hill ready to take -- and clearly is going to have an idea where to take things. and worked in congress, and controlled everything. and a lot of influence of what happened. and how it is going to play out. be change donald trump is the last vessel, billionaire, glitzy, and more modest circumstances, they were not able to speak to that. and how have they absorbed or processed that.

>> if you ask how we absorb it politically, and donald trump has brought those voices, people with disaffected sense into the republican forward. and put your finger on it, that is a challenge for the party. and more practically respond to the problems that exist and not always adhere to strict ideological view. and when i was in office and leadership, try and say we to fellow republicans and conservatives, to put conservative principles of limited government, individual empowerment, free-market, work for people and we have to demonstrate the benefits of

those principles, because of limited government and work toward balancing budgets, and i do think donald trump has a better way. >> what i really know about him is he wants to be a winner, ideological purity may not be the path to be a winner. >> my partner, the founder of the firm i am with on the board of directors, he actually was not one of donald's bankers a while back. he actually predicted a month ago at another outlet in new york that donald trump was going to win. many of us as the prior panel

said, most people saying that wasn't going to happen and what donald is selling is not just we want to win and americans like to win, but also he was selling i am a good dealmaker, i know how to go and get you the better deal. if you think about the swath of electorate that came out, the party has had difficulty bringing out in rust belt states the past several decades that is what they are looking for. they are looking for the shot in life, somebody to say i am going to deal you a better debt, give you a better shot to climb up the ladder. i think that will probably be the narrative the white house is going to look at what happens. >> let's talk about the junior

partner, the democratic party. seems to me in the last 36 hours people have been in the fetal position. there has been low representation of lawmakers, party leaders out and about, they are still processing. help them process it. we do want a two party system. if they go to extraction of them that may be the first instinct. is that the right thing for them? >> no. the obstruction, much longer discussion how that obstruction, the minority party i was part of in 2007 through 2010, in the beginning we faced an incoming president obama with 70% approval rating and we were able

-- we were able to do the same thing, ourselves back up and say how are we going to work together? there were plenty of attempt on my part and john weiner's part to say to the white house and the president we want to work with you after they invited us in and we tried. many of you remember the day, the stimulus, obamacare, dodd-frank, shot on that one was the stimulus bill. i remember it vividly. the president coming over and saying come to the white house, present us with your idea, we are putting together this bill, shortly after the collapse of the markets in 2008, we want you to be part of it and we did, we had session after session in the roosevelt room of the white house and i remember being so anxious at the time i even

brought in a one page white paper to the president was the president said there's nothing crazy in here. we got a little juice out of that thinking okay, and at the time the discussion with republicans was are we going to advocate for elimination of the capital gains tax knowing full well you are dealing with the pound here and we didn't and all that goodwill dissipated very quickly. obviously we have our interpretation and they have theirs, why we were left out of that bill. that started we are going to be against what you are doing if you are not bringing us in which snowballed, and the overreach that occurred in my opinion those two years, 2009, and 10, allowed for the rebounding of the republican party in the house and that is the lesson for

my party. and commit overreach, the democrats owe it to their constituents to try to be part of things and try to work, president-elect trump said he wants to do that and see if we can make it work. my sense is the country has had it blaming two parties blaming each other, leading so many people out. >> let's talk about specific policy areas. trade has been bipartisan consensus area. sounds like there will be a strong signal, a lot of people feel it is not working for them but i felt months ago trump was winning the argument and shifted grounds. you, as someone in the business environment, care deeply about trade, how do you square those

things? >> spending significant time in asia, in southeast asia, china, hong kong, japan, there is a real priority that i see when i am there being placed on tpp prospects and much has been written in this country on the notion they see tpp more than just a trade blueprint, they see it as a demonstration of american commitment, most in the foreign policy arena say important things and flip back to the voters that came out this election and said you know what? it is not working for me. i think this lame-duck there is no question, there is no trade

and no tpp is going to happen but with donald trump and his insistence that we are going to go in and rework the trade agreement i don't think many people would disagree you could improve on the existing agreement so it all depends on what you mean when you say rework them. if you take a sledgehammer to the situation, i think it is really bad for our economy, the imports to the american consumer, there are ways to deliver on his promises depending on how he works with the individual to go about protecting things in a positive way but it is very damaging. for us as a country.

>> the first diplomatic challenge, they didn't want to reopen negotiations. let's talk about tax reform, the bright minds in the party, what are the parameters, repatriation? >> individuals, republicans pay for a tax cut. when i was there, still today years later, we pay for tax cuts, that was contrary to the philosophy but infrastructure does something else, it is

something that run into insistence in my party that infrastructure be paid for and not just borrowed. that is where tax reform can come in and you have a marrying up of things that both sides want. hillary clinton saying she wanted to see an increase in infrastructure spending, donald trump will see a big increase in infrastructure spending. that is the task as to how much of an appetite there is on the part of fiscal hawks on the hill to go for that. related to tax reform in particular, the international peace, when you get to repatriation and it is a very controversial thing. when you talk upwards of $300

billion plus in terms of infrastructure package, that is where the money is. don't know where else you get and donald trump drives the infrastructure package, paul ryan and others to design and put forward real tax reform in a comprehensive way. >> chuck schumer said he favors the idea of repatriation. generally accepted number of $1 trillion overseas to be brought back in a favorable tax holiday or lower rate. did you have any interaction with schumer or the democrats on this? >> absolutely. there were discussions in a bipartisan way, about that and the marrying up of these things. it is not just a tax holiday but putting in place an entire new

regime so you don't get next on the scoring. if you were looking for tax enhancements which they not necessarily revenue neutral, you need to look at one time tax or fee on profits abroad, in exchange for reduced rate at home in corporate america and the insertion of territoriality in the system instead of the worldwide tax system and those two things are very controversial and that will be have to be worked out, talking to the type of voters, what matters to them. this is not really relevant. what needs to happen to produce and infrastructure package people around the country can

understand and enjoy when they see improvement in their homes. >> you work with bipartisan policy center, what is your view on how much to get to level pay, to drive 95 and not be frustrated, what do we need? >> trillion dollars plus, a lot of money. eight ceos, going to denver, virginia was doing with public-private partnerships. there is liquidity out there in the private sector and a lot of institutional asset managers to deploy capital, long-term capital up with long-term

pension commitments. the capital keep saying there is not a pipeline of projects, shovel ready, and a lot of risk associated with that capital because of politics and permitting. the work of the executive council, and heavily weighted to the states, to streamline the state level, and the process be more amenable to undertake risk in big numbers to address the needs. >> infrastructure is a lot of garble to get to the new bridge. let's talk about something very

hot, emotional, jargon, you were a supporter of jeb bush. and tweaked him on twitter for softening his immigration stance. and where you see possible consensus. a long road. >> certainly played a role, we were trying to do something to move the needle and the following, try to address the kids, because never believed the country had a policy that allows us to hold kids liable for illegal acts of their parents. from a legal standpoint if you don't want to get to the human aspect, move that way and that

was too up the middle because both 5 got upset because it was standalone, considered amnesty, in many instances. i ink short of the first initial request for authorization to build that wall and the money, there is money needed until the next census check. we will see. short of that legislative action, most of the immigration policies will be dealt with at the administration level. it will be executive order, they said one party doesn't like executive orders when the other doesn't. i do think the immigration piece will probably remain in that

realm. the funding and appropriations necessary at the border for building that wall. >> what does that mean? where is he going? >> we will have to see. there were things that were said in the campaign in terms of refugee vetting and other things. from the initial position donald trump staked out on immigration gravitated back to the center over time. if you think of the tools and art of persuasion and negotiation that is what it was. trust me, i am going to be tough on this. i have outpaced anybody on this by taking this position out there. it makes sense over time.

i know all of us were asking because there has not been a lot of definition around the policies that will be pursued under a trump presidency. >> to quote mario cuomo you govern with poetry or limericks and you govern in prose. where are the softening's. is a potential hazard area for overreach? he has two factions, we have to have a solidly conservative justice but then it turned into an ugly fight, this is a real crossroads this year. >> he has been transparent about the kinds of people he is thinking about our offer up justices for the supreme court.

and there is always controversy. do the democrats want to filibuster to die in the senate? if so how long will that last if they try to leverage that for something else, how does president trump react to that? in the end will the nuclear option that is in place have to be applied to confirmation of the supreme court justices. rest assured that will be worked out and we will have a full court in good order after the new administration is sworn in. >> you are putting that -- not the first order of business -- let's talk about the house. are they neutralized? >> a lot of attention. there probably was not just two

but maybe three vaccines, broad movements in the party. that is pretty much gone away now. winning has this way of curing a lot of that colleagues i have spoken with since the other night said we are going to get some things done. i believe in not being close to it anymore but i believe they will do that and given the opportunity with a president-elect who does not have a lot of experience in this town. a vice president-elect i served with for 12 years, many on the hill, served with him as well, understands the process, there is potential for good partnership because of that coming in of an outsider with all the insiders here to get something done. >> host: i want to start

inviting people. we have those two microphones. if you make your way we will switch over to you and let you get a question or two in which if any was in -- go to the mike and i will point you out. people are going to the mike's, now that you are speaking, what can i ask you now but i couldn't have asked you two years ago? a bunch of questions, i will start with this one. who are your favorite democrats to work with and who would mike pence be looking for to work more in a bipartisan way? >> guest: there are plenty of individuals i can name that i worked with on foreign policy issues, there are a number of democrats that would work on those things. other democrats would work with me on business issues, the jobs

act, even infrastructure. a number of people. as we know, so much, so many people in the house, there is a leadership structure in place to leverage any conversation you have 2 committees and the rest. certainly committee chairman, on the democratic side, chuck schumer is the one with the leverage when he becomes minority leader, he is the one with whatever leverage there is, because he has the ability to stand in the way of there being 60 votes on things that are not subject to reconciliation. i assume this white house, incoming white house will be focused on making sure he is kept in close contact and shares with him the intention, chuck

schumer is someone i met with regularly, paul did when he was budget chair and ways and means chair on immigration issues and others. i suspect that is the line of communication we should keep an eye on. >> host: the chief legislative liaison, what we know for the rest of the administration. >> guest: it makes sense. somebody out there has a question. we will go to the left and my right. i didn't see you. >> donald trump broke many and spoken rules in the campaign around things he said and things not okay to say and peter teal said what to do with means and the situation in politics. he indicated he would break many of the rules of his own personal interests from the institution of the office not including his investment in blind trust. you think the republican

leadership will try to influence him to maintain some of the codes that are sacrosanct for the democracy? >> i have no idea. my former colleagues are thinking in the leadership or elsewhere, my own opinion is he needs to do that. he needs to go in and be as transparent as possible. that is the essence of who we are as a country. as i travel the world and see other governments, whether it is in brazil, china, europe or otherwise, the middle east, they look to us, and know that things work here. so much of that rests on you know what the rules are, people play by the rules, you have confidence in the judiciary and the transparency of that institution. ..

you have to be transparent, most put it and separate out from your visual duties. >> over here. >> good morning. first of all thank you for your comments and your insights this morning your we've talked a lot about the white middle-class voter been instrumental in donald trump victory, from the rural areas. your comment you said those voters have been accepted into the republican party. one of the other things we saw in the rallies from that group of voters were comments that were negative towards people of other races, people from other

countries, people from the lgbt community. so i would like to know how those beliefs and views and values fit into the republican party moving forward speed at which beliefs and values? >> views that could be considered a very racist, negative comments about people from, mexico, for example, those kind of negative comments that would really saw at the truck rallies and those people coming out of the rallies. rallies. >> there is no room in the republican party for any of that. i think you've seen president-elect trump his campaign denounced a lot of that, didn't always get the coverage i think it should have and perhaps early on it wasn't quick enough incoming. but i do think you saw leaders on the hill, paul ryan, mitch mcconnell and others, and now those types of statements, sentiments a soon as they rose.

my position is absolutely no tolerance for any kind of racism, any kind of nationalism come any kind of come any semitism of which i certainly have something for choice some experience. so again just zero-tolerance all that and it should, from leaders when it occurs. >> we've got just enough time for two questions. start here and then the lady in red. >> thanks again for coming. it's great to see you. i'm just wondering what you think will happen now with obamacare? >> how long do we have? >> no question, i think it's already been discussed and it was probably in the works, we were in the works with it if mitt romney had one, reconciliation packages in this fiscal year geared towards an obamacare repeal and replace. i think the latter is really

important. and a very difficult. and then you will have the next fiscal year a reconciliation package geared towards tax reform. again we talked about the need for that in terms of the infrastructure funding. there is clearly huge problems. i get to see it now from the business side, so companies that we work with, whether it's in the interest arena, the medical provider of munich, the hospitals. this is a very challenging of vibrant that they're operating in, specially if you look at the exchanges and look at individuals who are receiving these premium hikes, which has ripple effect and the private market insurance markets and the rest. so there's a real need to fix something, even if hillary clinton were elected, she would've had to go to the congress to fix something. these things are spiraling out of control and downward.

there's a great opportunity i think out there for republicans to step up and finally coalesced around an obamacare replace. again the devil is in the details. when i was on the hill, worked with a lot of these many positions as those committee chairs to try and gain consensus. i think they will get there. i really do. to me it's probably going to be for them a priority and should be. >> we are running out of time. i promised the lady over there. >> congressional correspondent for the hispanic outlook. i'm so glad you mentioned the kids act because of an army journalist in this room even now republicans wanted to pass a law that would legalize the children who were brought been illegally, the democrats completely stopped that in 2013. >> where were you two years ago?

>> i was there but nobody wants to write about it. and that being said there are other piecemeal bills that the republicans have proposed over the years and never get any coverage because it's only about comprehensive. so do you think now that there may be a chance for some of those piecemeal bills like e-verify or expanding investment pieces or maybe giving green cards to some foreign students? by the way there's over 1 million for students now in the united states this year. over 1 million mark. we start legalizing student, with mr. talking about numbers. what about some of those issues in piecemeal, not comprehensive? >> listen, i hope yes, there is incremental progress about together with some of these larger initiatives that president-elect trump will be about. it's always been the challenge because people by definition say piecemeal is somehow a

compromise because you have a vision here. just because you're not getting all the way you did here, compromising the rest. i don't agree because everyday each month you keep going, you ultimately get there. i share your sentiment. >> be reflected president obama's remarks yesterday that it's not a straight line, use it and you sag. in the spirit of new day and new hope and now historic phrase, i want to present you as things with the roll call make congress agreed again. [laughter] >> that's awesome. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, and eric cantor. we will take a short break. >> president obama met with president electrons and the white house to begin the transition of presidential power. here's a tweet of the people across the street in lafayette park. some are protesters, others are simply curious. donald trump son-in-law was seen

being led by white house chief of staff denis mcdonough on a walk along the south line as president obama and president-elect trump met inside the oval office. mr. trump is also meeting with congressional republican leaders on capitol hill and here's the view outside the capitol hill club before that meeting. this is a tweet from this he spends capitol hill producer. we are live today with cq roll call hosting a daylong conference analyzing the 2016 election results and impact that could have on health care, immigration and other domestic policy issues. we will join the conversation live as soon as it restarts after the lunch break. until then here's some of the morning session. >> here's what it failed out. it failed to give certainty to an uncertain event. i think that's been a lot of ways a problem with polling right now. we can go through the mythological issues.

i think that is well-worn territory, something we do think of as an industry. for all of you, you also need to think about what you are as the consumer point of which are looking for. and i'll see this going into this election is a plan called it's a was going on, what's happening? the question is really define that was what i was happening. it's to reassure them that they can know what's going to happen. and to that end i think that we created an illusion for polling which is that that thing is happening down the road comment because we done this many polls and because we does much data, we have certainty. for better or for worse, polling has never been and isn't now very different from weather forecasting. the only difference is that each day is another opportunity for new whether a new forecasting. even on the day of the storm, the election, the exit polls got it wrong and we all went, those

of us in the liberal media, i'll plead guilty to being a member, we all essential wrote stories saying she won. because that's what the exit polls told us we're safe to surviving. >> it's possible the issues we talked about which go beyond land lines and cell phones and online point and all the rest and try to reach different audiences go do something else which is willingness of people to take polls, is what i think led to the most misleading outcomes but i will say really briefly i don't think that there was people lying and saying that voting for clinton versus trump. i think there was a trump but it was never ever elected trump voter but was reluctant and difficult to reach. that's a problem we can solve it either adding more calls or by just turning to big dave and higher levels of analytics. >> jeff, what is your view of the polling industry?

>> i think we should separate exit polls from all the rest. exit polls have been disastrously bad. the overrepresented young people, a lot of other mythological problems. i remember in new york state said we lost by 13 points. the last exit will have this down by force. i was getting congratulatory calls by the media. then we were losing by 13. i haven't had a lot of confidence in exit polls from the very beginning. in terms of other polling as a campaign, look at what it is used for, people want to crystal ball but in terms of the campaign what you use polling for is not the horse race. the horse race is the least important part. you want to allocate limited resources to persuade as many voters as possible. what polling will tell you is bernie sanders has an hour have stump speech, you can't cram it into a 30-second television ad. what parts are most persuasive

with which segments are trying to reach with polling was effective in telling us what we should do in that regard. >> all right. let's move on to discuss what is come in the aggregate, what do all the polls, should it tell us about where this country wants to be taken next? >> the most important poll is one which is heade having to sah is the pull of the american people. that's the one we should look at in terms of where the country should go. >> the one of which 47% voted for hillary and 46% voted for -- >> absolutely. that is the important poll because that's the poll that matters. and clearly we can talk about this more in depth but clearly never credit card has lost touch with rural voters. these are many of the flaws exposed in the primary campaign with bernie sanders. out of touch with working-class voters, with young voters. those persisted that the general election. >> i'll add one thing, i think there's a real fear in

washington and the domain this as an outsider from washington. i meant it as someone who lives here and is from your. but we talk about bipartisan compromise, talk about people come together and everybody wants that. there's only one issue over the last 25 years that has had consistent bipartisan support, and that's trade. there's only one issue bipartisan support in washington, and there's only one issue that brings together standards supporters and trump supporters and is the thing that is activating and getting people go more than anything right now and that's trade on the opposite side. people made the argument they just don't understand how trade helps them. at a certain point after 25 years of doing the same thing and seeing the same result, we had to realize that maybe in washington we really are not hearing people. you can't educate people out of the firm believes. you have to figure what's going wrong. >> you think the obama white

house feels like it understood the american electorate until the end? how are they, what will be their message, the president's message to mr. trump today? it is today, right? >> it is today. i believe the obama white house thought they understood the electorate, at least to the point of helping hillary clinton get to two under 70 electoral votes. until about a week and a half ago, and william effort on cable news that president obama's having so much fun on the trail and let's play this clip and he's so good at this, and oh, my god he's the happy warrior is going to push her over the finish line. i saw something else. i believe i saw a president for what he was, a campaign there in chief for what he was, a leader of the democratic party for what he was. i believe he realized a week and a half, maybe a week ago that she was in serious trouble in

pennsylvania, in michigan, in north carolina, and florida. but i think what may be woke up the president overly adding other like we saw him last week was michigan. and i think the numbers scared him to death. you saw the president talk about the republic and the world is teetering on this election. a lot of criticism, but he says what he's thinking and feeling. he does not posture a bad. i think that was really striking in his rhetoric on the stump last week. >> what do you think he will tell president-elect trump today in terms of, i wonder, do you think you will say here's what you need to understand about the country you are taking over? or will it just be thomas is of constitutional responsibility for transition? >> i think it is the latter.

president obama was very impressed without president bush handled the magazine handled the transition, was very impressed, but it was a thorough come a professional, very in depth. he said we were ready to roll on day one. they want to ensure, they talked about this for months and months even when secretary clinton was comfortably ahead. they want to make sure that the trump administration is ready to go on day one. they want the top administration to feel even more compared than they were coming in the door. i think that's what today would be about, whenever you need, whatever your teammates, i am here for you, i have told my team x, y and z, and that's what, he wants continuity to the greatest extent they can get that. >> thank you. so the country, the base of tom supporters, the collection of your supporters, -- trump

supporters -- they both seem to want to roll back the economy to the last century in some way. that's not happening. so how can donald trump -- >> look, first of all i think the way you put it is completely wrong and, in fact, that's why people washington donors to what's going on out in the world. >> that's what i ask you spent all of the things manufactured in one are still being manufactured, just somewhere else. people are buying the products and these to manufacture them. it's not like we are not making television anymore. it's not like the days of buggy whips. nobody wants go back to making products no one uses or wants but they're a tremendous amount of parts would all buy. in many industries you cannot buy an american-made version of a product. people see all these products, thethey are buying these bugger, they are not making this product. i remember a funny story bernie

sanders went to china to visit and he went to a wal-mart in china and he was regaled by the american chamber of commerce american chamber of commerce about how great it was with wal-mart in china so one of so forth. we were breaking into the chinese market and he said how many of these products in china are made in america? that's the point of trade. they said 1%. so the problem is people see all this product from their not making them anymore. look at michigan as the many ways a classic example. if you go back and look in the newspapers, you see these 1950s were ozzie and harriet trac ousley and cars in the suburbs but they're all african-americans. that's reason why hillary clinton had problems in michigan, the black vote was suppressed, was because it was in that community there's a memory of an industrialized middle-class of african-americans that has been decimated by these trade deals. people, they don't want to turn back the economy. and what to make some products

that the family buys spin me take the question in a different direction and get into the notion of what pollsters are looking at, which is how they feel about the economy, about their jobs. the reality is the promise of trade has been that you will have better jobs, smarter jobs and more jobs than the alternative. that's the promise, and also you'll be able to buy things cheaper. leaving the therapy society, people do not perceive either any sense of job security, and any sense of job that it is something they want to have for the long-term. can you put those two things together and you have people who, most people without a college degree and some people with a college degree have no idea what things look like in three years. to say the answer is to have more trade, and i'm not talking

about truth than what people expect projections. i'm talking about the visceral reaction of people who are raising a family. when you talk to them and we need to do more listening and addition to polling, the fear and uncertainty that says why would i trust either side? neither side has delivered for me. i'm not saying that means roll the clock back whatever we want to talk about it that people want something real and tangible. i think that's the reason why voter turnout was so much lower. >> we could cause, thank you for making lower turnout. it was significantly lower. no, not right that mr. trump received 2 million fewer votes than loser john mccain? spent control for growth and population look like 2004. 2004, 2016 very much the same. >> in terms of actual human beings pulling the lever he got fewer votes by lot and began

also than mitt romney, correct? >> that sounds right. >> that was a depression. -- digression. can any of us think of something tangible that we could have the trump administration due to address the issues that you two gentlemen just described? >> you are looking for a job, you should work for him spent i don't think that's likely to happen. the truth is as you point out both bernie sanders and donald trump talked about trade. how they approach will be very different. i don't know if that's the guy you want protecting the middle class or trade negotiations to i think bernie sanders would have had a very different crew of folks would've been the negotiating. i do think these trade agreements, unless people want to keep losing elections, but ultimately people want to be elected to have to listen to

what people feel in the country. we live in a rarefied environment. i come from a small town in vermont by live in a nice beautiful affluent suburb north of virginia. there are cranes everywhere building up buildings. it looks like the gilded age. drive to iowa, michigan, wisconsin, very different reality. >> go ahead. >> i don't quite understand i guess to portals to bring back all these jobs. number one, -- hurdles. how is the administration could -- automation and corporate process. companies want to make money and having a big staff, i've been told by bosses my entire career that people are my biggest expense. and automation you can make things faster and cheaper, more efficiently with machines these days. i think those really big hurdles to how he's going to revive this

manufacturing economy. >> i hear that and it's likely to be true but i will say one thing that translated probably unintentionally is when he did what many argue was a failed outreach to african-americans. he said to them what do you have to lose? do you know who heard that? everybody else. weakens it sounded racist. we can say it was clearly pso understanding of the community but i will say a lot of people that you're talking about here that and say you know what, maybe do everything to lose but i hear that argument this is there's no hope for jobs, what do i have to lose? just go with the guy who says that. >> i'll start by spinning way down the track or a least two years been in the navy we will come back. so what happens, you to sort of avatars of the outside year, what happens in two years when

the mind is in reopening of the wall is not up? >> conventional wisdom is that democrats will do well in midterm. that assumes he has not solidified the base. maybe the wall will be up by then. that's something that could be created. i don't know if it will be supported but it's a concrete accomplish that could be done. it's just a question of bulldozers spirit and willingness of a republican fiscally conservative small government congress -- >> i heard mexico is going to pay for it. >> theoretically what if that doesn't work out? >> first of all i think to go back to your earlier question, away he could make progress and make a lot of people happy i think it satisfies voters and many people who didn't vote for him would be to push for infrastructure. you write that congress may come against them. goes back to the panel called can you govern, as i was going

to this regardless of who won, the answer is you cannot govern but you can get things done. i think that's wheezing to the notion of government and the traditional sense, the notion of we have a leader and people of this group is put into in the fall in line and have some handholding at some point, that's not the right now. that might change but as of today it's not there. >> i agree on infrastructure. it clearly is an avatar of both sides to do some infrastructure work speak i think there is an appetite, there's an appetite among trump and actually nancy pelosi yesterday sort of reached out to him on that one point and said we could probably work together on infrastructure. but his alleged colleagues in the republican majorities, they are not in the mood.

paul ryan said flatly that's not part of my agenda. we just did a highway bill. we just spent $300 billion. we are not going to spend $5 trillion which in is another trump has been throwing around. >> we are going to now rejoined the cq roll call conference, all the conference today on the 2016 election with potential impact on health care, immigration, domestic policy. this next panel titled the prices wishlist. >> thank you for joining us. this is, we been doing the election impact conference since 1980 which was another wave election with the outside of the everything old is new again. when you came in we have a program for you. would also have a new member's guide which has a list of the committee assignments, the power structures in congress and every new member and every declared district as of this morning. there may be some house races that are still outstanding.

the other thing i want to mention is nathan gonzales but a very informative panel on politics this morning has a newsletter called the gonzales rothenberg report and you the opportunity as an attendee here to sign up for free months free. just to the far left doorway will take your name and address and make sure you get the wisdom of we go from here from nathan. so i'd like to now and we have two breakout. one on energy and all of you who are here are here at the right place because this is a big discussion to come, the new president's agenda. i would like to edit over to my colleague, managing editor for enterprise, adriel bettelheim. >> thank you, david. good afternoon. we have an excellent panel to discuss in some ways one of the least prepared presidential candidates. is making the rounds of

candidate preparing for the transition and our thoughts are obviously on how he can turn his promises into policy. it's a gray area, franken, thanks so much of this campaign was about personality and character and trustworthiness. so maybe we can put some flesh on the bones with this excellent panel. joining our to my immediate left, lanae erickson hatalsky, vice president of social policy and the politics program at third way. to her left, barry jackson, managing director of alleged coup. to his left, a link america, director for the center of public effective management at brookings and down and brian wild, policy director at brownstein, hyatt, farber and shrek. a few of us were talking before. there is something that donald trump without called the contract with the american voter. there's some interesting

similarities. it's issue to talk about unilateral things that a president can do is legislate things. their sumptuous parallels with the contract with america which you have some familiarity with. >> right. in 1994 i served as the director of the contract. when you think back to 94, it wasn't a presidential election but under newt gingrich the house republicans, the 20 or so of them that were crazy enough to think republicans could actually take the house, decided you need something to put forward to say this is how i'm going to govern, and this was before twitter and facebook and even internet. so it was an insert in the tv guide. here's the 10 things were going to do, and oldest to account to this. and behind it was legislative language law. the senate thought we were crazy

because there's no way we're ever going to win. obviously, the white house took it as a big joke. and it wasn't well known around the country, but what it did is all of a sudden republicans grabbed washington, and that agenda became the agenda of washington. there was this moment where you and president clinton had remind the country, hey, i'm still relevant in this process. the long and short of it is at the end of the day the vast majority, like more than 80% of the contract, passed into law in some form or another. ..

>> the current occupants of the white house, if he does what he wants to do or what the american people what to do and the order it comes in, let's talk about that. what is your guess on what happens when donald trump comes in and what he wants to do? >> i think everybody's underestimating exactly how much experience is absenteeism is going to do. while donald trump is new to the scene, he certainly is an executive and knows how to manage things. you have mike pence who is an incredibly qualified vice president with a huge amount of relationships and experience. as advisors you have newt gingrich who has certainly managed a 100 day agenda before and for all intents was to be managing this transition in 100 day agenda layout , working hand in glove with and a folder which

gives him the entire operation of heritage and walk heritage may not have the intellectual life that used to, it has the experience and staff there and when you go through leadership, you have paul ryan who may not have the most leadership experience but he is a staffer at heart and an incredible staff. he never really stopped being in that role as staffer. when you take offthe mantle of leadership , of the head of the republican party and you elect and maneuver as a staffer, a guy who implements an agenda, he's going to really fit that mold almost perfectly and you have missed mcconnell which is a master of the dark arts of negotiation. he understands not just big

picture politics but the small politics of what motivates an individual senator making individual decisions. i think you have an amazing team that accidentally, and intentionally is in place to move very quickly and we are also forgetting the thousands of staffers that are going to fill the administration and where they are going to come from and we will see but my guess is they're going to come from dc and they're going to come from the hall staff. >> i think you're probably right on that because there is nowhere else for them to come from the folks that want to do most of those jobs but my question is how much overlap is there between the agenda that the establishment republicans have who have been here for a very long time, the agenda that

president trump has and the agenda of the people who actually voted for him and i heard him say over and over on the campaign trail, things that are absolutely in opposition to what many of the folds that you just named think that we should do with this country so if he decides he is going to lock arms with establishment republicans in dc and carry out that agenda, i'm not sure the voters think they are getting what they asked for and that would create some told in a country that was clearly asking for change, not more of the same establishment that we've seen in the past. >> to follow up on that point, yes, he has a great pool of talent in the republican party, a great deal of experience in the republican party. the question is what kind of relationship does president trump form with these people? he just went through a campaign where basically for almost an entire year, he was at war with much of the republican party. a combination of being at war with your own party with all

the experienced people in it and the combination of being a little bit used to do it whatever you want to do without the constraints that are imposed after all by the constitution and by the separation of powers, i think there's a lot of people wondering how well president trump will react . as the president by himself in a weird situation where all the world seems to revolve around that, all the trappings of power. there's two fighter planes that accompany your jet everywhere. there's all the military, etc. and at the end of the day, you have to beg, borrow and plead for your agenda, even with as many presidents have discovered, even with a relatively friendly congress. and so i think this is a question not really about is the talent there. this is a question about what does donald trump do in the

transition from a business executive to a political executive? and they are two very different things. >> let me comment on that. blake was a fabulous writer, i don't always necessarily agree but she made an important observation about this. washington , however you want to describe all of us that are establishment and the left political infrastructure put donald trump literally but never taken seriously and trump voters and conservatives to trump seriously, never literally so this notion is like god, donald trump's going to be at war with the establishment is not true. if you look at donald trump has proposed tax reform that is just right down the line with what doctrine painting

is on the republican side. he has talked about education in a way that is doctor harry with the republican side. he talked about infrastructure and public-private partnerships. you go down this list of things, military, pa, there's the style difference and especially when you are in the opposition, you can think different thoughts about where things go but the first 100 days is critical. the power of the president in the first 100 days is enormous and i also, the things you pick, that president obama picked healthcare. he picked a stimulus package would could have had wide bipartisan support, he chose not to support the republican side. donald trump i think will surprise people and there will be democrats who will understand what this election meant and realized i've got

to be a part of this little bit because after all, if you are a member of congress, generally speaking and i don't say this in a disparaging way, your first priority is to be reelected area it will be really difficult in most districts in this country in say, we don't care the voters just said or we're going to keep on this that we've been on for the past 10 years you just listed a list of very conventional republican things which i think you get some democratic support for as well. the things donald trump's campaign on have to do with a rather radical approach to immigration and a radical, radical approach to mexico and to illegal immigrants. now i would think that his voters will be looking to see in his first 100 days, what does he do about that? how many people does his

support in his first 100 days and how much of that wall gets built in his first 100 days. that's what he ran on. >> literal? this morning the canadian ambassador came out and we are talking about renegotiating nafta. an immigration, i did this when i was in the white house, i did it when i was it banal. i'm not to say it's not hard but components of it are the same. you've got to do something about border security. and saying i'm going to build a wall, you could take it literally or you could take it seriously, just like the obama team did, just like the bush team did. how do you secure the border? if you talk about what are you going to do which was call them on illegals or call them undocumented, 13 million or whatever the number is, you've got to figure out a way of how to handle it.

we'll nobody thinks he's going to round up 13 million people. it's a wonderful hyperbole. i know it's msnbc feeling good about themselves but it's notrealistic . go ahead. >> one other thing i think any trump voters do expect him to deliver on is the supreme court. there is absolutely no question that a big portion of the evangelical community as a social security conservative community was uncomfortable with him decided to hold their noses and pull the lever because they wanted another reader on the court. one of the things i'm looking for right away is who is the trump nominee? and if he nominates william file or someone else on the list that gave people pedophiles and talked about how that is just like beast reality, you're going to have a big problem with the 48 democrats who are still in the senate and you're not going to have a lot of folks

saying great, let's talk about tax reform or other things if that's how you start out your presidency. >> how much does that suck the air out of the room because that's somethinghe can deliver in the first hundred days . also, if you would, how much pressure does he put on leader mcconnell to perhaps change senate rules to make a nomination more accommodating? >> i think you look at the first 100 days in three different tracks and they can have three different speeds. the first is what can president elect trump do by executive order and that can move insanely fast area and that will be a very active first week, first two weeks of the administration and to the point that i wouldn't be surprised is if the inauguration festivities are truncated or take a different view because he's going to be that busy and he wants to make a scene.i think the next facet is the house.

the house is the implementers of the president's agenda and there is a heck of a lot of overlap. i think repeal of ata or repeal of aca, some can be done administratively, some have to be done legislatively. i think that keeps the party united. i think education keeps the party united. i think you can move a budget bill earlier than you can typically move a budget bill and get reconciliation. that moves very quickly. and then you have a third and slower track which is the senate and the senate is always slow. the senate is going to be slower for a lot of reasons. it's going to be slower because they have to appoint all these nominees and it's going to be slower because the supreme court will possibly happen in the first 100 days and it's less of a what trump does, okay, i

shouldn't say that.who would he nominate and that certainly will change things but how the democrats react to it. it will be their first task and i can't imagine that mcconnell is going to go up there and change the rules unless he feels the democrats are forcing them to change the rules and if that happens, that changes the way we look at the second 100 days, third 100 days and everything forward. it's going to be a calculated riskthe democrats make on how hard to push . and it will be a calculated risk trump makes on how far he wants to go because there's a very real likelihood this is the first at least two and probably three justices that he's going to get a crack at red so do we throw down the dice or do we keep going? >> let's focus for a minute on the aca. obviously in his first 100 days they're going to draw up a piece of legislation that repeals the aca. the minute it lands in the

congress, he's going to discover there were things about that bill that people really liked. they liked the fact that an insurance company couldn't turn you down or a pre-existing condition. and the minute the congress starts hearing from its constituents and pulling out things from the repeal that they like, the next step is the insurance companies are going to go ballistic. many of the insurance companies that supported republicans are going to go crazy because after all, the deal that held back together was insuring insurance companies would take more six people in return for getting a bigger market because of the aca. so this is not a simple, i'm going to repeal it, i got a congress that will repeal it. there's many complicated steps ahead and i like to quote president bill clinton

who, white house i worked in and bill clinton said of the presidency, they elect you to look down the street and around the corner. and i think that's the hardest thing about the job and i think president elect trump or any president finds that the most difficult and most frustrating part of the job class i have a pen and a phone. you live by that, you're going to die by that. the truth is, you don't have to pass a piece of legislation right away. if you think about all of the things, if we are being intellectually honest and not just mimicking talking points. what we know on both the democrat side and republican side is from the time aca was first put into law, there were obvious problems with it. and everybody knew we needed technical fixes and whatever. there was a political decision made not to go to

congress because we don't want to risk losing anything we thought we wanted. but the boss of that now is guess what? every phone call and every pen axiom that you took is now gone so the lapse of the aca is actually brought on by how the obama administration decided to implement. once that happens, i have not heard of a single republican whose said we've also got to repeal previously existing conditions. >> that's the point. the minute you let that stay but you repeal all the subsidies that constitute obamacare, you've got an insurance industry that's in real trouble. >> this is a very mature debate.this is a debate that congress and the ways and means and energy and health and finance ... know, but i mean they've been

having this debate foryears . since before it became a law and then when it became a law and certainly after it. we made made fun of for trying to repeal it 45 times, i lost track but within that process you have paul ryan's better way to pass, you do have mike burgess and murphy and others in the house and senate who laid forward either whole chunks of what you replace would look like or what small segments would look like and believe me, i'm a lobbyist, i get paid to do this. the insurance companies have been lobbyingfor changes . it's not like that repeal bill is going to be like oh my god, they've got to do this. it's a mature debate, there are mature thoughts out there. this isn't going to be shocked on any of the stakeholders.

it may shock the american people who haven't been there but it's not going to shock washington dc. >> the point being there's two steps to this. you can repeal using reconciliation there has to be something that steps in because you are going to have a political problem of taking away coverage to millions of people and or you have to spend huge sums to stabilize the market. so this is something that plays out into acts or what do you think? >> it's the same way. we came up with this idea of one step closer to single-payer. it's not working. it's clearly not working. it's why you have most of the major insurance companies saying we are out of here. even before, we are out of here area so now there's like this snap fix, i think o'brien was trying to get to is ludicrous. you're going to start with some things in executive

orders on day one. not 10 days or whatever it's going to be but you're going to frame up a bit without that, what are the key things because again, the rhetoric of, you're going to put 43 million people out of the health insurance and clock, come on. if you want to fix a problem but set aside the nonsense, what is the real problem here? s i wanted to go back to setting aside the nonsense because you also said you think there will be an easy way to pass the budget quickly and i'm not sure if that's true. i think there are a lot of people who are sitting in the capital who are republicans who want a lot of budget writers that democrats to stand up and filibuster and we've already seen on the defense bill right now that came out of the house, we see a writer that would allow discrimination against people

and overturned several things that president obama did to make sure they were discriminated against in the federal contract agency and that will continue to be a debate. donald has said he supports those kind of things, that he supports the first amendment defense act and i don't think 48 democrats are going to let that happen. if there's a budget writer about defunding planned parenthood which donald trump has promised to his supporters he will support, that's not something you can get with 52 folks in the senate. you need to do a lot better than 52 to get most things done and there are a lot of democrats who are feeling very united right now. we know what we are up against and there's a lot of unity around standing up to protect people who donald trump's campaign rhetoric at least really through under the bus this is a question that confronts every republican president who's elected and people like speaker gingrich who when the republicans have power, the republicans have been in

charge with some regularity since 1994. if the government any smaller than it was? >> no, it's not. it spends more money and more people. because the bottom line is that even the republican party when they sit down to do a budget cannot shrink the government.they haven't been able to do it. >> john boehner, the largest single in dollar terms effort. >> and it has been progressively put back because every time the republicans do these across-the-board. >> you have a democrat president insisting on this. >> reality sets in. >> reality is fewer tsa agents of the airports,

causing men massive chaos and they put back the money. reality is our soldiers needing to put back the money. the republicans have failed time and time again for 30 years now at their own goal of cutting the federal government. >> let's face facts here because i think we are arguing about appropriations and appropriations are not going to happen in the first 100 days. in fact, they probably aren't going to happen in a lame-duck either. when i'm saying budget is a partisan document that does not need the support of a single democrat.and yes, we did have a motor that has 200 different votes that are all normal. but in the end, it's the republican party says we want to budget, the republican party will get a budget and in that budget is most likely reconciliation structures and that is the real reason that budget document moves. so it won't have a say, it

will give you 32 a and tell you what. and to be, that's a debate that's going to happen several wars later. the war first is to get reconciliation and the reason they want reconciliation is to go after aca to maybe do taxes if they can or do a tranche of taxes. this mythical infrastructure bill that everybody talks about that's also dependent on this budget so i think the budget itself can move very fast and i actually think the democrats will participate in that debate actively. i think becauseit's riderless and all those, the writers are really the voter on the thing they did at the end . >> the housefreedom caucus , we saw the difficulty this year that they couldn't get on the same page and it was the civil war where the budget is just the total reset button next year or, what role do you expect to support some members by?

again, what washington is having a hard time wrapping their head around as president from and the freedom caucus all of a sudden, their ability to be kind of lead voice is greatly diminished. remember this. even two weeks ago, people were still low, you know, speaker ryan is probably going to lose the 20. there's only six seeds and those are largely because of an individualist because of redistricting. there's a very powerful message to all house republicans. we've got a chance here. and it doesn't mean that the freedom caucus goes away or they walk away from their principles but i think as brian is outlining, these first things that come out of the gate are unifying issues for house republicans and senate republicans and everybody will want to be a

part of the winning team . >> much of the divide, i think there's a misunderstanding in dc on how republicans are split. i don't think there's a major policy difference between establishments and freedom caucus republicans. i think there's a split on immigration, the caucus members that are for immigration and those are poor against it, most of the split in the republican party, if you go from leadership and move down the line to the right and go main street partnership folks and tuesday group and get into the rfp and freedom caucus and then you get into the nine people who voted against ryan for speaker in the far right, most of that is on strategy. and it is a split because the further right you go, you don't want to cut a deal. that no deal is better than any deal that gives the democrats better. the closer you get to leadership, the closer you are to, i'm willing to deal.

i'm willing to let democrats get a little wind so i get a little wind and it's a strategic buyer. now that you have trump who is saying this is our strategy, which is what i think he will say, that divide goes away and you have the republicans that you lose on certain things, charlie dent will disagree with ted cruz. on a whole tranche but strategically, republicans are going to be united and that takes away a lot of what has been misinterpreted in the divide in the republican party. >> that's going to be true talking about aca and maybe taxes but when you go down the line to other issues like freight, there is a huge memo split in the republican party and on the democratic side around trade and whether we participate in a global world and you know, trying to move into the new economy or whether we tried to say let's

put this back in the tube and go backwards and that is a real divide that i don't think you can explain away. there's also a lot of things that trump has said on the campaign trail that most republicans would stand up against including, i think he talked about a lot of money in politics and the role that plays and these focus groups and swing voters, that's the thing they said about him. they said he can't be bought and sold. he is the person who buys and sells people, he's not bought and sold so having some kind of a government reform agenda that flies in the face of everything mitch mcconnell has ever stood for, that's a big piece. talking about higher ed, if you look at his proposal he wants to give or generous loan fixes to then obama did. he wants to spend more money on allowing students to do repayment and loan forgiveness than obama ever did and that very much lies in the face of what the republicans would want to see on the hill. he's also taken institutions on and higher ed and said you have to do something about

endowments, you have to make it more the students money and that is something they are definitely not interested in so there are real issues that i think once you get past the aca that you can't map to disagreement within the republican party. >> this is literally, the guy knows. he knows who those voters are. there's not a lot of them that were all wrapped up in what they wanted was an approach. it's why they elected barack obama. to get us economic growth. they have neither. >> that surprises me because that's certainly not what donald trump was saying during the primary. >> if you wanted economic growth he would have gone with marco rubio. >> the data has been so clear on this area going back a

decade and like trade, he's not anti-trade but what voters do feel is it's not working for me. i'll go back to nafta. this is a 30-year-old agreement that has never been updated. what is wrong with saying hey, let's get the three of us together. we know the things that are working. we know there are workers that are being displaced. we know the tax system is allowing the free flow of capital the way it should, we know the regulatory environment is making it more difficult to trade, not easier to what's wrong with sitting down and figuring out, is there a better deal? and donald trump voters, knowing that donald trump is at the helm having that conversation are going to be perfectly fine with whatever he comes out with that's where the political path in

the media has got to understand. he's smarter than you think he is. he knows what the voters are looking for. >> before we go to q&a and we have to must set up, i'm going to take the liberty of starting with question about the democrats.i will focus on trial for a moment. >> so all the right issue on the issue of free choice for women,

freedom of choice for women. the democrats fight pretty hard. they will filibuster, it better at. there are probably things the democrats are going to agree on, the big one being infrastructure spending because the unions, democrats and their friends in the unions will benefit greatly from that. i think that they will fight with everything they've got on a lot of these issues and they will look forward to 28 teen. and see what kind of president donald trump is going to be. a presidential candidate goes out there for 11 months and cents very explicit things and the voters don't really believe them. it is a weak link. i don't buy that. it's a failure. that was a failure. he admits it. he didn't --

>> lifting the bush era is policies when it came to surveillance and terrorist >> she did some of that, but the fact is, look, one of his strengths in this election was that he was very clear and very listed. there was no subtlety, no nuance to any of the statements. why are the voters suddenly decide he didn't really mean not. i don't buy it. i think he could have been a year that disenchanted voters. >> you've read stories during this campaign that donald trump is can distance and this week he said that. on the big issues where he was trying to speak to the economic

anxieties in the security anxieties of the public, there wasn't any change in that. and this is why, to get back to the topic of what is the new president's agenda. we can all come up with 100 different games that we've got a personal interest in or we think it's important. the challenge for an incoming demonstration like any and having it frustration come you basically have a two year period to get the most important things in place. so prioritizing them is critical. bill clinton made a mistake in its first two years. barack obama made a mistake in his first two years. and they were both punished for it by listing the congress. trump needs to know when i think the people around him focus on things and why you got elected. it's not all of these other ancillary issues that keeps

washington busy. if he does it correctly, there would a democrat supporting this. not just to protect themselves, they do because the issue about economic growth and security anxiety is something that cuts across all demographics. >> and guantánamo is a great example because they are harder to do than they sound. that is what i hear from a lot of donald trump's agenda is and certainly the deep economic anxiety about where their life is going to be, what the place was at the future, but i don't know if any of the things i'm donald trump or the congressional republican list of priorities for the first hundred days to reprint two years is going to make people feel better. do they feel that their economic anxieties are being alleviated, that he has done what he said and not forgotten them. when you look at what is taught in the doing on corporate tax

reform and other things, i'm not sure that delivers that. >> we have some questions in the remaining time. and seeing with the mics. >> i wanted to talk about criminal justice. there is a bipartisan criminal justice with the same reform bill, hot the momentum but it looks like it not going to happen. and in the meantime, the current administration is focused even before ferguson about repairing the trust between police and the communities that they serve. trumps rhetoric has been very law and order ahead of me. so how do you think that will play out in terms of what he does than the first part of his administration? >> that is actually part of the

contract. i think the chances of getting a criminal justice reform bill that is closer to what has been discussed on the hill is pretty good actually. this is a guy who's in new york and he has seen what works and what hasn't worked. i'm pretty confident that it's something that can get done in a bipartisan way. >> i hear a huge divide between what trump is en masse and the folks who have been negotiating on the hill are. it could not have been more clear that he is running on a nixonian version of what is going to do to fix our criminal justice system and that is not for mike leigh and others are that have been negotiating on the hill. sadly criminal history pharmacy than discussing it in that for now and that there is not enough overlap between how president trump will see the on that issue and how some of the more

evangelical folks who are looking at recidivism and how we integrate people in the community want to see it handled. >> what else is on people's minds? >> manny rodriguez. this questioned about taking trumps policy proclamations as literal versus areas is really fascinating. i feel that there is one issue in which he is going to have to literally deliver and that is bringing back manufacturing jobs to the midwest. and that is where he won the election. so what is going to happen in 2018, 2020 when it is dreadfully clear to people in the rust belt that manufacturing jobs are not coming back in the hundreds of thousands. >> so, a couple things. this is the first 100 days. in which you can get in place

because it does take a while. the aca got put into place with promises to keep your doctor and your costs will go down and you kept hold on, well done, it's got to get in place. and then you see it all work. ronald reagan's face they think the beginning of his administration. horrible economic situation, but its regulatory taxes dented in and he had to go and convince the country you got to give us time and see little things. if donald trump does what he says if he's intending to do, which is to start moving in the regulatory and ireland, most economic analysts will tell you the regulatory burden of the past eight years has probably decreased gdp by a full point. if you just start the process where ceos around the country can start doing the math and saying i don't have to put up with this non-sense anymore and

work or quality in the stability of the u.s. economy gives me the incentive to be here rather than someplace else. you'll start to see appear are you going to see a return to the days of the auto capital of the world? no, there is also the sense that manufacturing has changed and this is where trump hit a nerve with people. we are not producing people into the workforce that is needed in manufacturing today and i think you'll see that. >> go take a completely opposite view of that. look, you are not going how detroit circa 1950 in 2018 or 2020. they're not hundreds of thousands of jobs to combat. we know that there's been some manufacturing coming back in the united states and that is great. but guess who does that? robots. they are not creating those jobs

because when they bring the manufacturing back, it is all robotic basin that life it is profitable. so this is a giant lie that has insulted people and i think it's going to come back and bite them. >> is this immaculate conception? >> it true. >> that doesn't create -- >> dozer advanced manufacturing that you need higher education for and the people who trump promised everything to where the non-college-educated voters. >> we are not talking about hundreds of thousands of jobs involved in advanced manufacturing. the sad fact is that it's manufacturing simply does employ, even if you have an educated workforce, it employs many fewer people.

so there's been a lie. i think it is going to come back and people will be really unhappy and two years. >> we can argue over the economic theory and we can argue over the numbers on the numbers are there. we go through this quickly but we believe the supply-side economics will bring growth and meant keynesian economics will bring growth and then we believe that trade is going to bring growth. the numbers are the numbers wherever they end up. whether it happens, i don't know. we are going to bryn mawr capital of the united states. the world's already massive expansion and would be great if it works and in here. they are sitting on a whole bunch of patent trademarks and copyrights that they want to bring to fruition. it happened because the

something he did because i think we will move a whole bunch of legislation that will be helpful, not harmful. i think that those jobs may not be manufacturing jobs. it's hard to have fewer jobs than we have now. he is going to get an opportunity to use bringing jobs to america as an excuse to pass a whole bunch of bills and we'll just have to see if they work. >> on that note i regretfully have to bring the spirited conversation to an end. i want to thank our traffic analyst. barry jackson, a lane tree into, thank you so much. [applause]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> cq rollcall, covering his daylong conference on the policy implications of the 2016 elections and hosting a series of panel discussions today with journalists and policy professionals about what to expect a very trump administration could come another letter from white house budget or alice rivlin. she will be on the panel looking at the winners and losers of government spending under the trump administration and what to ask that in the last weeks 114 congress as members returned

last week. we will hear from former congressional staffers on capitol hill's new power brokers now that a nonpolitician will be leaving the country. former senator tom daschle and trent lott will talk about how congress can get past working on crisis and facing continual government shutdown. president obama in president-elect trump met at the white house today. president obama called their hour and a half minute meeting excellent and the successor looks forward to receiving the upcoming presidents council. they spoke briefly to the media. here's a look. >> ready? okay. i just had the opportunity to have the next one a conversation with president-elect trump. it was wide ranging. we talked about some of the organizational issues in setting

up the white house. but that's about foreign policy, domestic the msi said last night, my number one priority in the coming two months is to try to facilitate the transition and ensure president-elect is successful. i have been very encouraged by anything the interest in president-elect trump's wanting to work with my team around many of the issues that this great country face is and i believe that it is important for all of us regardless of party and regardless of press affairs to now come together, work together to deal with the many challenges we raised.

michelle has had a chance to greet the incoming first lady and we had an excellent conversation with her as well and we want to make sure that they feel welcome as they prepare. most of all, i want to emphasize to you as president-elect that we now are going to want to do everything we can to help you succeed because if you succeed, then the country succeeds. >> welcome the thank you very much president obama. this was a meeting that was going to last for maybe 10 or 15 minutes and were just going to get to know each other. we had never met each other. i have great respect. the meeting lasted for almost an hour and a half and it could have, as far as i'm turned, it

could have gone on a lot longer. we discussed a lot of different situations. some wonderful and some difficulties. i very much look forward to dealing with the president in the future, including council. he explained some of the difficulties, some of the highflying aspects. some of the really great things that have been achieved. mr. president, it was a great honor being with you and i look forward to being with you many more times. >> thank you, everybody. we are not going to be taking any questions. thank you, guys. this is a good rule. dog answer questions when they just are. come on, guys. >> the president and president-elect from earlier age. you're on stage cq rollcall hosting the presidential transition to power.

that is good to resume shortly. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] ♪

>> while we wait for the cq rollcall conference on the presidential transition to resume, a look at a conversation we had with two former white house officials about what a presidential transition entails. >> with an outgoing administration ensuring a smooth transfer of power is setting the tone. it is really important that the president do that and do that well. 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 an coming to you with now. what are the greatest obstacles for an incoming team? the greatest obstacle is they don't know what they don't know. particularly a trump president the comment of people who may be because this is an election based on dramatic change in

overhauling the government from top to bottom. the anticipation that there may be people that want to comment and blow the whole thing up is probably pretty highly likely. so what tone is going to be sad by the incoming team? how open are they to learning how the government does work? as david said, extremely complex, trillions of dollars, thousands and thousands of people work in his federal bureaucracies and you have 4000 pivotal position to put in there to run the government the way you wanted to be run. the great obstacle for the incoming team is admitting -- >> bob bigsby and i were just discussing a lot more interesting after tuesday's results. we thought maybe we would be sitting here and talking about a

block and nothing happening and kind of the repeats of what's gone on for the past two years, but now it's all new ballgame with the election of donald trump to the presidency. we'll be looking at the budget association problem in congress but we may be flying higher because we have this panel of very smart people here to talk about budget and appropriations. you can see all the panelists all bios and our program but i'll do some quick introductions. to my far left and joined today by alice rivlin and a senior fellow in economic studies and the center for health policy at brookings and of course as most of you know the director of the office of management and budget in the bill clinton administration as well as former vice chair of the earth. and many other accomplishments but i can't even try to list. next to alice is robert biggs the comic director of the concorde coalition is also a member of the domenici rivlin administration. a connection there.

next to bob blue brick meet the global forecasting director for the economist intelligence unit which is part of our parent company, the economist group. next to him and stan colander, a blogger i'm a very entertaining blogger in the budget by on twitter if you follow him on twitter. [inaudible] >> i don't know how you got that handle. you must of had that one a while. he's executive vice president who's worked on the staff of the house of senate budget committee kind of notably. finally, another good twitter handle. so we've got two of them right here. that is the senior adviser at the committee for responsible federal budget and a former health including a stint with steny hoyer. this is a really great panel and i very much appreciate that they are all joining us today. it seems like we should probably start with what is on everybody's mind right away

which is a lame duck session of congress which is coming right at us. i think the big question on the hill and among everybody who follows budget and appropriations without donald trump president-elect will transform the prospect, will we see another continuing resolution until next year as some conservatives are are advocating belizean on the desk will, will we see her republican leaders advocating. will a second continuing resolution he needed to finish a business before the end of the year. congress comes back in on monday said this is a very pressing question. is there any chance at all of a government shutdown which of course we always talk about when we talk about government funding? can you start us out with some thoughts on that? >> no one knows the answer to the question and i think it hasn't been decided yet.

there's definitely a strong push for people to do a continuing resolution and limited the next president, to president trump to be able to have some input into it. a couple challenges without, one, the department of defense would be part of the continuing resolution and the pentagon authorities and interface problems because of operating under cr and continuing until next year would cause significant problems for the pentagon and their ability to have new start and new acquisitions and that is sending a lot of republican members will be good turned about, but it would be unlikely to senate democrats agreed employer preparations for department of defense and cr for other agencies because democrats have been united on treating defense and nondefense insane. that will be challenging. we need senate democrats support. the bigger question is the trump transition team needs to decide what their priorities are that

on one hand they stay on it and on the other hand an almond is to be a very time intensive thrown into the reason details and is the trump administration want to start the beginning of their term getting into the reeds of appropriations and line items at a time they try to picture more big picture policy of obamacare repealing tax reform and other items. when president obama came and talked to us that appropriations bill that was left over, that took up a lot of time for a wimpy than they probably wish they didn't have to do that. >> first of all, i need to ask neighbor. i'm in the middle of a contest for someone in my office you see who can get the most twitter followers or the end of the year. before i go into it further, i twitter handle is at time the budget guide. we've put a lot of money on this bad. if you would right now go to your phones and follow me, i'd appreciate it. the real answer to your question with the answer to your real

question is this is one of the things that changed rather dramatically tuesday night. up until then, i'd can expect in a democratic and a democratic president that the chances of anything getting done by december 9th are relatively small and be extended once or twice on december 23rd. that all went away and i think the real incentive now is to do what ed was talking about, which is passed the crn december 9th , get out of town, leave it to the republican senate, the republican house and the new republican president to have a legislative fix to read. i don't think trump will get that involved in the details. most of those will be worked out by congress. the one thing you mentioned about the drawbacks that can be handled in cr. that is they can drop some of the language, provide the 6 billion supplemental they've been asking for. so i think that might happen.

chances of a shutdown which were probably 50/50 before the election are now zero mlb out of here by december 9. >> that would be good. i need the rest of you? >> i agree with ed. one other thing that why president-elect trump is very critical of the balanced budget agreement has agreed to in 2015 or more sets the top line for discretionary spending for 2017. the big question is the balanced budget agreement is 1.07 trillion, does president-elect trump need to back down to 1.04 trillion number prior to the bipartisan budget agreements? that would create significant challenges in putting the appropriation bills together. >> a lot of republicans are interested in. >> but then you have the

appropriators that one of the higher numbers here trying to square those two will be a challenge. >> i agree also and i think the main point is the election of president trump and the retention of control just gives everybody is tempted to get on with the business of the transition without any disruption. so one of his first orders of business on the budget will be submitting a budget. there's a theoretically february deadline but obviously packet stretched to president obama had outlined when he came in and revealed the details later on by may or so. we can only imagine many changes from the obama budget request that we may start to get an idea as soon as this february. ..

i think we should look at this very, very carefully because we have a new administration coming in and the first budget of a new administration is really, really important. it is tended to set the tone for the next, think of clinton's first budget or reagan's first budget, obama's first budget. there will be certain things that we may be debating for the next four to eight years. the obamacare peace is one of the discretion spend it will be very interesting to see what they want to do. probably higher on defense and lower on nondefense. although somewhere you could fit in money for the wall because they're going to pay for it anyway. there probably will not be an asterisk that says see mexico.

>> why not? [laughter] >> she's got infrastructure agenda is going to be really interesting to see what he puts in there. the number 500 billion has been floated around. that's going to be rather eye-popping for some republicans on the house side anyway. those are interesting. how he accommodates his tax cut is going to be big, too. because republicans have had a goal of balancing the budget at least within 10 years. it seems to me impossible to do that in the agenda that trump laid out during the campaign without making some really extraordinary assumptions about economic growth, which it is. but how that gets factored into the budget will be something really interesting to look at. >> a lot of the issues will be how much in virginia set by what president trump talk about in the campaign versus congressional republicans.

for some reason republicans in congress have passed budget resolution that called for balance continues. if they did so with huge unspecified savings and assuming tax reform was neutral, but you have to hundred 30 rank-and-file house republicans who believe that they committed to balance the budget in 10 years. will do expect president trumped is that a plan that balances with the 10 years? the promises he put forward in the campaign we estimated would increase the deficit in excess of $5 trillion. >> over what period? >> ten years. we are on track the deficit will be by the end of the 10 year window probably at year window probably $1.4 trillion. can president trump submit a budget anywhere near that amount? how does he square all the thing says it's going to make the deficit worse. i think the expectation of rosy economic expectations but it's hard even with rosy economic

assumptions to have something that works and then have the cbo comeback in we estimated showing how much higher. scoring with a rhetoric. >> talk about rosy economic assumptions. i hope trump doesn't put a four, 5% gdp growth rate because that's what he was talking about. there's zero chance of that happening. economy would do very well to get anywhere near 3%. if he tries to bounce off the back of unrealistic growth data signal somewhat is putting and there is not very realistic. >> it seems to me a new trump team has a decision to make. do they really want to work out all these things in the president's budget, in a serious budget that adds up and does various things? or do they really first want to make a campaign statement and

get some things out there, presumably a big infrastructure package and some tax items and some others, and a kind of eliminate statement? and then say we will tell you about the whole budget later, that would prove so difficult that it might drag on into the spring. it depends on little on how they are working with the leadership of congress, if at all. do they want the president's budget to become, again what used to be, a basis for serious work and appropriations and attacks committees and the congress, or do they want it to be more of a political statement, this is our going in position and we will work with you as it develops? >> if i could add on, using ed's

numbers, my guess is they will come down with increasing the deficit. that is, and not being ashamed about it. i keep getting, keep reminding myself, the line into perspective, past performance is no imitation of future returns. we've got to stop being commerce and republicans of the past eight years on the same republican party we are going to see over the next couple of years. us in a much bigger $1 trillion a year for four years, we've may be in the out years showing a bigger and faster reduction but i think we're about to see the republicans essentially rebranding themselves as a party of deficits. if it produces jobs and economic growth, they will say it's worth it. >> an interesting question whether freedom caucus and fiscal conservatives agree to that.