tv Politics and Public Policy Today CSPAN December 6, 2016 12:00am-1:26am EST
editing of the team that got elected. forget what caused this god-awful precession eight years ago. it was the same policies that are being proposed now. half the rate on dividends. cut the top income tax rate. dramatically reduce the state tax. i wanted tot and clear the rubble. the on that, we wanted to build a new stadium. forgot say, if we can't do that, let's at least ensure that the field callinghe balls and strikes and is wearing a striped shirt. that is why we cannot allow the repeal of dodd frank. we can't go back to the days when the banks were free to take your depositors money.
we kick about the days were financial companies take massive ricks -- risk. we cannot afford that. the country can't afford it. the middle class cannot afford it. we need to ensure that the executive compensation does not go back to encourage executive risk-taking and short-term is him. i talked about stock buybacks with publicly traded companies, how ceos don't have the incentive to go for the future, but rather swing for the fences today. they're not bad guys are women. the process incentivize action. this tended in 1980 when president reagan made it easier for company to buy back stock close to share prices. we need to change this as well. need the rules created by.
frank -- by dodd frank. we also need to continue to address the threat posed by bottomless short-term debt. as evidenced by recent concerns steptail banks, we have to up our monitoring and enforcement activities. look at wells fargo. the justice department, i cannot speak to it because i don't talk to them. they are reviewing whether or not there are criminal stations here -- sanctions here. , this shouldr never be allowed to happen again. millions of families paid the price for irresponsible and reckless policies. to have thers need resources to catch this activity before it gets out of control.
it is pretty basic. you don't have to be an economist to understand this. you have to be an economist. it helps. that is why i have some brilliant economists working for me. you don't have to be on economists to understand this. look at what caused the problem in the first place. look at what we did to correct the problem. my little grandson would say it is not rocket science. ladies and gentlemen, let me close with this -- my deceased wife used to tell me joey, the greatest gift god gave mankind was the ability to forget. , god love her said if that were true, every woman
would only have one child. [laughter] >> is a great gift god gave us, the ability to forget. governing. not apply forget is dangerous. dangerous. cusp of a real depression , and how far we have come today on the cusp of a real, potential resurgence with the united states better positioned than any country in the world to lead the 21st century. my lord, we are so much better positioned. i'm not supposed to be an expert on economy, i'm supposed been expert on foreign policy. i don't have my briefcase with me today. i do know a lot about foreign policy. look around the world.
do you think any leader of a major country would trade places with the president of the united states in terms of potential for the 21st century? god love china, i want to see them succeed. they don't have enough water. we talking about a $2 trillion project turned the direction of the rivers around. raise your hand if you think the eu is a serious competition. our member is determined froming up being summoned american enterprises to how japan was going to bonus -- own us. was viewed as heretical by saying there is not a shot in the world of that happening. not because of barack obama and joe biden. because you have most agile venture capitalists in the world, and most productive workers in the world.
energy. we at the epicenter of energy for the remainder of this century -- at least the next 50 years. watch what we can do. watch what happens. ladies and gentlemen, we respect intellectual property. you can adjudicate contract differences and no it will be kept. we are so much better positioned than any nation in the world. we have a workforce to continues to be replaced because the value of immigration. that has product transformed the world and forms of technology that was not made in america or can he did america. -- conceived in america. two great things in america
stand to the dna -- no matter how her situation is in grade child ishough criticized for john to orthodoxy. we are encouraged to challenge orthodoxy. country.remarkable are ort forget who we where we recently came from the and who created this, -- this crisis in the first place. we have to move forward, and my hope and prayer is that we will. think we have to give this new administration a fighting chance. it is not so clear. we will see.
we'll see what happens. if you notice, they decided they will immediately repeal the affordable care act. they figured 20 million people walls not have insurance -- will not have insurance. good night, lucy. [laughter] found out they i can go back to charging women born for insurance the men -- more for insurance than men. pre-existing conditions do matter. bless me father, for i have sinned. [laughter] [applause]
there are so many young people in this audience. i want you to know two things. someca has developed incredible women and men who never ever stop fighting for what they think is right for the country, like paul volcker. you have been. your voices should be doesn't to based on their batting average. take a look at what they said and what happened. note objectively whether or it is worth listening to. measured against how fundamental things have changed, whether there is still a timeline. folks, this is no time to turn back. i got elected when i was a 29-year-old kids to the united states senate. i was listed as the young idealist.
puts toucky person that feed on the morning when they get up and do things that so mattered. i think it's the matters a lot. a whole lot. .ust take a look take a look at where we are positioned to everyone else in the world. i was listed as the young optimist like i elected. i will conclude by saying i can say without fear of contradiction from anyone who knows me that i'm truly more optimistic about america's chances today than any time i have been since i served, and i have served for 44 years either as united states senator or as vice president. which sent to get some people out of the way. [laughter] thank you are much. -- very much. [applause]
[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] [applause] >> the senate began the week by voting to advance a bill that would provide more funding for medical research and bolster treatment programs. vice president biden presided over the procedural vote and was a knowledge by the senate majority leader mitch mcconnell for his work on the cancer moonshot initiative. he also asked that the cancer provisions of the bill be named after the vice president's late son bo who died of brain cancer last year. >> it is a rare day when we see the vice president presiding, we welcome him here today.
we look for to welcoming you back later in the week. i know members will have plenty to say about his life and his legacy later in the week, but today the senate would like to specifically acknowledge his efforts to help american struggling with cancer. he has known the cruel toll this disease can take. he has not let it defeat him, he has chosen to fight back, he has taken a leading role in the -- and the senate will soon pass the 21st century cures act as a testament to his tremendous effort. i think it is fitting to dedicate this bill's critical cancer initiative in honor of someone who would be proud of the presiding officer today. and that is his son, bo. in just a moment that is exactly what the senate will do.
renaming the cancer initiative in this bill after bo biden. if i could say to my friend the democratic leader, i have one more. therefore mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the consideration of the resolution which is at the desk. >> the clerk will report. >> directing the clerk of house of representatives to make a correction in the enrollment of hr 34. >> is there objection to proceeding to the measure? >> without objection. >> i called an amendment that we should rename the title of the bill. i would say to the clerk i would like for her to read the entire thing. >> the clerk will report the amendment. >> the center from kentucky mr.
mcconnell proposes an amendment number 5137 beginning on page 1, line 7, strike following correction and all that follows and insert the following. amend the long title so as to read an act to accelerate the discovery and development of 21st century cures and further purposes. two, amend the section heading for section 1001 so as to read beau biden cancer moonshot innovation project. three, amend the table of contents in section one so that the item relating to section one reads as follows -- 1001, beau biden cancer moonshot and nih innovation project. >> i asked consent that the amendment be agreed to, the concurrent resolution is amendment be agreed to in the motion considered be laid upon the table with no action or debate. >> without objection. [applause]
,> i say to all my colleagues the presiding officer served in the senate for 36 years, during the time his here he was about as much a man of the senate as anyone could be. he was a democrat, but he was also available to anybody, anytime, and i so admire him, i know he has worked closely with the republican leader on important issues the last eight years. so i want the record to be spread with the fact that a presiding officer, proud of his family as anyone could be and it factd it only furthers the that the effect the presiding
officer has had on this country. dusted thel to be republican leader for allowing me to cosponsor this important amendment, changing the name of this bill to the beau biden memorial moonshot. , allrateful to you senators, understand them and presiding is really a man of the senate and always will be. [applause] >> the clerk will report the motion. >> congress continues work on the medical research treatment bill known as the 21st-century cures act, peter silverman, what is the main purpose of this legislation? >> it's a bipartisan effort and is looking to speed up the approval of new drugs, new cures to get the patients, particularly for rare diseases,
but it, which is helping bring the democrats on board to invest money in that national institutes of health for medical research, particularly on cancer. vice president biden the cancer moonshot is a big part of the bill and it has funding for that as well as some other medical research items. the idea is to speed up, improve research and innovation around cures and new drugs to get to patient. >> so democrats really showing they were on board in the house vote last week. the vote 392-26, the house passing the measure last week. what are some of the key house and senate lawmakers responsible for getting the final bill done? republican from michigan, he is the chairman of the house energy and commerce committee, he is until the end of this year, this was his big last act, his signature bill that he has been pushing for a long time. but it is bipartisan. congresswoman diana -- a
democrat from colorado was his big partner in the house on this. they joined with the senate for the house committee chairman, and hislexander counterpart patty murray, the democrat also played a big role. >> a couple of specifics, what would the bill do about fda drug approval process? >> it's a variety of ways to try to speed it up, make it more efficient. some critics have said it goes too far and has made the lowering standards of the fda, but the sponsors push back on that and said still going to be safe, we are just tried to -- trying to speed it up a little. for example, using something called real-world evidence, so instead of waiting for clinical trial which is the gold standard but takes a long time and can be expensive, it allows for data from the use of a drug in the real world to say, this looks like it is having a good effect, maybe we can just use this data ahead of time without waiting for the clinical trial.
>> the bill include funding for -- the bill includes funding to fight opiate abuse. connect this to the bill that was passed earlier this year, the larger packet and fighting opiate abuse. >> this is been an issue that congress has been dealing with, the opiate abuse. there was a bill earlier the -- this year but the democrats , criticize that bill, a lot voted but still criticized it and have money in it. so now this bill today is bringing some money along which is making some democrats happy, it is $1 billion over two years. it is a significant amount of money and that is dry praise -- drawn some praise from the white house and republicans as well have said they want to put money towards this. >> strong support in the house, the white house is in it supports the bill but it has some concerns, what are those? >> they have said they are
strongly favoring the bill. they're upset, as people often are on the way the measure is paid for. it does have some obama care cuts and it called the prevention fund which is part of obama care and is meant to provide money to prevent illnesses, for example stopping people from smoking which leads to cancer, but overall their concerns are relatively small, i think they're pretty happy with where the bill ended up. >> you mentioned vice president joe biden and the cancer moonshot program. the vice president was in the chamber for the 21st century cures act procedural vote. bill dos this specifically for the moonshot program? >> it gives it money. that's the the main thing. $1.8 billion, part of that any h -- nih funding is set aside for cancer research to essentially cure cancer over a number of years.
experts say it is obviously not as simple as coming up with one cure, but it's trying to accelerate research and knowledge of cancer. it is a big win for vice president biden. it is something he is very passionate about. he will be coming to the senate to see it in person. >> what is it in the bill that has senator sanders and war and upset about it? holdouts from the bipartisan. they are basically saying this is a giveaway to pharmaceutical companies. it's helping them get their drugs approved faster. other little provisions that were slipped in there that they say are just favors to the drug companies and in return they're not really getting anything. they say it does nothing to address drug prices which is that has been a big issues with epipen's getting a lot of uproar. this bill does not directly deal with drug prices, that would've made a much more partisan issue which lawmakers are trying to avoid.
warren and sanders also say that even though there is money they wanted it to be what's called mandatory which means is guaranteed funding it's guaranteed funding and doesn't have to be renewed every year, but this funding, while there is new mining, -- money it does , have to go through the appropriations process over your. >> you can follow his reporting on the hill.com and on twitter. c-span's washington journal, live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. morning, northay carolina republican congressman walter jones is joined by california democratic congressman ted lou to discuss their bipartisan efforts to reverse a u.s. court of appeals decision over controversial's -- contributions to political committees. they argue it allows super pac's to accept unlimited donations. then a look at foreign efforts
to spread fake news during the 2016 election cycle. be sure to watch c-span's washington journal, life beginning at seven brca and eastern tuesday morning here and join the discussion. coming up on c-span, a panel on the future of financial regulations under a trump administration. then former utah governor jon huntsman and former connecticut senator joe lieberman on the first 100 days of the next administration. british prime minister tony blair on the impact of the uk's brexit vote. tuesday evening, it is the official lighting ceremony for the u.s. capitol christmas tree, with remarks from congressional leaders. the annual ceremony from the west lawn of the capital is live at 5:00 p.m. eastern on c-span3. later, a discussion on freedom of speech and freedom of press and politics.
the cato institute hosts media specialists live starting at six 5 p.m. eastern on c-span3. off the many look of a project, you look afterwards to see whether you have she your objectives come at what cost. to see through this last half-century of military , partisan politics aside at the reality aside, what happens after the party is over, what are the after effects of war? what are the costs on both sides? >> sunday night, media entrepreneur and travel writer discusses his latest book war, the after party, a global walkabout to a half-century of u.s. military interventions. it chronicles his travel expenses through countries affected by u.s. involved conflicts. >> we'll come with some form of bias. i want to all of these places with an open mind, again try not so much to understand what a
partisan point of view might be, but to look at was the mission accomplished, and what were the costs on both ends of the gun barrel? >> sunday night at it if i eastern on c-span's q and a. >> the financial reporters discuss potential changes in the financial services industry with the incoming trump administration. this hour-long event was hosted by the clearing house, a banking trade organization.
>> welcome back to the annual clearinghouse conference. for lunch, we are going to do something different and less dry discussion of regulatory policy and capital ratios and things like that. it would be instructtive, quite a lot of fun to hear from the media, their perception of the environment or your institutions and more broadly, more recent events and politics the topics get more interesting. as you know, i'm capable of long introductions. you know these people. i wake up every morning with ben white. i spend all day with cnbc. and he pops up periodically and i turn the volume back up. with the financial times and "wall street journal," they don't pop into my office.
i read them more at my leisure but in great detail. and they are true resources when it comes to these issues and obviously a big read for a lot of you in this audience. probably less known to you is candy wolf who is our moderator. and head of global affairs at ctigroup. -- citigroup. she seems unruffled to me. she has had vast experience in the area in which she works. she previously worked in the senate and office of the vice president and assistant to the president for legislative affairs in the bush administration. so she knows of where she speaks. you are in great hands with candy and turn it over to her. >> welcome to my panel. i usually have to be the one answering the questions, so it's a pleasure to be up here and ask
all of these questions and put them on the spot. i think we are going to start a little bit with politics and set the stage for the environment and move into the policy issues as we go along. i was going to throw it open to all of you as you look back on election night and the numbers were coming back and all of a sudden, states that weren't supposed to be in play and now in play and pennsylvania was moving in the direction of trump and michigan and again ohio. what was going through your mind as the election was unfolding? and perhaps we can talk a little bit to not only as what was on your mind but what were you thinking with respect to our industry, financial services, if anything, as you were watching the results come forward? i will open it broadly to the conversation.
>> what was i thinking as the returns were coming in? my first thought was, it might be that i got this one wrong. [laughter] a slight possibility that i didn't call it right. that initial sense of wow. this is remarkable. and clearly missed the extent to which trump's message would resonate in the rust belt and clinton was not getting the numbers she needed in the obama coalition. she was not particularly some of the suburban female white voters. they didn't turn out in big enough numbers. and trump ran up the score in a lot of places where obama had won in 2008 and 2012. the nature of the electorate and the way it moved and surprised a lot of people.
the national polls, when you look at the margin in the popular vote, now we are not that far off if she ends up with 1% or 2% in the popular vote. but michigan, wisconsin, pennsylvania were several points off. so it was surprising to me. i wouldn't say i was spending a lot of time at that moment thinking what does it mean for the financial services industry but i started thinking about that in the days following and the extent to which this is a complete seismic change in which there will be a mass of getting -- deregulation at the evisceration of dodd frank and people who are in favor of this stuff that jeb hensarling wants to do that will include higher capital level. there will be that tug-of-war between those who really want to just completely got dodd frank
and. go and raise capital levels significantly and i don't think we have an answer. shock, awe, surprise went through my mind and i thought the mea culpa columns i would have to write and i got very depressed. >> ben -- you wouldn't have been on the conference call, there is a conference call that i wasn't supposed to talk about but i will. early in the evening with nbc and the people who did the exit polls, i remember trying to listen to the person who was talking and it was very early on in the evening that something was not about to happen the way it was expected to happen and i can't describe to you what he said except that it reminded me of the guy from the rocket company in apollo 13. he said it's not designed for this. give me an answer.
i'm like something's weird here and the stuff starts coming in -- here's a weird thing, right, something like several thousand times the following conversation has to take place. exit poller, do you think donald trump is trustworthy to be president? responded no. exit pollster, who did you vote for? donald trump. if you look at the exit polls, it was the majority number of people overall and something like 30% or 40% of trump voters. i had the i don't know having the displeasure having conducted a poll two weeks prior and we showed hillary with a nine-point lead. it's a weird thing. on the one hand you hope for a poll that is in line and on the
other hand you hope for a poll that is newsy. and you think could i have been smarter? what i think about is the other data in the poll that shows how dissatisfied people were with the political system, how dissatisfied they were with the economic system, how angry they were, how much concern there was about the economic future and said to myself, ok, there's no way they can put essentially the incumbent back in. i would have to tilt it in my analysis against the top line, but you can read the bottom line of this and the exit polls as well explaining what happened. >> we were neutral but very much set up on the evening, bit of a party, we had a lot of pizzas delivered and bought a fridge to stock with beer. which we did.
and we tried to stay busy. pub at abouto the 7:00 and it was looking -- the script was in fact. i got back at 8:30 and watching the mexican peso climbing. you did bloomberg screen and you can see the movement. this is just inching up and up. at that point, the pizzas didn't get eaten and the beer left untouched and i hammered something out about u.s. stocks which were open at that point. but all the columnists cranked up and got into action. >> there was a similar dynamic at the journal the day of the election. we had put in a plan that half of us on the banking team would be there late watching the markets and the other half would come in early the next morning. i was on the late shift. and the early crew the next day was kind of joking with all the
sentiment that we will be able to come in normal time if this is an uneventful election but obviously this didn't take place. in events like this, you are looking at the political dynamic of it and wondering how everything was so surprising to so many posters. -- pollsters. but like ben, we were following the markets and watching stock prices and the interesting reaction to the gathering news that it was going to be a trump win and then changing around 4:00, 5:00, 6:00 a.m. the acceptance speech was somewhat more graceful than people feared. the stocks started to rebound. we saw within an eight-hour time frame the market's reaction go from very worried and optimistic to what it meant to bank stocks. >> i think some of that optimism
is that there is an all republican-congress. there is this view that all of a sudden you had a republican house and question whether the republicans were going to maintain the senate and in history as we look back, there have been periods of time in which an administration is controlled by the same party that you have gotten things done in the current time line. so if you look to obama's first two years or bush mid-one, two, three, four, five, six and then of course now potentially for trump. >> the most useful is the gridlock and that wasn't in this case. >> i thought the market was really wrong about that. one of the private moments i had was to be excited for myself professionally and that half of my job is supposed to be covering the fed and the
economic data and also cover economic policy and there hasn't been economic policy that i have covered in six years and you can laugh at that but it's true. i was excited when the republicans won the congress in 2014 because i thought that that meant that at least bills would go through congress and get on the president's desk. and it may be somewhat instructive in that that republican congress could barely put anything on the president's desk. we will see if they -- you get something in. but my feeling was professionally that ok, i'll have economic policy to cover again and personally as an american, i have to say i wasn't sure that america was going to get by another four years with gridlock. and this is an aside, but having spent six years in russia when
, you see a country with need for legislation, you need that stuff. there is a reason why and it wasn't getting done for whatever reason. so, look, i think we can talk about what's going to be done but the fact that something can get done and maybe that's reflected in the markets. >> it is obviously as candy pointed out, the markets started to turn around overnight partly because of the concession speech which was relatively gracious and not filled with vitriol, but also it became clear that there was going to be a republican house, senate and president, which we can get into the details what it actually needs, but the prospect for lower corporate tax rates and maybe fiscal stimulus spending and good news for the stock market, not necessarily long-term good news if you spike up inflation and you have a scenario where you do a big
stimulus where the economy doesn't need a big stimulus. but the scenario quickly played itself out this is a great short-term bull run move. >> we'll transition into policy a little bit. let's talk about the transition, because, any administration has to go through, they have a transition team and putting landing teams into the various agencies and assessing regulation, policies, creating a briefing book that is going to be turned over to the heads of all of these agencies and new cabinet posts. so one of the more important ones that we have been hearing rumors about is treasury and put you on the spot as to when we might hear and who it might be and kind of talk about the rumors that have been flowing for three-plus weeks.
>> just about this, i have been hearing it is mnuchin for days days now, and just in the process of having been in this room for 30 minutes, i have heard both he is going to be announced tomorrow and he is not going to get it because he didn't raise enough money for trump and they are angry at him for not raising enough money. it is important when we talk about the trump transition to say it is not like any transition we have seen in a long time. this is a very ad hoc. every transition has different factions and people pushing certain candidates and the extent to which they are openly public fights as to who is going to take the senior job and conwaynd -- kellyanne
arguing against romney. trump still appearing to be inclined to pick him. steve mnuchin appears to be the most likely candidate and others in the mix, including jeb hensarling who i don't think gets it. it's hard to cover this transition because you have so many elements of the trump universe fighting each other and in terms of the transition team, steve and i were talking beforehand and it's true, this is not the universe of economic policy and financial policy people that a lot of you know very well. a guy like bill walden, sort of big in the 1980's, allied capital and big fight with eye -- einhorn and disappeared into the wilderness and has been living on a farm or investing in movies and now he's back and on
the treasury landing team and very anti-regulation and very anti-big government, but we don't know a whole lot about him or what he is doing. so it's very hard to cover this transition and i think there are a lot of people involved in it that we just don't know very well. >> i think he is a perfect example of having much less history was sort of coming out and speaking about regulation and economic policy then john allison who ran a bank and is at the cato institute and is very much on the record of what should happen. i think if trump does take mnuchin it's a wild card for how high he prioritizes financial services. >> from what i've been hearing, much less connected is the news guys. why hasn't it been confirmed? as commercecame in
at the of leslie and i spent most of my thanksgiving research being this guy and write being him. we have a mandate about the confirmation. it came and went. it seems nothing is certain in this environment and trump has absolutely nothing to gain by keeping the likes of us informed. >> i think there's an element of what ben said there's some infighting there's definitely a , lot of factions for the big jobs. but there's also an element, i think, he wants to test the waters, right? if you're going to hire a treasury secretary, even if it's mnuchin, you want to interview five candidates to see what you're passing up. >> for some of these treasury people there's always the question, is this candidate we are talking about before getting through the paperwork, the vetting, the assets, how he would -- somebody like mnuchin would put in a blind trust or liquefying assets and how willing is he to do that? of course, we have the guy at the top not really inclined to do any of that.
have you manned -- how do you demand it of your cabinet secretaries? that's true of the big jobs but particularly true for treasury when you're operating within a universe of people that have significant assets and possible conflicts so that's one thing that could be slowing the treasury announcement down. trump is not completely -- i think he leans mnuchin and likes him and knows him but there are people very close to trump who are whispering in his ear, don't pull this trigger yet. look at this guy. there are conservative ideologues that would prefer allison because he's known on the record on his views on, you know, reform in the regulatory system and banking reform whereas you have more of a blank slate in a guy like steve. a lot of these moving parts, i hear often this is coming tomorrow and then by the end of the day stand down, it's not happening. >> nobody said romney for treasury secretary? >> no.
i haven't heard that. it could happen. >> to me, this points to another issue which is -- to borrow a craps term, which is a game i'm fond of -- the extent to which the market is trading trump on the come here. in large measure, a campaign is a dress rehearsal and a blueprint and a skeleton for an administration. and part of why we have not seen anything like this before, there's no campaign structure that moves from here to there. we had that famous quote when apparently somebody went into the west wing and said, how many of these people stay? so he doesn't have -- i don't think he's tremendously behind where he would be. but i also think that the extent to which the president-elect was specific about plans and specific about what he wanted to do, it was unclear in the sense he had people to do these things
remains unclear. i know the market is very optimistic and i think there's something about that optimism but i think it's way out over its skeeze on what is capable to be done given the infrastructure that he lacks. i know that the morning that the times published its interview with donald trump, i have this personal reaction of, you know, w.t.f. for lack of a better term which is, how am i supposed to do this job if for the next several months the whole game is if / then? right? if he does this then it might mean this for the economy. but the if, we don't know what the if is. the if could be, i'm going to keep parts of obamacare or i'm going to get rid of this. i'm going to keep this. if the if is so uncertain, it's very difficult to game out events, and right now the market has decided what the if is and what the then is.
>> i think one more thing on the nature of this transition versus other transitions. in some way it's not dissimilar from obama in 2008 in the sense, you know, senator obama then did not have a government in waiting. he was coming out of a single term in the senate that wasn't a massive world of policy people around him. so he's building a lot from scratch in the transition. they took it so seriously from the start in terms of, you know, just hitting the mark and they also had a crisis they were coming into office to deal with so the policy framework was, how do we stop the bleeding? how do we a stimulus package quickly? let's get people in place to do that. for trump there's no government in waiting, no policy universe to turn the key in the white house and start moving. and you have a relatively decent economy, decent g.d.p.
good stock prices good housing , prices and kind of a blank slate for what he could do. as steve said, we don't know what the if is. so you have somebody whose policy views aren't well-known in addition to not having the apparatus and structure to put in place a new administration. the gap of unknowns is enormous. >> well, i think part of the continuation of that unknowns is we're going through a period of time, as you said, they're trying to figure out cabinet officials. that's wave one, right? because you have the names in and you have to get people through the confirmation process, hearings and things at the beginning part of january in order to get individuals confirmed on january 20 and 21 so you have a cabinet with a continuity of government the day after the president is sworn in. the conversation going on next is what is wave two and wave three and of course wave four? if you look back and some of the research i've done previously, administrations take at minimum through august to try to fill out a lot of these positions. so you're going to have cabinet officials going in to treasury
with themselves, probably a secretary and maybe a counselor. and then no one else underneath them in terms of assistant secretaries or undersecretaries, etc. the question is, how long is it going to take, the next set of names and positions that will be filled? and i keep hearing wave two, maybe it's wave three but wave two is filling out treasury but also starting to look at the fed, you know, the f.c.c., the cftc. some of these conversations are occurring at the hill as we speak because there are names still pending as the f.c.c. will be in a position with a -- not having a quorum with the resignation and departure of the chairwoman. so, you know, at some point some of these positions will have to accelerate or congress is going to decide here in the next week that they're actually going to confirm some of these folks to begin to fill out these
positions. but given the discussions, maybe we could turn a bit to the fed. we know we had two vacancies that remain pending. they don't appear to be going anywhere right now and we had the vice chair of supervision. you know, turillo has been in the acting role but not been officially appointed or confirmed so there are some slots that certainly can be filled. if treasury secretary gets named and the trump focuses on it, -- structure and just and begins to focus on it, what impact do you think a new administration, whether transition or administration itself, can actually have on the fed and what are the thinking of how quickly this is happening or what it could mean for people here in the room around the policy going forward? >> one thing i'd say on that, and you mentioned turillo as the acting chairman, vice chairman of supervision, that is a very powerful regulator to have been
there that long and be in the acting title. i think it speaks to the fact there's such partisan discord and inability to work together in washington that obama felt like he couldn't get turillo through. he wanted to stick with turillo. well the democrats to? how willing will they be to work with trump? how much will they push back on his nominees, on his policies, how much will they try to work with him? i think that's one of the big wild cards and a lot rides on schumer and the leadership and try to determine how tough their going to make it for trump to fill those wave two and wave three positions. >> i wonder how long turillo will survive? he has to rev up for six months which means he's out by spring. i have spoken to a lot of people in the room before and the consensus is that they won't be
sad to see the back of him. [laughter] >> let's take a poll. >> the numbers are that he gets -- twot to immediately appoint two immediately. if he names one of them as the vice chairman of supervision, then he gets probably turillo resigns. he will have a chair and a vice chair. he'll have five and seven in the -- five of seven in the next year and a half. i got emails after some of the names were floated. all of them were like if this happens i would be surprised if turillo stays a week. that would be the conventional wisdom. i have spoken to dan so i don't know if that's true. does he stick around to try to stop somebody from undoing what he's tried to do on capital levels?
and all that? i doubt it. he probably does head for the door and a lot of the game will be played at the fed in terms of regulation and all -- that all of you care about because, you know, we get into this more detail. the idea that congress is just going to uniformerly get rid of dodd-frank and change regulation overnight it's way complicated than that and way harder than that. as aaron said, it depends on democratic unanimity in the senate and the ability to filibuster stuff. and it's not like elizabeth warren and her forces are completely without weapons and also in arguing that, look, trump campaigned on a populous -- populist message of championing the little guy and not giving wall street what they want and he's going to have to deal with that. >> what weapons does she have? >> she can't stop him but she has the bully pulpit and has the
convening power to get the progressive left to at least make noise and get in the headlines what some of these regulatory changes would do. i mean, if republicans are, you know, lockstep in agreement on an agenda on financial reform and changing a lot of these things, they can probably get it done and get it signed by trump. but there are going to be plenty who are nervous, is this really what republicans in pennsylvania, ohio, wisconsin voted for? how is this going to play with these people? what does it mean for 2018 elections, all these senate elections that are coming up in 2018? i just don't think it's a slam dunk that all of a sudden the pro-wall street reform people, i think they're in retreat. i think their odds are stacked against them, but i think there's still weapons they can use to try to slow some stuff down in the senate. that's why it gets back to the fed and the appointments there and the departure of tarullo will be where a lot of the action will take place.
>> i think, ben, following up on steve's point, i mean, the senate still has the filibuster now. there's question if they would require only 51 votes for many of the provisions. but under the rules of the senate it takes 60 votes to end debate, to bring a bill to the vote which is what the filibuster is. you have to enact cloture and you have to enact the 60 votes. at that point that's really the challenge that the republicans have, i think, around any of the reforms which is, you only have 52 republicans. if all were voting for you. assuming louisiana votes -- goes for the republican candidate. but you end up with 52 senators. so somewhere in there to get to 60 you need eight democrats. >> so i can play this out, then? >> yes. >> if elizabeth warren wants to filibuster any reform to dodd-frank or -- i don't know how it will happen. separate bills or single bills? >> well, no one knows the answer
to that. >> she can stop that unless they somehow get eight democratic votes. >> or they try to go through reconciliation. >> or they try to move something on a bill that requires 51 which you can do with special rules in the senate. but not get totally nerdy, you have to -- [laughter] ok. so my background used to be budget rules in the u.s. senate. so i will get nerdy. and you need to do -- to have reconciliation has to have a budgetary impact and it isn't a budget like we think budget. it has to be scored by the congressional budget office to say it will have an impact and there are few provisions i am aware of that could get that scoring. but that's for others to think about whether there are certain provisiones that could ultimately be considered as -- >> well, i don't want to be debbie downer here. they're not trading like elizabeth warren has the filibuster authority over the reform of dodd-frank. am i crazy about that? >> i'm not -- >> it seems to be trading like this is a done deal.
>> i am highly skeptical all this stuff will get undone rapidly. >> the stocks out there are declining and they're all good -- >> way below. >> financial -- all the financial stocks of the s&p 500. >> we've all seen in bank stocks and we have written stories to be about seems nothing to do with the prospects of regulation under the new administration. my colleague is a huge fan of the charts and he showed me early on that the gap between ,he two and the 10 year yield it is all prospects of normalization of monetary policy as far as i can tell given all the uncertainties we talked about, all these personalities that may or may not do what job. i think it's in that -- >> well, dodd-frank reform is one of the reasons the office is up. i agree with ben that the yield curve, the infrastructure for -- the chance for infrastructure
spending, more inflation, the longer part of the bond, yield curve spiking up and the short and probably coming with it at some point, that that's all very positive for bank stocks. and then also just the change in activity, very good for trading. so part of the banks that has been depressed for years in part because of regulation, in part because of market conditions and investor appetite is starting to see a lot more robust activity. >> you say carry on, bid it higher, it's all good? >> well, they have a good rally. whether it sustains is another question. it definitely reset -- i think regulation was part of that but not a huge part of that. i think it will definitely be a tail wind for the stock. if you're counting on regulation going away or deregulation coming in or dodd-frank being rolled back as sort of the thesis for your bank stock investment it may be a longer play or trickier play. >> i think we should take into account the extent to which the bank stock rally is a relief rally from what the market expected which was a clinton white house with a democratic
senate and a small republican house majority and a clinton administration that, you know, she is widely viewed on wall street as pretty moderate on banking and gave all the speeches and all that kind of stuff. she had to run populist to beat bernie sanders and talk about cracking down on wall street. she probably had to put people into positions in a lot of these agencies and at treasury who have strong pro-wall street reform background and all of a sudden in an instant that got wiped away completely. so you had to have a reset in expectations for bank reform and regulation based on, a, generally pro-business white house senate and house of representatives. so a lot of it was a counterfactual. we thought we would get this. oh, my god, we got that.
>> so aaron, back to you on the comment you made in term of the bank stock evaluations, etc., and we're looking at an infrastructure potentially, some type of infrastructure package although no one really understands what that means. tax reform, which we think is potentially corporate, territorial and -- or international reform and individual. at least that's the starting point. and repeal of obamacare and maybe some sorm of replacement. so we have some changes going on in some big marketplaces. possibly -- i mean, things will take longer but certainly in the course of the first six months or so is where some of these conversations are going to go. so what's the thinking around the impact with respect to the deficit? how sort of the analysis going with, you know, is there consideration as so whether some of these policies, depending on what you look at and we really don't know what the substance is going to be, but is the market
going to start reacting more to concerns around deficit spending should some of these proposals not be paid for or offset or -- >> yeah, you have been thinking about that question for a while. it doesn't seem like it's been caught on yet. i have been waiting on s&p or moody's to say, wait a second, these deficit issues could have an impact. the president-elect has a lot of business experience and running businesses with a very low bond rating, to put it kind lie. -- to put it kindly. [laughter] >> you know, his views on deficits and growth are probably different than the deficit hawks. sort at a core level. now, the deficit hawks are important to the tea party and his base but it doesn't seem like they're getting a lot of love yet, at least early days. to me, the infrastructure is a very plausible thing for him to do. he's a real estate guy. he's built things over his life that's very appealing to him and it's also had bipartisan support , as long as it doesn't get the deficit too out of control. he can talk about rolling back health care and rolling back dodd-frank but that will be a very difficult fight.
whereas his infrastructure projects won't be harder for him. >> i think it will be harder because there's bipartisan support for the idea of infrastructure spending, but the miffed in which you -- method in which you do that is there is very little bipartisan agreement and democrats are already starting to coalesce around the idea they would fight an infrastructure program that's based on, you know, credits for private corporations. you know, they're talking about corporate welfare and they'll continue to do that if there's not a big public spending piece of it that is the government building stuff. again, you get into the question of, can he muscle it through a republican congress? and i don't know that he can if you have a filibuster in the senate of democrats saying we love the idea of rebuilding our roads and bridges but we don't love the idea this is all a handout to big corporations and we're going to fight it and this
is not what trump voters voted for. it's all part of the broader message. democrats haven't quite figured it out yet, but at some point there will be a theory of the case against trump which is what you voted for is not what you're getting. you're getting millionaires and billionaires and all these important jobs. you're getting across-the-board tax cuts for rich people. you'll get an infrastructure program that designed for corporate america. if they can figure that all out and coalesce around it, i don't think there's some slam dunk for an infrastructure spending bill. >> i think one of the things that has to be considered is, there's only so much bandwidth in the white house and in congress for major overhauls. i remember i had a conversation with the chief of staff for bush going into the second administration and he laid it out for me all these things they were going to do and i said, that's a lot of stuff and he said, the president is very ambitious. i said, you could maybe not get any of this done. actually, you were involved in all this, weren't you? >> we didn't get a lot of it done. [laughter] >> by god, she got it done. >> social security, immigration.
>> i don't know it was the result of that being that. but pick one thing or two things, maybe. and then you got to get to -- you got to get over the hump of the mid terms. because that's going to be key. so this two-year window i think what does he choose to focus on? if you think about the enormity of immigration reform and dodd-frank and a tax cut proposal and repatriation and, you know, even just the repatriation proposal which we're talking earlier, it includes pretty major overhaul in the tax system going from a territorial -- to a territorial system and then the repatriation on top of that, it's a pretty big undertaking for if you're right that they don't get up to speed until sometime around august, you know, if you get the secretary in there, i forget, do you remember when geithner was finally was up to speed to get
that? >> february of 2009. >> he should have shut up then. >> yes. [laughter] >> it was a deer in the headlight. >> we had them on. -- we had him on. i had did the interview with brian williams and the market was like took a step down every word he said. even the word "the." >> that was not a high point of the obama administration. >> you wait until you -- undersecretaries and you have the -- not to mention the job that you did which was connelly -- which was congressional liaison. >> well, the white house job will be filled because it doesn't require confirmation so he'll have those positions kind of filled out day one. >> and another thing to watch in that is where does economic policy come from? some presidents choose to use the treasury and some choose to keep it -- >> economic council. >> you're familiar with that format. >> keeping it 1600. >> the other thing to take into account when talking about the massive agenda and the difficulty of getting a lot of
it or any of it done is the fact they have to do confirmation fights for some of -- some of these people. sessions is going to have a fight. there may be others who have tough confirmation hearings and then a supreme court justice takes up most of the bandwidth in any administration or a lot of the bandwidth. again, sort of the caution of people that think a full rewrite of the corporate and individual tax code along with infrastructure spending, dodd-frank repeal, obamacare repeal, i mean, just pump the brakes. >> can i add one thing to this which is this to me says that i should read and understand the paul ryan plans best because -- >> yeah. >> geithner had a thing -- >> whoever has the plan can dictate the policy. >> to the extent they don't have
to wait to review in betterway.gov and i read a bunch of it but maybe i need to memorize it now -- >> yeah, they had the bones. >> there's a lot of policy ideas that can be translated. >> you saw in the campaign, the first and second iterations of the trump tax reform plan moved from rates cuts that were not going to happen much closer to the paul ryan-kevin brady set of rate cuts and that's probably where they'll wind up. i don't think -- >> hold on. you overstate that -- >> well, they move closer. >> it's still ryan on steroids or double. >> maybe less like human growth hormone and -- >> like a nasal spray. [laughter] >> a nasal steroid. >> he went from 12 to 10 to six and ryan's at three. >> yeah. you could see them working those details out. i can see the trump administration not being too proprietary about paul ryan kind of driving the bus on corporate
tax reform and individual tax reform and then taking credit for it when it gets done. he's not like -- he's a headlines guy, not a detail's guy. >> i am going to open it up to the audience for a second. but to comment on what ben and steve were saying, you have personnel and supreme court and minimum of two budget resolutions and repeal of obamacare and all of these things not -- it's going to take a lot of time. i think the interesting challenge will be how the administration tries to deal with the fact that they're going to be running up against government operating far more slowly than perhaps they think it ought to be and the kind of pressure. so i'm already told just anecdotally that the house had their calendar scheduled so they can determine which days they'll go in and go out and the days they were listed, they had three weeks in, one week out. traditionally how the congress has been operating and they don't vote mondays or fridays. and the trump transition took a look at the calendar and said,
you know, this doesn't work because i work seven days a week and you guys aren't really here and so the calendar went back and got revised. and they took out the one extra week off, etc. so there's already some of that interesting pressure around, you know, how much work is going to be done and the senate has announced they will be in mondays and fridays. now, we'll see if they are in mondays and fridays and if they really vote. there seems to be some movement around maybe given the amount of things that need to get addressed and understanding there's a short window that they're going to try to push it. at some point the twitter account is going to probably start pressuring the congress to act more rapidly than the congress is sort of willing or able to do. and i think that tension will be an interesting dialogue for you guys to write about. >> interesting is an stunned guys interesting is an understatement. -- interesting is an understatement.
you can see it which trump declares war on congress, the do-nothing congress. anything is possible. and they could be at complete odds with each other by three, six months into the administration. we have no idea. >> and it will likely happen between midnight and 3:00 a.m. [laughter] >> and it will start -- >> you will be on that late shift. we'll call it the tweet shift. [laughter] >> all right. i think we're going to open it up for questions from the audience. i don't know if there's a mike. >> you guys are laughing like this is hysterical, right? this isn't funny. >> some of it is funny. >> i mean, he's going to be up at 3:00. >> he's going to be up at 3:00. >> and laugh in the face of horror and misery. >> i think it's all good, ben. >> happy days are here again. >> i'm psyched. >> mike is here. >> sorry. i default to moderator mode. sorry, candida. >> so 2016 was supposed to be the good year for democrats in the senate. [inaudible] a lot more democratic seats. it was supposed to be the they really little year that's
really pivotal year -- really pivotal year. 2016 was supposed to be good year for democrats in the senate. 2018 was supposed to be the year they were defending a lot more seats and therefore looking to lose ground. how does that play in terms of dynamics now? does that encourage democrats to compromise knowing the situation could get far worse in 2018 or does it encourage republicans to sort of hold back a little bit expecting or maybe get the 60-seat majority in 2018? >> that's a great question and you're absolutely right that it's a dismal and terrible math for democrats in 2018. they fully expected to win the senate in 2016 and lose it again in 2018 and they have not won it back in 2016. to see their numbers dwindle even more at 2018, how that changes the political dynamic, someone smarter than me will have to figure that out. i do think there's some incentives for democrats in those vulnerable seats to show that they have achieved something on the legislative
front in terms of economic policy. whether there's anything that puts forward that they can support that doesn't make them vulnerable to primary challenges from the left or look like they're caving to the trump agenda. i mean, you have to remember while trump did win the electoral college, he did not win the popular vote. he doesn't have this massive mandate and a lot of tresh on democrats to stand up to trump, to resist trump so i don't think we know the answer until we know what his legislative agenda looks like, what's in these bills that these democrats in the senate are being asked to vote on and it could go either way. they could decide they have to not be obstructionists and get through some economic legislation that could boost economic growth or they could decide that trump is so unpopular and toxic they can block him at every turn and be rewarded for it. it's too soon to answer that. >> we're in new york and no one has mentioned senator schumer.
next i mentioned him. -- >> i mentioned him. >> we're in new york. there's no one that mentioned senator schumer. two new yorkers now that has traditionally found a way to do business together. senator schumer, which never forgot the wall street. big part of his constituency is in the financial services marketplace. what role does senator schumer have now post-election? assuming that he's a minority leader? >> can i make one comment because i heard a great quote the of the day on schumer being the republican leader. given his relationship with donald trump, republicans should be more scared than the democrats or equally as scared as the democrats in terms of that relationship. so i think there's some truth to, you know, what kind of dialogue could happen between the white house and senate democrats in a way i think could open up some possibility for coalition. >> i'll let ben answer this or maybe aaron.
i will point out real quickly. in fact, mark, i'd call you and ask that question. you would obviously have great thoughts on that. the issue to me, in a normal world, we would perhaps passed dodd-frank as it was and gone back and revisited it in at least a four-year time frame, maybe a five-year time frame. that if senator schumer can't possibly be a bridge between the extremes on the left -- and tell me if i'm speaking naively here -- who don't want it touched at all and the extremes on the right that want to get rid of it, i think i think he can play an amazing and constructive role here where i don't think schumer will be seen as the i who is coddling wall street but there are a lot of smart people i talked to on wall street who are very
convince being some of the negative macroeconomic effects of dodd-frank that argue for loosening it in some regards that normal, reasonable people might have done. that's my answer. maybe there's a -- >> no. i think you basically got it right. it's a very different dynamic for schumer as minority leader than obviously would have been if democrats had taken the senate and were in position to block republican efforts to change financial regulation. now he can cast himself as the broker who protects the most important pieces. is reasonable on things that maybe need tweaks and changes that have some bipartisan support and it's going to be one of these finally delicate political balances and schumer is better than anybody and playing them to the best way to his political advantage. i do think that steve is absolutely right. he could play the deal as broker between the left that says don't
touch anything, scream and yell and fight all the way and schumer is saying if there are going to be changes be as painless as possible. that is a hopeful view. >> i agree that he is in a key role. he'll have warren on one side and he'll have trump on the other, and like you said, they are both new yorkers, and it wouldn't surprise me to see them do a deal on certain things or say, ok, i'll deal with you on one item -- on one item. and we're not touching this item and it might work. on the other hand, he has to keep in mind the mid terms and he will want to do things that will add to the democrats standing in the house and senate even if it is seeming pretty hopeless at this point. he'll have to keep an eye on that especially four years from now. it's a great question. >> just want to offer one idea. there is a constituency of
senators in the middle. schumer, corker, warren. if these guys are kind of looney on each end -- and i don't mean that perjoratively. [laughter] >> passionate, committed. >> could you see a scenario -- >> i am going to take your job as moderator. >> that's fine. >> where these middle senators gain power and there's a senator san -- certain saint that would -- a certain sanity that would overtake? >> i think "politico" had a good story the other day. >> you did? >> don't want to toot my own word. >> did you use the word looneys in there? >> no. we used passionate progressives versus -- but, yes. no, absolutely, there will be that group of moderate senators from swing states who will want to have some accomplishments to get some stuff done, seen as brokers on, you know, in the senate that is pretty closely divided. it will depend on trump's
popularity, how he is seen by the public, whether there's a lot of public support for his agenda, how he's behaving and performing in office. if it looks like he is doing well and has put together reasonable legislative packages on taxes and spending, there will be democrats who will want to cross the line and not filibuster and get this stuff passed. gaming what they're going to do, we'll see how the rest of the transition process plays itself out, how the early days of the administration plays themselves out. if it's some chaotic mess and trump is tweeting that stuff 24/7 and his popularity going from 42% which is not particularly high for an incoming president although which is much better than when he was running down in the 30's, they will keep going. i hate to keep saying wait and see but you have to wait and see. >> questions?
anyone else from the audience? all right. prerogative of the moderator. >> we can talk about sports and the cowboys. >> we need to talk about trade. >> i'd rather talk about sports. >> yeah. [laughter] >> so probably the one challenge -- and i'll look to aaron and ben here. you got all these exuberance in the marketplace around certain policies, but we know when it comes to trade there's questions of renegotiating nafta, that the trans-pacific partnership he's withdrawing, wants to lift china as a currency manipulator. there's a lot of potential policies early on. and then a number of, you know, enforcement mechanisms to use commerce to bring actions on unfair trade. so, you know, for many in the room -- i can put my citi hat on and we look at the anti-globalization trend that's been going on around the world
and whether we look at the brexit vote or current elections in france or potentially in germany are all of the other stories around this anti-globalization that helped elect trump, the anti-trade message was what was incredibly strong as we look at the rust belt state. what should we be thinking about? what should business be thinking about from a trade perspective? and what do you think the markets are sort of thinking and doing going forward because i think one of the challenges is you can have all this potential stimulus on the tax side and then we'll have questions about trade that's really going to pull down the -- potentially can lead to, you know, a lack of growth in the economy if there's tariffs and things that are sufficiently high? so i'll throw open a question. >> wilbur ross paid a visit to the s.e.c. recently. the trade will be changed.
it will be unashamedly america first. he wants to, of course, tear up nafta which he knows flipped the surface of mexico in an instant deficit almost overnight. he wants to have automatic reopeners in any -- in any deal after five years just to take a step back, perhaps dodd-frank should have had, just to see if it's working. he wants each side to go into negotiations with firm estimates of the impacts on the industries and jobs and it's going to be a complete change assuming he does get the job. >> historically, the problem with tariffs and protectionist trade policies is you might get a better slice of the pie but the bigger global economic pie is not growing as fast. i think he wants the economy to grow and he wants america to grow first and foremost. so i think it's going for one of the most important areas in terms of how the market reacts to that. i mean, in putting on
the rosy-colored glasses, if he goes in and negotiates better trade deals for america that other countries can live with, that's probably a good thing. but if they retaliate and why wouldn't they retaliate? it could be sort of a vicious cycle sort of situation. so i think there's a lot of risk there. you know, in the markets that maybe is not being priced in at the moment. >> if donald trump goes to his briefings -- [laughter] >> i was letting that sink in for a little while. it was intended as a joke but maybe a little too subtle. [laughter] >> he'll get two briefings. one is he'll learn about the whole u.f.o. thing and area 51. [laughter] >> the second briefing he will get and hopefully this will sink in is how america runs the world through its trade agreements. and through the different i.f.i.'s and organizations.
and he'll be like oh, that's why we do that. and he'll get the briefing that will tell him that there's a couple reasons why we maybe want to help mexico. there may be reasons why we may want to have the current set of agreements that might be ingendered in t.p.p. and they may be much about military security as they are about economic security. and there may be a reason why it doesn't necessarily add up for the u.s. in the ledger because it has an asset over here that is not counted in security. one of the things we thought in post-brexit, we created economic agreements so we wouldn't kill each other and i think we forgot that entirely. it's impossible to measure some of these trade agreements via the way donald trump and wilbur ross, if i'm not mistaken -- we
have a deficit with them and, you know, to some extent that's a negative for u.s. growth depending on how you measure the added value of the import. i think what he'll find is that there was some sense behind the obama foreign policy. and trade policy and it was -- on a numbers basis -- and just don't be too shocked by this, america is less great than it was. as a percentage of total g.d.p., the u.s. percentage has declined. so the question is, how do we maintain our greatness or being great and essentially authority over the world trade system in a world where other countries somewhat to our benefit are getting wealthier. and we do that through -- somebody -- i think it was mike made this point. globalization is a reality. our trade agreements are simply
the rules by which we live in that reality. so i'm i think he'll get the ufo briefing and trade briefing. >> i wish i could get that ufo briefing. [laughter] >> this is another one where it's a matter of which advisors around trump wind up having the most influence. there are the zero sum trade game people like wilbur who believe when other countries win , we lose. and there are free traders like kudlow and steve moore and others who say, you know, generally speaking more global trade is better for the world and ultimately better for us. i think t.p.p. is history. i think it's an unfortunate fact that that's the case because we could have withstood to benefit greatly from that. i don't know who's going to ultimately win the argument. i think he'll look for individual instances where he can say he kept x u.s. jobs