the history of science are good, kids love kids love the history of science because it is telling the story and showing us that science is human. it's a way to engage students so i can get to my endpoint which is what i want them to learn. philosophy of science can get real confusing to kids. philosophers will tell you that chair over there is really just
an inference that my mind has made up, it really doesn't exist, all that ever happened was i had i had charged particles going in and out of my nerve cells and then my brain interpreted it to be what we all agree is a chair. well if you can i confuse students into them it's a chair and it's absolutely there. so i usually i usually am on the side of the audience, how old are they, what are they understanding, and use that to the best of your ability. and my biggest attractor is a good friend of mine who's never agreed on anything, mike matthews from australia, and the myself and my colleagues on the other side of that debate. but it continues and it differs from country to country.
what i can say and no one seems to pay attention to is what one of my original doctoral students , his dissertation studied understanding the nature of science in scientific inquiry and students ever taking a history of science class at the college level, students that were taking the philosophy of science class at the college level and students in a science teaching methods class. they found that students in the history of science in the philosophy of science class did not understand the nature of science. they said the history of science and the philosophy of science and not this educational outcome would call the nature of science. so that data is out there, it won awards but people scientific educators are human and we have these ideas we try to push and we ignore the things that go against it. that's next line question. >> thank you.
>> i have a question or clarification. what do you think is missing is critical processes doesn't the reflection, isn't that what it is, how is the process was the beaming and why do we do it. >> isn't that, the learning part, why do we do it we did in line this case is that process value to ny and other cases it might not be value isn't that what we missed? >> so i think in a certain sense so what were saying is were telling we are not producing
critical sinkers whose analysis and an understanding of time and relevance but rather the process is like a machine really. >> i totally agree that we call a cookbook science, the students follow the ten steps and come up with the answer that they're supposed to because we talked about it yesterday in class. >> then i think if sciences adjusted, learning can be taught at different levels. it doesn't have to be the same level. maybe that's a problem that's missing maybe not what we teach at college and university but rather on the level of the student that we can explain this is a part of critical thinking that will we need to learn
besides learning how to perform that. >> i agree with that. a couple of things that statement, this is something that is done k through 12, k through 16 because should be in college courses as well. you can look in terms of critical thinking, we're critically thinking about scientific knowledge and how that knowledge is developed. it leads to a better understanding of that knowledge. when you realize the picture of the atom is a model derived from data that is collected that's a better understanding and thinking that's what it actually looks like. i believe we can start very early and go all the way through college, one thing about the elementary curriculum in the country is when they tried to teach more process skills and were thinking skills in the early grades and science and did not focus on the foundational knowledge kids used
to do a lot of hands-on activities but they were not thinking about anything they were doing. so those curriculum in the 60s and 70s were never really successful. then we talk about hands-on and minds on because students need to be thinking about what they're doing. so just manipulating things is not inquiry. inquiry involves manipulating things to collect data but also thinking about what you have done and how that could influence the results that you're getting a neither any other alternative explanations and i think teaching science the way we do it does not force critical thinking. >> critical thinking is another battle cry you hear from other educators from around the world. my wife and i get called upon to go all over the world to help
students develop critical thinking skills because nobody really feels their country is really doing a good job with those kind of thinking skills although everybody values it everybody values creativity and critical thinking were still trying to figure out how to facilitate that development better than we are. >> and thank you very much. let's give another round of applause. [applause] >> republican donald trump is elected as the next president of the united states. the nation elected elect is a republican-controlled house and senate. c-span will take you to key events as they happen. watch live on c-span, watch on-demand at c-span.org, or listen on our free c-span radio app.
>> tonight on the communicators, scott kiel, talks about autonomous cars, a hype from the auto industry that they are nearly ready and his production of when they're on the market. >> if you read the headlines you'll see what is doing and pittsburgh and carnegie mellon, look in the automotive business when we are used to a lot of hype. what it comes to everyday matters a little bit of marketing hype is okay. when it comes to matters such as this i think it is a little bit disingenuous. words are flippantly thrown around. when someone says autonomous, with some says auto pilot and self driving what a consumer thanks as i come out of my home, i hit a button and the car will take me anywhere in america atat
any time, in any conditions. as we all know that is not the case. >> watch the communicatorsrs tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2.gtime >> joining us now, two longtime observers of congress to talk about with the new congressoming faces from now till the end of the year. also what the incoming administration of donald trump is. hello target gas and thanks for joining us.rrativ >> and this is the headlight, gop will use a lame duck session to set the stage for donald trump. how how much truth is that? >> we are not sure hownt republicans will use the lame duck session because the main job of the lame duck session is to get the budget done. within the republican party there are conservatives who want to push that into next year. so that they have a friendly president to deal with their
budget. in the republican leadership wants to clear the decks, get the budget done now so they can have the new president start with a clean a clean slate.out on thi it is not clear yet what side will win out on this. my guess is, the leaders will win out on it and they will do what they can to move the ball along an s speaker ryan says, hit the road running with the new president next year.t it be >> a lot of that may be up to what the president-elect decides to say. if president-elect trump were to let it be known to the more conservative members of the house and the supporters, the the people who have endorsed him in the house of representativesd that he is on board with speaker ryan and the senate majority leader, mitch mcconnell and the longer-term agreement on the appropriations so that he does not have to deal with that aswia soon as he takes office, people will probably go along with it. what is interesting here is that
because the president-elect is s complete outsider to this process and has never really th made this sort of sausage before, the vice president-elect was certainly in, mr. pence was in the house republican leadership for a fair amount of times. he may be the one who is not necessarily calling the shots but may have significant influence and how the process gets done. that is the question. whether not the president-elect and the vice president elect will say anything and insert themselves into this process in terms of how they want to see the stun. >> we saw donald trump last weet making a visit to congress, to both the house and senate side. did we learn anything as far as what mr. trump was interested in and the reaction to the leaders he met with? >> he gave a list of three priorities, trenton, leaving
mitch mcconnell's office on the second floor of the capital. he was interested in healthcare, immigration, and what he called big league jobs.e he left a vague what he meant on any of those three.view t there was some more detail perhaps in that 60 minute interview that aired sunday evening, but there still are a lot of holes to be filled in and details to be written. >> the big league jobs could include any number of things. it could include tax reformld because republicans believe that tax reform will stimulate the economy and create jobs. it could be infrastructure which would be a big job creator in terms of capital spending and bridges and highways. or it could be rollback and regulations that republicans think are put precedent and keep
the economy from growing. it is is probably all of those things because last night on 60 minutes the president-elect trump talked about tax reform. but mccarthy yesterday talked about infrastructure.d encl i think it big league jobs as a catchall phrase that could include all three of those things. >> (202)748-8000 for democrats. if you want to ask our questions will take the calls in a moment. >> this comes down to one thing, it's the cost. >> it is huge. one price tag that has been put on what is actually needed is $1 trillion. president-elect trump has been talking about half much. even
half that much is a big price tag. one idea is idea is to involve the private sector so it doesn't become quite as expensive for the federal government.at you do have government democrats and republicans looking at this idea generally because the country needs it so badly.dly. congress has been pushing it forever. it is the price take that is the sticking point. >> once you have that price tag then the question is how do you pay for it. let's say that everybody worked to agree that they needed half 1,000,000,000 dollars dollars to use roughly the trump figure of new infrastructure and public works project. there are people who would say that should be paid for by increasing the gas tax. there has been absolutely no interest in that among republicans. their other proposals and people who want to put tolls on highways. they want to reconstruct themiaf
using that source of revenue. then there's the question of whether or not you can repatriate foreign earnings, e whether not you can use proceeds that will come in from dollars that have been kept offshore that might be part of a tax reform plan. of paym you could use some of that to pay for infrastructure. there are are a lot of payment options out there. they all involve the tax code. so no one has come up with a way of rebuilding highways and bridges and tunnels without going through the tax code.ls >> will have some calls from our viewers. will start in tampa, florida today.ood morn >> good money. thank thank you for taking my call. obviously this year we saw very radical ideas from both the left and the right. what is the movement for donald
trump, politically speaking to bring the country together. we know that mike pence is goina to leave the legislative aspect. what does does donald trump do to try to bring the country together? >> maybe i just talk about the legislative aspect because i expect there will be some infighting on the republican side. but you can start. >> . . i think there is this question of whether or not when donald trump becomes resident and working with mike pence and the leaders on capitol hill should start with something that has come in terms of the legislative agenda, has some bipartisan buy-in. we know that's one of the top priorities for the president-elect will have to be this vacant >> >> similar to justice believe it to fill all the fil seat so that probably will
not beat an area for partisanship so if you talk about this one partisan item in - - item immediately on the agenda may be a need to figure out to infrastructure or job creation measure or something that this sitting out there for instance that they will get in the lame-duck session despite the package of legislation despite the act that is a big investment in public health research maybe you pick that up in january to try to foster some goodwill. >> i was speaking with senator collins one of the few remaining moderate sepublicans in the senate and she said quite explicitly she hopes the first move is on infrastructure because that is something to have
bipartisan support and talking about bringing legislation back did they take care of act in the lame-duck session that was the senator's preference? maybe then they will bring back something like mental health if they don't get it through this session it could be next session. >> host: from the r democratic line you are next >> caller: thinks for taking my call. about 67 years ago there was a statement to the republicans to obstruct and block everything he tries to pass and then blame everything on the president. because he said the american electorate was so uneducated and ill informed one to take
my hat off. my ha thank-you. >> i think what we're faced with this time is visual expectations. so the question is can he build dalai and deal with a real replacement of obamacare x fit is interesting mr. obama got both promising hope andd change in mr. trump is getting votes by his promises but even with a united government under control one-party control it is not so easy to get those promises done. >> take obamacare for instance the reason why to get enacted into law in the first place was because of the democratic president
combined with the democrat-controlled house and the democratic caucus for the brief time the super majority needed to overcome that filibuster threat there are only 152 republicans likely in the senate in the next session frankly the caller was from louisiana there was an outside possibility maybe only 51 there is still a runoff that the democrats are suddenlyly interested in but it is such a narrow margin those like senator collins or other modern republican members and democrats will have to be on board to get much done, particularly with the
obamacare because it is easier than to that the current program but that doesn't seem to be what mr. trump is talking about so procedurally that may be more complicated than just to roll back what happened in 2009. >> is that talking about the pre-existing conditions clause? >> write the more provisions to keep the fact the more difficult it becomes to craft a the reconciliation bill which uses a budget procedure that allows you to pass with a simple majority votes the more complicated the legislation is going forward to get the parliamentarians to buy into the idea it is in that confines pdf. >> we see that they released
papers that does health care fall under that or something f different than obamacare? >> yes speaker wright and is proud he is behind thebl scenes to get his chamber on his program called the better way to get a jumpstart to get their republicans elected to the presidency loss includes health care reform and they do have some commonalities for instance that insurance companies should work across the state lines so there is a larger insurance exchange to buy fire o one negative by from and have them manage that but here is the thing even though speaker wright is very prepared whiff of
broad principles common data that is in legislation yetin it is not a legislative language that is when the trouble begins when you hammer out the details for. >> so maybe that would be valuable in that process. >> in fact, for those viewers didn't see this yesterday when speaker wright and was on the sunday morning program he got into exchange about whether or not you don't want to answer how we pay for that there were questions you was being announced about the particulars of the health care overhaul would be paid for and ryan was insisting that basically said day want to waste the audience time
with the details and the interview moved on. >> host: next caller. >> caller: good morning. i want to talk about repentance about the crimess against humanity that america has exploited a round of world that he spoke on talk about the military industrial complex if look at the pentagon budget there is enough for social services and to create all the infrastructure like the roosevelt plan or a new deal. maybe some type of preparation to go to war for all of the crimes for what we have been exposed to with the holocaust of slavery so he needs to do well to shine
light on america.nk i host: now i will take. an element even in this consensus the nationald to d defense authorization act then this morning it says increasing anticipated tough on those fronts. >> the trump campaign for an then-president elect himself and others who work for him of men associated with rudyim guiliani have been talking about increasing the size and scope of the of military both in terms of manpower and ships there is talk of increasing the size of the naval force and under
president trump, that will all be costly that is going to create this situation that is less likely one of the things in recent years is we've talked about equal cost increase for domestic spending and discretionary spending in defense spending spd her card doesn't look like that is the way we will be going but spending more money on defense can wondering how we will pay for it. >> i'd like to pick up with the caller of of reparations the african-american and has with this presidency that has been raised so much in this campaign. over the weekend we have seen demonstrations and social media has been talking about heightened crimes and protest and
against minorities in the way they are treated that was brought up in the 60 minute interview with mr. trump asking about the harassing of minorities that is reported over the last week since the election he looks straight into the camera and said stop. i saw a facebook post from one of my friends who said problems solved. it isn't that easy people welcome that he has made a direct statement that this is not acceptable behavior but it is not so easily solved. >> from a "christian science monitor" joining us also from will call of what it would be like to be a democrat in january. >> i think they will try to look at this as a two-pronged opportunity they
see themselves as the last bastion over what they disagree with but areas to find common ground there ready to go forward also a special challenge have so many members and of their caucus for a pre-election in 2018 that i think those senators will pass specific unique leverage on like it'sci done for. >> it isn't that there's just a lot of democrats up in 2018 but many are from the state's that president-elect carried and some that he carried ferry in p-- fairly handily. places like indiana and north dakota and west region yeah. are go -- for gin yes so they will have to run on their own records like joe mansion
used to be the governor of west virginia has ake significant stake in his owne, state and everybody knows him but there will be some interesting movement on the part of those senators in terms of where they find commonality with the trump agenda. on the other hand, the democrats know they may have to be a double work because some of the things that have been said by mr. trump and his supporters planis going especially those with b.a. senior advisor in the trump whitehouse, a lot of thesee are outside the realm of normal conversation in thehe united states.if the so if they are taken literally that the white house is starting to the democrats have a whole different job on their hands because they will have to be