information from this car is 18,000 miles. >> it is gps. where upgrading devices to what they call gms staff which take our system, the american version and add more satellite sudden onset of having our satellite -- satellite of the bigger sensor is more accurate. >> would've affected the four wheels and air conditioning in the car. they are really becoming -- >> they are very sophisticated.

>> thank you for taking the time. many conversation with our board members. we've had a board meeting today. how much of your time to focus on regulatory issues, compliant

issues versus meeting with corporations, clients and thinking about capital seniors. >> well, my colleague executive organization does most of the client staff. so i spend half my time on regulation and public policy issues. that is kind of what my job is. i'm just lucky i really enjoy it. >> the sweeping changes. each board meeting we think this is discussion about regulation. 18 months ago the stock one about technology innovation are we at the end of the regulatory process? can we revert back to regulatory changes? >> i don't think it will ever change because the world we live in, the economies we work in a changing all the time.

this understandable regulation tries to keep up with the way markets are evolving. if one were to on the way it regulates the process and what we try to do in our businesses, we try and dig 10 years later and say what is the market going to look like and what are they going to prepare for that in terms of technology skills and people. the ability is thrown what went wrong in the past and how we prevent that happening again whereas it would be lovely if they can start thinking about what we think they will be in 10 years time because the shape of the market and how do we start tilting regulations to shape the market we want to see. on the panel i spoke and moderated earlier, it is a great

one. by the time they were really examined, it was so popular whereas tuesday will take this away. for quite à la gobbler does and finance. 500 million customers it will be quite difficult to treat you differently. it strikes me that if you have the luxury of regulation come to you would be saying what the world looks like in 10 years time. what will that do the two financial industry and how do we get ahead of that before we find we are up against but we are dealing with a huge tech platform that has a billion customers who love their payment engine we don't regulate it. >> did you see any movement is on regulatory authorities to demur forward-looking rather than fight the last war?

>> the big fresh impetus in cyberwhereas it's always been on the agenda but now it's much more critical because of events that impacted. i think the real forward-looking staff around what will financial mediation world look like? what will the platforms be contributing to that environment didn't do we need to begin to think about where they're going to get to and put in place a framework? the groups like this, the internet and everybody on the internet lies every day. they have understood your terms and none of us ever do read the terms and conditions of a wooden understand them.

giving away of the bank secrecy kind of they shut. people have delayed not really thought about. >> that is fragmentation which we talked about. it's a conflict between the global system where you're managing across multiple jurisdictions and you move customer information they want to follow them wherever they go versus authorities who want to control information that localized. how do you see the conflict between localization and the need for a global approach as a global solution. >> what's important is the privacy aspect of data that an organization wants to keep local and what does it want by way of

access? if you think of the way tax transparency has gone over the last five years, you can have nearly 100 countries signed up to standard sharing data that the past was unthinkable. the same will happen on personal information. they wanted to the protocols or on who gets access and for what purpose. in a world where people click on an item on the internet to purchase it without any knowledge of the supplying company, where it comes from, what the supply chain is this registered anywhere and so on and so forth. it's difficult to say you can compartmentalize within a physical location which is not really relevant to consumers in the way that it was in the past. >> they want what they want from art comes from but you're responsible for keeping data in multiple jurisdictions that you are bearing the cost that

regulation is forced upon you. >> worse than the cost, we are not as empowered as we need to be and therefore not as good as we should be about completing the whole picture or indeed detecting elements of financial crime that has been given to our industry is an accountability because we only see focus of information because they don't necessarily see what happens in other countries and institutions at a session on this yesterday, you were there in an ideal world we have to be able to type to her peers if they have a concern over trading by the company and be able to gather information from within our own industries from the public side if we are going to do as good a job as we need to do. the power of the data now enables us to do a much better job which will be good for

society. >> you mention yesterday was about de-risking. you've been talking about it for as long as they work for you. do you think the public side here -- they certainly hear us because there's lots of high class meetings going on. do you see real solutions? >> the right people are kind of in the room and now the debate is on on the flipside. one is the cost of doing what we're retired with a certain customers are countries and you simply can't get the information or the customer segment doesn't generate aggregate revenue to accommodate the cost of finding the information one would need to do. there's an economic aspect to

keepinga from areas but there's also a risk element that many parts of the world can get the information. it's never been identified as and then collect dead is very difficult to get it. the flipside is people can see that there are segments of society. we heard from a number of caribbean that no longer have caused him to banking relationships. find it difficult to get money back to local communities from an education and all that kind of stuff. we need to find a way that the de minimis safe harbors are just understanding. we don't seek perfection. we need to get better embedded our trading partners to experience that they really mean it when they say will be proportionately we tolerate

that. >> one will be emerging technologies play for k. y c. for any money laundering. >> they put it into a database and interrogate at the conference patterns or something you could never do manually. the fact you can have a facility for particularly as we move forward to identify for customers. you can upload the data stored once with everybody accessing one database rather than everybody trying to create the same companies, the same correspondent banks. they will make the process a much better to be shared to the security and it will mean there is a common standard around the world which again would be a

huge vintage to the integrity and the advocacy of keeping the bad guys out. >> under the leadership, would've been much more engaged in the technology but the impacts growing for us. how do you think about it and hsbc. one of our board members yesterday that i'm a technologist. they choose to run our industry. as a technology company? how do you think about technology as you're involving there is to shed into the 21st century lending institution? >> we employ more programmers than oracle and ibm doesn't make me feel good. in terms of the numbers. i wouldn't say where a technology company so we have a huge commitment to technology and at the moment, too much of the resources allocated to

bother regulatory change, and the structure changes being commanded in certain countries. massive programs work on crime prevention because that's the way the industry has been mandated to go. one of the great things as we test things to destruction. i wouldn't regard it as billed for resolving to do large volumes. one of the things that i often say with people ask is the 24th of june when a completely unexpected result response to politicians, markets and experts in that morning, the sun market went crazy. volumes were five, six times for

volatility was extraordinary. european banks were predominantly focused and european business fell 25%, 30%. and yet nothing broke. all the trades settled with liquidity for any kind of trade anybody wanted to do in the following days the collateral and the cash move. when the systems are built for resilience they should be about identifying whether anybody is wearing the red color shoes because apple could have told us that her google. so we are exploring a whole bunch of stuff that trade finance. we should be for custody. we are looking to voice recognition, biometric identification. in a sense, no one bothers we are talking about that

generation will have many more tools. we still have a lot of customers and all of the traditional banks that are traditional in these products and we need support groups. >> agrees that the word. the coming you are sitting looking over the city. you're thinking about what is your institution look like 10 years from now. you've been promised curveball. have curveball. how do you plan for it and think about it. how should the rest of us think about it? anytime there's a structure of change you stand back and say what is it mean, what are the range of outcomes you might have to respond to? ..

the european time zone hosts the largest or second largest spending, and if the regulator response to crisis -- >> we are going to leave the last few minutes of this program. you can see the entire program in our video library at c-span.org. now live as journalist and former white house adviser stock about the presidential transition process looking at its history and how journalists

cover them. just getting underway. >> also the university of maryland philip merrill college of journalism capital news service represented by jim carroll, the bureau chief. the national press foundation has been providing nonprofit training and education for journalist for 40 years. we do topic issues like this briefing which is on transition and we're doing budget issues this afternoon. we also do toolbox training for journalists of the can keep up with the tools they need to do the business like taking video and photographs with your cell phone. building interactive, that kind of thing. we hope you enjoy this program to go back to your newsrooms and tell your bosses they should apply for npf rogue rams. >> i'm chris adams, the director of training at the foundation of introducing out there in the second. since she told you her

transition story, i'll give you my one brief transition story. 2000, the most interesting transition in my lifetime. i was working at "the wall street journal," in the midst of a long-term project that had nothing to do with politics. everybody in my newsroom was working on the transition except me. we are going to talk today about transition. we have three panels, a panel of experts, a panel of reporters, and to experts who will talk about the revolving door issue. basically what we're trying to help you figure out is what actually happened when you wake up on cold in january and all other sources are gone. for reporters that's what today is about. strategies on how you can prepare for it, what stores you should be looking for, how you actually build news sources into the new administration, in the stores you want to do like the old standby stories. for the politicians and the administration it's a matter of

efficiency and speed in getting the president's new agenda enacted. these are some numbers from david eagles, center for presidential transition. it's likely confirmed fastest in the first year of its administration. it has only 73 days to do so. there's 4000 residential appointees to try to get through the process. and so that's what we'll be talking about today. arthur experts, david eagles, the director for the center for presidential transition will tell you what a little role that are playing in the transition this year for both potential administrations. damian mcbride come executive in residence at the center for congressional and presidential studies at the school of public affairs at american university and a veteran of incoming and outgoing transitions with the reagan and george h. w. bush and george w. bush administration

and william galston, senior fellow for the government study program at the brookings institute and a veteran of bill clinton's transition process. so this first section is 75 minutes. we're going to come each of them will give a brief view of some of the most important things they see an that they've experienced in the transition. and then we will aim for a 30, 35 is a q&a because i think that's what most of you want to do. are going to start with david. david eagles. >> appreciate your time. thanks to talk about presidential transition. what i want to do is take a quick step back and understand the scope and magnitude of what we're talking about. these transitions are massive. this is part of her message to the incoming teams. they are inheriting a $4 trillion apparatus, there are hundreds of federal agencies. as chris mentioned there's 4000 political appointments come 1100 of us have to go through the

senate. and there's only 73 days, not a lot of extremes in this process. there are not a lot of oaks leading or coming in. what happened to struggle is happened to struggle as happened to struggle as this event reinvent the exercise, groundhog day exercise that every incoming team is going through. so not only is a big and it's complicated, it's also critical to building for the country as well. by and large the white house is virtually empty. the original files are virtually gone. there are no hard drives would have wiped the hard drive of incoming team and historically they have had instruction and just when the an interesting period right about the migration or is awful local part of the country as well. also say that no incoming president really has done this very well. because it is a we invent the wheel exercise its the first time using both teams planning to separate early with now because the new legislation that is passed the of space and

logistics provided by the government. this is the second time history we've seen that. out of romney did it four years ago and went to town on it. he had several hundred people predilection focused on this. i go back to this is the missile thing is one big epic corporate takeover except the big difference is 4000 other top people, and this process you get no due diligence so you don't know what you bought and tell you bought it effectively after the election. >> even fewer to buy a small business competed six to 12 month process. get succession plans, rita on the financial status before you buy. there's an opportunity to do so much better what do i need? every president coming in nearly a year after they've been elected are getting less than one-third of the people in office. think about that. they're not getting their top people in place. even today in the federal government this is not only

president obama, every modern president, one invite senior positions are vacant. about 20%. compared to the private sector would it's about 4% or 5%. we ask ourselves why is this issue, what's happening, why i do these senior vacancy rates? one is first of all these teams are now starting early enough. they are not managing this process strategically. that's why we feel if these teams take a step back this is one of the greatest opportunity to make government more effective that it's the only time these teams can basic understand how the what the government to work. it's very difficult want you in office. all our research and interviews show once you in the presidency you have with your clothes, unforeseen occurrences all the time but it's difficult to step back. this is that connect to maximize. they instore glaad.net of people through and wonder in office you can't catch a. that's why using these type of vacancies rates that we see out there now. secondly, from the campaign promise perspective, we are

still in the midst of a few days left, 20 some odd days, they're making campaign promises. transition of what connects those promises into the government. understand how to execute them. so they will develop the teams or develop a 100 day plan for 200 days plan thinking about the campaign promises, execute them, and extremely complicated business that is the u.s. poker but the the largest most complex and most powerful entity on earth. if you want to keep this country safe and prosperous these teams have to start now. we cannot afford it, particularly in the post-9/11 and private. this is why the bush administration started early. so that's pretty much what i want to leave you with your eye part of the center for presidential transition to were part of the partnership of public service and commit to making government more effective. we are also nonpartisan and nonprofit. we been working with the team since the spring you can april we convened all five senior

campaign officials at the time, the candidates were still in office. we pulled an off-site catawba governing the country. it's a percentage we've seen not as prolific as an american, super proud to see a safe nonpartisan vibe with these teams can talk about covering this entity which is the use of federal government. since then we've been working closely with the teams they both teams are committed to an effective transition which is very exciting and understand the importance of governing this country. i believe that. >> really well done. thank you. thank you, david. that would help to frame things. so perfectly, i will talk more from the practitioner point of view having been in a number transition to a what to pick up on something that sandy mentioned. you never know who your sources are going to be for information do i think that was very illustrative come if i can just be too that for a minute, in 1994 when congress flipped from democrat to republican after

almost 50 years, that there are people who are in the opposition working behind the scenes that could be leadership at some point, so it's really important to be cultivating those relationships, and particularly when it comes to transitions on the senate side, who's going to be in the position of overseeing the nominations process for any senate confirmed appointments. because they could be a stumbling block to the nominations of a presiden president-elect, or they could be a real help, so a good example of knowing who is on the hill. but chris, thank you for inviting me to participate in this. i want to focus on a couple of key areas. really, what role does the outgoing administration play in ensuring that there's a smooth transfer of power? my energy to that is in place

the most important role because they set the tone. the outgoing president and his team will set the tone on how the transition is viewed by the american public, how the transition is handled by the incoming team as well. and i think it will take a lot of, a lot from the first encounter that the president-elect and the outgoing president have, particularly if it is a dramatic change. if donald trump wins, given all the rhetoric is happened in this campaign. that will be a moment that everyone will have eyes on and will set the tone for what may happen. because it is been such a visceral election. obviously, if is mrs. clinton, these are two people who know each other. he is campaigning for.

my assumption is all of the assets and resources that the outgoing team can provide will be there, and that the tone will be set very early as a positive one. syllable of the outgoing administration in ensuring a smooth transfer of power is setting the tone. it's really important that the president do that and do that well. and by extension, that they give direction to all of their staff, not only in the white house but to the departments and agencies as well to be open and transparent in providing all the information that the incoming team would now. so what are the greatest obstacles for the incoming team? greatest obstacle of this, they don't know what they don't know. and particularly if it is a troubled presidency, a lot of the people who may be, because this has been an election based on dramatic change, and

overhauling of the government, from top to bottom, the anticipation that the people who want to come in and just blow the whole thing up is probably pretty highly likely. so who are, what tone is going to be set by the incoming team? how open are they promoting how the government does work? as david said, extremely complex. trillions of dollars, thousands and thousands of people were, hundreds of thousands of people work in these federal bureaucracies, and they do have 4000 different positions to put in there to run the government the way you want it to be run. so great obstacle for the incoming team is admitting what they don't know. having the people under transition teams, which are in place now, to really understand what is happening in the agencies, what are some of the things that are on the table? what are some of the things in

the hopper that agencies, through regulation or policies, are getting ready to do? and how is that different from what you campaign on, which are promised to do, and the personnel that you need to select and ready to go in at the end of the 73 day period, to actually execute on what the electric has asked you to do? how has the transition process improved or changed? you heard chris mentioned about the transition of 2000. really that is one no future president should ever experien experience. in a post 9/11 world it would certainly put any white house and the american people by extension at great risk. think about the number of days we do not know is going to be president of the united states. the decision was not made until december 122000. so there could be no official transition process. there could be no official

conversation between an outgoing administration and the incoming team. that george w. bush, the president-elect, well actual i can't even say that the george w. bush campaign team was operating in arlington, virginia, and offices that were acquired by then, well, dick cheney, the candidate, acquired by hip and paid for privately. there were no government resources. people like me would work in previous transitions were called up. i was never expecting to go back into the governed. i had my time working for ronald reagan and george h. w. bush but a bit in personnel and management administration. i had been director of white house personnel. i understood the process work. i know how to offload people, how do on board people, and the critical connection between

security and personnel, management, administration. sides asked to come out and it was a very dramatically different experience because you were kind of operating in the shadows. you were trying to be ready and having ready to go if the decision was going to be that it was about george w. bush to become president. but if it didn't then all of those resources just collapsed. that private money have to be raised to make those offices available. once the decision was made by the supreme court, then all of these assets and researches, things that are provided by the government could kick in and enjoy the very quick turnaround to move into transition space which was downtown, closer to the white house. and you could begin to have conversations. but the conversations you can imagine or not all that easy. that was a very tense period of time because there was called into question particularly by

vice president gore that this was really the right decision. i mean, they were personal tensions of course, but nonetheless the process worked and it was the smooth transfer of power to all of us expect, and americans are entitled to have once the campaign rhetoric is over in the business of governing begins. but that was a very illustrative experience for george w. bush and for a lot of us on the team, basically with the underlying premise for him for any future presidentpresident, president-et should not face transition like that here it was not the way we should be doing business. but we learn from that. and then, of course, came 9/11. and so the stakes are even so much higher in a transfer of power.

and what it led to in late 2007, early 2008, president george w. bush was executed an executive order creating a transition coordinating council and begin to put a framework, and early framework around having conversations between the outgoing administration and whoever the incoming team may be. so what did that look like? that but every department and agency ended white house office was charged with putting together documentation. we put it all in binders, all well documented, provided, that, with what you can expect on a day when. what are some of things i i've particular office. then i was chief of staff to laura bush, to the first lady. what are some of the things any calendar year you can anticipa anticipate. but that was done for every single office so that there was a handoff of really excellently

documented information that provided a template and framework that we still are using till today. what it also opened up an opportunity for once there was the decision november 6 i think it was in 2000, an early meeting between barack obama and george w. bush. we begin to have conversations with incoming teams that had been named by president-elect obama that came and met with us in our offices in the white house, begin to have an exchange. it really was a very dramatically different experience than 2000 was we couldn't talk to anybody. anybody. we certainly couldn't talk to anybody openly. so despite how the outgoing team may have felt emotionally about losing their jobs, not knowing what they're going to do, this was what they were charged to

do, to make sure that there was a smooth transfer of power, that they give confidence to the american people that despite the rhetoric of the campaign, which was pretty pistol back then as well, that things are going to move on and move on well. so that allowed the president, the new president when he came in on day one to know what would be on his desk, particularly from a national security point of view. they were tabletop exercises that had taken place between the national security team of george w. bush and the incoming national security team of barack obama. that was really important. again, post nine 9/11 world, the stakes were very different. the fact that we were a nation at war, two theaters of war really underscored the fact that serious deliberations, conversations had to take place. the other last thing i will leave you with before my time is up is not only is the business of government being transferred and the personnel that has to be

put in place to execute the policies of the new president but there's also a change in the residence of the white house. a new first family coming in, first family going out. there's a lot that goes on to make that happen smoothly, it to make it comfortable for a new first family. and not to be diminished because the white house in its setting is the stage for our diplomacy and its the stage for the business of our government on a day-to-day basis. so that has to be a smooth transfer as well. and thankfully there are 94 people on the white house staff that serve administration to administration that make that happen. >> bill, if you could go next. bill, ua professor at college park, so both at brookings and that college park. so if you could talk about your experience in the research and

on transitions since you were in one yourself. >> sure. i'm going to adopt the perspective that i know best, which is of the incoming administration. you just heard i think a very full explanation of what things look like from the standpoint of an outgoing administration, but from the standpoint of incoming administration, the transition is a discrete series of tasks. and each of those tasks can be executed well or badly. and people like you will be watching and making judgments every single day about the competence or lack of competence of the incoming team. job one is the selection of the white house staff, and i really want to underscore this point. of the first six months of a new administration, the white house

is the locus of action. the white house staff is the locus of action because however well, however well organized the nomination and confirmation process is, it is in the nature of things slow at the departments and agencies are not going to be up to full strength will not be operating at full speed. into the white house is more important in the first six months that it ever is again. the white house staff has to be appointed first and it has to be appointed quickly. here's a rule of him for covering a transition. if the transition is doing its job well -- rule of tom dashed that almost all the white house staff would have been named by thanksgiving. and the transition that i was involved in, the clinton transition got it backwards, spent almost two months focused on the cabinet, and the white

house was almost an afterthought. and they speak from personal experience because i got a call to come down to little rock on january 10. i was a professor at the university of maryland, and my syllabi were typed and the students had registered for my course. the books had been ordered. and a funny thing happened on the way to the spring semester the it was a very interesting experience for me and totally unexpected and i would not recommend as standard operating procedure for a presidential transition. and other people who are going to be selected for the white house staff, keep your eyes focused vertical on the chief of staff. who will the chief of staff be? secondly the personnel director, that is going to be a huge locus of action early on. if the personnel director is someone with experience and at

the presidential transition gives the incoming personnel director the human power and the resources to do that job on multiple fronts, then you are setting the stage for a reasonably well organized and orderly process. if the personnel director is not given enough help and he or she has a bunch what an old boss of mine walter mondale once called a one armed paper hanger, then disaster is around the corner. and, finally, the person who was in charge of organizing and scheduling for the incoming president, get those things right and the odds are the transition is going to go reasonably smoothly. then, of course, the senate confirmable positions. you for the number 4000. that's true but there are a handful that are in comparably

more important than all the rest, and focusing on the cabinet and key subcabinet posts. your cabinet out to be named before christmas. and interesting, and interesting story to follow is the perennial question of who gets to choose the subcabinet. you can tell a lot about the incoming administration from the degrees of freedom and discretion that the nominated cabinet officials are being given to help select their immediate subordinates. highly centralized white house is, lots of political desks to fill. frequently try to take as many of those decisions into the white house as possible and not disperse them to cabinet, the income cabinet officers. there are various points in between. jimmy carter victoriously gave his cabinet officials carte blanche to select their immediate subordinates that did

not work out so well. and so there are various ways of trying to split the difference and that's a big story. is a third interesting story of cabinet. has the president-elect and has the chief of staff of the senior advisors to the president given any thought to the way teams of people are going to be working on similar overlapping issues are going to work together? because if you're treasury secretary doesn't get along with the direct the national economic council, the director of omb, or if the secretary of defense and the secretary of state can't stand each other, which happened during the reagan administration, a few other places i could name, et cetera, et cetera and under bush. third job, the substitute beginning of the administration, okay? you have made hundreds of

promises. and in the nature of things, and with other white house narrows the bandwidth of the congress is new. the agenda items will focus on in the first six months, you must make a decision early. and then you must organize the issue teams and the political teams during the transition to begin, to execute those top priorities. and that is a very interesting political star during a transition. because especially if you've made promises on many, many fronts, you haven't focus your campaign on just a handful of key issues but have made, but have in effect enter into transactions with a number of different groups who make up your base, lots of people are going to be disappointed. who?

how are you going to handle that? that's both an agenda issue and a political question. of course, it's not all legislative. and during the transition a separate team will be -- executive orders that a president can sign on day one because that's something under the president's control. you can set a tone by determining which the executive orders are going to be signed and made public on the first day of the administration. makes a difference. and are going to dump them all at once or are you going to release them like little time release capsules day by day so that people like you something to write about everyday. there's an art to dribbling out decisions such as the ones that matter get their day in the sun. as part of the -- how much going on time? good.

as part of the substitute preparation for the administration, and keep you on this one. there needs to be courted nation between the agenda and the budget. because many of incoming presidents key legislative proposals without fiscal consequences. and believe me, if those consequences are not factored into the budget, and nobody on capitol hill is going to take them seriously. let me tell you a warm story from the first month of the clinton administration. one of bill clinton key domestic promises, probably the most important one, was to end welfare as we now know what. and their work on to be substantial ongoing transition expenses connected to the fulfillment of that promise. and there was a humongous fight as to whether that money was going to be swatted into the budget which was my presidential

decision early on going to be an austere budget to bring down the deficit, reduce long-term interest rates, encourage business confidence et cetera. not a universally popular decision your and then the was a big fight, well, is there going to be provisions made within that austere framework for the $5 billion annually to fund the welfare pitfall. the answer eventually was no. and everybody who understood the process understood that whatever was going to happen in year one, welfare reform was not going to be part of the agenda. so you demonstrate your seriousness on the substance of fraud -- front. and if you don't, then the president, the president-elect can deliver all sorts of ringing speeches about the agenda once

the inauguration occurs. speaking of inaugurations, there is an inaugural date to be playing. there's an inaugural address to be drafted, and two other key tasks. first of all, congressional engagement, and secondly, press relations. and especially if an incoming president is facing divided government, which will almost certainly be the case. the next president of the united states will not enjoy the luxury that barack obama had on day one, and for the next 13 months, control of the white house, and ample majority of the house of representatives, and a 60-vote majority, a filibuster proof majority if held together in the senate. whatever the outcome of this election, the next president will not have that kind of

freedom to maneuver because of the ability to establish good relations with the leaders of both political parties and the congress will be essential to the agenda, whatever turns out to be. and, finally, you. any smart transition will pay attention to the fact that you have stories to write. you want stories to write every day. what are you going to be writing about. trust me, if the transition doesn't think through the answer to that question, you would try to come up with answers on your own to the catch is that you come up with are not to be quite as helpful to the incoming president as the answer is that the transition team might come up with. the transition team, if it's smart, and give you something on the issue front, the personnel front or the scheduled front to

write about everyday and preferably some cocktail. and so those are some of the benchmarks that you could use to gauge the competence of an incoming administration. i spend a lot of time giving this template, talking about what the clinton transition got right and got wrong. but rather than telling war stories, let me stop now and if you're interested any of those, that's what the q&a session is for. >> i do love war stories. i want you all to think of your best war story. but i'm going to ask a couple of questions and then i've got to turn over to full q&a. david, i was hoping you'd give us a little sense of your center, when you actually got started -- [inaudible] there was some legislation that

passed in the last six years that has released money towards the transition effort. >> you have to know that modern transitions are completely different than they were a few to go but it's a totally new legislative are but and mandate these teams have been constantly early. there's three pieces to be aware. one of them was passed in 2010. this was the law that support early. historically it was election day. you look around, try to acquire resources. now that kicks in at the convention day. this is what the second time in history we have seen early support, logistical support provided by the gsa. this provides a mandate and, frankly, some safe space for these teams to plan out and think of these transitions are done. i'll tell you just haven't looked at these, having served on mitt romney's team four years ago, they're completely different and they are slating larger number of candidates and we've ever seen before and they're thinking through creatively that campaign promises and how to execute

them. they will have in place on election day potential options for candidates and also very progressing very nice on the development of a 10 100 or 200 y plan for the second piece is the reduction of the number of senate confirmed positions. this number was closer to 1408 years ago now to above 800. that helps from a processing simply to get your folks do. not as relevant but just know there are lower numbers of folks from non-political jobs that have been taken off the the 1100 number is way too many by the way. is about policymaking jobs but also good management jobs but we would argue consider taking off the list. the third piece, this is recently signed this year by executive order by president obama to comply with the law, this is the first on the outgoing administration have started recording functions this early. they are required by law this

year six months before the election to start the coordinating functions. think about it eight years ago. your incoming team did virtually nothing if they did it was in a cover of darkness part to the election. very small quiet teams focused barbara i just the top cabinet. so using for prez obama he gets seven people in by inauguration. seven of 1100. think about the outgoing. coming in, leaving or staying. the outgoing administration historic what has not participated very fully with exception of, several examples but no formal process for planning that we see this is the first time there's both a white house meeting count held at the political level and agency career directors council that's been convened several times with active engagement of the incoming teams. first time in history we've seen this. the third piece of the folks are staying, the career civil servants, historically every

agency has prepared for transition completely differently. some agency put together, one taste and agency put together 80,000 pages of briefing materials. that that isn't a doorstop. that's beyond a doorstop at some agencies do very little. the agency start a year plus. some agencies don't start until the election time. what's been great about the cycle, the administration is committed to much more consistency with the agency. there's a standard template every agency using comment process and to function. this is the first under sink ordination of outgoing, incoming and the focused in. that could drastically change how these transitions happen, and we should see much better results. i want to follow to bill's point. we actually think by inauguration day or ride around inauguration day instead of trickling in your cabinet officials, that you can get your top 100 tablet and some cabinet officials and police. four years ago governor romney was on a similar trajectory. that was the intent. you may say it's not possible because you to go through the

senate but all the data shows that we have 70% of the time giving these people through. it's the transition teams finding these people, putting them through the paper process. this is controllable, and they can start now. this should be the new measuring stick for modern transitions and modern presidencies. get your people in. it's easy to go fast and slow. there's a halo effect from congress, from the american public your why waste those first several hundred a spinning your wheels finding who those people are when they can be read on the first day. this has been part of our message for the last six months or so. we'vwe have been working closely with them. historically just like any that we've all been on the phone try to find these folks that did 200 years ago. were going through george w. bush's boxes trying to find out how we staff at this exercise. this is the exercise we've gone through so we the center are trying to be the depository of

information and best practices, connect to people done it before with experts, to ma map this ou. if you go to our website you will see the entire process mapped out. you will see what the teams ought to be doing literally today to focus on this transition process. at the end of the day i do think we can see much better results for an incoming president, much more people, a better athlete to execute on the promises and much for planning around the treat of inauguration so we can stay safe and prosperous. >> i'm going to ask you one more question and then i'll go out here. first of all other node everybody should have a booklet from the senate or presidential transition act lays out a lot of what he's talking about. that's your city come. so thank you for bringing that a long. solid as it is to all three of you, with kind of a sub question to you, david. the notion of the election being rigged and the kind of poisonous political atmosphere we have right now, what sort of impact

is that could have on transition, on both sides, if you know, a huge section of the country is hostile to the outcome of the election, what kind of impact does it have here in d.c.? and also david, is hoping you could answer, donald trump skimping has been very hostile to the process in general, or the system. is his team working well with you all parts and the people are working with you the same folks we see on tv, or is it an atomic different apparatus? so will all this rigged talk purpose and i was drunk behaving basically? >> thank you. i will just briefly say reiterate one thing i said to you initially, the tone that is set by both the person who wins this election and particularly the person who loses this

election. we have to set the tone and save accept the decision of the american people, and that there are far more important things now to be focused on. so i think that the tone, and i'd like to take some comfort in what governor mike pence said yesterday on the news, that if donald trump loses this election to absolutely will accept the decision of the american people. i think that would be an important thing to keep reiterating by that campaign, and i think obviously on the other side, too. i would hope that clinton's team would say the same thing. >> yes, i agree with that. just a few comments. we've seen some very interesting debates so far in this campaign, but the one i would really like to see is the debate between mike pence and donald trump. [laughter]

starting with syria policy in ending with the legitimacy of presidential elections, but let me stop there. and say that it's not just a question of what the defeated campaign does. it's also what the president-elect does. if the president, if the president-elect is former secretary of state hillary clinton, i think she will have a job from day one of reaching out to the responsible leaders of the republican party and emphasizing that despite the tone and temper of the election, that there are people in washington starting with the president-elect who are really dedicated to the process of governing the country in the

national interest, and who are prepared not to abandon partisanship but to try to see be on it where common ground exists and where coordinated action is possible. and this election has surprisingly turned up some areas of common ground between the political parties on key issues, ranging from infrastructure to assistance for families with young children who are trying to balance work and family. so the president-elect can set a tone, if this section state clinton, not only -- if it is secretary of state clinton, not only with its continuous outrage to the lives of both political parties but also in the selection of key topics, agenda items delete off the new administration with. there are some that would be confrontational and others that would tend towards cooperation.

never underestimate the extent to which the initiative lies in the hands of the president-elect and the incoming administration. >> david? >> a couple things. want is for civil as i mentioned, we've seen both teams committed to effective governance of this country. that's been excited about teams within working within the timeframe. both teams also are organized around the key function of transition. you have a head other agencies and policy implementation no ouf focus on the key campaign promises and cataloging them and beginning to 100, 200 day plan. we've seen remarkable consistencconsistency with bothh campaign has the issues and challenges and opportunities we had worked with them all. as an american i been extremely, extremely pleased that these teams have a in own words put their swords in the door to talk about governing the most complex

and powerful entity on the earth. job one right now is when the campaign. we do not, they don't want distractions focus on governed the country while they're trying to run their campaign. i will respect that, the process they want to adhere to another want to release publicly the people who are involved but i will say both teams are step up, organize, taking seriously. at the end of the day we will see much better results from both your. >> we have plenty of time for questions an audience. raise your hand and we will call on you. i guess speak up. questions out there? >> so the only, i can speak for you but the only administration i've seen and i remember personal are george w. bush and barack obama. and both of those administrations use of congress move way away from them and refuse to work with them at a certain point. does that happen to every administration, and at what point does that you shall happen

and why? >> can i give a comment to the? thank you. that was with a great question. you're right, the relations of course were difficult naturally in 2000. there are a lot of people on the hill who are not happy with the result, and there was this call into question of legitimacy. i think a lot of things changed really after 9/11. the country will become together. that congress really did work well with the president on a number of key issues, passing enormous bipartisan legislation on the emergency plan for aids relief which we would have us in anything to that level up till now, $15 billion commitment to a single disease. so there were areas of cooperation that were actually very encouraging beguiled also think what led to the i also

think, personality driven. george w. bush would really work with the other side. ted kennedy was a frequent guest to the white house. nancy pelosi was a frequent guest to the white house. there were, despite what might've been public rhetoric, there were conversations behind the scenes over very, very key and important issues. i think droid phone an example of how ronald reagan handled his congressional relations as well, it's a very well known. he and tip o'neill to not agree on policy but they had a lot of frequent interaction as friends. and after hours friends. those things go as long way in being able to come on key legislative priorities, trying to move the marker and trying to get something done. we know the example of course with george h. w. bush. he was a member of congress. he had relationships come strong

personal relationships on both sides of the aisle. in one key instance it didn't play out well for him. the conversation with dan rostenkowski, powerful head of the ways and means committee and agree to raise taxes. george bush made a decision on it would cost him the election, and it did but it was the right thing to do for the country. there are examples of what a president again sets the tone by willing to take some political risk and develop relationships to get big things done. i think one of the things i would say this build disappointed about president obama, he was a member of the senate and did it pretty well known reaching across the aisle was not a strong suit of this white house. and there was a lot of contingents around health care reform and other issues.

but building personal relationships, i think that's an important thing to watch for, too. what is the extension of the olive branch to the congress and particularly to the opposition. >> that said i agree with all of that, the job of reaching across the aisle is tougher than it used to be because the political system is more polarized than it used to be. the divisions between the parties are deeper, more pervasive, there's less overlap between the political parties. when i was the age of most of the people in this room there were lots of republicans were more liberal that a lot of democrats, and conversing a lot of democrats who are more conservative that a lot of republicans. that's not true anymore. and so building cooperation across party lines is going against the grain of some

decades of american medical history. it's not to say it's mission impossible that it is mission very difficult. the second point i'd like to make in response to your question, building on what i need is said, is never think that campaign rhetoric is irrelevant to governance. the american people are listening. and if you make big high profile promises, breaking those promises for whatever reason is enormously politically costly. and everybody remembers the famous lines that peggy noonan wrote for george h. w. bush, you know, read my lips, no new taxes. people not only read his lips, they heard his voice loud and clear, and the art equivalent of problems that an incoming

president would have in 202017. if donald trump decided -- the wall was going to do or who can be forced to pay for it, or if secretary clinton, then president clinton decided that maybe tpp was just a fight and an agreement after all, they would be held to play -- there would be hell to pay politically. big promises that it. never imagine that they don't. spent i'm hoping you could talk a little more about the cabinet member selection process, particularly at the lower tier. so like agriculture, labor, something like that. how do they go about sort of compiling a list of potential nominees and then narrowing that down? >> well, i think we both can speak to that a little bit, but again going back to the point, personnel is policy.

although these may be considered lower tier departments and agencies, they are still running huge budget and lots of services that get delivered out of these agencies. so part of the process going on in both transition teams is compiling lists of potential candidates, people with experience in these issues or maybe those who would be new coming from outside the traditional framework, but may have skills in managing huge budgets and huge departments. they will go through a vetting process, which is a much higher threshold, much higher bar to reach now because both campaigns don't want to bring in people with a lot of outside high-tech sector baggage, particularly if the event lobbyists. so it is a little difficult to

have lengthier lists of names that were passed to all these high thresholds of vetting. one place that a lot of transition teams have looked to our in the state at the executive level. governors are great for positions like this, particularly governors from farm states for the agriculture positioned in particular. but they are going to look for people with experience perhaps that it had some pass through a public life of their own and have come out of it fairly unscathed. spend i will just add, the first way that it asking, what are these roles. it's interesting that there's not a lot of description of what visuals are. how do you qualify, if you don't know requirements? we've been working closely on defining what his positions are, what the requirements are.

typically what we see now that have more time to plan this out, this is what the second time we've seen real from effort starting so early is that they will create a half a dozen or so names for opposition groups not just capital but also critical and subcabinet and why does positions at this point. they will not even notified often the candidates that are being looked at. our research has shown within one hour to go to the cocktail party and of all their friends know they've been looked at. being a little sarcastic but i can create distractions. there quietly putting together a list of names beginning do political vetting process and maybe some financial betting and things like that so that right after the election what we've seen is but after the election in between and i great has be extremely tight. four years ago we defined a calendar so that the day after the election, the best burger of times with the president-elect making quick decisions on the cabinet that you're presenting them a slate of options,

presenting them the risk of subsequent each of the options of either candidate to make a quick decision. we will see that this cycle as well. >> i would if i could just add a note? since both of you refer to the vetting process, it is, i speak from experience, extraordinarily complex, labor-intensive, paper intensive, and especially at the cabinet and senior subcabinet level is a game for very high stakes. there is a tension between speed on the one hand and avoiding damaging the stakes on the other. there is no way of relieving the tension. it just is. but if you think of events that rivet press attention early in a new administration or even during a transition, and can get a new administration off on the wrong foot, it's coming up with a senior appointment that needs

to be withdrawn because of some embarrassing revelations that comes out too late. and so some people inside and outside the transition will be urging the team, put your pedal to the metal. we need to get off to a fast start. others, putting people who have been around washington a little bit longer, have some experience with the amount of egg that gets splattered over large number of faces when they see nomination blows up in everybody's face will say, wait a minute. i was involved, i was involved in after the fact in a high visibility appointment early in the clinton administration where nobody had bothered to read what the nominee had written about some very important topics.

i was astounded because nominees with long paper trails may very well be saying things that the incoming president does not agree with. the incoming president will then be held responsible for those utterances, at the very least the incoming president is expected to know about that, and an impression of incompetence is conveyed. so there's an imperative to speed, there is an imperative of accuracy. and there's no way of completely eliminating that tension. ..

they will watch what happens in the white house staff, that's almost a complete turnover. there are about 450 office staff physicians. 70% of those are political appointments. that really will change. that is the center of the world administration. you're bringing in people who think like you, are going to take your direction. there is a functioning bureaucracy there as well of career servants that keep the train running on time. the department and agency, they

can. >> guest: some of this because there are positions that will not change. there are career positions that will not change even at the highest levels at the departments and agencies. >> you have touched on a fundamental difference between a same party transition and an opposite party transition. with regard to political appointees, in a same party transition, the incoming president will pay less of a political price for allowing a certain number of the political appointees from the previous administration to hold onto office until a replacement comes forward. it's also a fact that even during opposite party transition, a president elect

can make a decision to retain a senior cabinet official from the other party. bob gates is an excellent example of that i'm probably president obama is pleased he decided to hold over the secretary of defense, even though bob gates was certainly no democrat. i do think, in this respect, if if former secretary clinton is elected, she will face less pressure on the cap net front because the people who are in cabinet positions now will be reasonably well aligned with her program anyway. they certainly will not be actively destructing it. it is at least possible that she is not going to ask for mass resignations. i can't speak for that, but she certainly has the option of being much more selective than

an incoming president trump would be. >> all to say, historically when there haven't been presidential transitions there is a takeover playbook. in history some of the most difficult transitions have been same party. it's counterintuitive. there's an expectation of continuity that has never existed. you are starting to see it now. of this person wins, maybe i'll stay on. you see a lot of that conversation. history shows that generally the incoming team once their own people. in this case, i would expect nothing less. it's it's also interesting that the holdover concept for secretary clinton ought to be focused on, they're actually for both team. there are couple of nonpolitical political positions, if that makes sense, that require all sorts of hoops to jump through to get this person in office.

the veterans affairs office, for example, if you are to let that person go and start again, the way that position is set up, it will take you two years to fill it if you start tomorrow. there are positions like that you may want to holdover. there is data based on interviews, it's horrible data, but you will see a stopgap hold over and they may carryover into the administration but they will do so temporarily. me speaking personally, my advice would be sent that letter of resignation out to everyone. it sure there's an expectation you will not have a job beyond january 20. the expectation of continuity of one leg out and one leg in is not a seamless and smooth way to do it. >> that request for letter of recognition needs to come from the letter of president. that would come from president obama as a directive to the department and agency to submit

those letters to get that maximum flexibility and freedom to the incoming president. >> that's absolutely correct. my point was an incoming president clinton would have substantial latitude to refrain from accepting a large number of letters of resignation in the name of governmental continuity while the new team is being put in place. >> just a heads up on time, we have ten minutes minutes. time for three or four questions and in between sessions. [inaudible] we will go over here next. [inaudible] in talking with my parents and watching old news interviews, trust ended ended up controlling that transition. it refocused the overall issue agenda on the clinton's personal

character and more contentious issues like gays in the military. i'm curious of that perception matches and how did that affect clinton's ability to accomplish other items on the agenda in his first term like healthcare. >> the clinton 92 transition transition was not a model transition. >> i agree. >> it was, however, a very useful case study. what went wrong? first of all, as i mentioned earlier, this enormous and lengthy focus on the cabinet did the white house as an afterthought. that was an afterthought. secondly, not drawing clear

distinctions between campaign team and the governing team. it is always a mistake to bring your senior campaign people, lock lock stock and barrel, into the white house. third, and this gets to your point, the transition and the president elect did not do a good job of controlling the issues narrative. president-elect clinton on november 16, 1992, a day two, a day that will live in infamy, was asked a question about how he intended to handle the issue of gays in the military and he made the mistake of answering the question extremely forthrightly and not in a very nuanced way. he didn't give much wiggle room

substantively or chronologically and the result was a focus on that issue that was nonstop and relentless because it was an issue people could understand. welfare reform was difficult. gays in the military, appeared to be easy. then, of course, the fact that there had been no coordination with the relevant military leaders led to an enormous pushback. the white house learned that it was going to take very careful concentration with the military services to get them comfortable even with some version of that idea. it was not clear what version of that idea they would get comfortable with. they being the military. it's also the case that you did a successful transition needs to

be one locust of authority. people need to be tapped on the shoulders by the president-elect, you are my man or woman with regard to ask. that is more difficult to do if there's a lot of action in washington and a lot of action in the president-elect hometown. that tension is going to be easier to manage if there is a president-elect whose hometown is within easy hailing distance of washington. the rock was a world apart. i can go on, but it seems to me that president alexis who are trying to design successful transitions now can learn from those in many other mistakes that we made. >> having been in the white house in january 1993, that

morning and waiting that morning to get lists from the president elect, clinton's team of who was going to be on the white house staff, people weren't even cleared to come in the building. i think not focusing on the white house staffers was a problem but also after 12 years of republicans in the white house there was concern about who they can trust within the white house to be accepting this information and even getting people on board. we saw, some years later, there was a real lack real lack of trust of the institutional processes in the white house with the fbi security files and all these things. there was some of that. in addition to starting late, there was a not understanding, not knowing, not trusting what the institution the presidency

provided to them as well. it was very difficult. 2000 was difficult, but 1992 was pretty bad as well. >> we only have time, we only have four more minutes, so if you have a question, please keep the question and answer targeted >> can i hear more about the transition team and the folks that will be stepping into the roles. you just made a point about trying to keep those separate. i'm wondering what the transition is thinking. >> the transition. >> the transition team. >> well let me distinguish very quickly, the transition team is one thing. the campaign is a different thing. in my judgment, there ought to be a lot of continuity between the transition team in the white

house but not so much between the campaign team and the white house. that is what i had in mind. they are distinct orbits. there's some coordination that happens but again you want to minimize distractions for the campaign so they can go do what they need to be doing. right after the election, you have an interesting exercise which is the merger between both of those entities. this really hasn't happened ever, historically, where you've had a large scale pre-election transition effort with very large campaign staff moving into that. this will be the first time. both teams are focused on that, how to integrate which positions they have and how you begin to staff up that white house in that. of time of transition. >> one more question. >> the number of agencies, do you foresee a situation where certain positions go unfilled

because he doesn't agree with them if he were to be elected. >> there are a lot of positions that are unfilled now. even though the president may agree with the mission of those agencies, underscoring how difficult it is to get people through a vetting process whether their senate confirmed or not. who is your head of presidential personnel whose gone to mobilize teams to get positions filled. this is not the first time we've heard a candidate say they want to take down the department of education or other departments, the reality is that's really hard to do. how much emphasis that agency or its mission may have, how much attention it may get by the president, now that's a whole other question. i think this is not a new problem that we have in filling

these positions. >> i would add that most department cabinets ours established through congress through statutes. they are not simply creatures of the president. they are established by law, there are laws that they are charged to administer and so there is a lot of ongoing business that will and must perceive regardless of the stance the incoming president takes. i wouldn't pay too much attention. ronald reagan was, i think people listened in 1980 were sure that the department of education was a goner. instead it got stronger under his presidency and he appointed a couple really good secretaries of education, so go figure. >> i think both sides realize they have to embrace the career

workforce. both teams recognize that i have done this before. they understand this process. i think that's how they view it. they view it as the career workforce hasn't enabler for their promises. >> with that, we need to draw this to a close. the press contact information directly for all three expert speakers is on the handout and the bile packet. i think they all would welcome contact from you with follow-up questions. i want to thank you very much for the time. [applause] we are going to make a quick transition to the reporters panel so we will add one chair and switch over very quickly. >> are you the transition team. >> i am the transition team. [laughter]

[inaudible conversation] [inaudible conversation] [inaudible conversation] [inaudible conversation]

[inaudible conversation] [inaudible conversation]

[inaudible conversation] [inaudible conversation] >> bringing you live coverage of this discussion on presidential transitions. up next is a panel of journalists who will talk about the presidential transition process. also discuss its history and just how journalists covered presidential transitions. it should get underway in just a moment. want to let you know about road to the white house coverage. coming up later today will have donald trump at a rally in green bay, wisconsin. he will be at the key convention

center. our live coverage starts at 5:00 p.m. eastern on our companion network, c-span. also, president obama will be hosting his final state dinner now taking place with the italian prime minister renzi and he and his wife will be at the white house tomorrow night. we will have five coverage starting at 630 eastern on our companion network c-span. [inaudible conversation] [inaudible conversation]

[inaudible conversation] [inaudible conversation] [inaudible conversation]

[inaudible conversation] [inaudible conversation] >> alright folks, let's get going for our next panel. i am turning this over to cat from rollcall who will be the moderator. the only thing i want to point out, she will introduce the panelist but we have the university of maryland grad here >> good morning and thank you.

i am catalina, i'm up policy editor and i'm happy to be your moderator for this morning's discussion on how to cover the transitions, not only not only to the next presidential administration but also the change of power that is likely to occur up on the hill. we have on our panel, on my right starting with olivia knox, chief washington correspondent for yahoo! news. i have really who is a senior political writer and margaret who is a senior white house correspondent for bloomberg news and jackie, national correspondent for the new york times. our panel panel is very well-versed on the issues before us this morning. we have about 21 days until election day and journalists covering politics in the federal government are probably thinking what next.

we hope this panel gives you some insight and practical tips on how to navigate the transition for the next administration and also to what happens on the hill. let me just ask the panel, what are your tips for covering the transition for the next 21 days and then next 100 days of the administration. >> for me, it's not that different from the white house coverage day-to-day. you're looking for overlapped information but you're interested in keeping that information private. when you cover the white house, talk to congress, talk, talk to agencies, talk to the political operatives and talk to congress where you may as well have 535 press secretaries all talking. transition can be a little complicated. in the immediate part of the transition, they can bottle things up a little bit. people people in congress, allies in congress always hear things. rather than just lying on the

daily transition briefing i think it's important to go to all these people at the same information or close to it but are is not guarded. >> kimberly you have covered various department agencies like the da and the educational department, what happens there when all your sources, especially the political appointees may be gone. how do you go about getting ready for the next administration. >> you have to start now. this is really the time to be going to key lawmakers and key interest groups to say, ask them, what are you formally and informally asking the transition teams to do in the next administration. who are the people you want to see in these positions and keep going back to them. what are you hearing, what are they responding to. from a very practical perspective, the first day of the new administration as you're

covering the agency, it can be a little daunting. the communication people you been dealing with for months or years are suddenly gone and you can't assume the political appointees who will be handling the communications job will be there answering the phone. even if they are, they might not feel like they have the expertise to answer your questions yet or they might not feel the experts arm place from political appointees to help them. the people that you are used to contacting 24 hours a day with your questions about regulations and that kind of thing are suddenly gone we have to be prepared for that day. >> margaret, what about you? what are some tips for the reporters out there who might be listening on how to cover the next administration. >> i think part of it is just be organized for yourself. there are some things you know about the transition team before

the president elect becomes the president elects. know the official structure or the beginning of it looks like, you know there are cochairs of the committee's and executive directors in terms of the transition committees. you know who the economic advisor is the foreign policy advisers are. that can help you become organized. there's also stories that every transition has in terms of the coverage. there are people who will help shape the cabinet will be in the top staff will be. what are the stories they want to know during the transition. who's the chief of staff of the new administration, who will be their top pick for the top tier of the cabinet positions in the second-tier of the cabinet positions. not that there's any top-tier in second. tier positions, but of course there are. are you a generalist who will be covering everything our politics reporter will be looking at the

incoming administration and their relationship with congress i think the other thing to keep in mind is that there are three parts to any incoming president. there's the campaign, there's the transition and there's the new administration. some of the people who are on the transition team, you will never see again. they are there for that interim to do a job and they're out. some of the people on the campaign will continue on to the administration, some are just political people who will not. there will be some important players in administration who have had never any role in the campaign. during the transition i think it's key not to forget about who the key players were in the campaign both from the staff perspective and from the advisor kitchen cabinet perspective. a lot of those bases. [inaudible] >> jackie, how about you.

>> all go quickly because i agree with what others have said. there are three roles for transition. one is you should be started by now because the campaigns have been. it has become true over time as they've seen the past transition the third is to know who the people are behind the scene who are responsible for coming up with those policies. who are you hearing might be treasury secretary. people are out here talking about it now.

when thinking about george bush and bill clinton, i had been covering the "washington journal" and a lot of people are either, if if they're not going to come from congress into administration at top cabinet level, typically secretary or just under. people on the hill are going to know who is being talked about. he was one of the people i heard in the clinton administration so i had my profile ready to go. he was can be named in september and i know because my baby came ten days early and when i was in

labor, i was on the phone with a colleague dictating from my notes on who i had and so i got a jump start on that one. then from the next one clinton to george w. bush, i was intimately familiar with george w's tax cut plan to the extent that he had details. that was like his first priority and what he went out with so i sort of already had some views of the politics of that and who the democrats, because there still were some conservative democrats, but those no longer exist, but they were willing to play ball with george w. bush. i was ready for that debate when it came.

>> we are about to have a change in power in washington where either major party candidate who will enter the white house has a story relationship with the press. sometimes outright and sometimes not trusting the press. what tips would you give to our audience here and watching on c-span on how to do that. >> first of all let me confirm that neither of these candidates like the press, which is fine. they are not supposed to be your friend. in my experience, one of the ways it complicates the relationship is it makes me want to collect is much information on a story before i go to them because there is always a danger they will assess what you have collected and they will go to a rival organization and give them

the information. i try to collect as much, i've naïvely pitched story ideas rice am working on this and i want to report this out, what you think and they realize it's a good angle for them and they turn around and give it to some of the else. i as much information as you can in addition to avoiding some bad things, that can deleverage for you. do you walk into a conversation and say no, i know this, i have this, don't give me this garbage, you and i both know it's true. that's very helpful. i think that's probably the number one tip i would give you, start working on your story far away from people who dislike like you. >> how do you navigate the issues of access when a lot of

folks probably aren't going to be in the press room every day at the white house or not necessarily up on the hill during transition, how do you navigate the issue of access? >> even when you are there every day, it doesn't always matter. a lot of what happens, this is probably true of life in general but it certainly true at the white house, its transactional and it's not personal and its hierarch real and it's what they consider they can get. do they can secure you a friendly organization. if they're news organization as readers are trying to reach or those who have more of an ideological go with them. how many people do you reach and to the financial office, whatever, fill in the blank. to some extent whether they dislike you, they will probably

just go to somewhere else. even if they do like you, it's not personal. is it like do they think are going to get what they want out of you. you could be sitting in the first row or the second row or you could be at the white house, it almost probably doesn't matter. my advice would be have thick skin, it's almost never personal. number two, just figure out what you want to do. your instincts are probably better than you think even if you're not on the inside. if you're not an inside player, if you're not at a briefing every day or in the pool every day, if you work for regional paper or a paper that is not all the time covering it, then maybe don't compete in the same airspace. compete in an arena where you can do your resourcing outside of that building.

trust your own instinct. you don't need them to validate what you see. sure, go to them in the last moment and get their comment. if there good stories they will pay attention to you but that doesn't mean you're ever going to get the first one call or that first confirmation. trust your instincts, look for stories you can get and access is great when you have it, but you only needed to do certain kind of stories. hope you have an editor that understands it and do what you can do. >> before i opened it up to the audience for questions, i do want to get a dialogue going with you and our panelists. before i do that, jackie, let me ask you this. it's a question about unfinished priorities. we saw on friday the obama administration issue had a new round of actions designed to increase travel in cuba and now travelers coming back from the island can bring back those

famous cigars and rum. are we likely to see more of those kinds of executive actions as we near the and. how do we know what issues might come up in these final days and how do you relate those to the new administration. >> i think you most definitely will see more. this is something president obama has relied upon for much of his second term because it was clear the republican-controlled congress. for the last two years of his term and has been completely controlled. i think he has done most of what he's going to do. margaret might know better

because it's been over a year and yet the danger of executive order is that they can be overturned. the one thing that president obama is helping is cuba or climate change is that there will be so much industry in particular that has already been done and is supportive of that will be hard to turn it back without alienating or angering the republican so they help it will be harder to turn back then people think. donald trump has promised to do a wholesale of the obama executive order. >> to some extent it matters who

the next president's going to be an president obama will have some time to figure that out between the election and when he runs out of time to issue executive orders. obviously if you have a president from the same party who your friendly with an you've seen a third, on the one hand, you might do more executive orders and on the other hand, if it's a real political hot potato and you hand it to the next president was kind of like your ally, that could have some consequences for their ability to govern. i think weighing a certain sort of circumstances were to be hostile for everything you stand for, you would would have almost the flipside of that strategy which is due i just loaded up and force them to overturn everything or do i say that's more trouble than it's worth for my party in the long run, i won't do it that way. those are the considerations to watch for. i think the issues that the

president has been unable to resolve with congress, we know closing one, is a big one of those. we also know they resisted doing anything controversial with an executive order. what you think? >> this is in exactly on executive orders but along the same line, whose story is who is in and who is out compared to the obama white house. they are constantly clashing with teachers union yet clinton came out early in the campaign and endorsed, so will be interesting to see what is a relationship like with that group. i think with the new president there are so many different opportunities to say, to look at who is getting the attention and who's getting what they want. it's not just what the executive order is. >> i see hands getting ready to go up and ask questions.

if you could please, when you ask your question, if you could tell us your name and your news organization, that would help our panelists as well. questions? yes, here in the front. >> the idea that you are talking about with the executive order coming out, is the only way to overturn an executive order with another executive order? is there any way they can do that quietly? like usually we see, if there's something she didn't like that obama did, you know, could she overturn that issue if she wanted to. >> anyone want to give insight on how executive orders are overturned? there's also the court.

>> i don't think hillary clinton has many, and wouldn't be our first priority of overturning some of the obama and executive orders. george w. bush did as soon as he came in. there were things that didn't go to executive orders but he withdrew the united states from activities in international organization, help me out. >> he reverse the arsenic in the drinking water. >> right. >> in his last day in office, he did things that were designed to inflict political pain on george w. bush, including regulating the levels of arsenic in the drinking water. there were some that have to do

with family planning, it's actually good question. we are not going to ask questions that make people seemed like they are not experts they could actually issue executive orders they don't tell us about. as this president has done. that could conceivably be without knowing what the issue is but keeping it under wraps is the challenge. congress, whenever they are briefed, they just talk talk talk. it would be hard to do, but they want to make a big announcement. >> do you remember the executive order of the drone program. >> that's an exception. >> two days later they planned

another executive order they didn't tell us about. >> there are ways to do this that are significantly less public than others. that's one of the challenges. >> it's primarily national security. >> yes, but they could roll it out on a saturday and make it harder to get that report to really get picked up by the public. >> one other thing that just occurred to me to be aware of going from one president to the next is that george w bush pioneered the use of signing. he would sign a bill and then he would have a signing statement basically said i don't agree with this part of it so i'm not going to sign this part of it. it was challenged but it stands and democrats criticized it very strongly, but one of my colleagues wrote a story about

this in the bush administration that won a pulitzer prize. obama was a critic, but he has issued signing statements. president trump, his people or his legislative counsel could look at some of these pass laws and see what leeway the president left him by way of these signing statements. charlie was not a white house correspondent. it had become so routine, we didn't necessarily see a story there. here comes this outsider. he wrote the piece and there are

plenty of stories out there that are hidden right out there in plain view. >> there definitely not access stories unless it's access from some legal expert that has figured out what it's going on. >> before i go to the next question from the audience, our panelists have talked a lot about getting to know people who are involved in the transition and getting to know the people up on the hill who support either presidential candidate. how do you do that in a hurry in the age of multiplatform journalism where you may need to send a tweet, do a snapchat, file for.com and oh by the way, there's this thing called the next stage printed, you have some expense with this from politico, what are your tips to background and someone in a hurry. >> sometimes you just have to

figure out where they're going to be and find them at a public event. even if you can just get ten minutes, so they know your name, there's the basic reporting. keeping track of someone's schedule can be important to find somebody. in the old days when i covered transitions both on the hill and in congress, i used to keep files on every texan when i was working at the dallas morning news, on every texan who might be joining the administration just to see what he or she knows but i can't do that anymore in a digital age. other questions from the audience? in the back.

>> i'm very curious about this. [inaudible] >> it's the ultimate story. you all look too young to remember it but george w. bush did a final trip to iraq and afghanistan in late 2008. i was i was part of the press pool and we had this joint press event in one of the presidential palaces and as they stood there at their two podiums, the american press was sitting where you guys are, a small black object sailed over our collective head in the president avoided it and after determining it was not the cocktail that goes boom, we realized it was a wingtip. egyptian reporting had hurled his first at president bush. you can probably find me and my

quadruple chin on the internet. we all caps are eyes on the president because that's our job. the two things i would tell you is the secret service is flagging this guy if it's a problem and if he had waited another 90 seconds. [inaudible] because at the podium he picked up but a little later he would've been sitting in a high back chair and there was no way he was going to get away. >> jim carroll from the university of maryland. >> just an anecdote for that, the christmas white house christmas party after that incident, i asked the president in my two minutes with him if he had heard a lot of jokes about it and he said yes, the guy who threw it was a sunni. he stole it from somebody in the

press corps. >> that just didn't sound like w. >> the gentleman and white shirt >> i was just wondering, after he dropped the shoe, did he say anything. >> he was really annoyed that that was going to be the lead into the story. this was all about tying up loose ends with both countries and so he was annoyed that every newscast, every news outlet, everybody writing about this trip boiled down his farewell to the two countries and was entirely this crazy thing that happened. he was pretty annoyed about it. they got it. they understood the press corps was going to focus on that, but they were not particularly pleased with it. >> jackie go ahead so when

you're looking at how to approach coverage of a transition, is there any differences you can think of between a same party transition in how you approach that coverage? >> there's more continuity, in this case there would be more continuity, probably not in every single case, but if you look are ready, just between the obama white house and the clinton campaign, you can see just on the campaign side, so many commonalities. he worked for bill clinton in the obama team. there's a lot of that type of continuity. the communications director now had that role at the white house and before then it was a longtime democratic.

you see people who went from bill clinton to the clinton campaign that would have a role. obviously a transition from obama to trump would be completely different. i can't think of, i can't think of anybody. >> i was listening in the last panel and they agreed that there can be more tension with a democrat to democrat or republican to republican transition than different parties. i didn't really agree but i deferred to them. i think if al gore had been elected president, there would've definitely been some tension because after their initial romance between president clinton and vice president gore early in the administration, by the end of

the administration there was so much tension that had manifested in the fact that gore did not really want bill clinton and did not want bill clinton campaigning for them. the most tension i have experienced or covered was allegedly clinton to george w. bush where the staffers took the w off the keyboard and a lot of them dispute that are dispute how widespread that was. >> the reason they said, one of the most terrible was reagan and george w. bush. if you talk to people who are actually legit, all they they do is transition politics, they will tell you every time i was a terrible transition, there were

a lot of people in the reagan administration just assumed they would still have the same job or be promoted in the age w bush and they were not. they were shown the door. there were some policy changes as well. the only thing i've covered very closely was clinton into w. the thing that struck me was how transparent the bush administration was because they wanted to talk about the changes. they wanted to talk about, this was true under written but it was not true under this president. it was policy, was personal, it personal, it was all these other things. they were really aggressive about talking and revealing things even though i thought they would be cautious with the executive orders. they were like nope, were rolling it back. were going to take it down. i wouldn't say there's anyone

hard and fast rule of whether there better or worse but certainly w felt relatively open in the way they were changing things around. >> i think the bush to obama was actually okay. on the stuff that mattered, on the national security stuff and being able to literally find files and information, i think the bush team was kind of a class act about it. i may be glossing it over. >> i always thought there is this great ironing in that built clinton bequeathed george w. bush to an atmosphere of peace and prosperity, no wars, a surplus for that year of roughly nearly $300 billion, 1.6 trillion as a surplus for the next five years and yet bill clinton did not and gen x to nothing to ease the transition

to the w bush administration. conversely, george w. bush eight years later would bequeathed barack obama to wars and the greatest recession since the 30s and he's done maybe the most spectacular job of transitioning to different party presidents of any president today. the obama people have been very complementary of that even if they were may be preferred at the other way around with peace and prosperity. >> in a clinton white house, it would be really interesting to see if the obama people are being picked over the bill clinton people or vice versa or if they start fresh. that's one thing to look at. >> very good point. >> a trump white house, this was addressing the first panel, but are people coming in wanting to blow up some of these agencies

that trump has expressed dislike for saying that we don't need them. that's another thing to look for. >> let's talk a little bit about the other transition that might occur that does affect the white house as well and that is the possibility that the senate could go back into democratic hands. what are some of the tips that you would have about paying attention to congress in that transition and how does it relate to the change of power at the white house in the fact that we may or may not, depending on election day have another four or eight years of divided government. >> i think one issue i'm looking at and i don't want get it down to one issue but it is a big issue and it's the transatlantic partnership agreement. if the republicans lost control of congress, i mean of the senate, mitch mcconnell might

figure this shows trump couldn't win on one of his biggest platform issues was doing away with this and by pushing it would deliver a big debt to their business allies, the current opposition is over the opposition of many of their biggest donors and their local business constituents, and the third reason i could see it is because they know it would put hillary clinton in such a political bind, even before she has taken her oath of office. she would expect to be very publicly out there saying i'm opposed to this, urging democratic senators to vote against it. i think that would be the biggest thing i am looking for. oh there's also the supreme court nomination. >> it depends, there's there's a few different outcomes. there's the outcome where

clinton wins the white house. in theory there's an outcome where trump wins the white house and democrats take over the chamber. that seems unlikely. if clinton wins and republicans remain control of congress, she is on the defense and it's hard to see what she can do without an executive order. if she were they able to both chambers in the white house, you would have an initial window based on obama's experience were literally one thing could get done. would it be immigration reform or something else. if clinton were to win and republicans or democrats were to retake the senate but not the house, democrats in the senate

can want them and it gives her a little bit more. >> we will leave this discussion for just a moment as the u.s. senate is about to gavel in and hold a brief pro forma session. we will return to live coverage in just a moment the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c., october 17, 2016. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable pat roberts, a senator from the state of kansas, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: orrin g. hatch, president pro tempore.