tv Public Affairs Events CSPAN October 27, 2016 4:31pm-6:32pm EDT
1985. it has witnessed quite a few changes in the 30 years since. the biggest change of all has been in the politics of our country and of this city. in 1985, a scottish parliament seemed like a pipe dream. today it is the beating heart of our democracy. we no longer question if we should have a parliament of our own. instead, we asked if our parliament should be independent. we say yes. [ applause ]. >> in 1985, every constituency in this city bar one was held by labor. today the political landscape is very different. last year, every westminster was
won by the s&p. this year, they booted as well. just last week, just last week in a council by election, a massive 19% swung to the s&p victory with our brilliant candidate chris cunningham. next year we have the chance to complete this political transformation. glasgow was once described as the second city of the empire in the council elections, let's work as hard as we ever have to bring the s&p to power and build this city as one of the very best in europe. [ applause ].
glasgow is a vivid illustration of the success of our party. but also stands as a lesson. they took the voters for granted. they became arrogant on power. they thought they were invincible. and they rightly paid the price. so our promise to glasgow and all the people of scotland is this, we will never take you granted. we will work every day to earn and reearn your trust. [ applause ]. conference, it's not just attitudes that distinguishes the s&p from labor. it's polls and principle too. when the conference was held in live pool recently, the defense spokesman wanted to announce support fort renewal of trident
he was enraged at not being allowed to go as far as he wanted in support of weapons of mass destruction. well, we are pretty angry too. we're angry that with so many children still living in poverty we have a government determined to waste tens of billions of pounds on a new generation of nuclear weapons. [ applause ]. friends, i promise you this. no one, no one will ever have to snip a note to politicians in this party reminding us to oppose trident now and always with the s&p. it is no to trident. not in our name. [ applause ].
in the conflicts facing the world today, nuclear weapons are not the answer. in syria, 400,000 men, women, and children have been killed since the conflict started. over a million wounded. no one can fail to be profoundly moved and deeply angered by the appalling scenes we are witnessing in hrep poe. innocent children are being killed and wounded with impugnity. the barbarism of the regime and the actions of russia are sickening. we condemn them unreservedly. [ applause ]. we agree with the u.n. that all
countries must stand up for the millions who desperately need help. though at times we can feel powerless, we should remember the communities across scotland are making a difference to families fleeing the conflict. last month, the 1,th syrian refugee was welcomed to scotland. and, conference, they are welcome. [ applause ]. but we can and we must do more, especially for children alone without their parents. so i say stop treating this as a migration issue. it is a humanitarian crisis. we must rise to the challenge. and scotland is ready and we are willing to play our part.
friends, it may just be five months since we won the election, but in many ways it feels like a political lifetime. we are in a completely new era. a new political leader, and a new battle of ideas. a new era for parliament with new powers and responsibilities and new era for the relationship with europe and the world. there are challenges. as we face up to them, we must make sure of this, that scotland always remains the progressive internationalist, humanitarian country that the majority of us living here want it to be at all times. [ applause ].
make no mistake. today we face a choice of two futures. after last week in birmingham, there can be no doubt. that choice has never been so stark. the contest of ideas in our can country is between the s&p and the heart rate. the cameroons have fallen. and let's face it, the cameroons were never very appealing in the first place. conference -- [ applause ]. >> the s&p's vision for scotland is welcoming, progressive, open, outward looking, and inclusive. discriminated. let's be frank. they are no longer the conservative and unionist party. after last week, we should call them what they are. the conservative and separatist
party. or youk et for short. [ applause ]. today's displays an ingrained facility to immigration and offer a stoney heart to refugees. we treat those with disabilities with suspicion. people seeking support to get back into employment are humiliated and harassed. a mother unable to find the bus fare to get her job site or an appointment is more likely to face a benefit sanction than she is to be offered a helping hand. and those from other european countries who have chosen to make their homes here, human beings with lives, jobs, and families, they're treated as no
more than bargaining chips. conference, the prime minister's position on eu nationals shames her and it will be a stain on her government each and every day that it is allowed to continue. [ applause ]. the fact is, somebody is excluded. somebody loses out. somebody is left behind. so let us make it clear. that is not our way. sit not who we are. and it is not who we aspire to be. [ applause ]. and what of labor?
it wasn't meant to be a joke. so lost have they become. they prefer the prospect of years of continuous government at westminster to self-government for scotland. it is inexplicable i know. but i guess branch offices just don't have all that much in the way of ambition. [ applause ]. friends, labor may have thrown in the towel. but let me make this pledge. the s&p will never stand by while a right wing under approximate mines the fabric on of our society. [ applause ].
just as is being us making the case against the immorality of denying tax credits to women unless they can prove they have been raped. and in black ford, standing against the deportation of the family, or maddie black standing up for women denied the entitlements they have received for all of their working life. [ applause ]. the snp isn't just the real
opposition at westminster. it is the only effective opposition at westminster. [ applause ]. so our job is to provide strong opposition so desperately needed. right across the uk. and to use our powers to build a better scotland. we all want to see. conference, if you remember just one word from my speech today, i want it to be this one. it begins with an "i." no, not that one. not yet. the word i want you to remember is this. inclusi inclusion. it is the principle for everything we do. [ applause ].
it encapsulates what we stand for as a party and describes the kind of country we want scotland to be, inclusive country. to share in the benefits of that future. for those who yearn for change. a country where we value people for the contribution they make, not one where we will ever judge them on the country of their birth or the color of their passport. [ applause ]. that is the inclusive scotland we are working to build. and i'm proud of the progress we have made. earlier this week a major
european research study reached this conclusion on health, on education, on tolerance, and on the environment. out of all the four nations in the uk, scotland is top. [ applause ]. of course i know there is still much to do. much to do in the next phase of scotland's real journey. westminster is still responsible for the majority of funding for our public services. but more than ever before, the new scotland act means the budget depends on the growth of scotland's economy. creating jobs, expanding the economy, and tax revenues. these priorities must be at the center of absolutely everything we do. they always will be. this time last year workers at
the steel plants faced huge uncertainty. i stood up at our conference and i promised we would leave no stone unturned in our efforts to find and secure a viable future. we worked with the company, with trade unions, local government, and with the local community. two weeks ago i returned with this message for the workforce. we kept our promise. the plant is open for business. and scotland is rolling steel once again. [ applause ]. when i think of the many times in years gone by when westminster governments have stood by and allowed scottish industry to wither and die, i think about what might have
been. what might have been if there had been a scottish parliament and a scottish government there to fight for them. what might have been if the people of scotland had been able stir the natural resources of these lands for present and future generations, just like independent norway did. so let us -- >> [ applause ]. let us make this resolution today. never again will we be content to look back helplessly at the damage they have done to scottish industry and wonder what might have been. we must win the power to always shape our own future. [ applause ]. conference, we will not just intervene to save jobs, we will also provide help and support for business toss thrive. i can confirm today that our
small business bonus will be extended from april 1st next year, 100,000 business premises across scotland will pay no business rates at all. absolutely none. [ applause ]. our new half billion pound growth scheme will offer guarantees and loans to companies seeking to export and create new jobs. and we will make sure the benefits of growth are shared more widely. central to that is our work to extend payment of the living wage. there are currently over 600 accredited living wage employers in scotland. by this time next year, that number will rise to at least 1,000. that's what inclusion means in practice. [ applause ].
we've also redoubled our effort make sure our economy is internationally competitive. it is even more important now in the wake of the brexit vote. make no mistake, the threat to our economy is not just the prospect of losing our place in the single, disastrous though that would be. it is is also the deeply damaging and utterly shameful message that the torres res rick about foreign workers is sending to the world. more than ever, more than ever, we need to tell our european friends that scotland is open for business. [ applause ]. and let me be crystal clear about this. we cannot trust the likes of boris johnson and liam fox to do that for us.
[ applause ]. so i can announce a four-point plan to boost trade and exports scotland's message directly and in our own voice to the very heart of europe. firstly, we will establish a new board of trade in the scottish government. secondly, we will set up a new trade invoice scheme. it will ask prominent scotts to help us boost our export effort. thirdly, we will establish permanent trade representation in berlin, adding -- [ cheers and applause ] adding to our investment hubs in dublin, london and brussels. and fourthly, we will more than double the number of scottish development international staff
working across europe, men and women whose job it will be to market scotland as an open economy and a welcoming society. [ applause ] friends, the difference between the scottish and westminster governments is this -- they're retreating to the fringes of europe. we intend to stay at its very heart where scotland belongs. conference, inclusive economic growth underpins our entire economic strategy. the queens ferry crossing, our new bridge across the fourth, has been our country's most important infrastructure project in a generation.
in fact, this week it entered the guinness book of records. the central tower of the bridge is the biggest free-standing structure of its kind anywhere in the world. what an amazing feat of engineering. [ applause ] but the more important infrastructure investment of the next few years will be different. it will be child care. over this parliament, we will double the amount of state funded early years education in kmiechild care for and had-year-olds and for our most disadvantaged two-year-olds. not a bridge over a river, but a bridge to a better future for our children. and today i can announce a new
phase in this child care revolution. now it's local authorities that decide what child care is offered to parents. parents work very hard to be flexible, but often the places offered to parents are not where and when they need them. so today we're launching a national parent consultation on how to do things differently. it proposes radical, new approaches prioritizing choice and flexibility. first we will propose that parents can choose a nurse or child minder that best suits their needs, and as long as the provider meets agreed standards, ask the local authority to fund it. in other words, the funding will follow the child, not the other way around. [ applause ] and second, as suggested by children in scotland's child care commission, we will propose
that parents can opt to receive funding in a child care account and then use it to purchase a suitable place directly, quality, choice, flexibility. these will be the watch words of a policy to transform the working lives of families and the life chances of our children. and i am proud that it's an snp government that will deliver it. [ applause ] there's another policy for our youngest children that i will be very proud to deliver. in the election, we promise a baby box of essential items for all newborns. it's a policy borrowed from finland, where it's contributed to one of the lowest levels of child mortality in the world. so, i'm delighted to give you an update on our plans to introduce it here. next month we launch a
competition in partnership with the v&d in dundee for the design of the box. the first boxes will be delivered to babies born in pilot areas on new year's day. now, i don't know about you -- [ applause ] but as a first food offering, i think that beats a lump of coal. [ applause ] and then next summer, every newborn baby across our country will receive a baby box filled with clothes, nappies and toiletries. friends, the baby box is a powerful part of our belief that our children should start life on a level playing field. that's what inclusion means in practice.
[ applause ] and our skills, raising the bar for all and closing the attainment gap, opening up opportunity for every child, that's the number one priority of our government. it is my personal defining mission. that's why we're directing more funding to areas of greatest need. it's why we've announced our intention to reform school governance, to put parents, head teachers and classroom teachers at the same sort of decisions about children's learning. it's why we're working with teachers to reduce workload, and it's why we're bringing greater transparency to school performance, so that we can measure the attainment gap accurately and set clear targets to close it. but if we are to live up to our ambition, we have a very particular duty to those most in need. we have to get it right for
every child. recently, i've been spending some time with young people who have grown up in care. some of them are here today. we welcome you to our conference. [ applause ] their stories have moved me deeply. these young people have challenged me to accept scotland's pledge of to listen to 1,000 care experienced young people over the next few years, and use what they've told me to make it better. i've accepted that challenge. don't get me wrong, many young people who grew up in care go on
to do great things, and the staff and the foster careers who work with the kids do an amazing job. let us thank them publicly today. [ applause ] and real progress is being made. school exclusions are down. the number of children living in permanent, rather than temporary placements is up. but we cannot ignore the reality for too many children in care. only 6% go to university. nearly half will suffer mental health issues. half of the adult prison population are people who lived in care when they were growing up. and worst of all, and this breaks my heart, a young person who has been in care is 20 times, 20 times more likely to be dead by the time they are 25
than a young person who hasn't. conference, this simply has to change, and i am determined that it will change. [ applause ] so, i am going to do what these young people have asked me to do. i am announcing today that we will launch an independent root and branch review of the care system. it will look at the underpinning legislation, practices, culture and ethos, and it will be driven by those -- [ applause ]
and it will be driven by those who have experience of care. conference, this is not something that any other country has ever done before. we will do it here in scotland first. you know, the young people who speak to me make a simple but very powerful point. they say the system feels like it is designed only to stop things happening. and of course, it must have safeguards and protections, but children don't need a system that just stops things happening to them. they need one that makes things happen for them. [ applause ] they need a system that supports
them to become the people they can be, one that gives them a sense of family, of belonging, of love. my view is simple, every young person deserves to be loved. so let's come together and make this commitment, to love our most vulnerable children and give them the childhood they deserve. that's what inclusion means in practice. [ applause ] conference, if there is one institution in our country that embodies the values of inclusion and compassion more than any other, it is our precious
national health service. today there are more staff working in the health service than ever before. our doctors, nurses, auxiliaries and all of our other health professionals are helping to deliver some of the lowest waiting times and some of the highest satisfaction levels ever recorded in scotland. so, i will never tire of saying this. our staff are heroes, each and every one of them, no matter where they were born, deserve our deepest gratitude for the work that they do. [ applause ] over this parliament, we will increase health spending by almost 2 billion pounds. that's a necessary commitment, but it is not sufficient.
to make our nhs fit for the future, we must reform as well as invest. that will involve tough decisions, but the challenge of an aging population demands it. it's why our government has integrated health and social care, a challenge ducked by every single administration before us, and it's why we are expanding stand-alone, elective capacity through five new treatment centers, but we must go further. the nhs of the future must be built on a real shift from acute care to primary and community care. so, the commitment i am making today is a landmark one. by the end of this parliament, we will increase spending on primary care services to 11% of the frontline nhs budget. that's what doctors have said are needed and that is what we will deliver.
and let me be clear what that means. by 2021, an extra 500 million pounds will be invested in our gp practices and health centers, and it means for the first time ever that half of the health budget will be spent not in acute hospitals, but in the community, delivering primary, community and social care, building an nhs that delivers today and for generations to come. that is what our government is determined to do. friends, today i have set out our determination to build an inclusive scotland. i've talked about our ambitions for our nhs, our economy, our education system and our
children in care. i've talked about our hopes for the next generation and for the generations that come after that. hopes and ambitions that are shared by men and women the length and breadth of scotland. so, as we prepare to take the next steps in our nation's journey, whatever they might be, let us always remember this. there is more, much more, that unites us as a country that will ever divide us. [ applause ] yes, voters and no-voters, remainers and leavers, all of us care deeply and passionately about the future of this nation. so, whatever our disagreements, let us always treat each other
with respect, and let's work harder to understand each other's point of view. you know, in a strange sort of way, the events of the last few months might help us do just that. i know how upset i was on the morning of the 24th of june as i came to terms with the result of the eu referendum. i felt as if part of my identity was being taken away. and i don't mind admitting that it gave me a new insight into how those who voted no might have felt if 2014 had gone the other way. likewise, there are many no-voters now looking at the brexit vote with real dismay and wondering if independence might be the best option for scotland after all. let's build on that common ground.
[ applause ] let's resolve that whatever decisions we face in the years ahead, we will take them together, respecting each other every step of the way and let us in the snp lead by example. [ applause ] you know, this year marks 30 years since i first joined this party of ours. now, i know what you're thinking, how is that even possible when she's still only 25? or maybe that's just what i'd like you to be thinking. but in all those 30 years, i have never doubted that scotland
will run day become an independent country, and i believe it today. [ applause ] and i believe it today more strongly than i ever have before. but i've always known that it will happen only when a majority of our fellow citizens believe that becoming independent is the best way to build a better future together. so, we need to understand why in 2014 that wasn't the case. some of you voted no believed that staying in the uk offered greater economic security, a stronger voice in the world and a guaranteed place in the eu. back then, it even seemed possible that there might be a westminster labor government at some point in the next 20 years. but the future, the future looks
very different today. and make no mistake, it is the opponents of independence, those on the right of the tory party intent on a hard brexit who have caused the insecurity and the uncertainty. [ applause ] so, it falls to us, the advocates of independence, to offer solutions to the problems they have created. of course, independence would bring its own challenges. that is true for every independent nation on earth. but with independence, the solutions will lie in our own hands. it will be up to us to chart our own course and be the country we want to be, not the country that
an increasingly right-wing tory government wants us to be. i promised at the start of our conference that we will seek to protect scotland's interests in every way that we can, and we will. we will work with others across the political divide to try to save the uk as a whole from the fate of a hard brexit. we will propose new powers to help keep scotland in the single market, even if the uk leaves. but if the tory government rejects these efforts, if it insists on taking scotland down a path that hurts our economy, costs jobs, lowers our living standards, and damages our reputation as an open, welcoming, diverse country, then be in no doubt, scotland must have the ability to choose a better future, and i will make sure that scotland gets that chance. [ applause ]
and let us be clear about this, too. if that moment does arise, it will not be because the 2014 result hasn't been respected. it will be because the promises made to scotland in 2014 have been broken. [ applause ] and above all, it will be because our country decides together that being independent is the best way to build a better, stronger, fairer future for all of us. [ applause ] friends, we know what kind of country we want scotland to be.
and i believe it's a vision that unites us, an inclusive, prosperous, socially just, open, welcoming and outward-looking country. the question now in this new era is how best to secure it. let's resolve as a nation to answer that question together. we have already come so far. our homeroom journey has given us new confidence, new self-belief, a determination not to be taken backwards, but to finish building tomorrow's scotland. friends, the time is coming to put scotland's future in scotland's hands. [ applause ] let us get on with making that
tonight on american history tv primetime, world war ii programs from the real america series, showing films on public affairs. at 8 eastern, the battle of russia, followed by a film called "know your ally". at 10:10 eastern, films from 1944, the negro shoulder and the hidden war. american history primetime, all this week on c-span 3, child congress is on break. two daiky conference gets
underway, with a discussion on mr. churchill's relationship with u.s. presidents. also through the day, his relationships with british royalty and churchill's financial team. this weekend on american history on c-span 3. saturday morning until 9:00 eastern until just afternoon. >> the british empire and its commonwealth lasts for 1,000 years, men will still say -- this was their finest hour. >> we're live for the 33rd international churchill conference in washington, d.c., focusing on former prime minister's friends. historian, andrew roberts, author of "master and commanders." how titans won the war in the west. 1941-45. later on saturday, at 7:00, george p bush, state senator,
jose menendez, and phil collins, talk about the spanish mission, the alamo, it the 2016 in austin, texas. >> my impressions at that time was that this group of people were going and they knew they were going to die, but they went, or they were there, crockett went, but there was something very noble and very, you know, romantic. i love that it wasn't quite as black and white as -- that's one of the things i think would be good in this day and age, that you know, we put it into context. >> then sunday evening at 6:00, on american artifacts. >> micarthur is up front, lead attacks, carrying nothing but the riding crop you see in his left hand. the men looked at this and realized if the colonel and later the brigadiere, i can take
it too. >> we visit norfolk, virginia, to learn about the early life of douglas mcarthur, who commanded allied forces in the pacific. and at 8:00. >> conscience in chief, with the highest level of integrity. with their moral compass locked on true north, so that we can always count on them to do the right thing when times get tough or when no one is looking. >> author talmage boston, providing examples of presidents who excelled. for our complete american history tv schedule, go to c-span.org. former white house advisors an transition staff members on the history of presidential transitions and challenges for the new administration. speakers include a former policy advisor to president clinton and a former chief of staff to first lady laura bush.
this is 1 hour 15 minutes. >> i'm chris adams, director of training and i'll be introducing our panel here in a second. since sandy told you her transition story, i'll give you my brief one transition story. 2000, most interesting transition in my lifetime. i was working at the wall street journal. i was in the middle of a project that had nothing to do with politics and everyone in my newsroom was working on the transition but me. we will talk today about transition. we have a panel of experts and we will talk about the revolving door issue. what we're trying to help you figure out is what happens when you wake up on a cold day in january and all of your sources are gone. for reporters that's what today is about. strategies on how you can prepare for it, what stories you
should be looking for. how you actually build new sources in the new administration. and stories you will want to do like old stand by stories. for the politician and administration, it is matter of efficiency and speed and getting the president's new agenda enacted. these are some numbers from center for presidential transition. a new administration that is likely to get its appointees confirmed the fastest in the first year of its administration. it has only 73 days to do so. three experts, david eagles, director of sent he for presidential transition at partnership for public service. he will tell what you pivotal role they are playing in the transition this year for both, for both potential administrations.
anita mcbride, executive and residence for center of presidential studies at school of public affairs at american university. and veteran of incoming and outgoing transitions with reagan, george h.w. bush and george w. bush administration and senior fellow for the governor studies programs at bookings institution and veteran of bill clinton transition process. so this first session is 75 minutes. each of them will give a brief view of some of the most important things they see and that they've experienced in their transitions. then we will aim for 30, 35 minutes of q & a. i think that's what most of you want to do. we will start with david. david eagles. >> thank you for having us. appreciate your time. thanks for talking about presidential transition. what i want to do is take a quick step back here and understand that just the shear scope and magnitude of what we're talking about. these presidential transitions
are massive. this is part of the message to the incoming teams. they are inherited a $4 trillion apparatus. hundreds of federal agencies. as chris mentioned, 4,000 political appointments. 1100 of those have to go through the senate. and there's only 73 days to your point. there's generally not a lot of experience. not a lot of folks leaving in tradition of history presidency and not a lot of folks coming in. what's happened historically is this is a reinvent the wheel exercise. ground hog day exercise that every team has gone through. so not only is it big and complicated, it is also a period of vulnerability for the country as well. by and large the white house is virtually empty. the original files are gone. no hard drives. they wipe the hard drives for the incoming team. historically, they haven't had instructional manuels when they
come in chlt there's an interesting period of time where it is a very vulnerable time for the country as well. also say that no incoming president really has done this very well. because it is a real exercise. this is the first time you've seen both teams planning to separate early because of the new legislation passed, they have space and logistics provided by the government. this is the only second time in history we have seen that. governor romney did that several years ago. he had several hundred focused on this. this whole thing is one big epic corporate takeover, right? except the big difference is 4,000 of your top people all quit at the exact same hour. in this process you get no due diligence. you don't know what you've bought until after you bought it, after the election. and consider it, too, if you bought a small business, coffee shop or restaurant, a 6 to 12-month process. you read all of the financial statements before you bought it. here there is nothing. and there is the opportunity to do so much better. what do i mean by that?
every president coming in nearly a year after elected and getting less than a third of all their people in office. not getting their top people in place. even today in the federal government this is not only president obama, this is every modern president, 1 in 5 senior positions are vacant. compared to the private sector where it is 4% or 5%. we asked ourselves, why. why is it taking so long? we found a couple of things. one is that first of all these teams are not starting early enough. so they are not managing this process strategically. that's why we feel if these teams take a step back this is one of the greatest opportunities to make government more effective. the only time these teams can basically understand how they want their government to work. it's very difficult when you're in office. once you're in the presidency,
you're hit with ufos all the time. very important to take a step back. this is that time they have to maximize. they historically haven't gotten their people through. once you're in office you can't catch up. that's why you see these type of vacancy rates that we see out there now. secondly from the campaign promise perspective, right, we are still in the midst after few days left 20-some-odd days left of the campaign. they are making campaign promises. transition is what connects the campaign promise into the government. understand how to execute them. they will develop the teams now or 100-day plans or 200-day plans thinking about their campaign promises. how do you execute them within the federal environment. this is an extremely complicated business, the u.s. federal government. largest most complex and powerful entity on earth. if you want to the keep this country safe and prosperous, these teams have to start now. we can't afford it. particularly in post 9/11 environment. this is why the bush administration started early.
i'm part of the center for presidential transition. we are part of the partnership for public service and committed to making government more effective and also nonpartisan and nonprofit. again working with the team since the spring in april we actually convened all five senior campaign officials at the time. candidates still in office, we pulled them off site to talk about governing the country. that's the first time in history we have seen it this early. as an american, super proud to see a safe environment where these teams can talk about governing this entity, the u.s. federal government. we've been working with the teams. both teams are committed to effective transition which is very exciting. they understand the importance of governing this country. >> thank you, david. very well done. that helped to frame things perfectly. i will talk to the transitioner and i want to pick up on
something that sandy mentioned. you never know who your sources are going to be for information. i think that's very illustrative. in 1994 when congress flipped from democrat to republican after almost 50 years, there are, you know, people in the loyal opposition, working behind the scenes, that you know could be in leadership at some point. so it is really important to be cultivating those relationships and particularly when it comes to transitions on the senate side, who is going to be in the position of overseeing the nominations process for any senate confirmed appointments because they could be a stumbling block to the nominations of a president-elect or be a real help. that was really a good illustrative example of knowing who is on the hill. chris, thank you for inviting me to participate.
i want to focus on a couple of key areas. really, what role does the outgoing administration play in ensuring there's a smooth transfer of power? my answer to that is it plays the most important role because they set the tone. the outgoing president and his team will set the tone on how the transition is viewed by the american public, how the transition is handled by the incoming team as well. and i think we will take a lot of -- a lot from the first encounter that the president-elect and outgoing president have. particularly if it is a dramatic change. if donald trump wins, given all of the rhetoric that has happened in this campaign. that will be a moment that everyone will have eyes on and
will be a -- set the tone for what may happen because it has been such a visceral election. obviously if it is mrs. clinton. these are two people that know each other. he's campaigning for her. my assumption is all of the assets and resources that an outgoing team can provide will be there and that the tone will be set very early as a positive one. so the role of an outgoing administration in ensuring a smooth transfer of power is setting the tone. it's really important that president do that and do that well. and by extension, that they give direction to all of their staff. not only in the white house but to the departments and agencies as well to be open and transparent and providing all of the information that an incoming team would know. so what are the greatest obstacles for an incoming team? greatest obstacles is they don't
know what they don't know. particularly if it is a trump presidency, part of the people who may be, because this has been an election based on dramatic change, an overhauling the government, from top to bottom, the anticipation that there would be people that want to come in and just blow the whole thing up is probably pretty highly likely. so what tone is set by the incoming team? how open are they to learning how the government does work? as david said, extremely complex. trillions of dollars. thousands and thousands of people work in -- hundreds of thousands of people work in these federal bureaucracies and you have 4,000 pivotal positions to put in there on the government the way you wanted to be run. so a great obstacle for the
incoming teams, admitting a what they don't know. having good people on their transition teams which are in place now to really understand what is happening in the agencies. what are some of the things that are on the table. what are some of the things in the hopper that agencies, you know, through regulation or policies are getting ready to do and how is that different from what you have campaigned on, what you have promised to do, and the personnel that you need to select and be ready to go in at the end of that 73-day period to actually execute on what the electorate has actually asked to you do. how has the process improved or changed? you heard chris mention about the transition of 2000. really that is one no future president should ever experience. in a post 9/11 world it would certainly put any white house and the american people by extension at great risk.
you think about the number of days we did not know who would be president of the united states. the decision was not made until december 12 of 2000. so there could be no official transition process. there could be no official conversations between an outgoing administration and the incoming team. so the george w. bush, president-elect -- actually, i can't even say that. the george w. bush campaign team was operating in arlington, virginia. in offices acquired then by dick cheney, candidate, and paid for him privately. there were no government resources. people like me were called up. i was never expecting to go back to, into the government. i had my time working for ronald reagan and george h.w. bush. but i had been in personnel and
management. i understood how the process worked. i knew how to onboard people and the critical connection between security and personnel, management and administration. so i was asked to come help. it was a very dramatically different experience because you were kind of operating in the shadows. trying to be ready and have things ready to go. if the decision was going to be that it was george w. bush to become president of the united states, if he didn't then all three sources would collapse. but private money had to be raised to make these offices available. once the decision was made by the supreme court, then all of these assets and resources through the general services administration, things that are provided by the government could kick in and you had a very quick turn around to move and to
transition space which is downtown closer to the white house. and you could begin to have conversations. but the conversations you can imagine were not all that easy. that was a very tense period of time. because there was called into question, particularly by vice president gore, that this was really the right decision. and there were personal tensions, of course. but nonetheless, the process worked and there was the smooth transfer of power that all of us expect and americans are entitled to have once the campaign rhetoric is over and the business of governing is begins. but that is a very illustrative experience for george w. bush and for a lot of us on the team. basically with the underlying premise for him for any future president, president-elect should not face a transition like that.
it is not the way we should be doing business. but we learned from that. then there was 9/11. and stakes were so much higher in a transfer of power. and what it led to in late 2007, early 2008, president george w. bush executed an executive order, coordinating council, and began an early framework around having conversations between the outgoing administration and whoever the incoming team may be. what did that look like? that meant every white house office was charged with putting together a documentation. in binders, well documented, tabbed, on what you can expect on day one. what are some of the things that
this particular office, then i was chief of staff to laura bush, to the first lady, so what are some of the things in a calendar year you can anticipate. but that's done for every single office. so there's a handoff of really excellently documented communication in a template, a framework that we are using until today. and it also opened up an opportunity for, once there was a decision, november 6 i think it was, in 2000, in early meeting between barack obama and george w. bush, began to have conversations with incoming teams that had been named by president-elect obama. they came and met with us in our offices in the white house. again to have an exchange. it really was a very dramatically different experience than 2000 was. where we couldn't talk to anybody. or certainly couldn't talk to anybody openly.
so despite how the outgoing team may have felt about losing their jobs and not knowing what they were going to do, this was what they were charged to do, to make sure there was a smooth transfer of power that they gave confidence to the american people, that despite the rhetoric of the campaign, which was pretty visceral back then as well, that things were going to move on and move on well. so that allowed the president when he came in on day one, to know what would be on his desk particularly from a national security point of view. there were tabletop exercises that had taken place between the national security team of george w. bush and the national security team of barack obama. that was really important. again post 9/11 world. stakes were very different. fact we were a nation at war in two theaters of war, really underscored the fact that
serious deliberations, conversations had to take place. so the other last thing i'll leave you with before my time is up, is not only is the business of government being transferred the personnel that has to be put in place to execute the poll sift new president but also a change in the residents of the white house. a new first family coming in, first family going out, there's a lot that goes on to make that happen smoothly and to make that comfortable for a new first family and not to be diminished because the white house in its setting for our diplomacy and the stage for our business of our government on a day-to-day basis. so that has to be a smooth transfer as well. thankfully there are 94 people on the white house staff that serve administration to administration that make that happen. thank you.
>> so bill, if you could go next. and you are in space with the university of maryland. and bill you are a professor at college park. so both at brookings and college park. so if you could talk about your experience and the research you've done on transition since you were in one yourself. >> sure. i'm going to adopt the perspective that i know best which is of an incoming administration. you just heard, i think, a very full explanation of what things look like of an outgoing administration. from the standpoint of an incoming administration, transition is a discreet series of tasks. each of those tasks can be executed well or badly. and people like you will be watching and making judgments every single day. about the confidence or lack of confidence about the incoming
team. job one is the selection of the white house staff. and i really want to underscore at this point, for the first six months of a new administration, the white house is the locust of action. the white house staff is the locust of action. because however well organized the nomination an confirmation process is, it is in the nature of things slow. the departments and agencies are not going to be up to full strength and not be operating at full speed. so the white house is more important in the first six months than it ever is again. the white house staff has to be appointed first. and it has to be appointed quickly. here is a rule of thumb for covering a transition. if the transition is doing its job well, almost all of the white house staff will have been
named by thanksgiving. and the transition that i was involved in, the clinton transition, got it backwards, spent almost two months focused on the cabinet, and the white house was almost an after thought. i speak from personal experience, because i got a call to come down to little rock on january 10th. i was a professor at the university of maryland, and my silleibue were typed, and the books were ordered. a funny thing happened on the way to the spring semester. it was interesting and totally unexpected, and i would not recommend it as standard operating procedure for a presidential transition. and of the people who are going to be selected for the white
house staff, keep your eyes focused first of all on the chief of staff. who will the chief of staff be. secondly, the personnel director. that's going to be a huge locus of action early on. if the personnel director is someone with experience and if the presidential transition gives the incoming personnel director the human power and the resources to do that job on multiple fronts, then you're setting the stage for reasonably well organized and orderly process. if the personnel director is not given enough help, and he or she has to function as what an old boss of mine, walter mondale called a one arm paperhanger, then disaster is around the corner. and finally, the person who is in charge of organizing directing scheduling for the incoming president, get those
three things right and the odds are the transition will go reasonably smoothly. then of course, come the senate confirmable positions. you've heard the number 4,000, that's true. but there are a handful that are inco inco inco inco income -- income parable. an interesting story to follow is the perennial question of who gets to choose the sub cabinet. you can tell a lot about an incoming administration from the degrees of freedom and discretion that the nominated cabinet officials are being given to help select their immediate subordinates. highly centralized white houses with lots of political debts to fulfill, frequently try to take as many of those decisions into
the white house as possible, and not disburse them to cabinet officers. there are various points in between. jimmy carter gave his cabinet officials carte blanche to for their subordinates. that didn't work out so well. and so there are various ways to split the difference. here is a third interesting story for the cabinet. has the president elect and has the chief of staff and the senior advisors to the president given any thought to the way teams of people who are going to be working on similar overlapping issues and going to work together, because if your treasury secretary doesn't get along with the national economic council and the director of o
mchlmb or the secretary of state -- this happened during the reagan administration and a few other places i could name under bush. third job, the substantive beginning of the administration, okay. what are you going to -- you have made hundreds of promises. and in the nature of things, the band whiff of a white house is narrow. the bandwidth of a congress is narrow. what are the two or three legislative items that you're going to focus on in the first six months. you must make that decision early. and then you must organize the issue teams and the political teams during the transition to begin to exercise -- to execute those top priorities. and that is a very interesting political story during a transition, because especially if you've made promises on many,
many fronts, you haven't focused your campaign on just a handful of key issues, but have made -- but have in effect entered into transactions with a number of different group whose make up your base, lots of people are going to be disappointed. who? how are you going to handle that. right, that's both an agenda issue and a political question. of course, it is not all legislative. and during the transition, a separate team will be beavering away on executive orders that a president can sign on day one, because that's something under the president's control. you can set a tone by determining which executive orders are going to be signed and made public on the first day of the administration. makes a difference. and are you going to dump them all at once. are you going to release them like time release capsules so people like you to have
something to write about everyday. there is an art to dribbling out decisions, sup that the ones that matter get their day in the sun. as part of the substantive -- how am i doing on time? as part of the -- as part of the substantive preparation for the administration, and keep your eye on this one, too, there needs to be coordination between the issues agenda and the budget development. because many of -- many of an incoming president's key legislative proposal also have fiscal consequence, and believe me, if those consequences are not factored into budget, then nobody on capitol hill will take them seriously. let me tell you a war story from the first month of the clinton administration. one of bill clinton's key domestic promises, as a matter of fact, probably the most important one, was to end welfare as we now know it.
and there were going to be substantial ongoing transition expenses connected to the fulfillment of that promise. and there was a there was' tremendous quite about whether that money was going to be slotted into a budget, which was by presidential decision early on going to be an austere budget to bring down the deficit, reduce long-term interest rates, encourage business conversation, et cetera, not a typical decision for an incoming president and not a universally popular decision and then there was a big fight, well, is there going to be provision made within that austere framework for the $5 billion annually that will be needed to fund welfare reform? and the answer to that question eventually was no. and everybody who understood the process understood that whatever was going to happen in year one, welfare reform was not going to be part of the agenda. so you demonstrate seriousness
by coordinating budget development with issues development. then there can be ringing speeches when the inauguration occurs. speaking of inaugurations, there is an inaugural day to be planned, there's an inaugural address to be drafted. and two other key tasks, first of all congressional engagement and secondly press relations. especially if an incoming president is facing divided government, which will almost certainly be the case, the next president of the united states will not enjoy the luxury that barack obama had on day one and
for the next 13 months control of the white house, an ample majority in the house of representatives and 60-vote majority, filibuster proof majority if it held together in the senate. whatever the outcome of this election, the next president will not have that kind of freedom of maneuver so the ability to establish good relations with the leaders of both political parties in the congress will be essential to the agenda whatever it turns out to be. and finally you. any smart transition will pay attention to the fact that you have stories to write. many of you will have stories to write everyday. what are you going to be writing about? trust me, if the transition doesn't think through the answer to that question, you will try
to come up with answers of your own. [ laughter ] the answers that you come up with are not to be quite as helpful to the incoming president as the answers that the transition team might come up with. the transition team, if it's smart, can give you something on the issue front, the personnel front, or the scheduling front to write about everyday and preferably some cocktail. so those are some of the benchmarks that you can use to gauge the competence of an incoming administration. i could spend a lot of time given this template that i just offered of key tasks talking about what the clinton transition got right and got wrong but rather than telling war stories, let me stop now and if you're interested in any of them, that's what the q&a session is for. >> well, we love war stories so think of your best war story.
i get to ask a couple questions then i'll turn it over for full q&a. david, i was hoping you could give us a sense of your center, when you got started. there was some legislation that passed in the last six years that has released money toward these transition efforts, maybe explain that for us? >> a couple pieces there. one is you have to know that modern transitions are completely different than they were eight years ago. it's a totally new legislative environment and mandate that these teams now have from congress to actually plan early. so three pieces you ought to be aware of. one was passed in 2010, this was the law ma moved government support earlier so to anita's point historically it was election day, you looked around, you tried to acquire resources from the government at that point, now that kicks in at the convention time so this is only the second time in history we've seen early support, logistical support, provided by by the gsa that kicks in. this provides a mandate and safe space for these teams to play
out and rethink how these transitions are done. just having looked at these, having served on romney's transition four years ago, they're completely different. they will have in place on election day potential options for candidates and also very -- progressing very nicely on the development of their 100 or 200 day plans. also, the number of their senate confirmed positions so this number was closer to 1400, now it's above 1100. so it's reduced to 169 or so so that helps from a processing standpoint to get folks through, not as relevant but know there are lower numbers of folks,
non-political jobs that have been taken off. the 1,100 number is way too many. these are both policy-making jobs but also good management jobs in there as well that we would argue that we would consider taking off the list. the third piece was signed this year by executive order by president obama to comply with the law, this is the first time the outgoing administration has started the coordinating function this is early. so they're required by law this year six months before the election to start the coordinating functions. again, think about it eight years ago. your incoming teams did nothing or if they did something it was in the cover of darkness prior to the election. very small quiet teams focused primarily on just the top cabinet. so you've seen for president obama for example he got seven
people in by inauguration. seven of 1,100. think about the outgoing. the outgoing administration historically has not participated very fully with the exception of -- there's been several examples but no formal process or planning that we've seen. this is the first time now there's both a white house coordinating council at the political level and an agency career director's counsel that's been convened several times with active engagement of the incoming teams. first time in history that we've seen this. then there's the folks staying through transition, the career civil servants. and historically every agency has prepared for transition completely differently. some agencies put together in one case 80,000 pages of briefing materials for the incoming team. that's not even a door stop, that's beyond the door stop. some agencies do very little. so what's been great about this cycle, the administration is committed to much more consistency with the agencies so there's a standard template every agency is using, a process and coordinating function. this is the first time you're seeing coordination of outgoing
and incoming and the folks staying. that should drastically change how these transitions happen and we should see much better results so to bill's point we think by inauguration day you can get your top 100 cabinet and subcabinet officials in place. four years ago governor romney was on a similar trajectory but that was the intent. you may say it's not possible but the data shows we have 70% of the time getting people through is not the senate, it's the transition teams finding these people, putting them through a paperwork process, this stuff is controllable, sequenceable and can start now. this should be the new measuring stick for modern transitions and presidencies. get your people in, it's easier to go fast than slow, there's a halo effect from congress to get them in, there's a halo effect to execute on your promises to the american public. why waste your first several hundred days spinning your wheels, finding who these people are when they can be ready on the first day, this has been part of our message with the income teams for the last six months or so. historically we've been on the
phone trying to find folks that did it 10, 20 years ago. we're going through george w. bush's boxes trying to find out how he stepped up his white house. this is the groundhog day exercise we've gone through historically so we at the center for presidential transition are trying to be the repository of information and best practices connecting people who've done it before with experts to map this whole thing out. if you go to our web site, presidentialtransition.org, you'll see the entire process mapped out, what the teams ought to be doing literally today to focus on this transition process and at the end of the day i he think we can see much better results for an incoming president, much more people, a better ability to execute on their promises and much more planning around that period of inauguration so we can say safe and prosperous. >> now i'm going to ask one more question then i'll go out to -- first of all note that everybody should have a book let from the center of the presidential
transition that lays out what he's talking about, so that's yours to take home so thank you for bringing that along. so the notion of the election being rigged and the poisonous political atmosphere we have right now, what sort of an impact is that going to have on transition on both sides if, you know, a huge section of the country is hostile to the outcome of the election, does that -- what kind of impact does it have here in d.c.? and also david i was hoping you could answer, donald trump's campaign has been very hostile to the process in general or the system. is his team working well with you all? and are the people who are working with you the same folks we see on tv or is it an entirely different apparatus? so will this rigged talk hurt us and how is trump behaving, basically?
>> i'll -- thank you. i'll just very briefly say -- reiterate one thing i said to you initially. the tone that is set by both the person who wins this election and particularly the person who loses this election, they have to set the tone and say they accept the decision of the american people and that there's far more important things now to be focused on. i take comfort in what governor mike pence said on the news, that if donald trump loses the election they will accept the decision of the american people. i keep reiterating that and i hope on the other side, too, i hope mrs. clinton's team says the same thing.
>> yes, i agree with that, just a few comments. we've seen some very interesting debates so far in this campaign but the one i'd like to see is the debate between mike pence and donald trump. [ laughter ] starting with syria policy and ending with the legitimacy of presidential elections butt he me stop there and say that it's not just a question of what the defeated candidate does, it's also what the president-elect does. if it's former secretary of state hillary clinton i think she will have a job from day one
of reaching out to the responsible leaders of the republican party and emphasizing that despite the tone and temper of the election that there are people in washington starting with the president-elect who are really dedicated to the process of governing the country and the national interest and who are prepared not to abandon partisanship but to try to see beyond it where common ground exists and where coordinated action is possible. and this election has surprisingly turned up some areas of common ground between
the political parties on key issues ranging from infrastructure to assistance for families with young children who are trying to balance work and families so the president-elect can set a tone -- if it's secretary of state clinton -- not only with a very explicit and continuing serious outreach to the leaders of both political parties but also in the selection of key topics, agenda items to lead off the new administration with. there are some that would be confrontational and others that would tend towards cooperation. never underestimate the extent to which the initiative lies in the hands of the president-elect and the incoming administration. >> very well said. >> david? >> so a couple things, one is first of all as i mentioned
before we've seen both teams committed to effective governance of this country and that's been exciting and both teams we began working with in the april time frame, both teams are organized around the key functions of transition so you have ahead of appointments in trump and clinton's race, a head of the agency and policy implementation focused on key campaign promises and cataloging them to develop 100 and 200-day plans. as an american, i've been extremely, extremely pleased these teams have in their own words put their swords at the door to talk about governing the most complex and powerful entity on the earth. you have to do that. job one is win the campaign so we don't want -- they don't want distractions focused on governing the country while they're trying to run their campaign so i'll respect that and the process they want to adhere to and how they want to release publicly the people involved but both teams are staffed up, organized, taking it seriously and at the end of the day we'll see much better results from both. >> so we have plenty of time for questions from the audience, raise your hand, we'll call on you, we don't have a mike to hand around so speak up. kate?
>> so the only -- i can speak for everyone here but the only administrations i've really seen that i remember personally are george w. bush and barack obama and in both of those administrations you saw congress move way away from them and kind of refuse to work with them at a certain point. does that happen to every administration? and at what point does that usually happen and why? >> can i give a comment to that? thank you, that was a great question. i think one of -- and you're right the relations, of course, were difficult, naturally, in 2000. there were a lot of people on the hill who were not happy with the result and there was still this call into question of the legitimacy. i think a lot of things changed really after 9/11, the country really did come together, the congress really did work well with the president on a number of key issues passing enormous bipartisan legislation on the
emergency plan for aids relief which we haven't seen anything that level up till now, $15 billion commitment to a single disease. so there were areas of cooperation that were actually very encouraging i also think what really led to some of this was personality driven. george w. bush really would work with the other side. ted kennedy was a frequent guest to the white house. nancy pelosi was a frequent guest to the white house, there were, despite what may have been public rhetoric there were conversations behind the scenes over very key and important issues. i think drawing from an example, too, of how ronald reagan handled his congressional relations as well. i mean, it's very well known, he and tip o'neill tunnel did not agree on policy but they had a lot of frequent interaction as friends and after hours friends. those things go a long way in
being able to on key legislative priorities trying to move the marker and get something done. we know the example for george w. bush. he was a member of congress, he had strong personal relationships on both sides of the aisle. in one key instance it didn't play out well for him when he -- with a conversation with dan rostenkowski, powerful head of the ways and means committee and agreed to raise taxes. george bush made that decision knowing it would cost him the election and it did but it was the right thing to do for the country. so there are examples of where a president, again, sets the known
by being willing to take some political risks and develop relationships to get big things done but i think one of the things i would say that has been a little disappointing about president obama, he was a member of the senate and it is pretty well known reaching across the aisle was not a strong suit of this white house and it -- there was a lot of contention around health care reform and other issues, but building personal relationships, i think that's an important thing to watch for, too, what is the extension of the olive branch to the congress and particularly to the opposition? >> that said -- and i agree with all of that -- the job of reaching across the aisle is tougher than it used to be. because the political system is more polarized than it used to be. the divisions between the parties are deeper, more pervasive, there's less overlap between the political parties.
a long time ago there were more republicans liberal than a lot of democrats and conversely a lot of republicans -- democrats that were more conservative than republicans. that's not the way it is any more. so building cooperation across party lines is going in difficulty. so going across party lines is now mission very difficult. and building on what anita said, never think campaign rhetoric is irrelevant to governance. the american people are listening and if you make big high-profile promises, breaking those promises, for whatever reason, is enormously
politically costly and everybody remembers the famous lines that peggy noonan wrote for george h.w. bush, "read my lips, no new taxes." well, people not only read his lips, they heard his voice loud and clear and there are equivalent problems that an incoming president would have in 2017. if donald trump decided that maybe the wall wasn't going to be built or that mexico couldn't be forced to pay for it, or if secretary clinton, then president clinton, decided that maybe tpp was just a fine and dandy agreement after all, there would be hell to pay politically so big promises matter.
never imagine that they don't. >> very good point. >> i'm hoping you can talk a little bit more about the cabinet member selection process, particularly the lower tier, so like agriculture, labor, something like that. how do they go about compiling a list of potential nominees and narrowing that down? >> well, i think we both can speak to that a little bit but, yes, going back to the point, personnel is policy and although these may be considered lower-tiered departments and agency they are still running huge budgets and lots of services that get delivered out of these agencies so part of the process going on in both transition teams now is compiling lists of potential candidates, is people with experience in these issues or maybe those who would be new coming from outside the traditional framework but may have skills in managing huge
budgets and huge departments, they'll go through a vetting process to be in -- which is a much higher threshold, much higher bar to reach now because both campaigns don't want to bring if people with a lot of outside private-seconder baggage, particularly if they have been lobbyists. so it is a little difficult to have lengthier lists of names that would pass through all these high thresholds of vetting. you know, one place that a lot of transition teams have looked to are in the states at the executive level. governors are great for positions like this, particularly governors from farm states for the agriculture position in particular. but they're going to look for people with experience, perhaps
that have had some pass through a public life of their own and have come out of it fairly unscathed. >> i'll just say, the first question they ought to be asking is just what are these roles? so it's interesting there's not a lot of descriptions of what these roles are. so how do you source qualify talent if you don't know the requirements of the roles? so we've been working closely with them on defining what the positions are, what the requirements are. typically what we've seen now that they have more time to plan this out, this is only the second time we've seen real formal efforts starting so early, is that too anita's point they will create slates, they may create a half dozen names per top position so not just cabinet but also critical subcabinet positions and white house positions at this point. they will not even notify often the candidates they're being looked at.
our research has shown within one hour they go to their cocktail party and let their friends know -- i'm being a little sarcastic. but to anita's point the political and financial vetting process so after the election, what we've seen after that time between the inauguration has got to be extremely tight. four years ago we defied a calendar so the day after the election the vast majority of time is with the president-elect making quick decisions on the cabinet, you're presenting them a slate of options, you're presenting them the risks associated with each of these options allowing that candidate to make a quick decision. we'll see that this cycle as well. >> i wonder if i could just add a note. since both of you have referred to the vetting process. it is -- i speak from experience -- extraordinarily complex, labor intensive, paper intensive and especially at the cabinet and senior subcabinet level it is a game for very high stakes. there is a tension between speed on the one hand and avoiding
damaging mistakes on the other. there's no way of relieving that tension, it just is. but if you think of events that rivet press attention early in a new administration or even during a transition and can get a new administration off on the wrong foot, it's coming up with a senior appointment that needs to be withdrawn because of some embarrassing revelation that comes out too late. and so some people inside and outside the transition will be urging the team put your pedal to the metal, we need to get off to a fast start. others, including people who have been around washington a little bit longer and have experience with the amount of egg that gets splattered over a large number of faces when a senior nomination blows up in everybody's face will say wait a minute.
i was involved after the fact in a high visibility appointment early in the clinton administration where nobody had bothered to read what the nominee had written on some very important topics. i was astounded because nominees with long paper trails may very well be saying things that the incoming president does not agree with. the incoming president will then be held responsible for those utterances. at the very least, the incoming president is expected to know about that and, you know, an impression of incompetent is conveyed so, you know, there's an imperative of speed and there's an imperative of
accuracy. and there's no way of completely eliminating that tension. >> so the calculation changes whether or not it's -- you're changing political parties or not. but what's the wisdom of keeping people around at higher levels that are already there, the carry over from administration to administration? how common is that? i would imagine most people want to clean house for the most part. do you think that's a good idea that there should be a critical mass left over at the higher positions? >> it's not common in the white house. going to bill's earlier point, watch what happens in the white house staff. that's almost a complete turnover. there are about 450 white house office staff positions, just the
white house office. 70% of those are political appointments so that will change because that is the center of the world for an administration. you're bringing in people who think like you are going to take your direction. is but there is a functioning bureaucracy there as well of career civil servants that keep the trains running on time. the departments and agencies i turn to david to speak to some of this because there are positions that will not change. they are career positions that will not change even at the highest levels at departments and agencies. >> you've touched on a fundamental difference between a same-party transition and an opposite-party transition. with regard to political appointees, in a same-party transition the incoming president will pay less of a political price for allowing a certain number of political appointees from the previous
administration to hold on to office until a replacement comes forward. and it's also the fact that even during opposite-party transitions, a president-elect can make a decision to retain a senior cabinet official from the other party. bob gates is an excellent example of that and i think that probably president obama is pretty pleased that he decided to hold over the secretary of defense. even though bob gates was certainly no democrat. and so i do think that in this respect if former secretary clinton is elected she will face less pressure on the cabinet front because the people who are in cabinet positions now will be reasonably well aligned with her program anyway. so if it takes -- it is at least
possible that she's not going to ask for mass resignations. i can't speak to that but she certainly has the option of being much more selective than an incoming president trump would be able to be. >> i'll just say, too, historically, there haven't been many same-party transitions. it's a friendly or unfriendly takeover concepts. in history, though, some of the most difficult presidential transitions have been same party. >> no doubt. >> it's counterintuitive but you think why is that? because there has been an expectation of continuity that historically has never existed and you're seeing it now. if this person wins maybe i'll stay on. you hear a lot of that conversation. >> not going to happen. >> history shows generally the incoming team wants their own people in this case so i would expect nothing less. it's also interesting that, you're right, the hold over
concept that secretary clinton ought to be focused on, who to carry forward, for both teams there are a couple of nonpolitical political positions, if that makes sense, that require all sorts of hoops to jump through to get this person in office. example, undersecretary of health at the veterans affairs office. if you were to let that person go and start the process again, the way that position is set up, it will take you two years to fill it. and that's a physician. so there are positions you want to hold over. data shows -- and this is awful data, but it's based on interviews and memory -- historically you will see a significant senior level stopgap hold over. these positions may carry over into the administration blue do so temporarily. they won't be permanent
holdovers so you may see that but me speaking personally. my advice would be send that letter of resignation out to everyone, ensure there's an expectation you will not have a job beyond january 20 to allow that incoming person to put their people in office. the expectation of continuity and one leg out and one leg in in my view is not a seamless and smooth way to do it. >> that request for letter of resignation needs to come from the current president. that would come from president obama as a directive to the departments and agencies that they need to smith their letters of resignation to give that maximum flexibility and freedom to an incoming president-elect. >> that's absolutely correct. my only point was that an incoming president clinton would have substantial latitude -- >> absolutely. >> -- to refrain from accepting a large number of letters of resignation in the name of governmental continuity while the new team is being put in place. >> a heads-up on time. we have ten minutes. probably time for two or three or four questions and then between sessions we do a very quick transition and so we'll go
over here next. perceptions of the clinton -- the first clinton transition from talking with my parents and watching old news interviews is that the press kind of ended up controlling that transition. for example, kind of refocusing the overall issue agenda on maybe clinton's personal character and also more contentious issues like days in the military so i'm curious if that perceptions but match what is you who were alive then -- >> [laughter]. i was in the white house. i remember. >> and also how that affected clinton's ability to accomplish other items like health care first down the road in his first term. >> well, the clinton '92 transition was not a model transition. >> no, i agree. >> it was, however, a very useful case study. some would say object lesson. so what went wrong during the
clinton transition? >> well, first of all, as i mentioned earlier, this enormous and lengthy focus on the cabinet with the white house as an after thought. that was backwards. secondly, not drawing a clear enough distinction between the campaign team and the governing team. it is always a mistake to bring your senior campaign people lock stock and barrel into the white house. third, and this gets to your point, the transition and the president elect did not do a good job of controlling the issue's narrative. president-elect clinton on
november 16th of 1992, a day that will live in infamy, was asked the question based on what he would say in the campaign how he intended to handle the issue of gays in the military and he made the mistake of answering the question forthrightly, not a nuanced way, didn't give himself a lot of wiggle room. the result was a focus on that issue that was nonstop and relentless because it was an issue that people could understand. welfare reform was difficult. gays in the military appear to be easy and then of course the fact that there had been no coordination with the relevant military leaders lead to an enormous pushback, and the white house learned that it was going to take a period of very careful consultation with the military services to get them comfortable
even with some version of that idea. it was by no means clear what version of that idea they were going to get comfortable with. "they" being the military. it's also a case in a successful transition, there needs to be one authority. people need to be tapped on the shoulders by the president-elect, you are my man or woman with regard to x. that is more difficult to do if there's a lot of action in washington and a lot of action in the president-elect's hometown, right? that tension is going to be easier to manage if there's a president-elect whose hometown is either washington or easy hailing distance thereof. but little rock, it turned out to be a world apart. instead of a circle with a center it was an ellipse with two full sides. i could go on but it seems to me
that president-elects trying to design successful transitions now can learn from those and many other mistakes we've made. >> having been in the white house in january of 1993 and that morning and waiting even that morning to get lists from the president-elect clinton's team of who was going to be on the white house staff, people weren't even clear to come into the building. i think part of that, too, with slower start, not focusing on the white house staff first was a problem. i also think after 12 years of republicans in the white house, there was an inherent concern about how they could trust that was in the white house getting this information and even getting people on board. we saw years later, there was a
real lack of trust and in the white house with this fbi security files and all of these things that were improperly taken by the clinton team. there was some of that. in addition to starting late was an inherent not understanding, not knowing, not trusting what the institution of the presidency provided to them as well. it was very difficult. 2000 was difficult but 1992 and 1993 was pretty bad, too. >> so we only have time for -- we only have four more minutes so if you have a question, try to keep it pretty targeted and then for the answers try to keep them pretty targeted. we'll go way in the back of the room there. >> i want to hear more about the synergy between the transition team and the folks that will be stepping into the roles. you made a point about trying to keep those separate. i'm wondering what the transition is thinking.
>> the transition, i mean, once they're -- >> transition team and then -- >> well, let me distinguish very quickly. the transition team is one thing, the campaign is a different thing. and in my judgment, there's a lot of continuity between the transition team in the white house and not so much the campaign team in the white house. that's what i had in mind. >> there are distinct orbits. there's some coordination that happens at this point and they need to minimize distractions. they need to be doing what they need to be doing. you'll see weekly calls or something like that with the campaign teams and you have an interesting exercise which is the campaign merger between both those entities. so really this hasn't happened ever where you've had a large scale pretransition effort with
very large, in some cases, campaign staff moving into that. this the first time, both teams focused on that, how they integrate them, which positions they have and staff up the white house to bill's point in that period of time of transition. >> sure. >> one more question, quick as possible. >> the number of departments and agencies, epa, education, energy. do you foresee a situation where certain positions go unfilled because he doesn't agree with them if he were to be elected? >> there are a lot of positions that are unfilled now even though the president may agree with the mission of those agencies. underscoring just how difficult it is to get people through a vetting process whether they're senate confirmed or not. and how much attention, as bill said, who is your head and mobilize and get them filled. and this is not the first time we've heard a candidate say they wanted to take down th