tv Politics and Public Policy Today CSPAN November 15, 2016 12:00am-3:01am EST
at the end of the day, you look at the numbers, in terms of what katie talks about, whether it is state legislatures, house representative, senate. the party has been very successful since that time. we continue to grow as a party up the ballot and coast to coast. i think the growth and opportunity report or years ago laid out where the party should go. it was followed, and we have grown. it was exceeded in the previous bolster my previous cycles were. polls from where previous cycles were. i think you're going to see that in the company restoration. they're getting quite a bit of credit for mr. trump's success. does not have experience
in government, and he is now taking over as the white house chief of staff. what skills do you think are transferable? see of him heading the rnc transferred over to the white house? have you see this equal partnership between the chief of staff and mr. ban and find out -- mr. bannon playing out? >> we had a most 7000 people who were part of this effort to take mr. trump's message and work on behalf of the entire ticket throughout the country. i think they did a phenomenal job rights previous laid out a vision, -- phenomenal job. riebus laid out a vision, worked with parties, but he is a consensus builder, and one who takes a vision and gets it done. if you think about what the team that was sortout
of taking his position and what he wanted, now he is going to take those qualities and transform to administration and work on behalf of the president elect to take his vision and if amended and get it done very i think he has a track record of use the sameill qualities to move mr. trump's agenda forward. he views his role as a lot of the day-to-day making things move. focus more theto messaging any big picture stuff. over the last three months, it has been a fan does a phenomenal partnership. that is part of the model they worked on. it worked well the last three months, so let's continue this forward to make sure we can do it on behalf of the entire government and implement this agenda. thank you very much. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]
coming up in the morning on c-span2, we joined the architect of the u.s. capitol at a press briefing, following the completion of the capitol dome restoration project. after that, securities and exchange commission chair who announced she is stepping down, talks about oversight of the sec before a committee. also at c-span2. on today's washington journal, we talked about president-elect on trump and the legislative agenda for the 118th congress -- 115th congress. host: two longtime observers of congress to talk about what the new congress faces from now until the end of the year and what the incoming administration of donald trump. francine kiefer with the christian science monitor. niels lesniewski is a senior staff writer for "roll call."
thank you for joining us. let me bounce a headline off of you. the republicans will use the lame-duck session to set the stage for donald trump. how much truth is in that narrative? guest: we are not sure how republicans will use the lame-duck session. the main job 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, and the republican leadership wants to get the budget done now so that they can have the new president start with a clean slate. it is not clear which side will win out on this. my guess is the leaders will win out and do what they can to move the ball along, and as speaker ryan says hit the road running next year. guest: a lot of that may be what the president-elect decides to
say. if he were to let it be known to the more conservative members of the house and his supporters, people who have endorsed him that he wants and is on board with speaker ryan and senate majority leader mitch mcconnell in a longer-term agreement on appropriations so we do not have to deal with that as soon as he takes office, people will probably go along with it. what is 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 was certainly in house republican leadership for a fair amount of time, so he may be the one who is not necessarily calling the shots but has
significant influence in how this process gets done. that is the question. whether the president-elect and vice president-elect are going to insert themselves into this process in terms of how they want to see this done. terms of how they want to see this done. host: we saw donald trump last week making the visit to congress. did we learn anything as far as what mr. trump is interested in? guest: he gave a list of three priorities leaving mitch mcconnell's office at the capital. he said he was interested in health care, immigration, and what he calls big league jobs. he left vague what he meant on any of those three. there is some more detail in the 60 minutes interview that aired sunday evening, but there are
still a lot of holes to be filled in and details to be written. jobs couldbig league include any number of things. it could include tax reform because republicans leave that tax reform will stimulate the economy. it could be infrastructure, which would be a big jobs greater in terms of capital spending and bridges and highways. or it could be rolled back of regulations that republicans think are repressive and keep the economy from growing. it is probably all those things because last night on 60 minutes president-elect trump talked about tax reform specifically. house majority leader mccarthy yesterday talked about infrastructure. i think that could enclose all three of those things. for: (202) 748-8000
democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8002 for independents. if you want to ask our guests about the agenda for congress this year. we will take your calls in just a moment. infrastructure, a lot of people can agree on this subject, but the number one thing is the cost. guest: 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 of that much. even half that much is a big price tag. one idea is to involve the private sector so it does not become what is expensive for the federal government. you have democrats and omming onto this idea is generally because the country needs is so bad dly. -- badly.
guest: once you have that price tag, the question is how do you pay for it? if everyone agrees they need half $1 billion, to use roughly the trunk figure four infrastructure projects, there are those who say it should be paid for by increasing the gas tax. there is then no interest in that among republicans. proposals forr people who want to put more tolls they want to construct using that source of revenue. then there is the question of whether or not you can repatriate foreign earnings, whether you can use proceeds from dollars that have been kept offshore that might be part of a tax reform plan. you could use some of that to pay for infrastructure. there are a lot of payment
options out there, but they all involve the tax code. no one has come up with a way of rebuilding highways and bridges and tunnels without going through the tax code. we will take some calls from our viewers. florida, republican line. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. obviously, this year we saw very radical ideas from the left and the right. what is the move for donald trump, politically speaking, to bring the country together? we know mike pence will lead the legislative aspect. what does donald trump do to bring the country together? god bless. host: maybe you want to put your thoughts on the legislative aspect. i suspect there will be inviting on both sides. -- infighting on both sides.
guest: 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 seat on the supreme court. 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 has been vacant since scalia died. that is probably not going to be an area for broad bipartisanship. if you have this one partisan i don't that will immediately be on the agenda, maybe you need to figure out something with respect to infrastructure or some other sort of job creation measure or something that has
been sitting out there. if they don't get, in the lame-duck session, this bipartisan package of legislation that is a big investment in public health research, if that does not get done this year, maybe you pick that up in january and february to foster some goodwill. guest: i was speaking with senator susan collins of maine last week. she is one of the few remaining moderate republicans in the senate. she said quite explicitly that she helped the first move -- hoped the first move would be on infrastructure. s'judgment oniel bringing some piece of legislation back, if they bring back senator mcconnell preference, then they could bring back mental health where there
host: ray, you are next. caller: good morning, c-span. i watched the think tanks for the republican party six or seven years ago. he made a statement that they would obstruct everything president obama tried to pass and then come 2016, they would blame everything on the president. it really worked. the american electorate was so ill-informed and uneducated that they would believe anything. i want to take my hat off to him. it worked. guest: i think what we are going to face this time is an issue of high expectations for this presidency. trumpestion is can mr. build his wall? a realdeal with
replacement of obamacare? theraised the -- way presidency is won, you get votes by making big promises. mr. trump is getting votes by his big, bold promises. even with a united government under one-party control, it is not so easy to get some of those big promises done. guest: 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 the democratic-controlled house and a democratic caucus in the senate that have, for a brief period of time, 60 votes, super majority needed to overcome a filibuster threat. republicansly 52
likely in the senate in the next session. frankly, if the caller was from the louisiana, there is an outside possibility there are only 51 because there is still a runoff to be had in louisiana the democrats are suddenly interested in. either way, it is such a narrow margin, that people like senator collins of maine and other moderate, more moderate republican members and moderate democrats will all have to be on board in order to get much done, particularly on obamacare, because it is an easier lift to just flat out, largely got the theent program -- gut current program, but that does not seem to be what mr. trump is talking about. that may be procedurally more complicated than to roll back what happened in 2009 and 2010.
host: is that because of what he said keeping -- about keeping children's on until they are 26 and the pre-existing conditions clause? , the: the more you keep more difficult it becomes to draft a reconciliation bill. that is a budget procedure to pass with a simple majority vote through the senate. more complicated the legislation is, the more complicated it will be to get the parliamentarians to buy in to that it fits into the arcane budget rules. host: we saw republicans releasing policy papers to move forward. does health care fall under that plan? guest: speak a ryan is very proud that he has been busy behind the scenes getting chamberan by an on his
-- in his chamber on his program called "a better way." that includes things like tax reform, it also includes health care reform. actually, he and mr. trump do have some commonalities. they both say that insurance companies ought to be a will to work across state lines, so that people can have, so that there would be a larger insurance exchange to buy from. they both want to kick the medicare part of obamacare back to the states and have them manage that. here is the thing. even though speaker ryan is very abouted with this buy in his broad principles, none of that is in legislation. it is not a legislative language and that is when the trouble begins, when you start hammering out the details. host: i suppose that is one mike pence is going to be very valuable. guest: i think that's quite right. for viewers, when speaker ryan
was on one of the sunday morning programs yesterday, he got into a rather testy exchange on cnn with jake tapper about whether or not -- you don't really want me to ask you -- answer how we are going to pay for that to read were questions he was being ofed about the particulars how provisions of his health care overhaul would be paid for. ryan was insisting that they were in the plan, but he was basically saying, do you really want to waste the audience's time with the details and the interview moved on. host: let's go to houston, texas, the independent line. reginald. caller: good morning. good morning. host: you are on. caller: i think you should talk about repentance, about crimes against humanity that america on extorted around the world
wars that have not -- have been undertaken that should not have been. if we took all of that pentagon budget, he would signed enough -- find the money for social create a new deal like the roosevelt plan. that could help with some reparations of something that could go to blacks for all the crimes against, they have been exposed to so many against the holocaust of slavery and things that are going on. now that we have maybe this new mold, maybe he can shine some light on america, so that we can be a better nation by taking care of the last, least, and lost. reginald, thank you. i will take an element of what he brought up.
even in this conference, they had to do with the national defense authorization act and there is a story today that talks about defense spending in the future, increases anticipated. talk on those fronts. guest: sure. the trump campaign and the president-elect himself and who work for him and have been associated with them talked about increasing the size and scope of military. manpower, ships, there has been a lot of talk about increasing the size of the naval force under president trump, and that is all going to be costly and will create a situation where it is going to be less likely -- we have recently talked about equal cost increase between
discretionary spending and defense spending -- it does not look like that is the way we're going to be going. it looks like we will be spending more on defense and wondering how we are going to pay for it. guest: i would like to the caller said about reparations, slavery, issues that african america has with this presidency . int has been raised so much this campaign and over the weekend, we saw demonstrations, and people all over facebook and social media have been talking about heightened crimes and andests against minorities the way minorities are treated. i thought it was interesting that that was brought up in the "60 minutes" interview with mr. trump, asking about the harassing of minorities that has been reported in the last week or so since the election announcement. he looked straight into the camera and said, "stop it."
i saw a facebook post from one of my friends who said, problem solved. it is not that easy. i think people welcome that mr. trump has made a direct statement about this now, that this is not acceptable behavior, but the problem is not so easily solved. from "thecine kiefer christian science monitor" joining us. niels lesniewski from "roll call" joining us. what will it like to be a democrat come january? guest: democrats are going to look at this like a two-pronged opportunity. they see themselves as a last .astion against trump-ism on areas of common ground, they are ready to go forward. they also have a special challenge, they have so many members of their own caucus up for reelection in the senate in 2018 that those senators will
have specific and unique leverage on what actually gets done. it is not just that there is a lot of democrats up in 2018, it is that many of them are from states that president-elect trump carried and some states that he carried fairly handily. upre are democratic senators in places like indiana, north dakota, west virginia. and they are going to have to run on their own records, on one hand, someone like joe manchin, someone who used to be the governor of west virginia, who has a significant stake in his own state, everybody knows him, but there are going to be some on theting movements part of some of those senators in terms of where they find commonality with the trump agenda. on the other hand, the democrats
aow that they may have to be bulwark because some of the things that have said by mr. ,rump and by his supporters certainly by 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. so, if they are taken literally or if 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. host: from mike in kentucky, republican line. caller: good morning. thes calling regarding taxes that this gentleman from "roll call" was talking about earlier. the tax structure trump is talking about in regards to 10%
for the working man and 15% for corporations, that alone is going to give a definite refund and then we've got the united nations that we give a billion dollars to for year for no reason. i'm signing the checks. is going to be sent 90 day notice to requalify on social security, whatever you ,re in, if i'm signing a check you are getting it pink slip, you get 90 days to respond. after that, you don't get the check. i will start to put that money back into this lame-duck whatever that thing is called. mike, thanks. guest: well, this raises the
whole budget deficit question and what we spend our money on. that gets paul ryan, the house speaker, all excited because he wants to be able to reform medicare and social security, our main entitlement programs. that puts him in direct conflict with what president-elect trump said on the campaign trail, which is we've got to preserve social security and i won't be touching medicare. i had an interesting discussion last week with one of speaker , thes close allies congressman from oklahoma, who intimated to me that he thought the president would soon realize that everything does not add up and that these reforms are going to have to take place. my thought, although i did not voice it to him, was, i wonder if congress is going to have to change its view because
americans don't want to see social security changed and they don't want to see medicare changed and the president is with popular opinion on this one. 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 not things that can be done by one person. you can't actually just send a pink slip out to everyone and say, in 90 days, you don't get more money. these are all things that require negotiation with congress. it is outside of the realm of the pen and phone aspects of the presidency. long gone probably far too since we have been able to have , but wouldsation really need to happen for it to
happen and not to be too pollyanna-ish about it, but the old stories about president reagan and speaker tip o'neill getting together and talking these things out. what is going to be fascinating is a more general question. who exactly is going to be trump's democratic dance partner? i don't know what one yet, but that may be a fascinating thing to know. guest: don't you think the natural person for that would be chuck schumer? he would be the minority leader in the senate and they are both new yorkers. they have that new york thing going for them. he seems to be the natural partner. guest: he sure does. do they just start meeting? i don't know. i wouldn't rule out the conversation -- possibility that they start having conversations at trump tower. i'm not sure speaker ryan or senator mcconnell would much like that, but chuck schumer seems like the logical fit. you mentioned the
antiestablishment republican caucus. what is the future, especially with the infighting? guest: this is such an interesting possibility /opportunity. the hard-line republicans in the house have been a thorn in the side of the speaker, whether it was speaker boehner or speaker ryan. speaker ryan has gone to a great deal of effort to include them, especially since he became them speaker, make them part of the conversation, change some of the house rules, so that it is fairer and this group of republicans feels they are part of the game and in the game. as i mentioned earlier, spending is often what the fights this group -- divides this group. cole felt the presidency could
unite everyone on the hill. republicans now have a chief standardbearer, it is the president. they have this opportunity to get some of their chief agenda items done and that ought to be opinion the unifying factor. there is candy being dangled in front of all of them. they can make progress on taxes come on border security, and that this leadership from the white house ought to be everyone in line. there is also the point that trump's anti-establishment, just like the tea party folks are now, who now call themselves the house freedom caucus. the problem is that ideologically they are not all on board. there is still tension involved if progress on republican goals can be made. especially on spending goals. guest: that's right. the other question on the other
whether the divisions in the republican party or the divisions in the democratic party and capitol hill are going to be more pronounced? if the democrats in the senate, but also in the house, our theding united against trump/ryan/mcconnell agenda or whatever it turns out to be, then the people in the freedom caucus groups need to be on board because the numbers are such, they are necessary. you are doing infrastructure packages and whatnot, on the other hand, things like congressman cole would be favorable to come you don't necessarily need the freedom caucus types to get something like that done because you probably will be drafted in such
a way to pick up democratic votes. host: zach is up next from vermont. democrats line. caller: hi. hello? host: you are on. caller: good morning, c-span. i would like to make a quick comment and a statement. i predicted trump was going to win because i knew the country is divided. the united states is still thatering from slavery they have done to african-americans and i knew that trump was taking advantage that a lot ofknew african-americans like myself did not go out and vote and that is why he is president. so, the democrats are going to have to do some rethinking. 2020, heant to win in is going to do a lot of damage when he is in office.
another caller said something about reparations. that is impossible. he would never give african-americans reparations. guest: can i ask the caller why you did not go out and vote? host: he is gone, sorry. guest: that would have been an interesting discussion. has call reminds me of a discussion i had with a voter in pennsylvania north of philadelphia. i was in one of the swing suburbs. this gentleman said to me, and african-american, he felt that trump had opened a pandora's box of race issues. his preference was that that lid kept closed. so that america could kind of proceed on some of these bigger issues. we will see whether he is right about that pandora's box being opened even more largely than it has been in the wake of ferguson and things like that. host: he mentioned 2020, but isn't the emphasis 2018 and the midterms? guest: i was reading something the other day that suggested
that not only the midterms, but the democrats are really so far potentially, potentially they are so far in the wilderness that the real focus should be on ' races and statehouses because redistricting comes up after 2020 and the way that house districts are drawn, they basically need to be playing a really long game, not to borrow the name of mitch mcconnell's memoirs. they need to be playing a really long game, but which is really hard to believe that we will have gone from a democratic presidency and the democrats controlling the senate not that long ago to their needing to be a conversation about whether
democratic resources should really even be put into 2018. host: margaret from oklahoma on the independent line. caller: hello. we have first got to do something about our military. i was talking to somebody working in the military thing the other day. we have a lot of homeless and a lot of people who need help and we need other people who are well able to get out and work. the thing i'm really speaking of his there was a documentary on the news a few weeks back and it showed our military. they went into the hangar and the commander looked stressed beyond belief. he had to go to a museum to get parts for our plans for our guys to fly. or 20 years old, the planes are 30 years old. in other words, it is ridiculous that he has to go to the plane
junkyards and museums to get parts for our plans when 200 abrams tanks and fighter jets are given to egypt a year or two ago. then, he said, this is not even my job, my job is to teach them to fly. he said, they are supposed to be getting 18 hours. he said, they are getting four hours. i don't know about anybody listening, but i would not want to get on a plane with somebody with four hours flying time. this goes to the recurring question of military readinessnd military and have sometimes, as a result of the sequester, these mandatory across-the-board spending cuts that have been in effect for the last couple of years, how you can allocate
money within that what needs to be spent. there are some parts of the military budget that are pretty fixed, so you can't necessarily upgrade everything as you would need to. frankly, there have been some terrible failures in terms of developing new equipment. there are airplanes, there are helicopters that don't fly. some of the reasons we are using older military technology is because the replacements never really came online like they were supposed to. host: to both of you, there is a they that stemmed out past election, the future of the transpacific partnership and not much of a future if you read some stories. guest: i don't think there is a future for the tpp. i think it is dead. i know think will trump -- i don't think trouble try to push it or revive it. i think it is kind of a closed case. wouldn't you agree? guest: i would think so.
one thing on which the president-elect has been fairly consistent on and he has not been consistent on everything, but trade has not been an issue of differing statements from president-elect trump. he has been very consistent. the only way i think something like the transpacific partnership comes back even is something that restarts negotiations altogether. there is no way that the deal, ands, that i can see granted i've been wrong in predictions on this program before in the not too recent past, but as far as i can tell, there is no way the deal, as agreed to by the obama administration, ever comes back. host: that was already an issue among democrats and republicans both among the house and the senate. the election gives them cover to let this one go.
guest: the thing that is so interesting is the democrats that supported this on the hill, like senator ron wyden, argued for super asleep that they had gotten -- argued that they have gotten the best deal they had ever gone before, that they had taken into account complaints, that this was going to be the perfect deal. obviously, their arguments were not very convincing. host: darlene is in loma linda, california. darlene? caller: i'm right here. hello. host: go ahead. caller: i wanted to make a comment about obama care. host: you are on, go ahead. caller: ok. have said that obamacare created thousands of jobs. i had to go to three days of training and then be tested to pass to be a health care agent. the doctors got paid, people got taken care of, the hospitals got
paid. i think that needs to be pointed out. thet: well, that gets to point that they would like to try to save some parts of obamacare. the questions are, which parts are they going to save. what has been mentioned here already is the keeping people on their parents insurance policy until 26. and not having people with pre-existing conditions to be denied coverage. but those are two things and how much of it they are going to be keeping is not clear. and what is going to happen is not clear until the jobs situation is also not clear. would point out something interesting to me. i went on a trip to arizona where obamacare was ground zero, as part of the campaign raised between senator john mccain, the
incumbent, and ann kirkpatrick, his challenger. saw the biggest collapse of the obamacare exchange system in the country. for a while, it had one company -- county with no insurance companies on the exchange. medicaid expansion has worked very well to cover people in rural areas. to republicans and the republican head of a crisis and hel in a tiny town was arguing to keep medicaid expansion because that was helping him reduce the number of charity cases they were having to pay for. in washington, medicaid
expansion is not something they want to do and many republican states have decided not to try medicaid expansion, but it was interesting to go to a republican state and have republicans in health care tell me that medicaid expansion is one part of the law that is working. host: let's go to beachwood, ohio. david, good morning. caller: good morning. thanks for the topic and the knowledgeable speakers. for either or both of them, a question about what glimpses, what episodes of emergent cooperation among the different partisans and segments of the parties are they seeing in either the house or senate? a name withoute causing trouble for the individual. that onere, i think area, if i can pivot the
to something that is going to be interesting to watch next year. one is how the civil liberties coalition adapts to the presidency of donald trump. this is an informal contract -- cadre. often, we said it would be ron wyden, the democrat from oregon. rand paul, the republican just reelected to the senate in kentucky. people who have more libertarian or personal privacy leanings on issues like government incursionse and on into what your private life is your private life. i have a feeling that that group is going to be very active in the next coming months, as the
trumpt ministration -- administration starts to get underway. you are hearing people talk about whether president trump will bring back the task -- tactic of waterboarding government detainees him of how much surveillance there might be , of restriction for journalists that are concerned about potential restrictions of first amendment and libel laws. i think that that group is going to have its work cut out for it in the coming months. guest: holding the line on those things. host: you two don't know it yet, but we have a camera located at the capital hilton here are new members are checking in. could you tell us a little bit about these new members and their inclusion in the house and senate and the challenges they will face? will start by saying that it is a very unusual thing
for people who are not here on capitol hill. basically, we are having freshman orientation this week. this is like if you were going away to college and when you show up on your college campus for the first time and you've got your suitcase and they are coming to show you around and show you how everything works, everything from health insurance to the way your life is going to be for the next two years, that is a lot of nuts and bolts. what happens this week if you are in the capital building, as we will be, is there is a lot of people who are wandering around, some of whom will literally be stopped by police officers because they are unfamiliar people walking out potentially without carrying the id that we always carry around.
so, it is a a lot of logistics. it is an overwhelming experience. host: dave is in northport, new york, democrats line. caller: good morning, guys. the agenda for the republican , the marketplace is interesting to look at, the financials. they have jumped last week because we will see a lot of deregulation. he is thish trump, businessman, he likes to load up companies with the debt and eventually goes bankrupt. , interest rates have also jumped in anticipation of a lot of debt, the government issuing a lot of debt, what do you think is going to happen
with the debt ceiling coming up and how is that going to go? thet: that is million-dollar question, the trillion dollar question. hard-line republicans are going to be using that for leverage to rein in government spending and to ratchet back the debt and make real progress on that issue. it remains to be seen how mr. trump will deal with that or how the republican leadership will deal with that. i have no idea how that is going to go down. it is potential for a huge fight. guest: i would say that the gentleman from long island has the million-dollar question this morning. and this is not a guess about how it will play out
, it is more a guess about how it will play out and how it will end, is it time the democrats, given all the trouble that the republicans created really by votes there be democratic when the democrats were in charge to me -- raise the debt ceilings and all the democratic votes they needed to raise the debt ceiling even when there was some republican control, the thing to watch for me is whether nancy pelosi, the democratic leader in the house, chuck schumer will be saying, we learned our lesson, we are never going to play games with the debt limit again. remember, they all said that it -- said that on the democratic side. democrats go back to playing games on their side because can speak ryan get 218 republican votes to raise the debt limit would be a good
political issue for the democrats? even though it is really playing with fire, in terms of a policy question. this is lisa from shreveport, louisiana. republican line. caller: hi pedro. anyway, i wanted to say this, please give me a chance. first off, i think you need to fix the health care system. my son is a diabetic and he needs health care. also, i would bring back tom coburn, put him in the cabinet. on the supreme court i would put someone like franklin graham. as far as the anarchists go, you put them on a helicopter and send them to syria. as far as that, i think everybody should boycott cnn. host: let me throw a tweet at you.
flint michigan is going to be an issue of the lame-duck congress. guest: it remains to be seen if movement on that in the lame-duck congress. there was supposed to be support fixing the water system and it is not clear if that should survive. guest: really good questions as that agreementot they are working on, on the flint situation and water infrastructure more generally, whether that will come through this year. actually, the water , if they willes
get put in the package in the early part of the trumpet ministration. would be a thing you could take credit for without having much work on it if it has not gone through yet. host: kathleen is joining us on the independent line from los angeles. caller: good morning. thank you, pablo. i want to say something it will take a little long. people, my people, black get the we do not issues. the issues are economic. already, president-elect trump is addressing issues that impact black america. ,mmigration, legal or not illegal or legal immigration black america loses 0.3% of
their income. there has been a 700% increase in immigration since the 1970's. we have gone from $.67 against the white dollar to $.54 against the white dollar. tpp is another issue that impacts black america. president-elect trump opposes it. it is dead in the water. the united auto workers is on nafta.ing race, whichsing on is what the democrats want us to focus on. guest: that is a very astute comment. race is exactly this question. do you have a minority driven agenda or are you trying to lift all boats and just see it as an economic problem.
absolutely, the argument can be made that illegal immigration has hurt working blacks. the argument can also be made that trade has hurt manufacturing industries where working blacks were employed. so, efforts to address these one could argue would naturally help black america. host: rod from toms river, new jersey. caller: good morning to your guests. to definition of insanity is impeach something that does not work and repeat it and expect different results. ronald reagan, trickle-down economics. george bush senior called them voodoo economics and he called did it.ame thing and he what is donald trump going to do? trickle-down economics on steroids!
wake up, america. he is going to destroy the country. there is no question in my mind. i'm not a genius, but i know what i'm talking about. they took over the country, they can't people. you have 40 governors out of the 50 states. you have the house of representatives, you've got the president. now they will put the supreme court. it is over. the republican party is going to run the country and they are going to destroy it. why are they going to destroy it? i have no idea. host: are republicans a rubberstamp for donald trump? question thathe is really going to be the question is whether or not, is whether that is the question or whether the inverse question is the question, whether trump turns out to be a rubberstamp for the ryan/mcconnell agenda
that is already largely being drafted, though not in legislative language? the principles outlined by speaker ryan and the house republicans over the last several years and whether the kevinform proposal that brady, the chairman of the ways and means committee were already working on, whether those proposals become essentially the trump agenda. one thing we know about the president-elect is that the president-elect is a high value on winning. you hear him talk about america needs to win again. one way to get a victory, if you are the president-elect and to is to do things that already have support on capitol hill or that will have support on capitol hill, so that you can hold a rose garden signing ceremony and claim victory. some of this becomes, i'm not
entirely sure that we know yet who is going to be driving the agenda, if it is going to be -- but i think that winning is probably going to take precedence over a lot of other things. guest: that is a great question about who is going to be driving the agenda. trump has proved himself to have his eye on the ball of the big issues, but we know he is not a developed a guy who does not care about the details -- he is not a policy guy who cares about the details. that gives bigger right and a chance to move on the details, that he celebrates about. it will be interesting to see if ryan has quite a bit of latitude. host: do you think a lot of that legislative activity happens in the first two years? guest: i think you have to take ryan at his word, they will go big, they will go bald, they will try to get as much done in these first two years as possible.
is everything going to be through and through in the entire country? the senate is still a sausage making body where it takes 60 votes to get most major legislation done. that requires democratic participation. you have divisions within the republican party, as well. we can't expect smooth sailing, everything is going to be everything that trump want in the next two years no problem. guest: well, but i would add to that that if the goal, if my theory about the president-elect about winning turns out to be correct, that also means that there will come times where he may end up be pushing ryan to , so theneed to win here house needs to take this deal
that mitch mcconnell and chuck schumer worked out. i know it is not everything that , if you, but we need to want to build it needs to be signed into law, it needs to be something that schumer will agree to. that is where the tension may be. it is what happens not on the front end. the house can have whatever it wants to. it is what happens when things get kicked back from the senate that i think we will see things get really interesting between the speaker and president trump. host: let's hear from one more call. hugh from illinois. go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call, pedro. my question is what would happen to planned parenthood with regard to donald trump getting elected as president of this country? host: planned parenthood. what: well, we know
republicans want, which is not to have planned parenthood funded. .hen you run again into that the defending of planned parenthood is something the democrats will fight tooth and nail and will use the filibuster to try to prevent. guest: true, but the other thing is is that there is also this effort underway on the other side to make the height amendment permanent law. this is the restriction on federal funding of abortion services that has been in effect for decades now, but it has to be revived every year. perfunctory, we all kind of know it is always going to be there. the democratic platform calls for taking it out, to the dismay
of some of the antiabortion minority in the democratic party , but i think that question will be back on the table again. as well as with the planned parenthood question. our guests today joining us talking about not only the issues that congress faces, but the future of president elect donald trump. niels lesniewski from "rollcall." also, francine kiefer from "christian science mon read riddle will discuss donald trump as an ex-president and what that means for the republican party.
he will weigh in on key issues in the lame-duck session. on toam jeffries will be talk about his reaction to the session and the releases of hillary clinton's e-mail the week before the election. join the discussion. now we will hear about trade policy in the 2016 election. among the speakers, house ways member kevin brady. >> what a great turnout. i think we picked the right topic. i would like to thank you for joining us for this important conversation on the election aftermath and the new politics of trade. i would like to join everyone on at politico.com,
those watching across the country on c-span, and those in canada watching tonight. we all know that there was one big issue in this election. it was trained. -- it was trade. it is hard to think of a policy issue that was more high profile and people around the world are watching to see what happens next. we have convened some top policy experts and politics experts to help us unpack what just happened. we are going to do this in three parts tonight. first, we are going to ask whether the anti-trade sentiment in this election was merely a temporary divisive political rhetoric or did we just witnessed a fundamental and long-term realignment in u.s. politics? we are going to talk to republican and democratic strategists fresh from the campaign trail and battleground states and we are going to talk
to big picture thinkers as well. then we will have a conversation about the future of trade policy on capitol hill. third, our outstanding senior trade reporter will have a conversation with the u.s. trade representative, which will be followed by cocktails and hors d'oeuvres, so make sure to stick around. i would like to think our for thel sponsor fedex generous support of this event. i would like to welcome michael decker, fedex president and ceo. michael: thank you, louisa, and think you to politico for hosting this event. aftermath. titled i think we just experienced a pretty extraordinary election, would you agree with that?
of any the aftermath election, it will take time to sort out all the pope -- all the programs. that withcan agree united states, trading is not just an option, it is a necessity. 95% of the consumers are outside of our borders. we do need to find a way to reduce barriers to u.s. services around the world so we can reach strengthen thend bottom line for american families. supporting international trade is something that we at fedex are particularly passionate about because we live it every day. trade is our business. time and again, we have seen small and midsize customers who
export tend to grow even faster and create more jobs than similar businesses that do not trade internationally. released a small business index, which was a national survey of over 1000 small business leaders and the results of that survey showed that more than 70% of small businesses are seeing increasing which also helps the economy as a whole. interestingly enough, 70% of es said they were more likely to support trade if the u.s. provided effective job retraining. business has a real role to play in that. government and business have to work together to ensure that displaced workers
can transition to new careers the economy is creating. with the election results behind us, mercifully, it is time to politics be replaced with policy. ripping up trade deals or raising tariffs on imports will not grow our economy. is to adopt ais needed comprehensive program of -- progrowth, 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. that is why we at fedex are pleased to sponsor this evening's program and hear from
congressional leaders on both sides of the aisle. we are helping to shape the debate and forge a path for how our country will address trade, american competitiveness moving forward. thanks, luiza, and i will leave it to you. [applause] luiza: thank you so much. started, i want to let everyone know that you can tweet your questions. our moderators will have a device to track them on stage. without further delay, i would like to introduce the moderator of our first conversation, my colleague glenn thresh. senior political correspondent. you may not know him only from his indispensable coverage on politico, but also from his podcast 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 at events hosted with us republican and democratic conventions and the future of the parties. i really see this conversation as part and parcel of that conversation he started at the convention. we look forward to hearing from you and your wonderful panel. thank you, glenn. glenn: good evening, everybody. we would like to think fedex for sponsoring us i would like to introduce the panel. isting to my media right linda dempsey, vice president of international economic affairs. this is completely out of order, so. [laughter] glenn: facial recognition software works to 18. sitting next to her is john
ashbrook, a very familiar face on capitol hill in all kinds of interesting roles. chill outxt to him is , a principallper at dewey square group home to, i suspect going to be a home for many more former folks who work in politics after the cycle. and my fellow marilyn navin 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. 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. this person turned to me and tpp.tpp, tpp, and well, things turned out a little bit differently. 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?
john: 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. 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 ok. especially in those midwestern states. so it was an enormous issue. 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. he 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 you actually go to the rallies and listen to him,
3/4 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: 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 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 ok 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. 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 and that led to a narrow, a narrow defeat. glenn: the final tally in michigan was what, 20,000-40,000? jill: no. starting today was between 11000 and 12,000 votes and they are still counting. luiza: 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? john: 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. directly to people on their level about how trade is a people issue and we talk about it as a jobs issue by really how people think it affects their lives in a powerful way. said he talks about defending them from china and other bad actors there is a testimonial from a local cincinnati steel company that has 90 employees and portman fought for them to protect the company statewide it was written up in very powerful spot to demonstrate to people the issue of trade
that somebody is looking out for them first. >> so tell me obviously you have a pinnacle perspective but they talk about that generalized economic anxiety disorder? but you are concerned about specific policies so from your purview, how does this affect? >> first dyewoods day that with elections rehab the incoming administration that is talking very differently on trade. we have some lessons learned that people are seeing some of us negatives but not the other side.
so with that substantial transformation in the united states more than ever before i don't think most of those reporters understand that. but also at the same time many to recognize we do face the challenges overseas and elsewhere. as we like that policy going forward we agreed we all need to do a better job to work with the administration going forward to address the barriers in china and elsewhere but take a setback to look at the value that trade has in the manufacturing sector 6 million men and women today have their jobs and a cousin exports. we get trillions of dollars
of foreign direct investment in manufacturing because people want to be here. so we can broaden that out and address those challenges that is what we're looking for with the new head ministrations. >> so to put you on the spot , it would mean we're in philadelphia, hello clinton her biggest flip-flop was tpp then she read the fine print and it was fool's gold. but in terms of the presidential candidates do you think he would've gotten a better shake from clinton then trump? laugh laugh. >> economy are non-partisan he take our democracy seriously and will work with either one. is hard to say when
secretary clinton was in the senate she voted for some trade deals and voted against others. that was not a clear record as secretary of state she strongly supported some of the trade agreements that president bush at negotiated an abominates of modifications to move across the finish line and she supported that. is hard to look backwards. >> i will slice that another way. this is the larger question question, do you feel at this point given that the president-elect has backtracked that he is somebody they can communicate with quick. >> absolutely. what we have seen and then in contact with uh transition teams meno number of folks who were:these
teams, rnc year levels and we will sit down to talk about these issues to try to get to a resolution because at the end of the day we mont the same solution to make america the best place the best manufacturer in the world, globally competitive on manufacturing if we can agree a then we have to figure out those policies. now that has to do with the other issues to drag on that competitiveness those are issues where people are expecting to see. >> we will take some questions at the and if you are ready. from the historical perspective one of the
striking components if you go to the bernie sanders rally what is the difference between the two with the left and the right? >> that particular issue there is very little difference. both of them could be seen as a revolt against a globalization. i guess here is how i would make the difference but with donald trump capital mobility is a key feature corporations can move for ever they want the trade deals have as much to do making it easy as they do with the exchange of goods. the labor mobility in the grants can go wherever they want but that was not an issue that both of those
half to do with wages to split america more educated working with high-value service in the other 70% with only some college or high school. but if you look at a map where we lost manufacturing jobs the two key states are michigan and north carolina. look at that map where clinton lost and a trump one, it is the same type of thing so over time we have to figure out the 30 and 70% and how we can recreate the middle-class and that is a lot of what donald trump was about senate the democrats
owned this issue with uh notion that mitch mcconnell to be at the head of the party in the senate that is now locked stock and barrel against free trade is amazing turnabout. how do they reclaim this issue? obama said they have to get out to places they have not been before. >> i think it has to be almost simplified again to where people in the communities are at an emotional level. there was a thoughtful plan how to deal with the economy and to give a speech to put the details out. people could not hear it because the democrats were not feeling their pain so
they have to get back out and articulate what we are about and we need to see those that have been affected get the help in the support that they need not just the advocacy that people can make their way with the new economy. >> we know that it came from a husband now she feels the pain. so isn't this just the matter of the up politician to have that capacity? >> i think that allied of the races the way they played out, are tied to someone's character. if more people were aware of donald trump's actions whether suits in mexico or ties in china or using chinese deal but i don't
know that that was the gross rating points. people baby had a real issue with him. >> would bernie sanders has been in the general election [laughter] >> would he have done a better messenger? >> no. because i don't think he was credible in the sense that people did what answers did real-world solutions he that he could channel the anchor but hillary clinton and she won on experience and to get things done. so that what have been trouble for bernie sanders for the election. >> these are not one size fits all i remember speaking to what trump person they said is because the trade issue doesn't cut the same
as in ohio. >> we have 2018 how it says dates. >> we also consulted with arizona and that conversation is different from the conversation about trade in ohio. also the race from indiana is different just in terms of the intensity it is much at the forefront of every conversation in and you mentioned the 2018 map with the campaigning that never stops. if you look at the state's that our up democrats are defending 25 cs plus the two independents republicans are defending the eight of those
25 seats ohio, indiana and michigan pennsylvania wisconsin some of the same states where trump did so well and i think a lot of the candidates you are thinking about challenging these democratic incumbents or they themselves are watching very closely this cycle to see how the issue is litigated in a real way with the campaign and senator brown has a very good working relationship and i am confident that senator brown was watching very closely to what senator portended in his campaign and i would not be shocked if he comes from the same tactics. >> care is the trillion dollar question he talks about opposing european stuff hire you so free-trade?
break it into bite sized portions. >> you have to rebuild uh discussion and certainly we can do a better job with manufacturing. what are the positives we have seen from the past trade agreements? what to be produced that dentist's chair the security devices in the airport that is made in the united states people don't see and they don't recognize it as such but we have to be more clear headed with these foreign trade practices overseas in the best ways to do that. there is a lot of tpp that would have bad practices and the property would urge the
other tools we can do that this incoming president talked about bilateral deals this was the cause of that end we have to take each as it comes the we have to focus on the market's most growth is outside the united states and certainly we cannot hire more workers we have to have greater access to the markets overseas we will prioritize those markets and those barriers and work with the congress and the invitation -- administration. . .
result of our agreements, we had a small company that sells medical rehabilitation equipment out of maryland. iwhen the european union completed their career it was 40 to 60% of their share of the market. we were able to grow again and take over and when the sales and increase. we had a lot of grace manufacturing in the country. as i said, the people don't see in our companies want to get overseas and we see more trade and we have big agreements that nobody wants to talk to that's going to make it easier for our companies to be able to sell. the other big thing is e-commerce. for small business owners, being able to get on the internet and their storefront just like in their hometown, they are selling more than ever.
we are hoping to see a revival in economic growth and more of those exports. >> let'would squeeze one more question in. this gentleman here. >> i jus >> i just had a question about nafta if you could talk about renegotiating that's what that could mean. there's a lot of linkages for the implications and how it is benefiting other states if you could give us some insight on the times. >> the campaign officials of donald trump have said that canadian mexican officials talked about renegotiating nafta based on the rhetoric if anybody wants to address that.
>> there have been spending a lot of specifics of what is wrong with nafta but as we know, there was a view with nafta and it's been a substantial transition in the states of manufacturing sectors. whether that is the result of nafta, automation, china, other factors we all need to figure out what the right diagnosis is of these issues and people sit dowwe will sitdown with the newn and congress. what do they want to see change. there's over two manufacturing jobs and countries that are dependent on the trade relationship with canada and mexico so as we go forward we certainly don't want to put those jobs in jeopardy. but are there ways to improve
committee is in charge of all things trade in congress and who will continue leaving the house and we will be interested to see what he has to say on that. next is a senior fellow at the council of foreign relations and of him at the state department working under secretary clinton and has been the architect of the secretary's economic statecraft agenda. it's what can still be done and i know that everyone is very ready to hear what the chairman has to say on what's going to be happening.
as has been a party to a large extent. how do you reconcile this question that that position with the trade policies that the president elect has announced so far and as you look at the next congress finish up business from this congress, what will the priorities be. and this is as a lot of people here an issue that will fade into the background. >> thank you for the assessment of everything. very encouraging. i'm a champion of free trade and so are republicans for a couple of key reasons. donald trump was elected to get this country moving again and balancing regulation and finding new customers for the american goods and services are a big part of our economic growth and
trade is what provides that opportunity. we have some challenges obviously, but i look at mr. trump and a small case for enforcement in trade policies which congress has given this president and the new president the strongest enforcement tools ever to pursue that and take up that he allows us to make the case that to grow our economy it isn't enough to buy america. of these trade agreementthese te right and strictly enforced level the playing field and allow us to create a number of jobs here so i'm not as down beat as others are. i think it is early to be sort of assuming where the new
administration is going to be. i am hoping that we get a case as the president lays out the economic policy to make the case for keeping what's good about the trade and including accessing the customers and then improving areas in the public that needs addressing. your district in texas is probably very connected to nafta in many ways. how do you see that being renegotiated and what can be reflected that would reflect donald trump's vision for trade and what it should be? >> i haven't spoken to him or the team exactly where they
would want to improve and he talks about these issues and talks about not so much withdrawing that negotiating the table to make it a bigger win for the united states. these relationships helped us frankly moved through some worldwide recessions more than other three countries as well. i would encourage the president to take a look at nafta that look right in the 1990s. to be bold about reducing the tariffs in all directions and give us more economic freedom to sell what we are making and consumers want to buy them as
well. so if it is going to take in nafta or tpp is to go bold and over in the market to the american goods and services, then i think that would be welcome. >> can you provide a specific? >> my advice was that is a critical market for us that would hold them in the planet by "-begin-double-quote we want to be there. and if we abandon the field completely, we lose and china wins in a major way. so my advice would continue to be to not withdraw, but renegotiated and take the areas of the challenge and make it
better and then let's stay on a training field in that region i think it is critically importa important. how do you see that revisited in the future he has made that a very strong point of his speeches. what would be a way that he could provide a better deal and still appeal to the base? >> running on trade he needs to set those priorities. but we know within congress today that the outstanding areas correctly are for making sure we have adequate intellectual property protections for biologics, making sure the financial services are not discriminated against and making sure there are implementation plans so we know how the countries are going to implement
those key areas we are so interested in. there are a number of areas you can begin with immediately. these are the areas that the white house is continuing to work since the agreement was signed but they were not yet completed. the agreement is on hold until the president h president presiy out a priority going forward. but he can start there for example. >> this is maybe getting more specific. but tpp was meant to tackle some of these 21st century issues and the annual trade is a big issue, and that was going to be the platform in the countries to prohibit the prohibition on the data flow into the requirements. with tpp maybe even dead at this
point, what forums are there that you could be addressed and is there something that you all can do in congress that the republicans in congress will do to push these business priorities forward? >> just as the wto level and it around if you can't find agreement in larger groups than try to find it through the coalition of the willing. they go further on trade areas and especially in the cross flows of data in other areas it is really critical because the trade their ears today are not just limited to the old hears the barriers at the border. it's more sophisticated than that and one of the things i liked about the transpacific partnership is that it went beyond the borders and created a
process where in the past countries tend to sort of put an american plug into the european socket they are designed not to correct. tpp was the first agreement that connected the markets on the regulatory side and the digital side and a number of those areas that allow our companies to connect with those markets and compete on a level playing field. so i am hopeful that continues. but if that agreement is not to peak and then we ought to be looking for other vehicles to tackle the same issues. >> jennifer, a lot of focus was placed on the shifting tpp through the election. but as someone that worked closely with her i want to focus on whether you see the vision for the economic statecraft having any place in this
administration. how do you see the incoming administration approaching its relationship with china do you think it will be more a transactional type of relationship or will there be as we've had under this administration the picture to look at the geostrategic implications involved in that region? >> donald trump said a lot of things on his campaign and my guess is probably not going how much of that will come to pass. so, it may be just to think a bit too but i would hope to see under any administration. having traded in its proper context i think a lot of the problem right now is that americans generally an advocaten particular have the pursue his
agenda but we are pretty clear on and we support large companies without going after the tax havens like allowing ourselves to invest in new solar without going to put one out of business and i think there's a story to be told there was how it's been constructed. these deals are hard, but i do think that people are skeptical about whether or not their interest in the interests of middle-class families are being put at the center as a litmus test of trade good or bad.
these deals haven't come to pass as we expected. until we have our arms around how to model the trade, the predicted impact is better than we would follow the course which is meant to be the model. i don't blame anybody right now. >> when it comes to china, this administration has taken a pretty hard stance on the trade cases and trying to get china to address the issues like the overcapacity. do you think this relationship is going to suffer in the next administration that there will be even more acrimony that is the case not just the cases but what has been promised in terms of terrorists and things like that that will just make the
relationship unproductive or do you hope for an attemp prefer as it in the overcapacity for things that have dogged the relationship. >> i don't think that they've passed the cases that they could be bringing by and large the problem is we don't have the tools to get to the abuses that we are seeing today. and so, point number one should be dismissed was legislation and i hope that we are pushing on an open door and rewriting section 301 to keep up with this sort of shape shifting policy. we take away the sovereign immunity from a lot of these things. if they can show the state one day i'm pretty sure that even the most nimble trade won't get ahead of that. so that's not just a matter of bringing the new cases and using the rules that we have. we need more rules, point number one.
and i suspect the administration may not be patient enough to allow the tools to be conceived around the legislation. it may be in the situation terrorist look like the more preferable choice and i'm not sure that i would go down that road at least across-the-board way that he's been suggesting. but i do want to remind everybody that the united states hold the rank of adjustment and i think that we should begin to think a little creatively about how we use that leverage. it should look a whole lot different than japan in the 80s where there was some kind of an agreement that was it the most basic level about a desire for them to repatriate the investment and we said okay but it's going to take the sector.
>> we have time for maybe one or two more questions but before we get to that, i want to ask a quick question of the chairman. with this focus on enforcement by the president elect, do you foresee any kind of work with him and the administration on the treated for such legislation and any type of new ideas that are floating around? >> both parties agree on the enforcement. mr. trump ran on the strongest enforcement and i think most people agree that was a convincing part of that of his support nationwide. so, i think that given the opportunity to assess the tools we gave this president less than ten months ago because he may find that the tools are there that he didn't know.
second, put them in place and make sure for example the wto is where the trade rules stand and where they are enforced so he had the opportunity i think to assess and pursue china's behavior. i will tell you also one of my suggestions is working very diligently and i still think that if we are serious about going after china and intellectual property and protections that we ought to be aggressively pursuing and concluding a bilateral investment treaty i would go straight towards the issue rather than play it on the sid sides. but his one offense and i would take a second one. >> we will take a question from the audience.
>> now that the tpp is on hold for the future, we don't know how long. the obama administration still has some trade initiatives that they are negotiating or trying to finish by the end of this year. maybe you could comment on where you see those going and also do they need congressional approval? they are closer to the finish line and china still has a step
forward in a major way to make sure that we are addressing the goods of today and not of 20 years ago so i'm hopeful that makes progress. it depends whether they are changing the u.s. law and that proceswall in thatprocess and wo be submitted or not. the agreement is important for trade, competition, lower cost. i think some of the positions that europe has made acquiring each country to approve it i think they are creating roadblocks and making it difficult to move an agreement forwarded that should be i think agree to anagreed to in a majort has so much globally. so i'm hopeful that progress can
be made and again i think that the administration has worked very hard to continue those agreements in placagreements ane concluded. >> i think we've run out of time and the chairman has to get along to that vote. thank you so much for joining us tonight and i'm going to hand it over to my colleague. [applause] [inaudible conversations] hello, everyone. thank you for coming on behalf
of politico into the sponsor here i think it's fair to say that when we booked this event a couple months ago we expected a different discussion to be focused primarily on the possibility of congress passing the transpacific part worship. but the election of donald trump throws off the table and i do want to ask if you agree with that. now we are looking at a potential new era of the trade wars with some of the biggest trading partners such as china and new mexico. as the u.s. trade representative, he's traveled all around the world negotiating trade deals and i had the pleasure to go a lon along on mf the trips including the one time we went all the way to columbia maryland for talks on the south korea agreement. that was one of the finest i've ever been. the real reason i mention that t if they tried to hang the credit or the blame for the agreement
on hillary clinton and i just want to say for the record i was there the whole week and i never saw hillary clinton one time that i did see ron kirk and the chief u.s. negotiator and michael who was obviously running the whole show on behalf of his friend president obama who he me met when they were boh back at harvard law school back in the 20th century. [laughter] my favorite fun fact is that he got his start in international affairs by helping resolve albanian flu which we don't have time to get into today that i would be curious how they compare to the washington blood feud. anyway, i am going to shut up
and give him an opportunity to talk but first i have to ask the question that is on everybody's mind. the obama administration talked on the transpacific part of ship in march of 2010. there were 19 rounds of negotiations and after that, another 15 senior official meetings until an agreement was finally reached on october 5, 2015 in atlanta georgia. after all that work, after all that trouble and after all that time when you were away from your wife and two children and other negotiators were away from their families, is the tpp agreement really dead? >> i was going to say thank you for having me. [laughter] i may revise that forever. first of all, thank you for having me back. i think the work that has been done on the tpp in terms of opening new markets and raising
standards so we can create more good jobs in well-paying jobs i think it's a very strong agreement and as the president said, we haven't been fully successful yet in the concerns it raised that we are fully committed to the region and it is critical to the strategic and economic interests and we believe that's the kind of high standards that we were able to negotiate does exactly what the american people want which is leveling the playing field. it's certainly one of the things coming out of this election is people's concerns that we face an unfair playing field and that is the main motivation was behind us when we went in to make sure we did open these markets disproportionately and other countries have a big barrier and we raised standards
in the country so labor standards, environmental standards, intellectual property rights standards in terms of how the state of enterprise enterprd operate so they don't compete, standards on the economy those are all things that it accomplishes so i'm i am hopefl over time as people look into it and see what's at stake and does the rest of the world moves on and pursues their own trade agenda and we see what the implications for that are, we would be able to see that work move into effect. >> so, not completely dead but. >> i heard someone use the word purgatory. i think i preferred prefer thed purgatory. i think that there is a lot in there and other countries are certainly not going to stay still. they are going to move forward and when they move forward by taking tpp forward without
agreeing with us or move forward on their own bilateral or chai latter will agreement the rest of the world isn't going to stand still and that means we are going to be left on the sidelines seeing not only the opportunities represented by the existing market share eroded by other countries getting access and that i don't think it's in our interest. >> one thing today i noticed you and the secretary met today with the state agricultural secretaries at the white house. >> i wondered is there some crazy possibility that president obama could still slip that it's too congress. >> we stand ready to move forward on this on outstanding issues and the producers had issues and they are now fully
supported. gary farber's had some issues and now they are fully supportive of the agreement. the financial service sector had issues and now they are fully supportive. even o when the major outstandig issue of biologic at and intellectual property rights, your publications as well as others reported that we've are closwe wereclose to an agreemene run-up to the election, so we stand ready to move forward but this is fundamentally a legislative process and it is up to the leadership when and where it will be taken up. >> was going to happen when president obama meets with the other leaders at the summit this week? will they make some sort of a statement to try to move the process forward or is there something they can do to memorialize the agreement so it's there if they want to take it up in the future? >> they are already far down the line in their own approval
process. others are moving forward with their own ratification processes. so this meeting that we will have among the leaders will be an important thing to show the leaders the perspective on where they are domestically and i'm sure they will want to hear from the president and his perspective where it goes from here. >> last week i was at an event and at the cato institute joked trump institute could wait and rebrand the partnership. if you see something like that happening? >> we never thought of selling the naming rights. i think i will leave that to the cato institute to suggest. >> i want to ask about nafta. donald trump says he's going to withdraw from nafta unless mexico and canada agree to renegotiate it.
if the president obama say he was going to renegotiate that and did you get around to that? >> he said back in 2008 when he was running that he wanted to renegotiate nafta and he was clear about what he meant because the labor and environmental issues were dealt with in the side agreements that were not fully enforceable and he made the point if we are going to have trade agreements we have to treat the labor and environmental issues as serious as any of the other issues in the agreement and that's what we did with tpp because expo and canada agreed to finding these provisions that was a renegotiation. there's other parts, too. we get more access than we did in the care h that. tree access to mexico in certain areas where they performed such as the energy sector so it is in fact a renegotiation and in that area like so many other areas if it doesn't move forward or until
it does, the games are not to be seen. so if you care about raising the labor standards in mexico that is good in and of itself in thet helps level the playing field for workers and it's important to move forward. that's exactly what it does. >> nafta seems negative with the voters. did they ever suggest hillary clinton she tried to sell it as a renegotiation of nafta >> we certainly described the benefits of tpp and talked about how it is to renegotiation of nafta and it's the most epic and expansion of workers rights i think in history. it's 500 million around the world that would rather have these binding and enforceable labor rights.
that's not only good in terms of the dignity of work that levels the playing field for the workers. one of the mai main complaint ie live in a world with low-wage labor and that's the reality. that genie is out of the bottle. the question is what are you going to do about it. if you could get other countries to allow the right to bargain that would've leveled the playing field for the workers and that is what is at stake moving forward. for the critics are the or the s i think the question is by defeating tpp or delaying tpp, how were they improving the workers rights around the world parks how were they leveling the playing field and in the meantime when we could be raising the workers rights, why
are we imposing a continuing level playing field? >> a theory about i know you heard of you think that it's in purgatory but do you have a theory of who put it in purgatory? [laughter] if you're asking about divine intervention here, i think what we have seen is a a rise of populism in the right and left and politics that didn't always permit a full debate based on facts and i think that combination has made it difficult for us to look at the message for just what is at stake.
>> [inaudible] punic i think i was probably at work. that was a few days after we completed the tpp negotiation and got to washington to immediately go to the hill and consoled and we were in the process of doing so. >> do you remember how you felt? [laughter] >> i won't comment on any candidates past or present, but i think that this process has underscored that a lot of people feel left behind whether it's because of the graphics of globalization. you don't duplicate vote on
globalization. trade agreements become the scapegoat for quite legitimate concerns people have about income inequality and the stagnation of wages and feeling left behind. i hear there are republicans and democrats on the campaign trail and how we need to do more with displaced workers whether it comes from technology or globalization. i would hope that coming out of this campaign we don't all the wrong lessons. 14 million americans owe their
jobs to exports. we over 2 trillion for goods and services the year cutting us off from the global economy isn't the answer to the concerns as legitimate as the artist dealing with these other issues about dislocation and transition in a way that goes beyond what we've done before. >> one thing that trump campaign suggested as the measures to keep out reports from china. is there more the administration could have done? >> we have been committed to the trade enforcement and the use of the trade remedy laws. there are now more trade remedies being imposed by the commerce department if we got 23 cases more than any other in the world and 14 have been brought
to china. we have won every case brought to conclusion that we are continuing to work on those cases. so we believe the enforcement is important and is an issue that has been on are scored by the campaign and that will be imparted iimported in the futur. >> you had one or two more cases that you were going to roll out during the debate. >> we work on them on an ongoing basis to bring the cases when we are caught and they are ready to go. >> could we see more between now and a the end of the administration? >> i don't want to ruin the surprise. [laughter] >> while they declared china and administration before it leaves office? >> they recognized the determination of the status that
falls under each of our statutes for each country's statute and we have criteria about what constitutes a market economy. china can apply at any time like the last time it did so was in 2004. based on those criteria that haven't achieved the status of their focused now is the end of the year when the protocols for the wto expire how that will affect the application in the future and that is something they were continuing to work through. do you think the environmental goods agreement could come together and would there be the conclusion of the bilateral message or he?
>> the underscored the importance of getting the agreement done this year. we have been working to follow up that commitment and made some progress and we still have a way to go its could be critical as it was in the agreement that china played. they are one of the greatest beneficiaries that produce environmental goods and desperatelthedesperately needs o deal with the serious environmental problems but it's going to be important that they put on the table that kind of access the rest are willing to offer if we are going to reach that agreement. i think it's important that it would be a high standards agreement that performs and opens up and creates real
disciplines to address the kind of problems that our companies have had. we've made progress but we are not there yet. >> you said you spent five years negotiating the agreement and it's not going to go anywhere in the foreseeable future that must be disappointing but you also have a president that the campaign trail talked about how stupid the negotiators worked. do you think they will be able to work for this administration? >> it's a great institution and in a number of parts of the government there is no finer group of career civil servants than ustr they are incredibly dedicated and incredibly hard-working for making sure
they are fully enforced and i have every confidence as they have with every previous i was reminded when we came in in 20 of eight and 2009 they had a number of concerns about previous trade policies and renegotiating at all alike. i have every confidence they will be able to negotiate on the priority. >> after january 20, and will have a lot of time. you have any traveif you have ar what will you be doing next? >> i'm going to be finding a hammock on a beach to sleep. that's the only plan i've made so far. >> you seem to have an interest in the wildlife conservation. do you think you might be doing something in that area? >> it's an interesting area and something i learned about in my
previous job working on development issues and a into tk between development, trade, national security and wildlife is one of the areas we focused on and got the countries to agree to the wildlife trafficking something in africa and rwanda and so forth is something i would stay focused on going forward. >> i see that we are out of time but i did want to get your thoughts on this one question. there is a confusing situation right now where the polls show that democrats would trademark and you would expect that the parties vote in the opposite way and congress. how do you see that shaping out over the next couple of years? >> i have seen those and i think that it is interesting that
young democrats and african-americans, hispanics, asians are all more pro- trade at an average. there's a certain coworker of republicans are not as pro- trade and we will have to do more and i mean the collective we, government business, agriculture to continue to educate people about what is at stake and we take for granted when we pick up the phone and download an app or take for granted the ecosystem that allows that to happen tha but we know that other countries are eager to create national clouds and digital products. we take for granted the amounts of farm income but when that disappears as other countries
have been the market share, we will find the same people who have been concerned and are going to find themselves facing more challenges. that's why it's important to get the story out and get the facts out. i would hope going forward we could have a more fact-based discussion about the benefits of trade but also what we need to do as a society to deal with those who are impacted by change wherever it comes from. >> thank you, ambassador, on behalf of politico and everyone here for spending time with us and i would like to thank fedex and everybody also the political team worked hard to bring this together. thank you for joining us here in the room and those watching the live stream. a quick reminder for those of you in the room, please join us for cocktails and conversation in the back of the room to give
announcer: in the morning automobile technology officials testify about the impact of self-driving cars on the road nd on the economy. that's live on c-span 3. announcer: president obama talked about president-elect donald trump and his goals for a smooth transition at news conference today that ran over an hour. president obama: hello, everybody. in a couple hours i'll be departing on my final foreign trip as president.
while we're abroad, i'll have a chance to take a few of your questions. but i figured, why wait? i know that there's a lot of domestic issues that people are thinking about. so i want to see if i could clear out some of the underbrush so that when we're overseas and people are asking about foreign policy questions, people don't feel obliged to tack on other questions to them. let me -- i know you still will. [laughter] that i'm aware. but i'm trying something out here. first of all, let me mention three brief topics. first of all, as i discussed ith the president-elect on thursday, my team stands ready to accelerate in the next steps that are required to ensure a smooth transition. we're 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 that the constitution explicitly
requires, but it is one of those norms that are vital to a functioning democracy. similar to norms of civility and tolerance. and a commitment to reason. nd facts and analysis. it's part of what makes this country work. as long as i'm president, we are going to uphold those norms and cherish and uphold those ideals. as i've told my staff, we should be very proud that their work has already ensured that when we turn over the keys, the car's in pretty good shape. we are indisputeably in a stronger position today than 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 inpinging on our growth, and so my instructions to my team are that we run through the ape.
we make sure that we finish what we started, that we don't let up in these last couple of months, because my goal is, on january 21, america's 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 to stabilize the global economy and because there is one president at a time, i'll spend this week reinforcing america's support for the things we've taken to promote economic growth and global security on a range of issues. i look forward to my first visit in greece, and then in germany, i'll visit with chancellor merkel, who's probably been my closest international partner these past eight years. i'll also signal our solidarity to our closest allies and express our support for a strong, integrated and united europe. it's essential to our national security and it's 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'll meet with leaders of countries that have been the focus of our foreign policy through rebalance in the asia-pacific. this is a time a of great change in the world, but america's always been a pillar of strength and a beacon 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 gwen eiffel's family. and all of you. her colleagues. on her passing. gwen was a friend of ours. she was an extraordinary journalist. she always kept faith with the fundamental responsibilities of her profession. asking tough questions. holding people in power accountable. and defending a strong and free press that makes our democracy work. i always appreciated gwen's reporting, even when i was at the receiving end of one of her
tough and thorough interviews. whether she reported from a onvention floor, or from the field, whether she sat at the debate moderator's table or at the anchor's desk, she not only informed today's citizens, but she also inspired tomorrow's journalists. she was an especially powerful role model for young women and girls who admired her integrity, her tenacity and her intellect trail r whom she blazed a as one half of the first all-female anchor team on network news. so, gwen did her country a great service. michelle and i join her family and her colleagues and everybody else who loved her in remembering her fondly today. with that, i'm going to take ome questions. and because josh ernest has some ull around here, he just happened to put at the top of the list kolbe nelson of the "wall street journal.
my understanding is that this is wrapping up your stibt stint here and you're going to kansas city. reporter: yes. president obama: josh just happens to be from kansas city. so, don't know if there was any coincidence there. we wish you the very best of luck in your new endeavors. reporter: as it turns out -- [inaudible] president obama: there you go. reporter: you're about to embark on your final foreign trip. what will you say to other world leaders about your successor? they've expressed many of the same misgivings you have about donald trump. should they be worried about the future of u.s. foreign policy and, separately, as democrats scramble to regroup after a pretty shocking upset, what is your advice about where the party goes now and who should lead your party? president obama: one of the reat things about the united tates is that when it comes to
world affairs, the president obviously is the leader of the executive branch, the commander in chief, the spokesperson for the nation. but the influence and 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 intelligence officers and development workers. nd 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 the president-elect, he expressed a reat interest in maintaining our four 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 aren't just good for europe, they're good for the united states. and they're vital for the world. with respect to the democratic party, look, as i said in the rose garden right after the election, when your team loses, everybody gets deflated. it's hard. nd it's challenging. i think it's a healthy thing for the democratic party to go through some reflection.
you know, i think the important for many not to be big footing that conversation. i think we want to see new voices, new ideas emerge, that's part of the reason why i think term limits are really useful hings. the democrats should not waiver 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. hat we insist on the dignity and god-given potential and worth of every child, regardless f race or gender or sexual orientation or what zip code
they were born in. that we are committed to a world in which we keep america safe, but we recognize that our power doesn't just flow from our extraordinary military, it also flows from the strength of our ideals and our principles. and our values. so there's a core set of values that shouldn't be up for debate. should be our north star. but how we organize politically i think is something that we should spend some time thinking about. i believe that we have better ideas. but i also believe that good ideas don't matter if people don't hear them. nd one of the issues the democrats have to be clear on is the given population distribution across the country.
we have to compete everywhere. we have to show up everywhere. we have to work at a grassroots level. 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's because i spent 87 days oing to every small town and fish fry and v.f.w. hall and there were some counties where i might have lost, but maybe i lost by 20 points instead of 50 points. there's some counties maybe i won that people didn't expect. because people had a chance to see me and listen to you and get a sense of who you stood for and who you were fighting for. the challenge for a national party is how do you dig in there
and create those kinds of tructures so that people had a sense of what it is that you stand for. and that increasingly is difficult to do just through a national press strategy. it's increasingly difficult to do because of the splintering of the press. and so i think the discussions that have been taking place about how do you build more grassroots organizing, how do you build up state parties and local parties and school board elections you're paying attention to, and state rep aces and city council races, that all i think will contribute to stronger outcomes in the future. i'm optimistic that will happen. for democrats who are feeling completely discouraged, i've been trying to remind them,
everybody remembers my boston peech in 2004. they may not remember me showing up here in 2005 when john kerry ad lost an election. tom daschle, leader of the senate, what been beat in an upset. salazar and i were the only two democrats who won nationally. republicans controlled the senate. and the house. and two years later, democrats were winning back congress and four years later i was president of the united states. things change pretty rapidly. but they don't change inevitably. they change because you work for it. nobody said democracy was supposed to be easy. it's hard. in a big country like this, it probably should be hard. reporter: thank you, sir.
mr. president, what can you tell us about the learning curve on becoming president? can you tell us how long it took you before you were fully at ease in the job? if that ever happens. and did you discuss this matter with president-elect trump? president obama: about a week ago i started feeling pretty good. [laughter] no. ook. i think the learning curve lways continues. this is a remarkable job. it is like no other job on earth. it is a constant slough of information and challenges and issues. that is truer now thans ever partly because of the information and now more than
it's ever been. partly because of the nature of communication and the interconnection between regions f the world. if you were president 50 years ago, the tragedy of syria might not even penetrate what the american people were thinking about on a day to day by asy. seeing hey're seeing vivid images of a child in the aftermath of a 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 that any administration has to deal with today, and respond to much more rapidly than ever before, that makes a difference. i was watching a documentary during the bay of pigs crisis. j.f.k. had about two weeks before anybody reported on t. imagine that.
i think it's fair to say that if something like that happens under a current president, they have to figure out in about an hour what their response is. so, these are the kinds of oints 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 i think any president coming in needs to think about. and probably most important point that i made was that -- how you staff, particularly your chief of staff, your national security advisor, your white house counsel, you know, how you set up a process and a system to surface information, generate options for a president, understanding that ultimately the president's going to be the
final decision maker. that that's something that has to be attended to right way. i have been blessed by having, and i admittedly am biased, some of the smartest, hardest working, good people in my administration that i think any president's ever had. as a consequence of that team, i've been able to make good decisions. and if you don't have that round you, then you'll 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 the president for all people. and that how he staffs the -- staffs, the first steps he takes, the first impressions he
makes, the reset that can happen after an election, all those things are important and should be thought about. i think the 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 was so hotly contested and so divided, gestures matter. and how he reaches out to groups 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 a tone that will help move things forward once he's actually taken office. reporter: how long did it take before you were at ease in the job?
president obama: i didn't have time to worry about being at ease. you'll recall, we were losing bout 800,000 jobs a month. the good news is that in some ways, my experience is a typical. -- atypical. the hard to find an analogous situation. by the time f.d.r. came into office, the depression had been going on for a couple of years. we were in the midst of a freefall, financial system was locking up, the auto industry 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. in the job. we just had to make a bunch of decisions. in this situation, we're turning over a country that has
challenges, has problems, and obviously there are people out there who are feeling deeply disaaffected. otherwise we wouldn't have had the results that we had in the election. on the other hand, if you 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 uninsured rates. the financial systems are stable. the stock market is hovering around its all-time high and 401 's have been restored. the housing market has
recovered. we have challenges internationally, but our most immediate challenge with respect to isil, we're seeing significant progress in iraq. and mosul is now increasingly being retaken by iraqi security forces, supported by us. our alliances are in strong shape. the progress we've made with respect to carbon emissions has been greater than any country on earth. and gas is $2 a gallon. so, he will have time and space i think to make judicious decisions. the incoming administration doesn't have to put out a huge number of fires. they may want to take the country in a significantly different direction, but they've
got time to consider what exactly they want to achieve and that's a testament to the tremendous work that my team's done over the last eight years. i'm very proud of them for t. reporter: thank you, mr. president. you said more than once that you did not believe that donald trump would ever be elected president. and that you thought he was unfit for the office. now that you've spent time with him, talking to him for an hour and a half in the oval office, do you now think that president-elect trump is qualified to be president? and if i could do -- can do a compound question. you mentioned staffing and one. what do you say to those americans who may not doubt that there will be a peaceful transition, but that are concerned about some of the policies and sentiments expressed by president-elect trump himself or his supporters that may seem hostile to minorities and others, specifically i'm talking about the announce thament steve bannon, who is a proponent of the so-called all whn white-white movement -- ll-white movement, is going to
have a prominent role in the white house as president trump as his chief strategist and senior advisor, what message does that send to the country, to the world? president obama: without copping 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 making. if i want to be consistent with the notion that we're going to try to facilitate a smooth transition. look, the people have spoken. donald trump will be the next president. the 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 reflect his olicies. 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 who didn't like me and didn't like what i stood for. and, you know, i think that henever you've got an incoming president of the other side, particularly in bantamweighter election like this, -- in a bitter election like this, it takes a while for people to reconcile themselves with that new reality. hopefully it's a reminder that elections matter. and voting counts. and so, you know, i don't know how many times we have to relearn this lesson, because we ended up having 43% of the country not voting who were ligible to vote. but it makes a difference. so, given that president-elect trump is now trying to balance
what he said in the campaign and the commitments he made to his supporters with working with those who disagreed with him and members of congress and reaching out to constituencies 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 that they want to see the country go in. my role is to make sure that when i hand off this white house, that it is in the best possible shape and that i've been as helpful as i can to him
in going forward. in building on the progress that we've made. my advice, as i said, to the president-elect had 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. and i don't think any president ever comes in saying to himself, 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 elivers. not only for the people who voted for him, but for the people at large. and the good thing is there are going to be elections coming up, o there's a build-in incentive for him to try to do that.
it's only been six days. i think it will be important for im to have the room to staff up, to figure out what his priorities are, to be able to istinguish between what he was campaigning on and what his practical -- what is practical, what he can actually a cheeve. -- achieve. there are things that make for good sound bites but don't translate into good policy. that's something that he and his team i think will wrestle with. in the same way that every president wrestles with. i did say to him, as i've 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 send some signals of unity and to reach
ut 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 real ast. he's got commitments to supporters that helped to get him here and he's going to have to balance those and over the oming weeks and months and years my hope is that those impulses ultimately win out. but it's a little too early to start making judgments on that. eporter: -- [inaudible] -- president obama: i think that he successfully mobilized a big
chunk of the country to vote for him and he's going to win. he has won. he's going to be the next president. regardless of what experience or assumptions he brought to the office, this office has a way of waking you up. those aspects of his positions or predispositions that don't match up with reality, he will find shaken up pretty quick. because reality has a way of asserting itself. and some of his gifts that obviously 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. reporter: thank you, mr. president. ou're off to europe which is facing some of the same pressures we see at work in this country. when you spoke at the u.n., you talked about the choices between immigration and building walls, what who is do you think the american people made last week and is there still a chance for course correction? [inaudible] president obama: i think the american people recognize that the world has shrunk. that the interconnected -- that it's interconnected. that you're not going to put that genie back in the ottle. the american people recognize that their careers or their
kids' careers are going to have to be more dynamic. they might not be working at a single plant for 30 years, they might have to change careers, they might have to get more education, they might 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 fair. and what that means is that if you look at surveys around americans' attitudes on trade, the majority of the american eople still support trade. but they're concerned about whether or not trade is fair. and whether we've got the same access to other countries' markets as they have with us. is there just a race to the bottom when it comes to wages nd so forth.
now, i made an argument, thus far unsuccessfully, that the trade deal we made to organize t.p.p. did exactly that. hat it strengthened workers' rights and environmental rights, leveled the playing field and 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 offshored. so part of what i think this election reflected was people wanting that course correction hat 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 ampaign.
as we now shift to governing, my argument is that we do need to make sure that we have an orderly, lawful immigration process, but that if it is rderly and lawful, immigration is good for our economy. it keeps this country young, it keeps this dynamic, we have entrepreneurs and strivingers -- strivers who come here and are willing to take risks and that's part of the reason why america historically has been successful. it's part of the reason why our conomy's stronger and better positioned than most of our other competitors. because we have a younger population that's more dynamic.
when it comes to trade, i think, you know, when you're governing, it will become increasingly apparent that if you were to just eliminate trade deals with mexico, for example, well, you've got a global supply chain, the parts that are allowing auto plants that we're about to -- that were about to shut down to now employ double hifts is because they're bringing in some of those parts to assemble out of mexico. so the not as simple as it might have seemed. and the key for us, when i say s, i mean americans, but i think particularly for 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 to trade, but trade that ensures that these other countries that that trade with us aren't engaging in child labor, for example. being attentive to inequality and not tone deaf to it, but offering prescriptions that are actually going to help folks in communities that feel forgotten. that's going to be our most important strategy. i think we can successfully do that. people will still be looking to the united states. our example will still carry great weight. even if we could. but rather by working together more effectively than we have in
the past. reporter: thanks, mr. president. you had some of the harsh words gainst mr. trump calling him not tempermental to become commander-in-chief? and does anything concern you? president obama: well, we had a very cordial conversation. that didn't surprise me to some degree because i think that he s obviously a gregarious person. he's somebody who, i think, likes to mix it up and to -- to ave a vigorous debate. and what's clear is that he was yes, the into,
anxieties but also the enthusiasm of his voters in a way that was impressive. and i said so to him because i hink that to the extent that here were a lot of folks who missed the trump phenomenon, i think that connection that he was able to make with his impervious at was to events that might have sunk another candidate, that's powerful stuff. i also think that he is coming fewer set ice with harden-fast policy prescriptions than a lot of other presidents
would be arriving with. i don't think he's ideological. i think ultimatically he's pragmatic in that way. that can serve him well 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. you know, he and i differ on a whole bunch of issues. and the federal government or 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 two years when we had a larger majority than mr. trump will enjoy when he comes into office.
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 g in and thought through how various issues play themselves out. i'll use an obvious example where we have a different but it will be interesting to see what happens in the coming year and that's the affordable care act. so obviously, this has been the holy grail for republicans over the last six, seven years was we've got kill obamacare. taken as an been article of faith. this is terrible. it doesn't work. we have to undo it. but now that republicans are in charge, they have to take a look and say let's see. we've got 20 million people who
have health insurance who didn't have it before. healthcare costs generally have gone up at significantly slower rate since obamacare was passed than they did before which has saved the federal -- health care costs generally have gone up at a significantly slower rate since obamacare was passed than they did before which saved the treasury hundreds of billions of dollars. people who have health insurance are benefiting in all sorts of ways, everything from having no lifetime limits on the claims they can make to seniors getting drug discounts under medicare, to free mammograms. now it's one thing to say this thing isn't working. suddenly, you are in charge and