tv Future of Argentina CSPAN November 27, 2017 9:49am-11:06am EST
>> the c-span bus is on the 50 states capital tour and hearing about each state's priorities. we kicked off in dover, delaware and now visited 12 state cash amounts. our next stop for the 50 capitals tour is tallahassee, florida. we'll be there december 6th with live interviews during washington journal. next, a look at the political situation in argentina with hector schamis, a professor at georgetown university for latin american study. he talked about the history of argentina's political movements and two-party system which is now challenged by a third party after recent mid term elections. hosted by the hudson institute. thises just over an hour. >> it's a great pleasure to welcome you to our conference on argentina this afternoon. for any student or teacher of latin america, argentina plays
an important role in the hemisphere and beyond. the phenomena, including, broadway and musical dramas, demand a second or third look pre-and post world war ii. the same is concerning the recent political developments in that nation. much of the drama is not really gone, judging by the strength they continue to display to some extent in electoral events. the story is more complex when looking at attempts to elevate herself or demean herself the
drama over her government. and what are the perspectives of the president. undoubtedly argentina requires historians and political analysts proven more weight than talent. we're fortunate to count them as friends with a proven reputation. no better than my esteemed friend schamis who shares with us his ideas on argentina, looking at not only at the present juncture, but also the future. there have we begin the-- professor schamis's lecture i will take two minutes to extend a warm welcome to a very good
friend, an old friend of mine and one of the founders of hudson, professor mark senior and reside in israel and comes to visit us once in a while. thank you. and i also need to express our thanks to dr. john walters, the vice-president, who has been such a great supporter and a great friend to us. and, of course, we thank very much rachel, director of public affairs and my assistant.
well, without any further ado, i turn the podium to dr. schamis. >> thank you. well, thank you for inviting me, for your kind words and your friendship over the word. every time i've been here it was rewarding and extremely motivating and provocative discussion and today he invited me to discuss my own country which is, you know, a double challenge. it's nice and motivating, but at the same time it's like, you know, we have to task.
given that i do go to argentina frequently, i'm very involved as a columnist and in addition to my georgetown job, i have a column and once in a while i do address argentina, i do write on argentina. although a lot less than, i must say, for reasons that we all know. it's interesting, it's interesting until this session as a new political order in argentina. that's, you know, really pushing the boundaries. i mean, i would agree with the new political-- new party system in the making. because argentina has been
democratic since 1983, and has, i must say, quite fortunately had some important crisis along the way and there is tkt democracy and for the first year in the future. argentine, the way that i read argentina's politics today, i'm optimistic and anybody in original tina, argentine to be optimistic. and i've been writing very optimistic pieces on argentina for quite a while, actually. beginning with the crisis of 2001-2002. if you, you know, if you want to know. i wrote a journal democracy article, the night of january 1st, 2001 when sworn in a congress and the sixth president in a week.
and after the resignation. and that was an optimistic story which, for some similar crisis like that in the past, had been going to downtown, going to take over. and didn't happen that time and congress was open for a marathon session that they-- to resolve the crisis and with the agreement, then senator, and all the senators agreed so swear in the president for good or bad, the crisis was weathered. so let me go back to specifics. what's going on in argentina now. what is had the presidencies and the future of argentina and democracy as well. let me go back and forth in
time. and let me start with what by now is an anecdote. the night of november 22nd, 2015. that was the election that brought to the presidency. and that night i wrote a colu column, i was in a bunker, as they say, in the bunker until way late, but i went back to where i was staying and i wrote it. i wrote a column and i sent it in the middle of the night. it was there that virtually during the morning hours in madrid, but late night, in it this side of the atlantic. and the title was a new republic in original tina. a new republic because it was the beginning of a new political time. a new republic as a metaphor of
the way many countries do it, when there's a change in the political system like france or brazil, and america, whether there's a significant changes, and there is not necessarily change of regime, but there is a new republic, a republic that starts to operate, operate under different sets of mechanisms and incentives. and i said that it was a new republic for a variety of reasons right there that night. first, democracy was that night and is the first president in a century that is not a radical, from a radical party, or military. and there was what happened that night. it was what american politics
would know, i consider a critical election, those elections are reorganized, coaliti coalition gains on the territory. and i saw that right there and i was looking at the projected results on the tv's and those beautiful maps that tell you, a snapshot what's going to happen. whenever there's an election in the u.s. the first they think i look at is the map, not by states, but by counties and shows what american politics is all about and i tried to see that in argentina, right already there, the night of that election was suggesting what we know better now, which is that it was a critical election. there was a reorientation in the preferences of the electora
electorate. there was emergence of a new political party, which means republican proposal. and that's what it means. and little by little the map started to turn yellow in the cities. the-- now it's all the more clear, the last election, the congressional election, mid-term election a few weeks ago. but in that night, that incipient emergence of that coalition with the radical party, the historical radical party was beginning to show a dramatic event that -- in the urban areas. ...
and then of course also the biggest cities is in argentinan the middle of the country. and the important cities in the province of buenos aires, so and so forth, but leaving significantly prominently and all the urban settings. and then playing a little bit i begin to speculate sort of quickly on a number of issues about what was going on there with this critical election come with this new republic. first of all, a couple of
things, there's a new political party not just because it was found in the 21st century, that's an interesting thing, but it was a lyrical party, the first part of the 21st century to come to office in, all over latin america. when i say this, i say this with a degree of uncertainty in terms of what form will the party, what will be the shape of the parties in the future, knowing that we are in a dilemma, in a mark is in the world in general. we can't do without parties but we also know parties are in trouble. parties are an organization that do not represent aspirations of societies in the same way they used to. aspirations that a change dramatically, and the parties are very hierarchical structured organizations, very disciplined organizations, and that is a work in society these days, have
become more horizontal. it doesn't work in the workplace. it doesn't work in politics either. pro comes to the scene with the new conception of a political party. more like if you want like a social movement that a political party, in the traditional sense. it's a party with a horizontal political culture, if you may. if i may. the party of, the crisis 2001, 2002 argentines to the street and argentina defaulted from its debt and last until last year literally one way or another. and the people it to the streets demanding everybody's resignation, everybody many the
political elite, everybody's departure. they should all day, they meaning the political elite. that was the origin of pro, created in the wake of that important crisis. the urban component of pro makes it the part of the middle class, not only the middle class but is the party of the middle class, the party of the middle income, outward, mobile and progressive electorate. the party of the professionals that argentina is a very urbanized country, as much as the taxi drivers. the party of the median voter, if i may use, you know, the famous expression. the party of that wide middle
ground, the party of pragmatic and moderate voter that has a middle-class component and has aspirations of upward mobility for themselves and for their children, more than anybody else. this is a pattern that i saw emerging in 2015, and this past october consolidated that people now have an expression in argentina the yellow map, which is yellow is a color of pro, a distinctive color of pro and the map is turning yellow again in all important urban centers of the country, and that allowed the party to cry important provinces. the vast majority the provinces.
so again let me play back and forth, continue playing back and forth between 15 and 17. pro is also the party of the. [inaudible] in both ways. in the famous phrase, social origins of democracy and dictatorship, no leader will see no democracy. as is the party -- also the party of -- [inaudible] the upper income, the upper social strata massively voted for pro, for the coalition and massively participates in politics today, and the politics of a coalition. and that is in the way the hypothesis i play with in the
original piece in 15, the achilles heel of argentine politics pick since 1930 the upward social status abandon democratic politics to play politics with the military. it's an ongoing argument that the most prominent of argentina have developed way back, when they don't like politics, democratic politics, startling politics with the military institution. at times the military institution as its political party, the result will be serious instability of democracy, , pretty much that hs argument that fits the argentine story very well. and that was in many ways another unresolved issue. the upper social strata, the business elite didn't participate in the democratic
parties as strongly and as convinced, with the conviction that group has today. and that's good news, that's good news for the institutional stability of the democratic system. another discussion in argentina about pro, and he wanted me to say a couple things about it. in certain or political groups in argentina, pro is considered the right of the conservative party. in some ways it is, in terms of representation of the upper social strata of the group. but in another sense, it's way removed from any form of conservatism. i think in many ways pro picks up two important trends in argentine history.
in recent argentine history. first, the coalition picks up concerns with constitutional democracy. -- [inaudible] who campaign reading the preamble of the constitution. and used to talk about things that sounded weird for argentines, like constitutional checks and balances, and separation of powers. and that was his campaign and made a difference, the grammar in argentina. pro and try to pick that up and takes up forward very strongly -- cambiemos pics that up. >> a series of the message for choosing a government, right next like the old argument, democracy is a mess of getting
to power, , democracy is also a method about exercising power once you are there. in the straight, the current condition in power six that up. democracy is a mechanism for electing a government and democracy has to change institutional mechanism by determining how power must be exercised. and again with separation of powers and checks and balances, with limited terms in office, et cetera, et cetera. united states also picks up on a previous important trend in argentine history, which is, from this is developmental. president in the late '50s and early '60s, there was a president had a project for argentina, energy, developing
energy resources, developing infrastructure, and signing center of road to the state in developing both important areas. energy autonomy and the infrastructure development in order to foster economic growth, rapid economic growth. the coalition picks up that as well. so it's constitutional democracy with a central role of the state in the economy. now, not as a producer but but propeller of economic growth via infrastructure and energy. all these trends i argue got consolidated in the recent election, as i said. both august and october arching into -- argentina has a weird election system, the real
midterm election took place in october. and that marks perhaps a definite transformation of argentine is political system, a cycle that would eventually be continued in 2019, the next election cycle. a couple of important things happened. first, now cambiemos will have a majority in the house, not innocent but will have a majority in the house after this next election. the coalition controls the majority of the provinces, and there are important changes in terms of the composition of the other parties outside of
cambiemos. a couple of things i do want to mention about the new political order in argentina. number one, the end of bipartisanship, a system that was bipartisan since the return of democracy in 1983. the radical party now has a third player in a coalition with one of them, but as the majority partner in the coalition at the same time, united states is a majority partner, not the radical party. this change in the party system in argentina makes it look as if a bit like there are two options. options. although the like chile is a coalition cambiemos contingent in the future. the alliance in the left and the
christian democrats, that later on change has -- that change slightly but i'd like to see the political system in argentina very similar, at a think it does look very similar, to the early transition years in the first president in argentina. the formula worked very well and provide stability and provided all the tools necessary for smooth transition as possible. in those years people tend to forget how unstable chile was in the early 90s and how uncertain that transition was right after pinochet. another option for argentina is an odor to keep in the
neighborhood is a coalition cambiemos doesn't continue in the future and the parties whose coalitions but, not last, and then if we have three party system, then would look like uruguay in which the center, the traditional by party system, liberal and conservative, and the liberal party change with the emergence of the left becoming liable electorally and having had now three consecutive presidents. and this is quite interesting because we know that winter is the change in political parties in a political party system, there's instability generally and there's oftentimes deep conflict. it's interesting because it happened without any conflict,
any sears conflict, without any stability. and it's been working quite well. well. that's a possibly for argentina as well, sort of going to chill a way with the contribution of the coalitions, without the continuation of the three party system. and several other but minor parties around these three big traditional and historical political forces. i predict the coalition will continue because both parties have incentives to maintain it. i think it's the most effective mechanism to govern, and what we call political things coalition presidentialism. presidential institution is an american invention but it is an american invention that relies on a two-party system. and for all experts, you know,
in political science, that's the way presidential institution works. it doesn't work well when you have a multiparty, party system. we have in latin america a discussion for the last 30 years at least on whether we should go for judgment even though we're multiparty systems in all the country of latin america. and moreover, not only we have multiparty system but those systems have become more and more fragmented to the transitions of the '80s. and so how do we govern a democracy with a presidential institution and with a fragmented party system? and recently new ideas have been developed and have worked quite well. what we call coalition of presidentialism. a president that creates a coalition with certain institutional tools providing
incentives to make the presidential system a little more parliamentarian, if you want. the front system is one of them at all latin american countries have a front system. what's going to happen in chile now is the two candidates that will go for the cycle route are going to start making their own coalition, and who ever gathers the most, the stronger support will be elected president. in a way that's, the french system incorporated the presidential institution, is a good idea. it makes the system more governable. i think that for those reasons the coalition will continue. think about peru, for example, by the way are chile itself or brazil. in peru, no president has had the parliamentary majority. and they managed to whether that
opposition quite well. you look at peru. peru has been stable, its economy has grown, gdp and efficient content and all that while in a divided government. all of that with straw and cities to create this parliamentary, this congressional coalitions to be able to govern. and no president, you go back to the post fujimori years, coalition of presidentialism may prove quite stable. and with good economic policy by the way. very effective economic policymaking. for those reasons, i think the argentina will continue with this new political system and the cycle, and less, unless
something happens, come somethg dramatic happens in the next few years i can't foresee him winning the election in 2019 most likely with macri go for second term. but also keep in mind, another interesting aspect of china and cambiemos is chile, to make an argument. pro has many presidential goals, not just macri. he's a young party, it's a party that has brought a renewal of political elite to argentina. something many countries in latin america are certain with, chile among them, right? after her second term, would be a second term. [inaudible] originally a candidate, also would've been a second term on the side on the left.
participation is very low in chile. there's quite a bit of fatigue with the political elite in chile itself. not with argentina is political elite because there's been an important renewal of the leaders, and that is to be owed to the emergence of pro and all this generation again people that have come to power and are ready to govern, and have been doing it. so that's also part of my source of my optimism. okay. to conclude i want to say something about what you are all expecting me to say. whenever you go to talk to argentina, it comes down to one thing and only one thing, and that's peronism. we used to say in grad school
that whatever you want to talk about argentina, if you're writing about the right in argentina or you're writing about the military in argentina or you're writing about the economic development argentina, you have to write about any of it. you just need to write about peronism because the independent variable, the over determinacy of argentina is that peronism explains everything. we don't want to come we don't like it, the culprit of everything, and i think quite a bit more agnostic about this characterization. now, i do think that the argentina democracy needs peronism to make a couple of decisions. and it wouldn't be the first time, let me tell you, because
there is in the construction of this there's a self filling prophecy that the, at one else has repeated, which is unwarranted. number one, it said peronism wins all elections. the hegemonic party. i've been in conference is almost fight with people who would say peronism is a hegemonic party. and, no, hegemonic party doesn't lose elections. hegemonic party wins all the elections. the pir in mexico is a demonic -- hegemonic. why? because of one all elections. that's the indicator of hegemonic party. peronism lost first election of george democracy in 1983. forget that. peronism lost an election right after that. he lost an election in the main
electoral district of the district that decides everything. it's one-third of the country, one-third of the voters and even the province of buenos aires. peronism lost in 1999. yet again, lost -- then you lost again in 2017. so because of that, the mess continues. peronism is the only one that can finish a presidential term. and it's not true either. when he came to office, when he came to office through congress by congressional crisis resolution, also had to leave office earlier, had to call for an early election because in the argentina those days he couldn't govern either. and he was sworn in to finish the previous president's term
but he had to call for elections and that's what happened. and by the way, the president or the competition between three candidates in that election 2003 is also in terms of, you know, what you say about argentine policy you might as well say about peronism. now, peronism, the party, the movement, the identity has to make a couple of decisions. number one, it has to tie with going to continue as hostage of cristina kirchner or will drop cristina kirchner along the way. because kirchner, which has been part of peronism has also been a peculiar political move within peronism as well. in a number of ways.
kirchner's came to office with the best economic decade in the last 100 years with the strongest prices and the super cycle and the at $600, et cetera, et cetera. and they use the windfall to develop a new political scheme that even went beyond the traditional way of doing politics. to foster fragmentation from additional political system, including fragmentation of peronism, and to pursue using the resources it planned to list structure that allow them to stay in office forever, if not forever, for a long time. the original design was four
years, next four years, christina, four years, four years christian again. trustee testing had to run for o consecutive terms but then they were toying with a definite reelection as well until the supreme court stopped that dream come the dream of perpetuation get something that are popular in latin america it is popular in libya right now, and something that what's going on in latin america in the days of the boom. the economic cycle has changed, however, and there are not enough resources now to finance political perpetuation. nothing like that is viable today. peronism has to decide whether once to continue again as a hostage of the kirchner's, or if they want to go back to particularly positive and
democratic moment in peronism, which was in the '80s when peronism was in opposition, our loyal opposition to those of the days in which the leader of peronism was governor, senator, at some point presidential candidate and he was a good partner with the president. and this is important, it's important because i do think that argentine society doesn't want anymore -- society doesn't want anymore -- [inaudible] doesn't want a president that gets into peoples living rooms every day. argentines want alternation in power. argentines want democracy with institutional quality.
and peronism has to make a decision if it wants to go back to not even the old populism of the past because it wants to go back to the old cristina kirchner type of leadership. it's future will be at stake, and it's going to make the democratic road perhaps a little rough. but if peronism goes back to that moment of democracy, that moment in which they used to say we have to drop the idea of the movement and we have to build a party, he used to say those words in the '80s, a normal political party, a party that wins elections and the party that loses elections, and a party that wins an election is lost, when seeking an election nothing happens. it's not the end of it it's the
beginning of a new future. he used to say if we're not able to do that, we will miss the boat. because that was in the '80s. democracy is here to stay. and the fact that we lost, he used to say in 1983, in the hands of the candidate that used to talk about talk, that that was his discourse, we need to realize that. ..
continue to have a future, it will continue to have an identity. in the run-up to the previous time before the election of 2015, i wrote a column saying the fear of tyranny, and my parents friends. [inaudible] how dare you say something like that are what are you thinking. well, i said we'll see. i do think, if it goes back to democracy it has a future. if it doesn't, if there's checks and balances and democracy and not through the method of getting votes but exercising power, then my optimism about argentina will become even stronger. much much stronger. thank you very much.
okay. precisely. no questions? perhaps you remember years ago, maybe five, ten years ago, a decision was made to try to balance a trade deficit which was getting out of control, and get back in a position where the currency wouldn't be affected or possibly demolished by a, and they decided that regarding china whatever was imported would have to balance with these exports. i don't know how those concepts went, but it appeared to be pretty strong for a time.
>> the balance of payments, a decision regarding imports and exports, the total value of it needed to be even. , the distribution of imports and exports so the trade imbalance, is it changed? >> trade is open. one aspect of this is that argentina, with the exception. [inaudible] , as had a deficit for a long time. it has resulted. [inaudible]
that has happened with the whole president. that was sporadic. right now i haven't seen the numbers but i think there's a trade deficit. again with the economy more open. there is more access to financing compared to the last years under the second default , particularly after the second default. how to figure out that equation is one of the big challenges of the government because there is limited time when the deficit is growing. that's why he was here couple weeks ago in new york.
there's been investment, largely financial instruments. after this new political phase where argentina is open for business for more long-term investment. that's a big challenge. >> ahead. >> two questions. are they just trying to create a party for own, where one person creates a party based upon their ideology and two, just this week involving chile and argentina people are going
out and taking over their land, and this new political ordinance are they going to be defeated or protected with this ongoing problem that will be solved. >> first, i don't think it has to be expelled. there's a reality here. this is not the first attempt of creating identity. there were many that disappeared the moment he left power. the money wanted to come back in an election he had only 5% and now this.
it was quite something. so, i think politics is renewal. they just lost an election the other day. is not the first time they lose an election. that's democracy. that's what politics is about. you win today, you lose tomorrow. rightly so. they need to do some soul-searching and very harsh authoritarianism.
they've continued that way, it's going to continue climbing. interesting, there was an interview with the president of the senate whose roots are conservatis conservative. he said it belongs to all of us now. there's been a long history and there's something about social justice and social equality that is adherent to our way of understanding society and understanding politics that goes beyond. it belongs to all of us. then there was the discussion of whether they're right or
and he disappeardisappear ed. it was constructed at the government kidnapping him. to say that it doesn't exist, they are to disappear. i said the government disappeared and created conflict. he didn't know how to cross the river and he drowned them. it was used and manipulated for political purposes.
we live in a time in the world and the time of tribalism and this is minor in argentina compared to catalonia or many other parts of europe. it has to do with this nationalism as a response, as part of the anti- liberal response to politics in many parts of the room. it's very shortsighted. how small would you desegregate a nation?
what do we do with multiculturalism in catalonia or a very sizable population that immigrated from other parts of spain, a very large community and then if they lose catalonian, what will they do. for every tribe there is a stat state, there is no work, right. having said this, i don't think the conflict was in any way making these decisions
about investing in argentina are not, making them wait for the october election. if we consolidate in the government or give a victory. [inaudible] she had one that she would be talking about returning. it's a blessing in disguise. they can go through renewal. going back in time is very unforgiving. >> thank you for your very clear presentation.
i wondered if you could comment on the strengths of the judicial system. how strong and independent is it today and what is happening with the investigation? >> to tell you the truth, the case is in the papers, it has been determined, it has been. [inaudible] the investigation is going to be reopened. it has been reopened. we will wait and see. i don't know the specifics, if it's too late, there are new suspects, people were close who have not been charged and it appears they have been charged now or they will be
charged. it is the most serious crime in the democracy since 1983, most definitely. >> you also said something else. >> the judiciary, i was there for a seminar to weeks ago and the judiciary has done a commendable task and job in argentina over the past ten years. it's interesting because now they are charging people, one every day for corruption and then in a conference, in a seminar when they charge the
former vice president and the rest of the former vice president, they said it was fast now and slow in the past but i don't think that's fair because the current vice president was charged, is the case move fast enough? i don't think it's fair to expect anybody to commit suicide in the sense that why would the judges be in charge of moving it faster than they could, let's put it that way. all things considered, they have remained independent. the supreme court has ruled in a number of very important cases protecting the institution and constitutional
democracy. that would have led to her reelection, most likely and the supreme court stopped right there. that was in 2012. she had just been reelected with 52 or 53% of the goal. if it goes faster goes slow, it's a matter of opinion. now we know there's another important aspect, corruption is being punished.
he's in jail now and had been stripped of his parliamentary immunity because is a member of congress. it's quite unprecedented. it has been independent of the government in several instances. >> thank you. i have two interrelated questions. the first one is, you talked about having at least two viable presidential candidates and i'm wondering if you can define, or if you can see the
future in between the three of them or the two of them. what are you beginning to see? the second question is the relationship, a good example was prior to winning the election in 2015, he was the one who revealed it with everything around him and i'm wondering, how do you see him as integrating. for example, right now they just passed the labor reform and also the fiscal provinces. i'm wondering if you can talk about that relationship. >> all i was trying to say is that i can't imagine if the
next two years are relatively smooth, i can't imagine the candidate for 2019 would not be him himself. i was just saying that they bring a renewal of the political elite in which many people are viable. nobody knows if any of them would want to be canada in 2015 or anything of that sort. a different issue would be the radical party is right now in the process of discussion with what would be the shape of the coalition in the next two years after this election?
with the new congress as of december 10. it's a legitimate concern. what is the role, what do they have to do? and what if, as you say the party once a candidate. like the christian democrats in chile, there were christian democrats but then it was clear, if you want to keep the coalition, the next one would be. [inaudible] so, that may happen. it may happen now or it may happen in the future. parties have to have candidates otherwise it disappear and we don't know who they are anymore. the other thing, it's a very heterogeneous thing.
isn'there isn't much of a cohesive center of gravity. by the way, even with the minority congress, with an opposition senate, most of them who control the senate and the government had a very good relationship with them, all of them. it was a different story in the house, but in the senate they did. the issue is that the senators are more pragmatic, here unfortunately every two years everybody comes up for election in the house and its
dysfunctional but they have six years, and the same in argentina. four years for members of congress in six years for senators. the other thing is that there is a little bit of an anecdote. after being president he wanted to attract him to puritanism and it didn't work. in order to make your point, the good news is that is not anti- pyramid. it's the newest because whether you like it or not it will be 25 or 30% of the electorate for the perceivable future which is not enough.
then you need to put together a different kind of coalition. i'll see anybody else. they decided to break way back. he was a labor leader who broke up years ago and said they don't represent me anymore. they don't represent what we want. he was elected to the house. he just died a few months ago while being a congressman.
i don't see that as a serious problem. >> thank you. thank you for your presentation. could you tell me more about the socio- economic background, how many people of the nonvoters, their education and background and distribution and policy and immigration. is there something you can add. >> not much. it was partly a legacy of years.
what's original, what immigration. [inaudible] >> it's not significant. i know it's not as significant as other countries. i don't know if that answers your question. >> trump has a different policy than obama on cuba. any difference with argentina. >> i know about the change of policy with cuba, but. [inaudible] any favoritism or favor
against the trump. >> no, i don't think there will be any decision against trump, even if everybody is very aware of the fact that trumps protectionism will hurt eventually argentina's exports like everybody else. i'm very concerned about that. there has been an issue with biodiesel. argentina exports biodiesel to the u.s. and now has fallen under a new protection measures and argentina has complained about that. actually, vice president pants was in argentina and they made a complaint in when a series
that equal rules and reciprocity that we need to continue exporting. >> oil distribution, was it 1% or something. >> argentina has 30% population in poverty. i do know. that is a term of the normal political debate. [inaudible] i don't know. >> okay. we have come to the end of our event. we thank you for giving us a taste of the vast knowledge on
latin american politics. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> this morning the interim head for the consumer protection bureau was at work. president trumps pick was white house budget director mick mulvaney. this picture was tweeted but there are actually two interim directors at the cfpb today. also acting director leander english appointed by the previous director after he resigned friday. he issued a memo this morning to employees saying please disregard any instructions you receive from us english.
in her presumed capacity as acting director. leander english is suing president trump for appointing his own acting director. she petitioned the district court in washington d.c. saying his appointment violates the dodd frank act. live this morning on c-span, we will be taking you live to oklahoma senator james langford remarks releasing the third volume of his annual report on federal waste. we will be talking about efforts to curb waste and abuse in federal programs. the first report was identified with a $100 billion of wasteful federal spending and about 800 billion in negative impact because of regulation on the economy. the second report listed $247 billion in wasteful spending and regulations, and this year's report will identify new examples of waste along with possible solutions. live on capitol hill.
about waste and fraud and abuse in government spending. also, over on c-span later this afternoon, we will have a discussion about private sector development in afghanistan that's hosted by the center for strategic and international studies live at 1:00 p.m. eastern. congress is returning from the thanksgiving recess today and tomorrow, a busy month ahead. current government funding runs out next friday. the senate comes in here on c-span2 at 4:00 p.m. eastern and the house comes in tomorrow. on wednesday, the house is considering a resolution requiring anti- harassment and discrimination training for all house members and staff. the senate today is working on judicial nominations late in the afternoon and the rest of the week focusing on tax reform. the senate budget committee is expected to meet early this week to combine the senate finance committee tax reform bill and the senate energy provision for oil drilling in the arctic national wildlife refuge. again, just waiting for this to begin with oklahoma senator langford talking about federal fumbles and waste in government spending.