tv 2017 National Lawyers Convention - White House Counsel Mc Gahn CSPAN November 17, 2017 8:32pm-9:23pm EST
>> welcome to the 15th annual -- is this on? welcome to the 15th annual barbara olson lecture. i am jeanne meyer, president of the society. this memorial started as many of you know shortly after 9/11. ted nelson's inaugural lecture reminded us of what it means to be an american, how are our legal tradition is a critical part of our identity as americans. bo ted was here today. and barbara understood this connection. we want this lecture to remind a lawyers of it. so that they foster legal principles that advance freedoms, personal responsibility, and the rule of
law. other lecturers have included a justice scalia, chief justice roberts, vice president cheney, judges can start, robert burke, edith jones, douglas ginsburg, and j gibson. nine judge, now justice neil gorsuch, former attorney general michael mukasey, peter teel, john allison, and senators tom todd. -- torings us to the today's lecture. it is my honor to introduce barbara olson. white house counsel don mcgann. office, hecouncil served as the chairman of the ftc and was a partner at jones day. all that prior to joining term campaign as their counsel. he earned his ba from notre dame. don has in common with barbara olson and entrepreneurial spirit that he has brought to everything he does.
like barbara, he has made his own way often raising and approaching questions in an unconventional way and advocating things simply because he thought they were right. one of his major interests has been judges. another is the administrative state. about which as this conference shows, as we heard last night, there is increasing discussion and debate. it is typical of the don, like barbara, who takes the lead in critical discussions in battles, it is also typical but he does it with energy, zest, and good humor. work with judges and administrative law, don is committed to the constitution and its structure and committed through his public service to advancing the form of inernment, that, to put it his words, to make america great. i'm delighted to welcome don mcgann at the 2017 barbara olson
lecture. [applause] mr. mcgahn: thank you very much. i think i am going to quit while i am ahead. [laughter] thank you. the reception will be a cross the hall. [laughter] here really an honor to be , to be invited to the barbara olson lecture. metew barbara, i believe i her at this hotel during a federal society convention like this one many years ago. when leonard called and asked if i could do this lecture, i think i said, i think you dialed the wrong number. and he i looked it up
listed all the folks who have given this lecture over the year. scaliau hear names like and gorsuch, and then me, one of those names is different than the rest. [laughter] just give a hint, i do not have any problem with truck drivers. [laughter] [applause] i think the media is probably wondering what that was about. [laughter] really anl society is amazing organization. i have been privileged to be a part of it for many years and watch it grow. i remember the first time i attended one of these conferences, 19 95, i had moved to washington dc and i did not know anyone. very few people would talk to me. now i know a lot of people and very few people still actually want to talk to me. [laughter]
i met a number of people over the years, i remember meeting someone else who moved to d.c., and the conversation went like this. you just moved to d.c.? what were you doing before? i was a law clerk. who did you clerk for? alito. where did you go to school? harvard. undergrad, or boat -- undergrad or upper grad? now he is secretary of labor. for lawyers out there, you never know who you will meet. keep in touch. someday the person you talk to is the white house counsel. you never know. [laughter] [applause] i have not gotten to the funny parts yet. [laughter] another thing i remember, this is the first conference, the
lesson you never know you knew who you were going to me. i managed to stumble into the banquet dinner, the predecessor of what we had last night. i recall, it was across the hall, there was plenty of her in between the tables to navigate. the society was not as large as it is now. i was looking around and i heard someone say, there is an empty chair with us. someone grabbed me by the co-and i sat down. i looked in this person said hi, i'm can crib. i said, well, the guy from the reagan administration? he said, yes. -- i around and introduce was at the illuminati table. someone stands up and said hi, i'm ed meese. i said, you look just like ed meese. [laughter] i was so excited. i went home. i was only in d.c. for two weeks. i called my mom and she was
afraid i was in jail. [laughter] then she realized i would not be able to make the call. her about it. i thought every weekend in washington dc was going to be just like that. [laughter] it was not. not even close. here we are. the past several years has been an interesting journey. it has been a privilege to be part of a presidential campaign. and to have the honor of being named counsel to the president of the united states. began in iowa, as most things do and presidential campaigns. the memory i have of iowa was standing in my hotel room looking at the window, at the iconic skyline, -- [laughter] if you do enough campaigns, it is iconic.
traded voicehad messages with someone from the federal society who will remain nameless so i do not embarrass jonathan bunch. [laughter] we finally connected on the phone. i had heard they were attempting to figure out how to get in touch with the trump campaign. he managed to get in touch with all the other campaigns, but the trump campaign was lean and mean. it caught on with the voters quickly. but did not catch on with the political class. frankly, still hasn't. we are very proud of that. [laughter] funny now. where you laughing then? then?e you laughing i was. [laughter] just keep going. get on the phone with the unnamed federal society person, with the in the -- the initials j b, and he said hey, i want to
talk to you. we are trying to get in touch with the trump campaign. we have talked about the campaign, judicial selection. we will not take positions in the election. i said, i understand that. i double in nonprofit tax law. in nonprofit tax law. is that i am glad you called. we were just talking about judicial selection. in the voice said you are? we actually have somebody in the campaign he will help us. excited. i said former chief of staff to the president bush -- to president bush. he has a lot of experience. [laughter] there is this a deafening pause on the other end of the phone. being in des moines, i thought the phones went down. [laughter] side aon the other
throaty, it is good you have someone helping [laughter] . [laughter] great.yes, it will be he has experience. and a proven record. we asked him to come up with a different lists. the first list, we want mainstream folks, not a big paper trail, the kind of folks that will get through the senate and will make us feel good that we put pragmatic folks on the bench. [laughter] the voice on the other end of the line, i could just hear this gasp. [laughter] the second list, we have put hot for prime too time. the kind that would be hot for the senate. we get a sense of their views. it -- you make sure understand. the kind of people that make people nervous. ok, what are you going
to do with each list? the first list we are going to throw in the trash, the second list is who we will put before the u.s. senate because later mcconnell is going to get it done. [laughter] [applause] i am joyce -- just going to forget my camera were marks and get this done. there was this pod. i did not know jonathan bunch none like i know him now. he kind of stammered. he said, wait, what did you just say? i said, you heard me. i said, you have nothing to worry about. i have known leonard for years. you have nothing to worry about. seriously, we are already thinking about it. i kind of rattled off a couple names and people for different circuits. he said, ok. [laughter] i can just imagine when he called leonard to report back.
that began quite a journey that trump, now president trump, putting out a list of potential supreme court folks. never really had been done before. in typical fashion, it was not done in the primary season two fake people into thinking he was more conservative than he was. it came after he was a nominee for the general election at which point a consultant said, it is over. [laughter] can do that, got to move to the middle. it tells you where we are with that piece. i am very fortunate to survey president who is very committed to what we are committed to hear, which is nominating and appointing judges that are
committed. [applause] i can safely say it is not just talk, if you look at who has been nominated and who has gotten to the senate, i think he has made good on what he said. for all the chattering class of d.c. who thought it was a head fake or it was made up or would be something different, i think this among other things, we have proven them wrong time and time again. part, turn to the boring which is regulation and the rule of law and administrative state. and i will end with more jokes at the end. [laughter] tonight restday -- on related ideas. the greatest threat to the rule of law in our modern society is
the ever-expanding regulatory state. work againstctive that threat is a strong judiciary. in some ways, executive agencies theas old as the republic, state department, the department overall -- of war were created after the founding. the idea that there are agencies within the executive branch is something that has been around a long time. understood that they would have this. led by principal officers, for whom the president may require an opinion in writing on the relevant matters. theamount it -- administrative state was not obstructed until the 20th century on the notion that experts, rather than our elected representatives are best suited to govern the nation's affairs. woodrow wilson was the most notable applicator of this approach.
to the the big decisions supposedly above the fray nonpartisan experts. conclusion, logical one wonders why we should continue to have elections at all under that way of thinking. since then, the administrated state has been -- has expanded beyond anybody's imagination. in 1960, the federal regulations was over 20,000 pages. today, it totals over 200,000 pages. the per se fit -- the pervasiveness of regulation is unavoidable. there are bureaucrats who claim to be independent of any presidential control. they probably proclaim to be nonpartisan, but with better residents -- registration says otherwise. they called it political while wrapping themselves in the ability of being career. a career that is within the confines of their own regulatory structure. it is impossible for an individual or business to know, let alone ensure compliance with
each of the regulatory commands that these agencies and bureaucrats produce. where does the authority for this vast administrative state come from? let's start with where we should always start, the constitution. the constitution clearly says all government power is in three branches of government. article one provides all legislative power should be vested in a congress of the united states. article two, this is the lecture part, article two states the executive power should be vested in a president of the united states. in particularly -- we particularly like that one. [laughter] the judicial says power should be invested in one supreme court and inferior courts that the congress may ordain and establish. how this levine sits within the system? many in this room say it does not. the problem is not many a form that the constitutional objection, the ever-growing
administrative state is a direct threat to individual liberty. documented that the previous administration had one of the worst records in american history. several losses were before unanimous courts. in many cases, that is because its agencies were farseeing in their statutory and constitutional authority. they were intruding on individual rights. look at some of the most important cases the supreme court decided in recent years. little sisters of the poor. those are out of administrative actions. they were not in the statue. the department of health and human services had a mandate to regulation. the court rejected the agriculture's department requirement that farmer set aside large amounts of their crops for government use without compensation. the government's attorney insisted this confiscation of raisins which is standard regulation -- which is "standard regulation."
now we can all have raisins. and michigan versus epa, the court invalidated and environmental regulation that impose $10 million in costs for $6 million of the benefits. suited church for a minister that had violated a tenet of their faith. the supreme court unanimously disagreed. these are a few examples. they show how severe the threats are under check of the expansion of administrative power. people this is news to in this room, except maybe the media. hello. [laughter] from its inception, there is a reason why president trump asked me to be his lawyer. [laughter] from its inception, the federal society has emphasized the importance of separation of powers and that the role of the courts is to say what the law is, not what the law should be. spread aociety members 5 -- spread a wide breadth.
but we share is a commitment to the rule of law. the dueame process matters. that the structure of our government matters and the meaning of words mean something. and that an erosion of those principles is a direct threat to individual liberty. regulatory reform and judicial selection are so deeply connected. in my view, they are the two legal administer -- to legal issues this administration will check. will selecting judges who enforce the laws written in respect to the separation of powers. the trump regulatory reform can be summed up in three simple principles. due process and individual liberty. original is him and textualism. [applause] tonight, i hope to end tax these
ideas and provide insight for how the administration is hoping to work these printable. if you years ago, the supreme court decided a case. you are familiar with the case and the kafka like regulatory process that the epa inflicted on a family. for those not sure, let me recap the facts. captures a disturbing clarity of the many problems of the modern administrative state. toy purchased land and plan build a home. as they were preparing the land for construction, the epa sent them a compliance order claiming the construction was prohibited because their land was covered by the clean water act. even though it was several lots away from several -- from any body of water, they said they cannot fill the land to build their home. the agency ordered it under construction and they had begun to restore the land to an epa approved condition or faceup
-- or face fines. the epa denied the sockets and argued that they lacked the rights to challenge the pa's actions in court. woodrow wilson's dream of the experts being free of influence or interference had come true. made its way to the supreme court on that last question. the supreme court unanimously held that they did. to a group of lawyers, this seems like a straightforward proposition. the government agency sought to enjoyed -- and join principles. , in atice scalia noted nation that values due process and not to mention private property, such treatment is unbreakable. to the agency, this was standard regulation. the epa's authority cannot be questioned, so they said. the issue is not isolated to the epa. it affects all agencies. i have my own encounter.
it was clear the due process was a foreign concept and i was vocal about that. commission's business was being conducted in secret and in some inches -- instances, the agency lacked public procedures to govern the commission and its staff. the idea of ensuring those accused of wrongdoing having -- make mattersto worse, some staff viewed themselves as independent of the commissioners appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate to run the agency. they had authority to make decisions to avoid statutory and constitutional authority. think about that. independents an agency. as part of what some call the fourth branch. it is already troubling under article two and the supreme court had held the original structure was unconstitutional. they said they were insulated nom that and wasn't under under -- under no obligation. in their mind, they were a fifth branch of the government. independent and accountable to
no one. this is not isolated. it seems to be business as usual in the administrative state. take a case of free enterprise versus public company. they are the supreme court held were unconstitutional because its members could be removed under caused by other measures who were moved by president only for cause. the opinion seized on this protection as a violation of separation of powers and the supreme court agreed with him. reversing the d.c. circuit. and they the problems are the problems the current administration is facing. agencies have an obligation to afford regulative parsi dutch parties to do process. agencies must be accountable to the elected head of the executive branch. the court should view claims of sweeping authority with skepticism, not nonchalance. the first step in pervert -- in
-- the government has an obligation to inform parties of the rule that apply to them. anyone who is engaged with the regulatory state know agencies have taken the opposite approach. agencies or in some cases no regulations at all. then they interpret those vague regulations through dear colleague letters. to administrative law experts, these are known as sub regulatory actions. whatever you call them, they are illegitimate. commenteive no public and come with no advance warning before the agency springs them on winning parties to enforce warningor ominous letters. agencies have managed to deduct reviews of regulatory actions claiming they are not final binding rules. they are inconsistent with the rule of law. [applause]
there is no way for regular people and small businesses to keep up with the constant flood of regulatory actions that pour out of the ever-expanding regulatory state. this nonstop spaghetti is a fair notice problem and its own right. even when agencies announce what the rules are, those rules are buried in pages of the federal register. the sub regulatory underbelly is indicative of the massive nondelegation problem marking -- lurking in the state. rather than exercise the power -- congresstion puns the difficulty of lawmaking to the executive branch. you should -- the judiciary defers agencies are cretaceous -- interpretation. the result is all policymaking authority is shifted to the administrative state and factions are left unreviewed. circuit, neil gorsuch said it more eloquently
than anyone else. his lynch concurrence, he wrote "the fact is chevron and brand x permit executive bureaucracies that followed huge amounts of legislative power and compensate federal power in a way that teams more than a little difficult to square with the constitution of the framers designed. maybe the time has come to face the bohemians." [laughter] -- [applause] i knew quoting gorsuch would make me sound -- [laughter] on behalf of him, thank you for applauding his words. on top of that, the supreme court's decision which held that congress can limit the president's authority and many of the most significant policy decisions and legal rules lie entirely in the hands of unknown -- of unaccountable agencies. who claim of being
nonpartisan are polite by quick reference to contribution history and the like. finelys a mockery of the wrought system of checks and balances that our founders make it to our constitutional design. the framers separate a government power. -- between the state and federal government to preserve liberty. when we abandon and design -- the design altogether, we invite the disposition in which justice gorsuch so eloquently criticized. although the ritz -- although the threats are unprecedented, they are rooted in a struggle that have existed for a long time. whether one looks at the various competing schools of thought in greek philosophy, the difference between american and french revolutions, the theme is clear. see two ways you of viewing how we govern ourselves.
one is where folks employee so-called experts to make big decisions. others is the constitutional decision where the people govern. offenders knew this and you the credibility of man. their deep skepticism resulted in a constitutional system design to -- federal authority. because ours is a government administered by men over men, great difficulty lies in this. you must enable the government to control the governed and oblige it to control itself. these founding principles or founded during the expansion of the administrative's -- administrative state during a modern 20th century. protecthan sick to citizens from government, we have been told that people can thrive only through government. moment agencies full of
independent experts have become the panacea for social ills. it is the principle underlying that notion that has had courts differing to agencies and interpretations of the statutes and administrations they administer. decision basis of the in a case from 1942 that empowers agencies. it is a doctrine that has empowered agencies to announce new rules during enforcement actions without their notice to -- fair notice to parties being regulated. it reduces the -- the judicial process. be put that it would
most administrative and executive orders above the law. the other with , and i vote for one, not two. [applause] oure fundamental shifts in structure are justified to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the people. we all want to be health -- healthy, happy, and safe. what can be done to change the regulatory culture? rules can besome eliminated and regulatory costs can be reduced. the first executive orders
plainly declared it is the policy of the united states to alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens pace -- placed on the american people. it goes on to require each agency to designate a regulatory reform officer. these folks are charged with carrying out the regulatory reform initiatives. there is now a line of account between agencies and the white house. otherf the presidents has twoecutive orders critical elements. it must identify to existing regulations for elimination. the only does this discourage new regulation, but it forces agencies to clean out the regulatory sediment that has built up over decades. agencies must -- must control the costs by conducting economic
analysis of their actions. the goal is not merely to maintain the status quo, but to drive down costs imposed by previous administrations. what about the judiciary? these efforts begin with congress and the executive branch. this administration's mandate on judicial selection is clear. choose judges in the mold of justice scalia, justice gorsuch. [applause] intouch cannots be overstated. he reminded us the law consists solely of the words and the people's representatives.
those words must be interpreted as they would have been understood by the public at the time they were enacted. the can be no secret meetings or agendas. ismany ways, justice thomas recent decisions are the driving force behind the recent regulatory disciples. forth hisomas set view of the modern administrative state. this should be required reading for all law students. and original -- iques even justice stevens had critiqued it. this is not an issue that is particularly aligned with one party or another. or one school of thought or another.
his lesser-known dissent, industries rejected the notion that decisions administered by tribunals could have an effect on lawsuits filed on federal court. -- in federal court. justice thomas's decision was clear. both justice scalia and justice thomas, the interpretive principles interpreted by justice scalia are the bedrock of due process and the rule of law. justice thomas's opinions demonstrate both sprints bullseye missing in our current administered estate. those arerate that missing in our current administrative state. must enforce those statutory limits just agencies must provide due process. endorseust faithfully and enforce the constitutional structural protections.
just as agencies over the public fair notice of rules, courts must interpret statutes in the constitution of the public must -- would understand them. due process, fair notice. that is what this is all about. [applause] justice scalia's tragic death put these issues front and center in the 2016 election. i cannot remember a presidential election attorney so critically on the role of judges. the president knew this, which is why he issued his list of candidates. he wanted the american people to know the type of justice he would select. you may have missed it, but he cannot recently in the president announced today he is refreshing his list of potential supreme court nominees so that it is public. if i can indulge for a second.
we added five names to the list. , recently barrett confirmed. [applause] the dogma is loud in her. [applause] [laughter] in her confirmation hearing, the ranking miniter senator about that.mmented judge dogma is on the list. [laughter] grant, who was a supreme court justice in georgia. [applause] brett kavanaugh. [applause] he is winning on the applause meter. [laughter] have a new sum, recently confirmed to the 11th circuit.
-- kevin newsome, recently confirmed to the 11th circuit. [applause] and patrick. [applause] i think i am just going to throw out my notes and go back to my opening. [laughter] i am most -- i am almost done with the boring part. what did the judges have in common? they demonstrated commitment to regionalism and textualism. they have paper trails, are sitting judges. there is nothing unknown about them. what you see is what you get. it is not enough to say the right things. judges must apply those bulls in cases. good judges follow the law, even when decisions are unpopular. [applause] judicial courage is as important as judicial independence. [applause] the president is looking for the
same traits in lower court judges, especially with the court of appeals. every pick matters. the president wants strong and smart judges will apply the law. the interview process is like the judge scalia clerkship interview. we never ask commitments about substantive issues, but there -- but they are pushed and prodded from every angle. the president's power to nominate is only half the battle. we have been engaging with the senate. i have spoken to or repressed to speak with every single sitting senator. not all want to speak with me. one thing that is missed from time to time by folks who just read the text of the constitution is the president gets to make nominations. they forget the part about the senate clause. the senate over many decades has
developed many customs. those of you wondering why we don't just nominate -- [laughter] the home state senators matter. we take very seriously the obligation to consult with the senate and we in sure every senator has an opportunity to provide input on judicial nominees. the first thing until each senator is we are happy to interview them and will consider anyone they recommend. i will never -- they will never take us up on this offer and many tell a different story to the press, but we are moving to move all vacancies. -- but we are moving to fill all vacancies. [applause] chairman grassley and 15 has done an outstanding job moving the nominees to the senate judiciary committee. [applause] he does not get enough credit
for his work on this. is reallyty leader the one that has created this opportunity. the number of vacancies that were on the table when the president was sworn in was unprecedented, and the courage that mitch mcconnell showed to make that happen was tremendous. we owe him a grade of data to do. -- we home -- we owe him a debt of gratitude. [applause] he has made this is number one priority and he is delivering. the number of nominees being confirmed is tremendous. speak theing to senate for to get people confirmed. the senate democrats are insisting on full debate on each nominee, even nominees who passed 98 to nothing.
our opponents of judicial nominees claim the president has outsourced his selection of judges. that is completely false. i have been a member of the federal society since law school and still am. frankly, it seems like it has been in sourced. [laughter] [applause] speaking -- seeking advice is not outsourcing. decisionare the same and welcome input. many of us in this room became in the -- era. we understand the importance of judicial selection and we have seen her stand the links people will go to tarnish the
reputation of good men and women. i have mentioned the situation that confronted judge barrett. a democrat suggested she couldn't be just -- couldn't be trusted because she is a practicing catholic. she is now a judge on the second circuit. [applause] another hearing have the tone of the spanish inquisition because he had chose to serve his during to an attorney put -- to republican administrations. he has now been confirmed. [applause] i will clap for that one. i want to thank greg for his service. he has been invaluable to my work in the white house. it is really an honor to have been able to work with him and
be a part of seeing him, senate willing, go to the next level. [applause] speaking of outsourcing, it is a different sort of outsourcing that is real and should be troubling to all of us. during our efforts to consult with senators on nominees, we are often told senators have so-called commissions in their home state that recommend judicial candidates. these senator sometimes insist they cannot support anyone on their commissions -- sorry, cannot support anyone on their commissions. i have never heard a judicial commissions clause in the constitution. [laughter] [applause] my constitution says the president appoints judges with the advice and consent of the senate, not a commission composed of those who have business before the very people
they appear in front of. -- before the very people they appear in front of. [applause] the problems with this practice are similar to the problems we face with the administrative state. no one elected the members of these commissions. they have no credibility to congress or the president. some senators want to delegate to them the power to select or reject candidates to the federal bench. for the members of these commissions? the lawyers who have been practicing in front of the judges they have been tasked with selecting. there is the american bar association. [boos] i told you i was going to come back to the good stuff. [laughter] aba has no role whatsoever -- [applause]
enough said. [laughter] despite these obstacles, we are pleased with the quality and pace of our nominations. when the president took office, there were over 100 vacancies. in 10 months, the president has nominated over 70 judges. 14 of those judges have been confirmed. nearly 50 are currently pending in the senate. dozens more are in the process and will be nominated shortly. we expect a significant number of additional nominations early next year. we know how important these appointments are. we thank you for your support in this effort. this convention has been a celebration of the federalist society. the only do we celebrate the appointments, but in the tradition of the federalist society, we have debated the most important legal questions facing the nation. how do we restore the rule of law, separation of power, and individual liberty?
i want to thank the federalist society for the topic this year. the idea of a rigorous debate in the role of the administered of a state could not be more timely. .t has been beneficial to us i feel many of my harebrained ideas in administered of law are being debated here this week with serious people. it is an honor to be a part of have and it is an honor to been a member of the federalist society for many years. thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight, and thank you to everyone at the federalist society for making so much of this possible. thank you. [applause]
[applause] thank you so much. i expect barbara would be very proud of that. i see ted nodding. thank you for your service. that will conclude the lecture. we have the reception across the .all the reception for those who have signed up for that is across the hall. appreciate you all coming, and thank you. [applause]
[inaudible conversations] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2017] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] c-span's "washington journal" live everyday with news and policy issues that impact you. coming up saturday morning, chuck discusses federal government tax spinning. a former enforcement attorney talks about the bureau's future. in our spotlight on magazine segment, we will feature "esquire" with a writer and his recent piece. watch "washington journal" live at 7:00 a.m. eastern. join the discussion. walked into the room first.
he was wearing military camouflage fatigues. here and theght initial kkk on his chest. embroidered across his prey on the kud was a knife of klux klan. on his hip he had a handgun in a holster. he came in and was followed right behind him by the grand dragon, mr. kelly in a dark blue -- in a dark blue suit and tie. when i turned the corner and he saw me, he just froze. mr. kelly bumped into his back. and regained their balance, looking all around the room. i knew what they were thinking. they were thinking either deep -- either the desk clerk gave them the wrong number or this was an ambush. this to display my hands, nothing in them, and i stood up and approached him. i said high, mr. kelly, my name
is darrell davis. befriended davis has ku klux klan members to understand their hatred and convince them that they are wrong. sunday night at 8:00 eastern on q&a on c-span. today's white house briefing featured remarks from white house chief economist kevin hassett. he talked about the republican tax reform plan. press secretary sarah sanders also took questions on alabama senate candidate roy moore. federal funding for hurricane relief and tax reform. the briefing ran a half an hour.