tv U.S. House of Representatives Legislative Business CSPAN December 5, 2016 2:00pm-4:01pm EST
senate session which you can watch on c-span2. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order the prayer wll be offed by our chaplain, fatr conr. chaplain nroy: let us pray. loving and graious god, we give yo thanks for giving us another day. we ask today that you bless the members othe people's house to be the besand st faiul seants of the people they rve. y they be filled with gratitude at the oortunity ey hav sve in this place. we thank you for thebilities they ve bee given to do their work to contribute to the common good. as thisecond seson of the
4th congres drawnear its end and leativeusiness ce ain weighs heavily on this hill, wihold n your sriwisdomnd tthn this assemy. give each member arity of though and purity of tive so they m renderheir svice a their st sel. in this time waiting, as ople of faith preareor celebrations, less our natn with pce and goodwill. ma all americans whatever faith or backgrou, work together t build aommon whl. something which can only be complished by your gce. may al that is done this dain e people's hoe be for your greater honor and glory amen. the speakmpore: the chairas examined t journ ofhe lday's proceedings and announces hi approval erf. pursuant to clause 1, rul 1,
the journal stands approv. mr.âwion. mr. wion: eveone inthe llery please jnn. i edge allegiance tthe flag of the ited states of america and to the republic for which it stds, one nation under god, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. e speaker pro tempore: the chair ll enteain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the ntleman from south carin seek rnition? mr. wilson: permission to address the house for one minut andevise andxtend remarks. the speaker pro temre: wiout obction. mr. wilson: i'm debateful to express my appreion to lieutenant colonel rodriguez, us air force of san ano, texas. fothe past yr, i have had the prege of working along sidocco as he ved the pele of south carolis the defense fellow on assiment f
the air fce eutenant colonel rriguez was commissioned in 2001 te officer ting school at maxwell air base in alabam he distinguished himself early as aleader holding varis positions i speal operations and cyber operions. rocco has served honorablyn in enring fedomnd southern watch and deny flight. he ia dedicated member of th air force and will graateom the air force legislative change fellowship program this thursday and will receive his masters' of science agee from government affairs institute. he wil be trangsing to work th u.s. cyber command i wi rocco andarah and four children all the best for continued succe. conclon, god bless r
troopsnd may the president by his aion never forge septemr 11 and the global war onerrorism. . e speaker proemporethe gentlelady from missourvked for one mite. >> thank you. . speaker, today i rise recognize the el doro cham of commerce honored among the 200 calha as th 20 missouri smallmber of ommee of the year. is tit is much desved as the chamber unr the exutive director has been a leader i communityervie, andourism t, in the aa. 'm honored to represent istinguied organizaon with aroun 125 members, e chame with hasreed a number of initiativeso better its community, including the clean up project tkeep the city pristi. s. hartzler: a used sclarship fund to make su tomorrow's lders have the opportunities thed today. and a sl medi initiative,
be in tnow, traise ess abo this wonderful citynd itsesides. the communite the foundn ofissouri and our way of life. thkso thhard wo and decation ofse chamber stregthen ourties. ain and i i appla the chambero work and grownd recognizing the assets and opportities. d i congratulate the chaer on all its accomlishments. i yield back the balance of my time. the speakerro tempore:or what purpose does the gentleman califoia see recognition the house for one minutedress the speaker pro temre: withut objctn, the entlemanm california is recognid for one minute. >> thank youmr. eaker. i riseoday to congratulat the new democroalitio ip of r new chair, jim himes, newly eleedo-chairs, jared polis, terri sewell and others are strong bipartin p-growth leaders to guide the coalition in the 1th co we're pragmaticeaders for
workin famies and work acros the le to expand omic opportunity. we're focused on creating jobs and buildin an economy that thatil not cnge in the msion i'm eager to work with our new ership and 54embe as we cone to make the new democrac coatiotheome fotrongivil rights and sensibipartisanro-growth policy in congress. i yield back. the spear pro tempore: the chair lays befe the house a communication. the clerk: hontyorble the eaker, h of representatives. sir, uruant to the permission grantclause 2-h of rule 2 of the rules os. huse of representative the crk received following mesge he secretaryf the senate on december 2, 2016, at 35 p. thathe sete pasd withan amendment 1 that sene ao amenent of the houseate 257p. with -- 2577. with best wihe am sigd sincerely, k. haas.
the speaker pro tem: unde clause 5-d of rule0, th chair announces to the house i light of the resignation of the gentlela from califoia ms. hahn, the whol numberthe house is now 43 had. hair lays before e house a communication. the clerk: the h the peaker, house of representatives sir, i herebtender my resignation from the u.s. house ofepresentives effective midnight on december1, 2016. een myistinged tifpgt hon toerve the peoplemichigan's0th cogressial districfor the past 14 years and look forward continuing my lifen public service. signed, sincely, cance s. miller, member ongress. th speaker pro temporethe chr lays before thhouse an enroll bill. 5509, an act to me the dartment of veterans affairs temporaryodging facility in indianapolis, india,s the dr. otis b veran house. the speaker pro temre:
just a built-in delay that the law suffers from and hard to keep up with the latest shifts. >> georgetown university professor on how prosecutors and judges and has helped to resolve problems. and interviewed by cyber and viewer sailance reporter at righters. >> a lot of scientists love the law and think they are better at it than they really are and can we appeal to people to do their duty and help the government out. >> watch "the communicators" this evening at 8:00 on c-span
2. >> we have a special web page to help i follow the supreme court. select supreme court near the right-hand top of the page. once on our page, you will see four of the most recent oral arguments and click on the view all link to see all of the oral arguments covered by c-span. watch justices in their own words including interviews in the past few months. there is a calendar for this term. a list of all current justices with links to see all their appearances on c-span as well as many other supreme court videos available on demand. follow the supreme court at c-span.org.
>> these two men joined forces to create a bipartisan working group on the issues around communities in the country who are experiencing issues with police force and response. >> since the working committee was created earlier this year do you feel that the focus at all has since changed and also what do you see at the the limitations on that committee? mr. goodlatte: thank you for the question. we are working very hard to
promote dialogue in communities across the country to address what is a serious problem and my perception is a growing problem with regard to violence affecting the police and affecting people in communities. i just saw a statistic that says that so far this year and we still have a month to go, police fatalities are up 12% from last year, over 130 police officers have been killed in the line of duty. that's a very serious problem. we also know about a number of instances around the country where individuals in communities, particularly young black males have been killed by police officers, sometimes the investigation shows that the use of force was justified. sometimes it does not. but obviously there is a tremendous amount of mistrust that has built up. our mission hasn't changed.
our mission is to try to get dialogues going in communities all across the country because the cities we visited where they have been proactive in this regard are more effective at preventing these things from occurring and when they do occur and unfortunately they will occur from time to time, when they do occur, they are better prepared to deal with it because they have developed a better more trustful relationship between law enforcement and the communities that they are trying to protect. >> what was your goal in agreeing to form this committee? r. conyers: this has long been a problem in many of our communities especially where there are minorities. that is there have been big differences in attitude towards police and police have different
attitudes towards different members of the community. and to add to what chairman goodlatte has mentioned, we have noticed that there's been a surge of police incidents because now the word travels across the country with lightning speed. .hey no longer isolated something happens in baltimore, it spreads quickly throughout the country. nd what the police strat guy group does and i'm so glad we have been working on this together in a bipartisan sort of way, because underneath of all of these differences and views and emotions that are unfortunately sure to erupt is
the whole notion of trust. and what we do by having not only elected officials there but law enforcement officials. we have been in detroit, atlanta, washington we have had a couple and we are going to continue them in a spirit of trying to increase the level of trust between the groups. now we know that there are some people that probably shouldn't be in law enforcement and we want to identify them and get them out or into some kind of other line of activity as quickly as possible. but we also know the very emotional people who go off on
, sworn enemies of law enforcement. and they have to be handled also. e whole idea is to do this through discussions, through candid meetings. and i can't say that we have had some good meetings. and i hope we continue to do it. >> two-part question for you gentlemen. policing is a local issue. policing is local and state. what role does the federal government or what role should the federal government have in this process in bridging the gaps between communities and the policemen who live and work there. the study group has existed since summer. have you found any concrete answers to any of these questions?
are there any concrete proposals that you can give out that you learned since you started this study group? i know there have been discussions, but is there anything you can say to people and police who are watching that this is something you should start doing now to help solve these problems? mr. goodlatte: absolutely. with regard to the federal role in this, the fact of the matter is we have law enforcement at every level of government. we have a number of federal law enforcement agencies and the same concerns for their protection and safety and the same concern that they be well trained, well equipped, not hire people who should not be in law enforcement is applicable to them as well. and i agree with mr. conyers that when people who are -- believe that the solution to the problem is to take violent acts against police officers, deliberately targeting them, they need to be dealt with swiftly, surely and severely
because we have to make sure that our law enforcement officers know that our nation is behind their work when they are putting their lives on the line every time they go into a community and every time they knock on a door and every time they leave their home and their family worries about them. this is a problem that communities like detroit and atlanta have shared with us some , od ideas as mr. conyers said we have brought communities together and shared ideas as well and involve greater communications between law enforcement and the communities they are policing. they are having open sessions where people can come in and share their concerns and complaints. and if communities across the country no matter how large or small they are, they will create a better dialogue and will get
back to the situation that i think most people want to see in the relationship between law enforcement and communities sm the law enforcement officers are sworn to uphold the law and committed to keeping people safe. and sometimes people in the same communities where we are seeing the most violence are the greatest victims of criminal acts. we don't want police to not go into those areas. we don't want police to not try to keep people safe in communities where there are the highest crime rates. so this kind of cooperation is very important. now funding is always an issue that is brought you up with us and the federal government has funding for federal law enforcement and we do provide grant programs to help make sure that police officers have bulletproof visits to make sure they receive the training. we have the opportunity in atlanta to participate in some of that training ourselves and
it opened our eyes to the very, very difficult decisions that law enforcement officers have to make and the good judgment that they have to have. the more training and more we encourage law enforcement departments to get accreditation. all of these things are very important. and mr. mr. conyers: years is correct that we have learned about this as media has become instan kaine youse and information from the fartherest corners of our nation has become known to us sometimes while the crimes are still going on. and that should concern us, but it also should open our eyes to the fact that this is a growing problem and one that communities need to bring police chiefs online, police officers, sheriffs, community leaders and just plain average citizens who
are concerned about their own safety together so they can discuss this, they can make plans and understand how everything works so that a, these are less likely to occur, and b when they do occur, they handle them swiftly and develop communications swiftly so people continue engage in violence as a way to try to solve a problem that never should be solved that way. number of officers that have been killed has increased this ear.
>> i'm impressed with the fact that we still have a number of hings that must be done. i'm impressed with the fact that we still have a number of things that must be done. years ago, i had a bill, the atterns and practices act. it became to be a useful way for the federal government to intervene in what would normally be considered a local matter. where there are certain activities or even, sometimes, particular law enforcement individuals or activists who are anti-law enforcement, who would be warranted to be visited by federal intervention. it has been used selectively.
i have not found it to be criticized overly. it makes for the discussions and the context and the interchanges necessary to build up this level of trust that is so important in terms of how we proceed in building up good law enforcement and community relationships. this is not a simple problem that passing a bill and signing a law will take care of. i am hopeful that, with the new administration, we can find ways to continue to work on this policing strategies onference.
i start off with an open mind, with an attitude that is cooperative, that we continue and set a good example for our colleagues on both sides of the aisle on an issue that is emotional and touchy as this one of police relations. and it has to be said with that, in many places where things occur, it is an poverty-stricken communities. places that are more desolate. places in which there is already a problem of high crime rate. we are looking for ways to continue these strategy meetings going on. there is a lot of work to be
done. we are working with police associations and law enforcement groups so that the cops can feel they have representation and they feel that we are looking at the concern that goes with every police family, where the officer goes to work every day, not knowing what may happen and what an be a problem. it is in that respect that i am placing a lot of hope on working with leadership in the department of justice and seeing if we can continue this building of trust that i think is fundamentally at the root of the problem. this lack of trust has to be
increased to more and more understanding of the other parties' problem. so in that way, we'll be able to get somewhere now. i wish i could tick off a list of things we have accomplished and what we have learned, but it is coming out in such a way that i'm not sure i could pen mr. goodlatte a list of things i think we have solved already. it is not that simple. each area has its own political climate. each area has its own particular aw enforcement problems. it is in putting this together
and letting people know that we are interested that we will be able to continue to make progress. susan: we have 12 minutes left in our conversation. jesse holland is next. jesse: since you were just talking about the justice department, what advice would you give the presumptive attorney general nominee, senator jeff sessions of alabama, given that you have these conversations all around the country. the last two attorneys general were outspoken about protecting police and protecting communities. what advice would you give senator sessions, if he is confirmed, on how to use his pulpit as attorney general to address these concerns you have heard from around the nation? rep. goodlatte: mr. conyers indicated some projections, but also his openness in working with them. i agree. i would say that we have not
talked yet, this program, but mr. conyers and i and many others here in congress, have worked diligently in criminal justice reform. that includes making sure police have the tools they need to do their jobs properly. it includes making sure that we have the information shared about what works and what does not. and i know mr. conyers is working with me on a bill that we hope to produce soon that would make more information available. it also includes making sure people in communities, any community, feel that our criminal justice system works to protect them and to ensure people will be treated fairly in the process. we are looking at everything from sentencing reform to prison reform, reentry into society after you have served time in prison.
this all is related to federal prisons and federal crimes, of which there are a great many. but we have also learned from a number of states that have already done criminal justice reform and have seen a reduction in the crime rate and a reduction in their prison population at the same time. so there is a lot to be benefited from doing criminal justice reform. we think it should be done at the federal level as well. we also need to make sure we are looking at things like criminal intent, to make sure someone who is charged with a crime actually knew that of the thousands of laws and hundreds of thousands of regulations actually was a crime. did they have criminal intent before you take liberties from them? e need to make sure innocent people do not have their property removed with no effective way to get it that. we also need to make sure
innocent people are not charged with crimes in the first place. therefore, using both technology and good law enforcement strategies are employed to protect the innocent, which, after all, is the chief goal of justice and law enforcement in our country. susan: are you far enough along in crafting this legislation that you could anticipate it being introduced early in the new congress, and would you find a receptive senate? rep. goodlatte: yes. the senate has been working on it as well. there are differences between the house and senate, but we think the most important thing is for the house to take up the bills. now that we are approaching the end of this congress, we will work on the bills again. we will learn on what we happen working on here in the police strategies working group. by the way, it is not just mr. conyers and i.
it is 10 other members with very diverse backgrounds. a majority of the working group are actually minorities. and i think it has proven to be something that has been an education to all of us. we will take that, and that will help to enhance our legislation, that we will reintroduce into the new congress. i hope we can. and i heard mr. conyers indicate that he hopes to as well. worked together on this goal. this is a long-term problem. there are important solutions we can do now, and other things we will learn as we move forward. but we should not back away from this issue. i think creating a sense on the part of the american people that their justice system works for them is something that i think will help solve this underlying problem of tensions between law enforcement and some communities. susan: seven minutes left.
kimbriell kelly now. kimbriell: six months from now, when we are looking at this working group, what do you hope will be the number one priority that, on paper, you will say you have accomplished? rep. goodlatte: for me, it would be to say that there are communities all across america, particularly ones where they have had problems with this, but any community that wants to make sure they do not have a problem with relations between police and communities, will have brought people together to have the kind of dialogue we have een promoting. secondly, the criminal justice reform measures i was talking about as well. ohn? rep. conyers: it seems to me we are both on the right track. the understanding is essential to build up trust. and trust is essential to be
able to belive that dialogue and examination of particular cases and challenges law enforcement has in this particular society is solved. something i have a lot of emphasis on is reentry. helping a person convicted, imprisoned, released, and then nable to find employment makes him or her more vulnerable of something wrong to happen again. that is what we are trying to do. with these candid discussions -- and we include police chiefs and mayors and scholars and law
enforcement experts -- with that, we have begun to see the other side of the picture. and that gives us the ground we need to build up the confidence and trust that will lead to, i hope, lower criminal activity and crime rates. it is true that a lot of these things are cultural. a lot of these things are tied to geopolitical considerations in the city or town or state that there may be problems. it is in that respect it makes this an important and exciting part of our work on the house judiciary committee. i am much involved with this. have been for a long time. but it is really good to have a chairman who wants to explore this, too.
he comes with his own experiences and viewpoint, but we bring this together. that is with the legislative process is all about. how do we make things more understandable so that we can reduce the crime rate, increase the safety of people? not just in the rural or urban areas, the rust belt or one coast or the other. but across the country. that is the national responsibility that i feel going in. and the big question is what will be the reaction of the new administration with regard to
this subject matter? we will be counting on you to help work this out. and i will be doing everything i can as well to make sure that the success that the police strategies group, which has already had four meetings, will continue on with the support of a new administration. susan: let's see if we can get two more questions. jesse: congressman conyers told my question, because it was going to be what will be they reaction of the new administration to the work you are doing? what do you think the new administration, it will have its own ideas. have you heard from anyone in the new administration on what they think needs to be done?
rep. conyers: i have not talked to anybody in the new administration all the way up to the president-elect about what we will be doing about this. but i do not want to jump the gun. i want this to move in an orderly way. rep. goodlatte: it is so new that we do not have but a few names of people who will be in positions important in this regard. i look forward to having discussions with them. i think this is something the american people long for and that the administration could provide real leadership in helping to rebuild the kind of trust we need in communities between law enforcement and the people they are sworn to serve
and protect, some of whom do not understand that, and we need to promote that. i also want to say this is something that really, i think, is something that congress, both the house and senate, should get ehind. we can lead the way in terms of showing what kind of things can be done based upon what we have learned. in our working group, we have proven that. we have people who have been community leaders, sheriffs, people who have lived in all types of different communities across america. as we go out and meet with groups, we are having, i think, considerable success sharing ideas but also learning from the people we are meeting with. susan: we are pretty much out of time. i say thank you to judiciary committee chair bob goodlatte and the ranking democratic member on the committee, john conyers. we appreciate you coming
together. so often, we report on how partisan groups are at odds. so we appreciate you. thank you to kimbriell kelly of the "washington post" and jesse holland from the associated press. cable satellite corp. 2016] national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. isit ncicap.org] are the house in recess until 4 :30. votes will take place after 6:30. on the other side, the senate gavels in at 3:00. a measure funding cancer moon shot and initiative spearheaded by vice president joe biden. and tonight, we will be live at a discussion with two of the presidential debate moderateors and will be talking about their
experiences with the co-chairs of the commission tcha sets up the debates. we'll have that live at 8:00 eastern on c-span 3. >> tonight on "the communicators." >> it's a great measure of how fast things change and the law is figuring out cell phones and email and maybing figuring out those two aren't going to be as important in our daily lives. there is a built-in delay that the law suffers from and it's hard to keep up with the latest shifts. >> georgetown university law center professor on how prosecutors, lawyers and judges lack understanding of technology and has worked to resolve that problem and interviewed by cyber and surveillance reporter at reuters. >> scientists love the law and policy and how they are better at it than they really are and is that something we can use to
appeal to people and help the government out. >> watch "the communicators" tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span 2. >> abby gail filmore was the first first lady to work outside the home. mamie eyesen hour's love of pink. pink. marketed as a jacqueline kennedy was responsible for the white house historical association and nancy reagan saw her name on the black list of suspected communist sympathizers and appealed to ronald reagan for help and later became his wife. these stories and more are featured in c-span's book, first dies, the lives of 45 iconic
american women. giving readers a look into the personal lives of every first lady. stories of fascinating women and ow their legacies resonate today. first ladies in paper back published by public affairs is now available at your favorite book seller and also as an ebook. >> next, a look at the possible changes in the financial services industry under a trump administration and some of the potential key players in the cabinet and congress. speakers included politico's chief economic correspondent. this is just over an hour. >> if everybody put their knives and forks down or quiet them.
i think we are going to get started. that was really good. thank you. cornerback welcome back to the annual clearinghouse conference. for lunch, we are going to do something different and less drive of capital ratios and things like that. it would be instructtive, quite a lot of fun to hear from the media, their perception of the environment or your institutions and more broadly, more recent events and politics the topics get more interesting. you know these people. i wake up every morning with ben white. cnbc. spend all day with and he pops up periodically and
i turn the volume back up. with the financial times and "wall street journal," they don't pop into my office. i read them more at my leisure but in great detail. and they are true resources when it comes to these issues and obviously a big read for a lot of you in this audience. probably less known to you is candy wolf who is our moderator. nd head of global affairs at ctigroup. she seems unruffled to me. she has had vast experience in the area that she works and previously worked in the senate and office of the vice president and assistant to the president for legislative affairs in the bush administration. so she knows of where she speaks. you are in great hands with candy and turn it over to her. >> welcome to my panel.
i usually have to be the one answering the questions, so it's a pleasure to be up here and ask all of these questions and put them on the spot. i think we are going to start a little bit with politics and set the stage for the environment and move into the policy issues as we go along. i was going to throw it open to all of you as you look back on ection night and the numbers were coming back and all of a sudden, states that weren't supposed to be in play and now in play and pennsylvania was moving in the direction of trump and michigan and again ohio. what was going through your mind as the election was unfolding? and perhaps we can talk a little bit to not only as what was on your mind but what were you thinking with respect to our
industry, financial services, if anything, as you were watching the results come forward? i will open it broadly to the conversation. >> what was i thinking as the returns were coming in? my first thought was, it might be that i got this one wrong. a slight possibility that i didn't call it right. that initial sense of wow. this is remarkable. and clearly missed the extent to which trump's message would resonate in the rust belt and clinton was not getting the numbers she needed in the obama coalition. she was not particularly some of the suburban female white voters. they didn't turn out in big enough numbers. and trump ran up the score in a lot of places where obama had won in 2008 and 2012.
the nature of the electorate and the way it moved and surprised a lot of people. the national polls, when you look at the margin in the popular vote, now we are not that far off if she ends up with 1% or 2% in the popular vote. but michigan, wisconsin, pennsylvania were several points off. so it was surprising to me. i wouldn't say i was spending a lot of time at that moment thinking what does it mean for the financial services industry but i started thinking about that in the days following and the extent to which this is a complete seismic change in which getting l be a mass of rid of d.o.d. frank and people who are in favor of this stuff that jeb hensarling wants to do that will include higher capital
level. and not go and raise capital levels significantly and i don't think we have an answer. shock, awe, surprise went through my mind and i thought the columns i would have to write and i got very depressed. >> ben -- you wouldn't have been on the conference call, there is a conference call that i wasn't supposed to talk about but i will. early in the evening with nbc and the people who did the exit polls, i remember trying to listen to the person who was talking and it was very early on in the evening that something was not about to happen the way it was expected to happen and i can't describe to you what he said but reminded me of the guy from the rocket company in apollo 13.
he said it's not designed for this. give me an answer. he -- i'm like something's weird here and the stuff starts coming in -- here's a weird thing, right, something like several thousand times the following conversation has to take place. exit poller, do you think donald trump is trugget worthy to be president? responded no. exit pollster, who did you vote for? donald trump. if you look at the -- it was the majority number of people overall and something like 30% or 40% of trump voters. had the i don't know having the displeasure having conducted a poll two weeks prior and we showed hillary with a nine-point
lead. on the one hand you hope for a poll that is in line and on the other hand you hope for a poll that is newsy. and you think could i have been smarter? and the other data in the poll that shows how dissatisfied people were with the political system, how dissatisfied they were with the economic system, how angry they were, how much concern there was about the economic future and said to myself, ok, there's no way they can put essentially the incumbent back in. i would have it tilted in my analysis against the top line, but you can read the bottom line of this and the exit polls as well explaining what happened. >> we were neutral but very much set up on the evening, bit of a
party, we had a lot of pizzas delivered and bought a fridge to stock with beer. and we tried to stay busy. i went down to the public at 7:00 and it was looking -- the script was in fact. i got back at 8:30 and watching it climber. and when you look at the it you could see a movement and this was inching up and up. and i thought we could be in for a bit of a shock. the pizzas didn't get eaten and the beer left untouched and i hammered something out about u.s. stocks which were open at that point. but all the columnists cranked up and got into action. >> there was a similar dynamic of the election. we had put in a plan that half of us on the banking team would be there late watching the markets and the other half would come in early the next morning.
i was on the late shift. and the early crew the next day was kind of joking with all the sentiment that we will be able to come in normal time if this is an uneventful election but obviously this didn't take place. in events like this, you are looking at the political dynamic of it and wondering how everything was so surprising to so many poles ters. but like ben, we were following the markets and watching stock prices with the gathering news that it was going to be a trump win and changing around 4:00, 5:00, 6:00 a.m. and the september teans speech. and we saw within an eight-hour time frame the market's reaction go from very worried and
optimistic to what it meant to bank stocks. >> i think some of that optimism is that there is an all republican-congress. and you had a republican house and question whether the republicans were going to maintain the senate and in history as we look back, there have been periods of time in which an administration is controlled by the same party that you have gotten things done in the current time line. so if you look at obama's first two, ars or bush mid-one, three, four, five, six and then of course now potentially for trump. >> the most useful is the gridlock and that wasn't in this case. >> i thought the market was really wrong about that. one of the private moments i had
was to be excited for myself professionally and that half of my job is supposed to be covering the fed and the economic data and also cover economic policy and there hasn't been economic policy that i have covered in six years and you can laugh at that but it's true. i was excited when the republicans won the congress in 2014 because i thought that that meant that at least bills would go through congress and get on the president's desk. and it may be instructtive that that republican congress could barely put anything on the president's desk. d but my feeling was professionally that ok, i'll have economic policy to cover again and personally as an american, i have to say i wasn't sure that america was going to get by another four years with gridlock. d this is an aside, but it
spent six years in russia, when you see a country for need for legislation, you need that stuff. there is a reason why and it wasn't getting done for whatever reason. so, look, i think we can talk about what's going to be done but the fact that something can get done and maybe that's reflected in the markets. >> it is obviously as candy pointed out, the markets started to turn around overnight particularly because of the concession speech which was relatively gracious and not filled with vitriole and there was going to be a republican house, senate and president, which we can get into the details what it actually means rates er corporate tax and maybe fiscal stimulus spending and good news for the
stock market not necessarily long-term if you spike up inflation and you have a scenario where you do a big stimulus where the economy doesn't need a big stimulus. but the scenario quickly played itself out this is a great short-term bull run move. >> we'll transition into policy a little bit. let's talk about the transition, because, any administration has to go through, they have a transition team and putting landing teams into the various agencies and assessing regulation, policies, creating a briefing book that is going to be turned over to the heads of all of these agencies and new cabinet posts. so one of the more important ones that we have been hearing rumors about is treasury and put
you on the spot as to when we might hear and who it might be and kind of talk about the rumors that have been flowing for three-plus weeks. >> just about this, i have been hearing it is mnuchin for days both he i have heard is going to be announced tomorrow and he is not going to get it because he didn't raise enough money for trump and angry at him for not raising enough money. when we talk about the trump transition to say it is not like any transition we have seen in a long time. this is a very ad hoc. every transition has different factions and people pushing certain candidates and the extent to which they are openly public fights as to who is going to take the senior job and
conway arguing against romney. trump still appearing to be issue clind to pick him. steve mnuchin appears to be the most likely candidate and others in the mix, including jeb hensarling who i don't think gets it. it's hard to cover this transition because you have so many elements of the trump universe fighting each other and in terms of the transition team, steve and i were talking beforehand and it's true, this is not the universe of economic policy and financial policy people that a lot of you know very well. a guy like bill walden, sort of big in the 1980's, allied capital and big fight with eye horn and been living on a farm
or investing in movies and now he's back and on the treasury landing team and very anti-regulation and very anti-big government, but we don't know a whole lot about him or what he is doing. so it's very hard to cover this transition and i think there are a lot of people involved in it that we just don't know very well. . john allison ran a bank and is at the cato institute and is very much on the record of what should happen. i think if trump does take mnuchin it's a wild card for how high he has drank rollback. >> from what i've been hearing, much less connected is the news guys. it's being it for a long time.
wilbur ross commented at the end of last week and i spent most of my thanksgiving research being this guy and write being him. we have a mandate about the confirmation. it came and went. it seems nothing is certain in this environment and trump has absolutely nothing to gain by keeping the likes of us informed. >> i think there's an element of what ben said there's some insiding, there's definitely a lot of factions for the big jobs. the three or four largest cabinet jobs but there's also an element, i think, he wants to test the waters, right? if he want to hire a tresh secretary, a -- treasury secretary, even if it's mnuchin, you want to interview five candidates to see what you're passing up. >> for some of these treasury people there's always the question, is this candidate we are talking about before getting through the paperwork, the vetting, the assets, how he would -- somebody like mnuchin would put in a blind trust or
liquefying assets and how willing is he to do that? of course, we have the guy at the top not really inclined to do any of that. how do you demand of -- it of your cabinet secretaries? that's true of the big jobs but particularly true for treasury when you're operating within a universe of people that have significant assets and possible conflicts so that's one thing that could be slowing the treasury announcement down. trump is not completely -- i think he leans mnuchin and likes him and knows him but there are people very close to trump who are whispering in his ear, don't pull this trigger yet. look at this guy. there are conservative ideologues that would prefer allison because he's known on the record on his views on, you know, reform in the regulatory system and banking reform whereas you have more of a blank slate in a guy like steve. a lot of these moving parts, i hear often this is coming tomorrow and then by the end of
the day stand down, it's not happening. >> nobody said romney for treasury secretary? >> no. i haven't heard that. it could happen. >> to me, this points to another issue which is -- to borrow a craps term, which is a game i'm fond of -- the extent to which the market is trading trump on the come here. in large measure, a campaign is a dress rehearsal and a blueprint and a scaleton for an administration. and part -- and a skeleton for an administration. and part of why we have not seen anything like this before, there's no campaign structure that moves from here to there. we had that famous quote when apparently somebody went into the west wing and said, how many of these people stay? so he doesn't have -- i don't think he's tremendously behind where he would be. but i also think that the extent to which the president-elect was specific
about plans and specific about what he wanted to do, it was unclear in the sense he had people to do these things remains unclear. i know the market is very optimistic and i think there's something about that optimism but i think it's way out over what is capable to be done given the infrastructure that he lacks. i know that the morning that the times published its interview with donald trump, i have this personal reaction of, you know, w.t.f. for lack of a better term which is, how am i supposed to do this job if for the next several months the whole game is if then? right? if he does this then it might mean this for the economy. but the if, we don't know what the if is. the if could be, i'm going to keep parts of obamacare or i'm going to get rid of this. i'm going to keep this. if the if is so uncertain, it's
very difficult to game out events, and right now the market has decided what the if is and what the then is. >> i think one more thing on the nature of this transition versus other transitions. in some way it's not dissimilar from obama in 2008 in the sense, you know, senator obama then did not have a government in waiting. he was coming out of a single term in the senate that wasn't a massive world of policy people around him. so he's building a lot from scratch in the transition. they took it so seriously from the start in terms of, you know, just hitting the mark and they also had a crisis they were coming into office to deal with so the policy framework was, how do we stop the bleeding? how do we a stimulus package quickly? let's get people in place to do that. for trump there's no government in waiting, no policy universe to turn the key in the white house and start moving. and you have a relatively decent economy, decent g.d.p.
growth, good stock prices, good housing prices and kind of a blank slate for what he could do. as steve said, we don't know what the if is. so you have somebody whose policy views aren't well-known in addition to not having the apparatus and structure to put in place a new administration. the gap of unknowns is enormous. >> well, i think part of the continuation of that unknowns is we're going through a period of time, as you said, they're trying to figure out cabinet officials. that's wave one, right? because you have the names in and you have to get people through the confirmation process, hearings and things at the beginning part of january in order to get individuals confirmed on january 20 and 21 so you have a cabinet with a continuity of government the day after the president is sworn in. the conversation going on next is what is wave two and wave three and of course wave four? if you look back and some of the research i've done previously, administrations take at minimum through august
to try to fill out a lot of these positions. so you're going to have cabinet officials going in to treasury with themselves, probably a secretary and maybe a counselor. and then no one else underneath them in terms of assistant secretaries or undersecretaries, etc. the question is, how long is it going to take, the next set of names and positions that will be filled? and i keep hearing wave two, maybe it's wave three but wave two is filling out treasury but also starting to look at the fed, you know, the f.c.c., the cftc. some of these conversations are occurring at the hill as we speak because there are names still pending as the f.c.c. will will be in a position with a quorum with the resignation and departure of the chairwoman. so, you know, at some point some of these positions will
have to accelerate or congress is going to decide here in the next week that they're actually going to confirm some of these folks to begin to fill out these positions. but given the discussions, maybe we could turn a bit to the fed. we know we had two vakeansies that remain pending. they don't appear to be going anywhere right now and we had the vice chair of supervision. you know, turillo has been in the acting role but not been officially appointed or confirmed so there are some slots that certainly can be filled. treasury secretary gets named and the trump focuses on it, what impact do you think a new administration, whether transition or administration itself, can actually have on the fed and what are the thinking of how quickly this is happening or what it could mean for people here in the room around the policy going forward? >> one thing i'd say on that, and you mentioned turillo as the acting chairman, vice
chairman of supervision, that is a very powerful regulator to have been there that long and be in the acting title. i think it speaks to the fact there's such partisan discord and inability to work together in washington that obama felt like he couldn't get turillo through. he wanted to stick with turillo. how willing will they be able to work with trump? how much will they push back on his nominees, on his policies, how much will they try to work with him? i think that's one of the big wild cards and a lot rides on shumer and the leadership and try to -- shumer and the leadership and -- schumer and the leadership and try to move through wave two and wave three. > i wonder how longture -- how long turillo will survive? he has to rev up for six months which means he's out by spring.
i have spoken to a lot of people in the room before and the consensus is that they won't be sad to see the back of him. [laughter] >> let's take a poll. >> the numbers are that he gets to point two immediately. if he names one of them as the vice chairman of supervision, then he gets probably turillo resigns. he will have a chair and a vice chair. he'll have five and seven in he next year and a half. >> all of them is like, if this happens i would be surprised if turillo stays a week. that would be the conventional wisdom. i have spoken to dan so i don't know if that's true.
does he stick around to try to stop somebody from undoing what he's tried to do on capital levels? and all that? i doubt it. he probably does head for the door and a lot of the game will be played at the fed in terms of regulation and all -- that all of you care about because, you know, we get into this more detail. the idea that congress is just oing to uniformerly get rid of dodd-frank and change regulation overnight it's way complicated than that and way harder than that. as aaron said, it depends on democratic unanimity in the senate and the ability to filibuster stuff. and it's not like elizabeth warren and her forces are completely without weapons and also in arguing that, look, trump campaigned on a populous message of championing the little guy and not giving wall street what they want and he's going to have to deal with that. >> what weapons does she have?
>> she can't stop him but she has the bully pickup pit and has the convening power to get the progressive left to at least make noise and get in the headlines what some of these regulatory changes would do. i mean, if republicans are, you know, lockstep in agreement on an agenda on financial reform and changing a lot of these things, they can probably get it done and get it signed by trump. but there are going to be plenty who are nervous, is this really what republicans in pennsylvania, ohio, wisconsin voted for? how is this going to play with these people? what does it mean for 2018 elections, all these senate electiones that are coming up in 2018? i just don't think it's a slam dunk that all of a sudden the pro-wall street reform people, i think they're in retreat. i think their odds are stacked against them, but i think there's still weapons they can use to try to slow some stuff down in the senate. that's why it gets back to the fed and the appointments there
and the departure of tarullo will be where a lot of the action will take place. >> i think, ben, following up on steve's point, i mean, the designate still has the filibuster now. there's -- the senate still has the filibuster now. there's question if they would require only 51 votes for many of the provisions. but under the rules of the senate it takes 60 votes to end debate, to bring a bill to the vote which is what the filibuster is. you have to enact cloture and you have to enact the 60 votes. at that point that's really the challenge that the republicans have, i think, around any of the reforms which is, you only have 52 republicans. if all were voting for you. assuming louisiana votes -- goes for the republican candidate. but you end up with 52 senators. so somewhere in there to get to 60 you need eight democrats. >> so i can play this out, then? >> yes. >> if elizabeth warren wants to filibuster any reform to dodd-frank or -- i don't know how it will happen.
separate bills or sangle bills? >> well, no one knows the answer to that >> she can stop that unless they somehow get eight democratic votes. >> or they try to go through reconciliation. >> or they try to move something on a bill that requires 51 which you can do with special rules in the senate. but not get totally nerdy, you have to -- [laughter] ok. so my background used to be budget rules in the u.s. senate. so i will get nerdy. and you need to do -- to have reconciliation has to have a budgetary impact and it isn't a budget like we think budget. it has to be scored by the congressional budget office to say it will have an impact and there are few provisions i am aware of that could get that scoring. but that's for others to think about whether there are certain provisiones that could ultimately be considered as -- >> well, i don't want to be debbie downer here. trading like not elizabeth warren has the
authority over the reform of dodd-frank. am i crazy about that? >> i'm not -- >> it seems to be trading like this is a done deal. >> all this stuff will get undone rapidly. >> the stocks out there are declining and they're all good and work -- [inaudible] >> way below. >> financial -- all the financial stocks of the s&p 500. >> we've all seen in bank stocks and we have written stories to be about seems nothing to do with the prospects of regulation under the new administration. my colleague is a huge fan of the charts and he showed me early on that the gap between the the eight and 10-year yield is -- >> crumbcumb. >> it's normalization of monetary policy as far as i can tell given all the uncertainties we talked about, all these personalities that may or may not do what job. i think it's in that -- >> well, dodd-frank reform is one of the reasons the office is up. i agree with ben that the yield
curve, the infrastructure for infrastructure spending, more inflation, the longer part of the bond, yield curve spiking up and the short and probably coming with it at some point, that that's all very positive for bank stocks. and then also just the change in activity, very good for trading. so part of the banks that has been depressed for years in part because of regulation, in part because of market conditions and investor appetite is starting to see a lot more robust activity. >> you say carry on, bid it higher, it's all good? >> well, they have a good rally. whether it sustains is another question. it definitely reset -- i think regulation was part of that but not a huge part of that. i think it will definitely be a tail wind for the stock. if you're counting on regulation going away or deregulation coming in or dodd-frank being rolled back as sort of the thesis for your bank stock investment it may be a longer play or trickier play. >> i think we should take into account the extent to which the
bank stock rally is a relief rally from what the market expected which was a clinton white house with a democratic senate and a house small shall -- republican house majority and a clinton administration that, you know, she is widely viewed on wall street as pretty moderate on banking and gave all the speeches and all that kind of stuff. she had to run populous to beat bernie sanders and talk about cracking down on wall street. she probably had to put people into positions in a lot of these agencies and at treasury who have strong pro-wall street reform background and all of a sudden in an instant that got wiped away completely. so you had to have a reset in expectations for bank reform and regulation based on, a, generally pro-business white house senate and house of representatives. so a lot of it was a counterfactual. we thought we would get this. oh, my god, we got that. >> so aaron, back to you on the comment you made in term of the bank stock evaluations, etc., and we're looking at an
infrastructure potentially, some type of infrastructure package although no one really understands what that means. tax reform, which we think is potentially corporate, erritorial and -- or international reform and individual. at least that's the starting point. and repeal of obamacare and maybe some sorm of replacement. so we have some changes going on in some big marketplaces. possibly -- i mean, things will take longer but certainly in the course of the first six months or so is where some of these conversations are going to go. so what's the thinking around the impact with respect to the deficit? how sort of the analysis going with, you know, is there consideration as so whether some of these policies, depending on what you look at and we really don't know what the substance is going to be, but is the market going to start reacting more to concerns around deficit spending should
some of these proposals not be paid for or offset or -- >> yeah, you have been thinking about that question for a while. it doesn't seem like it's been caught on yet. i have been waiting on s&p or moody's to say, wait a second, these deficit issues could have an impact. the president-elect has a lot of business experience and running businesses with a very low bond rating, to put it kind lie. [laughter] you know, his views on deficits and growth are probably different than the deficit hawks. sort at a core level. now, the deficit hawks are important to the tea party and his base but it doesn't seem like they're getting a lot of love yet, at least early days. to me, the infrastructure is a very plausible thing for him to do. he's a real estate guy. he's built things over his life that's very appealing to him and it's also had bipartisan support as long as it doesn't get the deficit too out of
control. he can talk about rolling back health care and rolling back dodd-frank but that will be a very difficult fight. whereas his infrastructure projects won't be harder for him. >> i think it will be harder because there's bipartisan support for the idea of infrastructure spending, but the miffed in which you -- method in which you do that is there is very little bipartisan agreement and democrats are already starting to coalesce around the idea they would fight an infrastructure program that's based on, you know, credits for private corporations. you know, they're talking about corporate welfare and they'll continue to do that if there's not a big public spending piece of it it the government building stuff. again, you get into the question of, can he muscle it through a republican congress? and i don't know that he can if you have a filibuster in the senate of democrats saying we love the idea of rebuilding our roads and bridges but we don't love the idea this is all a handout to big corporations and we're going to fight it and this is not what trump voters
voted for. it's all part of the broader message. democrats haven't quite figured it out yet, but at some point there will be a theory of the case against trump which is what you voted for is not what you're getting. you're getting millionaires and billionaires all these important jobs. you're getting across-the-board tax cuts for rich people. you'll get an infrastructure program that designed for corporate america. if they can figure that all out and coalesce around it, i don't think there's some slam dunk for an infrastructure spending bill. >> i think one of the things that has to be considered is, there's only so much bandwidth in the white house and in congress for major overhauls. i remember i had a conversation with the chief of staff for bush going into the second administration and he laid it out for me all these things they were going to do and i said, that's a lot of stuff and he said, the president is very ambitious. i said, you could maybe not get any of this done. actually, you were involved in all this, weren't you?
>> we didn't get a lot of it done. >> by god, she got it done. >> social security, immigration. >> i don't know it was the result of that being that. but pick one thing or two things, maybe. and then you got to get to -- you got to get over the hump of the mid terms. because that's going to be key. so this two-year window i think what does he choose to focus on? if you think about the enormity of immigration reform and dodd-frank and a tax cut proposal and repatriation and, you know, even just the repatriation proposal which we're talking earlier, it includes pretty major overhaul in the tax system going from a territorial -- to a territorial system and then the repatriation on top of that, it's a pretty big undertaking for if you're right that they don't get up to speed until sometime around august, you know, if you get the secretary in there, i forget, do you
remember when geithner was fainlly up to speed to get that -- finally up to speed to get that? >> february of 2009. >> he should have shut up then. >> yes. [laughter] >> it was a deer in the headlight. >> we had them on. i had did the interview with brian williams and the market was like took a step down every word he said. "the."e word >> that was not a high point of the obama administration. >> you wait until you -- undersecretaries and you have the -- not to mention the job that you did which was connelly ason. >> well, the white house job will be filled because it doesn't require confirmation so he'll have those positions kind of filled out day one. >> and another thing to watch in that is where does economic policy come from? some presidents choose to use the treasury and some choose to keep it -- >> economic council. >> you're familiar with that format. >> keeping it 1600.
>> the other thing to take into account when talking about the massive agenda and the difficulty of getting a lot of it or any of it done is the fact they have to do confirmation fights for some of these people. session also have a fight. there may be others who have tough confirmation hearings and then a supreme court justice takes up most of the bandwidth in any administration or a lot of the bandwidth. again, sort of the caution of people that think a full rewrite of the corporate and individual tax code along with infrastructure spending, dodd-frank repeal, obamacare repeal, i mean, just pump the brakes. >> can i add one thing to this hich is this to me says that i should read and understand the paul ryan plans best because -- >> yeah. -- ithner had a thing
>> whoever has the plan can dictate the policy. >> to the extent they don't have to wait to review in betterway.gov and i read a bunch of it but maybe i need to memorize it now -- >> yeah, they had the bones. >> there's a lot of policy ideas that can be translated. >> you saw in the campaign, the first and second iterations of the trump tax reform plan moved from rates cuts that were not going to happen much closer to the paul ryan-kevin brady set of rate cuts and that's probably where they'll wind up. i don't think -- >> hold on. you overstate that -- >> well, they move closer. >> it's still ryan on steroids or double. >> maybe less like human growth hormone and -- >> like a nasal spray. >> a nasal steroid. >> he went from 12 to 10 to six and ryan's at three. >> yeah. you could see them working those details out. i can see the trump
administration not being too proprietary about paul ryan kind of driving the bus on corporate tax reform and individual tax reform and then taking credit for it when it gets done. he's not like -- he's a headlines guy, not a detail's guy. >> i am going to open it up to the audience for a second. but to comment on what ben and steve were saying, you have personnel and supreme court and minimum of two budget resolutions and repeal of obamacare and all of these things not -- it's going to take a lot of time. i think the interesting challenge will be how the administration tries to deal with the fact that they're going to be running up against government operating far more slowly than perhaps they think it ought to be and the kind of pressure. so i'm already told just anecdotally that the house had their calendar scheduled so they can determine which days they'll go in and go out and the days they were listed, they had three weeks in, one week out. traditionally how the congress has been operating and they
don't vote mondays or fridays. and the trump transition took a look at the calendar and said, you know, this doesn't work because i work seven days a week and you guys aren't really here and so the calendar went back and got revised. and they took out the one extra week off, etc. so there's already some of that interesting pressure around, you know, how much work is going to be done and the senate has announced they will be in mondays and fridays. now, we'll see if they are in mondays and fridays and if they really vote. there seems to be some movement around maybe given the amount of things that need to get addressed and understanding there's a short window that they're going to try to push it. at some point the twitter account is going to probably start pressuring the congress to act more rapidly than the congress is sort of willing or able to do. and i think that tension will be an interesting dialogue for you guys to write about. >> interesting is an stunned statement. you can see it which trump declares war on congress, the
do-nothing congress. anything is possible. and they could be at complete odds with each other by three, six months into the administration. we have no idea. >> and it will likely happen between midnight and 3:00 a.m. [laughter] >> and it will start -- >> you will be on that late shift. we'll call it the tweet shift. [laughter] >> all right. i think we're going to open it up for questions from the audience. i don't know if there's a mike. >> you guys are laughing like this is hysterical, right? this isn't funny. >> some of it is funny. >> i mean, he's going to be up at 3:00. >> he's going to be up at 3:00. >> and laugh in the face of horror and misery. >> i think it's all good, ben. >> happy days are here again. >> i'm psyched. >> mike is here. >> sorry. i default to moderator mode. sorry, candida. >> so twoucks was supposed to be the good year for democrats in the senate. [inaudible]
a lot more democratic seats. it was supposed to be the inaudible] so 2016 was supposed to be good year for democrats in the senate. 2018 was supposed to be the year they were defending a lot more seats and therefore looking to lose ground. how does that play in terms of dynamics now? does that encourage democrats to compromise knowing the situation could get far worse in 2018 or does it ep courage republicans to -- encourage republicans to sort of hold back a little bit expecting or maybe get the 60-seat majority in 2018? >> that's a great question and you're absolutely right that it's a dismal and terrible math for democrats in 2018. they fully expected to win the senate in 2016 and lose it again in 2018 and they have not won it back in 2016. to see their numbers dwindle even more at 2018, how that changes the political dynamic, someone smarter than me will have to figure that out. i do think there's some
incentives for democrats in those vulnerable seats to show that they have achieved something on the legislative front in terms of economic policy. whether there's anything that puts forward that they can support that doesn't make them vulnerable to primary challenges from the left or look like they're caving to the trump agenda. i mean, you have to remember while trump did win the electoral college, he did not win the popular vote. he doesn't have this massive mandate and a lot of tresh on democrats to stand up to trump, to resist trump so i don't think we know the answer until we know what his legislative agenda looks like, what's in these bills that these democrats in the senate are being asked to vote on and it could go either way. they could decide they have to not be obstructionists and get through some economic legislation that could boost economic growth or they could decide that trump is so unpopular and toxic they can block him at every turn and be rewarded for it. t's too soon to answer that.
>> we're in new york and no one has mentioned senator schumer. >> mentioned him. >> we're in new york. there's no one that mentioned senator schumer. two new yorkers now that has traditionally found a way to do business together. senator schumer, which never forgot the wall street. big part of his constituency is in the financial services marketplace. what role does senator schumer have now post-election? assuming that he's a minority leader? >> can i make one comment because i heard a great quote the other day on c is chummer being the republican leader. given his relationship with donald trump, republicans should be more scared than the democrats or equally as scared as the democrats in terms of that relationship. so i think there's some truth to, you know, what kind of dialogue could happen between the white house and senate democrats in a way i think
could open up some possibility for coalition. >> i'll let ben answer this or maybe aaron. i will point out real quickly. in fact, mark, i'd call you and ask that question. you would obviously have great thoughts on that. the issue to me, in a normal world, we would perhaps passed dodd-frank as it was and gone back and revisited it in at least a four-year time frame, aybe a five-year time frame. that if senator schumer can't possibly be a bridge between the extremes on the left -- and tell me if i'm speaking naively here -- who don't want it touched at all and the extremes on the right that want to get rid of it, i think i think he can play an amazing and constructive role here where i don't think schumer will be seen as the i could who is coddling wall street but there are a lot of smart people i talked to on wall street who
are very convince being some of the negative macroeconomic effects of dodd-frank that argue for loosening it in some regards that normal, reasonable people might have done. that's my answer. maybe there's a -- >> no. i think you basically got it right. it's a very different dynamic for schumer has minority leader than obviously would have been if democrats had taken the senate and were in position to block republican efforts to change financial regulation. now he can cast himself as the broker who protects the most important pieces. is reasonable on things that maybe need tweaks and changes that have some bipartisan support and it's going to be one of these finally delicate litical balances and schumer is better than anybody and playing them to the best way to his political advantage.
i do think that steve is absolutely right. he could play the deal as broker between the left that says don't touch anything, sdreem and yell and fight -- scream and yell and fight all the way and schumer is saying if there are going to be changes be as painless as possible. >> i agree that he is in a key role. he'll have warren on one side and he'll have trump on the other and like you said they're both new yorker and it wouldn't surprise me to see them do a deal on certain things or for schume to say, ok, i'll deal with you on one item and we're not touching this item and it might work. on the other hand, he has to keep in mind the mid terms and he will want to do things that will add to the democrats standing in the house and senate even if it is seeming pretty hopeless at noint. he'll have to keep an eye on that especially four years from now. it's a great question. >> just want to offer one idea. there is a constituency of
senators in the middle. schumer, corker, warren. if these guys are kind of looney on each end -- and i joratively.that per >> passionate, committed. >> could you see a scenario -- >> i am going to take your job as moderator. >> that's fine. >> where these middle senators gain power and there's a senator san -- certain saint that would overtake? >> i think "politico" had a good story >> you did? >> don't want to toot my own word. >> did you use the word looneys in there? >> no. we used passionate progressives versus -- but, yes. no, absolutely, there will be that group of moderate senators from swing states who will want to have some accomplishments to get some stuff done, seen as
brokers on, you know, in the designate that is pretty closely -- senate that is pretty closely divided. it will depend on trump's popularity, how he is seen by the public, whether there's a lot of public support for his agenda, how he's behaving and performing in office. if it looks like he is doing well and has put together reasonable legislative packages on taxes and spending, there will be democrats who will want to -- not filibuster and get this stuff passed. gaming what they're going to do, we'll see how the rest of the transition process plays itself out, how the early days ofhe administration plays themselves out. if it's some chaotic mess and trump is tweeting that stuff 24/7 and his popularity going from 42 which is not particularly high for an incoming president although which is much better than when he was running down in the
30's, they will keep going. i hate to keep saying wait and see but you have to wait and see. >> questions? anyone else from the audience? all right. moderator. >> we can talk about sports and the cowboys. >> we need to talk about trade. >> i'd rather talk about sports. >> yeah. so probably the one challenge - and i'll look to aaron and ben here. in got all these exuberance the marketplace but we know when it comes to trade there's questions of renegotiating nafta, that the trans-pacific partnership he's withdrawing, wants to lift china as a currency manipulator. there's a lot of potential policies early on. and then a number of, you know, enforcement mechanisms to use commerce to bring actions on unfair trade. so, you know, for many in the
room -- i can put my citi hat on and we look at the anti-globalization trend that's been going on around the world and we look to, you know, current elections in france or potentially what's coming up in germany or all the other stories around this anti-globalization that helped elect trump, the anti-trade message was what was incredibly strong as we look at the rust belt state. what should we be thinking about? what should business be thinking about from a trade perspective? and what do you think the markets are sort of thinking and doing going forward because i think one of the challenges is you can have all this potential stimulus on the tax side and then we'll have questions about trade that's really going to pull down the -- potentially can lead to, you know, a lack of growth in the economy if there's tariffs and things that are sufficiently high? so i'll throw open a question. >> wilbur ross paid a visit to
the s.e.c. recently. the trade will be changed. it will be unashamedly america first. he wants to, of course, tear up nafta which he knows flipped the surface of mexico and i stand deficit almost overnight. he wants to have automatic reopeners in any deal after five years just to take a step back, perhaps dodd-frank should have had, just to see if it's working. he wants each side to go into negotiations with firm estimates of the impacts on the industries and jobs and it's going to be a complete change assuming he does get the job. >> hiss tore cleerks the problem with tariffs and protectionist trade policies is you might get a better slice of the pie but the bigger global economic pie is not growing as fast. i think he wants the economy to grow and he wants america to grow first and foremost. so i think it's going for one of the most important areas in
terms of how the market reacts to that. mine, in putting on the rosy-colored glasses, if he goes in and negotiates better trade deals for america that other countries can live with, that's probably a good thing. but if they retaliate and why wouldn't they retaliate, it could be sort of a vicious cycle sort of situation. so i think there's a lot of risk there. you know, in the markets that maybe is not being priced in at the moment. >> if donald trump goes to his -- ings [laughter] i was letting that sink in for a little while. it was intended as a joke but maybe a little too subtle. [laughter] he'll get two briefings. one, is he'll learn about the whole u.f.o. thing and area 51. the second briefing he will get and hopefully this will sink in is how america runs the world through its trade agreements.
and through the different i.f.i.'s and organizations. and he'll be like oh, that's why we do that. and he'll get the briefing that will tell him that there's a couple reasons why we maybe want to help mexico. there may be reasons why we may want to have the current set of agreements that might be ingendered in t.p.p. and they may be much about military security as they are about economic security. and there may be a reason why it doesn't necessarily add up for the u.s. in the ledger because it has an asset over here that is not counted in security. one of the things we thought in post-brexit, we created economic agreement so we wouldn't kill each other and i think we forgot that entirely. it's impossible to measure some of these trade agreements via
the way donald trump and wilbur ross if i'm not mistaken -- we have a deficit with them and, you know, to some extent that's a negative for u.s. growth depending on how you measure the added value of the import. i think what he'll find is that there was some sense behind the obama foreign policy. and trade policy and it was -- on a numbers basis -- and just don't be too shocked by this, america is less great than it was. as a percentage of total g.d.p., the u.s. percentage has declined. so the question is, how do we maintain our greatness or being great and essentially authority over the world trade system in a world where other countries somewhat to our benefit are getting wealthier and we do that through -- somebody -- i
think it was mike made this point. globalization is a reality. our trade agreements are simply the rules by which we live in that reality. so i'm i think he'll get the u.f.o. briefing and trade briefing. >> i wish i could get that u.f.o. briefing. this is another one where it's a matter of which advisors around trump wind up having the most influence. there are the zero sum trade game people like wilbur who believe when other countries win we lose and there are free traders like kudlow and steve moore and others who say, you know, generally speaking more global trade is better for the world and ultimately better for us. i think t.p.p. is history. i think it's an unfortunate fact that that's the case because we could have withstood to benefit greatly from that. i don't know who's going to ultimately win the argument. i think he'll look for individual instances where he
an say he kept x u.s. jobs making some small move that does that. like massive tariffs on mexico and china, it would be insane and so i don't think he'll do it >> he moves on china to import tariff, something like that. china decides that it's next big order for planes, it goes to -- >> airbus. >> airbus, right? >> that's why he can't do it >> boeing knocks on the door and says mr. trump, mr. president, look what happened? and then he'll answers uns the dynamic which -- i remember when i was overseas. you could -- for better or worse, and we can argue about this, u.s. foreign policy was boeing foreign policy. or it was bank opening up foreign policy. it was that's were the things u.s. put on its list. that's what foreign policy was all about.
>> i don't think he will start trade wars because the results will be politically disastrous but who knows. he could be so temperamental he gets irritated by something china's done and he does start one. i think the ramifications would be such and he'll have enough people around him to say, dude, you can't do this. just don't. [laughter] >> all right. i think on that note we have reached our lotted time. i want to thank you aaron and ben and steve and ben and thank you for joining the panel. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. isit ncicap.org] >> on capitol hill the house is in recertificates until 4:30 p.m. eastern working on six bills today including one dealing with injured veterans and tax issues. any votes will take place after 6:30 eastern. on the other side of the capitol, the senate gavels in at 3:00 eastern today. they are in now and are trying to finish up work on a medical research bill. the measure includes funding
for the so-called cancer moon shot, an initiative that was spear-headed by vice president joe biden who will be attending and presiding over today's senate session. and tonight we'll have a live discussion with two of the presidential debate moderators, martha raddatz and chris wallace. they will be talking about their experiences during the debates with the co-chairs of the commission that set up the debates, frank and mike mcmurray. we'll have that live at 8:00 astern on c-span3. >> ton on "the communicators." >> again, it's a great measure of how fast things change that the law is just figuring out those two examples, cell phones and email, and may be figuring that out just about the time those that won't be important in our daily lives, right, so there's just this built-in delay that the law suffers from and it's hard to keep up with the latest things. >> georgetown university law center professor paul ohm on how prosecutors, lawyers and
judges lack understanding of technology and his work to help resolve that problem. he's interviewed by dustin, cyber and surveillance policy reporter at reuters. >> a lot of compute erskine tists just love the -- computer scientists just love the law and love the policy. i wonder if it's something we can use to appeal to the people to do their duty and spend two years in d.c. and help the government out. >> watch "the communicators" tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2. >> c-span, where history unfolds daily. in 1979, c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television companies and is brought to you today by your cable or satellite provider.
>> participants included former trump manager and clinton campaign manager. this first aired on cnn state of the union. runs about 40 minutes. >> war stories for example inside the historic and unprecedentedly ugly 2016 election. for the first time together, just the two of them, both campaign managers. trump, >> everybody wants to go back in a time machine so this result that nobody saw coming won't come somehow. >> and clinton's robie. >> we came close -- robbie. >> we came close. >> they take us behind the curtain. what sealed the deal for trump's historic win? >> he was able to tap not angst and the frustration of voters. >> what caused clinton's defeat? >> did the director of the f.b.i. sent two letters, total
breach of protocol, without those we would have won. >> plus the campaign's biggest surprises? >> this was the most overreported story in the history of american politics. >> including trump's infamous "access hollywood" tape. a deep dive with the man and woman running the campaigns. our exclusive interview on a special state of the union starts right now. >> hello. i'm jake tapper in washington where the state of our union is still quite divided. almost one month after donald trump defeated hillary clinton, officials from both campaigns are still raw and emotional. bitter and angry. more offended than introspective. hillary clinton won the popular vote while donald trump easily surpassed the 270 electoral votes needed to win the white house. today, we'll bring you
something rarely seen. both major presidential campaign managers sitting together, doing a joint interview discussing how we got here. a conversation both enlightening and contentious. trump's kelley anne conway and clinton's robbie each dedicated their lives to the singular task to see them have a bad november. we went behind the scenes of one of the most unprecedent and ugly campaigns in modern history. robbie, i know there are a lot of people, especially here at harvard, who are wondering, what happened? what went wrong? obviously hillary clinton won the popular vote and won more votes for president than any white man in history but this is obviously a race to 270 and she came up short in traditionally states like michigan, pennsylvania, wisconsin. she told donors not long after the election that the letter from f.b.i. director james comey was really the nail in
the coffin for her. do you agree? is that what went wrong? robbie: well, we are really proud of her margin in the popular vote. like you said this is about electoral college votes and we did come up short. we felt very good about where we were going into the last 10, 20 days of the election. i think it is hard to imagine the kind of impact that that letter had. you know, most of the public polling showed a distinct drop. we certainly saw that in our internal numbers. and particularly because the letter didn't really seem to have much of a purpose, he said he had some emails he didn't see them, he didn't know what they were. so, look, when you look across the three states you mentioned, we lost, we're talking about 14u7bd,000 votes, anything could have made a difference with such small margins, less than 1% in each of those states. but we do think that's an incredibly powerful force in the race. you know, the other reality is, you know, we were hoping for
stronger performance in some sectors and a lot of the data was very off in this race. we have to reflect on all of those reasons. jake: what sectors? robby: well, we were expecting to perform better with suburban women in particular. we saw those numbers a lot stronger than what happened on election day. we do think that was because of the comey letter. we saw a lot of young people go to third party candidates. we think the letter had to do with that as well. there were a number of reasons for this. in our view would be the letter from director comey. jake: you said the shift to donald trump away from hillary completeon started before the comey letter come out. kelley: yeah. for example, abc news released a poll on sunday that said 50-38. we really didn't believe she was at 50. we knew we were not under 40 but everybody then had to live with the 12-point poll because
people held it up by evidence that the campaign was over. by friday of the same week it was a one-point race and that was before the comey letter. also, secretary clinton herself, the night, the day the comey letter was released said at her rally that she -- it didn't matter because americans had already decided what they thought about the emails. and that it was already baked in the cake and this was a messaging point from her campaign. at the time they said maybe it was wishful thinking. maybe they weren't being completely truthful and now it's the comey letter. i have to say, donald trump turned over 200 counties that went for president obama in 2012 to donald trump in 2016. that's because of messages that connect with people in those areas. not because of a letter late in the game. i do think that it probably had an effect on some voters but if you want to reach suburban
women and the question is you're the first female running for president as a party nominee, then why is the message not really connected to them? jake: i want to get to messaging in a little bit. let's back up to june, 2015. donald trump comes down the escalator at trump tower, announces that he's going to run for president. it seemed back in the primaries that many people in your campaign, robby, wanted donald trump to be the nominee, that you thought he would be easier to beat than, say, marco rubio. is that true? and why? robby: i think many democrats did believe that. i think obviously our opinions on that changed as he progressed through the primary and was very successful by any standard in that primary. robby: kelleyanne, you have been critical of the polls. why were the polls so wrong? kelleyanne: i never want to practice law again so i can't
be that critical of the polls. but the polls are wrong for a couple of reasons. when i say the polls, let's be very clear. these are mostly the public polls. so i think joe bennett worked. our polling worked. we had five different polling firms including my firm. those don't see the light of day. we're using it for strategic position. we're not trying to get clicks or make headlines or call the race over before it is one way or the other. i think a few things happen. one is presuming that the 2012 electorate would be the twoucks electorate and that also -- 2016 electorate and that also presumed, jake, secretary clinton would be able to attract and knit together and rin deed keep together what's called the obama coalition. so a critical mass of voters of color, of millennials and maybe even her running up the totals a little bit among women since she's the first female candidate and she was running a decidedly reach out to women as an anti-trump message campaign
until the very end. so i think that was a feeling. the other feeling is in presuming that people who had voted democratic in the past would do so here which is slightly different than the obama coalition. we saw in our modeling that the 2016 electorate had beater chance of loosely resembling the 2014 electorate in some of these key states and, which was my obsession, the counties than it would resemble the 2012 election. so we talked, i talked very publicly, very early on under criticism of the undercover trump voter and it was very real. the undercover trump voter, this is not somebody who is afraid to say they're voting for donald trump. it's somebody that doesn't look like a trump voter. a union household that voted democratic for years. it's a single mom who couldn't possibly dream of voting for donald trump. why would she do that when she can vote for hillary clinton who is, quote, fighting for women and children? and so we just took an approach where we were a little bit more open-minded about who the
electorate may be and allow .hem to tell us who they were robby: look, turnout wasn't where we wanted it to be. philadelphia did turn out the way we would have liked. other states weren't. but one thing i think we did see across the ken, i think kellyanne would agree, we did see record hispanic turnout in nasm counties. i think that was important to our win in nevada and colorado. that's why texas was a lot closer than many people anticipated. obviously that wasn't enough for us to win the election, but i think that is something to be celebrated and lifted up. that was unprecedented. and, you know, i hope that those voters continue to turn out. jake: coming up next, the future of donald trump's tweets. will he retain control of his account while in the oval office? that's next. welcome back to state of the union. i'm jake tapper. donald trump took the republican primaries by storm
using his celebrity and business background to propel him to the top of the polls almost from the start but it was his controversial campaign promises that made the headlines. donald trump: donald j. trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of muslims entering the united states until our country's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on. jake: kellyanne conway was allied with cruz. he had elevated her to campaign manager. she and campaign chair steve banon seemed goat trump -- bannon seemed to get trump more focused and scale back some of his provocative proposals. how important was that to his ultimate victory? i asked her to take her behind the scenes. august 17, same day that steve bannon was named campaign c.e.o. it seemed as though from the
outside you and steve bannon were able to convince donald trump to be more disciplined in a way that previous campaign managers had not convinced him to do, had not succeeded in getting through to him. please stay on message, please stick with the teleprompter, not that he only stuck with his teleprompter but the kind of one might call themselves inflicted wounds. your campaign called that with the clinton campaign but some of the gaps, some of the most controversial statements, most of them took place disproportionately before you and steve bannon took over. i'm wondering, what did you and steve bannon say to him to convince him, we will take over but you need to listen to us in terms of staying on message? kellyanne: when we came onboard, i said i don't divulge private conversations but i feel confident in telling you, you know, mr. trump, you are running against the most joyless presidential candidates in history so why don't we not
be that way as a campaign. why don't we find to be the happy warrior again? he loved doing the rallies. he loved connecting with people that way, so you have to know who your candidate is and there is a substitute and work with his or her gifts and i think in the case of deprump, he gets his oxygen from being out there with the people, being with the voters. robby: look, one thing i would take issue with, were more undecideds than in a lot of races before and we think because the director of the fbi sent two letters in what was an unprecedented intervention in the election, a total breach of protocol, a lot of those undecideds broke against us, but i don't think that was an inherent problem. i think without those letters, we would have won the lection. kelly