i just saw question, what are you seeing about how the process is done what does it mean and how do we do it? something like that, but more like an alluring thought. why what we did and why is the case that that process is valued and why another processes it is not valued. i think what we are saying is we

are not producing critical thinkers. we are trying to find the relevance or rather a machine. >> i totally agree with that. students follow the steps and come up with the answer that they know to come up with because we talked about it yesterday in class and verification kinds of activities. >> if that is true, i think the philosophy of science are tested to accommodate the heightened levels, the mature levels.

i agree with that and a couple of things in that statement, this is something that was done kate through 12, k through 16 because it should be in college classes as well. you can catch it in terms of critical thinking, you're thinking about scientific technology and how that is developed. it leads to a better understanding of that knowledge. if we realize the picture of the atom is a model derived from data and that's a better understanding of what it actually looks like. i understand we can start early and go through college. the elementary curriculum in this country, when they tried to teach more process skills or thinking skills and didn't focus

, kids used to do a lot of hands-on activities. now we talk about hands-on and minds on because students have to be thinking about what they are doing. just manipulating things is not inquiry. inquiry involves manipulating things to collect data and also thinking about what you've done and how that could influence the results that you're getting and are there any alternative explanations. i think what we do does not foster critical thinking. it really doesn't. critical thinking is another battle cry you hear from many educators around the world as well. my wife and i get called upon to go all over the world to help

their students develop critical's inking skills because nobody really feels that their country is doing a good job with those kinds of thinking skills, although everybody values it. everybody values creativity and critical thinking and he still trying to figure out that development a lot better than we are. >> thank you very much. let's give him another round of applause. >> republicans are meeting today on capitol hill. this is the capitol hill club discussing how they will proceed with the joint republican government. we will get details from the chief of staff of the republican national committee and others about the rnc role. we will hear from the chief of staff katie walsh and rnc chief

strategist and medication strategist, sean spicer and others. this should begin shortly. [inaudible conversation] [inaudible conversation] republicans are meeting today here on capitol hill to discuss how they will proceed with a

joint republican government at the capitol hill club. we will be hearing from the chief of the national committee chief and their role and we will take a look at what goes into the preparation of new members of congress and how newly elected members get prepared to take their post. >> through what happens to these newly minted members of congress, the congressional management foundation, mr. fitch, good morning. >> good morning. could you. could you tell us a little bit about your foundation and its role of preparing those in congress. >> the congressional management foundation is in its 40th year. we will were started by former members and staffers who wanted more assistance in the management, the running of the small businesses, and that's what they are, and over time we've actually added an element of citizen engagement training. now there are thousands of americans that go to our

training proud programs that also learn how congress works. in essence we do two things. we help congress to a better job of engaging with citizens and help citizens understand and interact with our congress but if we do our job right, better laws are made. >> tell us about what goes on for the newly elected members of congress. how soon do they start their training and what things are they going to learn in these initial days? >> they started their training the morning after they got elected. there is really no break after you get elected to the house or senate and literally wednesday morning, you start on the firehose. it's it's really a rather difficult and challenging task to set up a congressional office. i actually was chief of staff for a member of the house of representatives years ago and i felt like it had all of the headaches of starting up small

business with all of the redtape of bureaucracy. they have to hire staff and buy equipment and lease offices and buy furniture. it literally is running a small business. they have to think it through. at the same time, the government policy issues, they have to come up with a myriad of different positions that they didn't have before. maybe they came from the legislature and they did have positions on parochial or local levels but now they have to have a position an opinion on the iranian nuclear deal or climate change or infrastructure. it really presents a policy challenge as well as an operational challenge. >> so, from now now until they are seated in congress next year, do they come to washington and stay for that education? is it done in several steps? how does that work? >> the house doesn't a little bit differently, but pretty much the house of representatives start the orientation for the new members, actually tomorrow, they will be there, tuesday they will start and fly to the senate. they will go into meetings with

current members of congress and meet with the institutional staff. they find out everything from one of the operational goals i have to work by two what are the ethics rules that are very stringent and frankly very transparent that they have to learn. they get a lot of advice from mentors. usually members of congress will turn to other people in the delegation, in their party, they will try to get a little bit of what happened to you kind of experience. that happens for the next couple of weeks while they are in washington. then they will go back home and of course they get sworn in in early january. >> when do they get their office appointed, when can they start hiring staff? is that right away? give us those details. >> actually, members of congress don't officially get keys to the office until they are sworn in, probably this year it will be january 4. they also don't even get office space or frankly any official tools to do any hiring. they can't sign any contracts.

the united states senate provides each senate elect one staff member. the house doesn't get any staff members. they have to do this all for volunteers over the next few months. >> mr. fitch is letting us know about new members of congress. before we let you go, what you think is the most important lesson for an incoming member of congress right now? >> well, believe it or not, it is being disciplined in what you want to do. most members want to change the world they want to do everything. we tell members you can't do that. if you want to change the world you have to run for president. you can may be due to her three things if you're a member of the house of representatives and if you don't do two or three things , if you don't stay focused with a strategic plan, members of congress will become one of two types of members. if they are in a safe congressional district, they will become an ineffective member. if they're in an unsafe district

they will be a former member. that's the reality of any business but it's especially true of congress. you can accomplish only a few things in the voters will usually reward you. >> that's brad joining us to talk about this orientation progress. thank you for your time. >> thank you. >> republicans meeting today on capitol hill to discuss how they will proceed with a joint republican government. we are live with the capitol hill club. for details from the chief of staff and others about the rnc role and while we are waiting for this to begin, it's running a few minutes late. it supposed to start about 1230 eastern time. we will look look at donald trump's businesses and conflict of interest and this is from earlier today during "washington journal". we talked with the co-author of the ethics handbook for entertaining and lobbying public officials. he talks about president-elect donald trump's future management of his businesses as well is essential conflicts of interest that may cause in his

presidency. >> joining us now is the co-author of the ethics handbook for entertaining and lobbying public officials and also a political law about donald trump. hello, how are you? >> fine, thank you. >> what day is president-elect trump coming in as president, especially when it comes to his businesses. >> it is going to be a challenge. he has an unprecedented number of businesses, according to the report that he filed with the federal election mission, over 500. some of them are international, some are domestic. they are not particularly liquid. they are real estate holdings, golf courses, other things. this is a challenge because it presents some entanglement with the policies and activities as a public official that he will be facing once he is sworn into office.

>> host: one of the terms that keeps coming up is conflict of interest. what does it mean for donald trump. >> guest: it's interesting because the conflict of interest laws which are actually very strict in the executive branch of the federal government that apply to every employee in the executive branch, the cabinet secretaries on down, do not apply to trump when he is president of the united states. the president and the vice president are exempt, so the general rules about creating trust and conflicts of interest on domestic matters don't apply to him. they have not applied to other presidents, but other presidents have followed the tradition of liquidating holdings, putting them them in blind trust, ronald reagan, george hw bush, president clinton, george bush, president obama did not do that. he just held his assets with highly diversified index funds. that's fine. the problem is, trump can't do that. >> host: because of the

celebrity thing essentially. >> guest: yes, he would have to liquidate which is realistically not possible in this short time. someone said why don't you put it all in one big basket and you can go public with it and have it traded on the stock exchange but i don't know if that even make sense. he has a challenges and i understand them and i appreciate them, but i don't think you can just sort of ignore them, because one of the problems is under the emoluments clause, wow, what's that word? in the u.s. constitution going back to 1787, it says that a foreign government, or corporation that's controlled or owned by a foreign government cannot confer a benefit on the president of the united states or an employee of the executive branch. it sounds like some ancient law. this is a very active lot today. any white house counsel deals with this regularly and there

are many interpretations from the justice department, the office of legal counsel, and it's strictly applied. for international holdings, if he has some sort of business dealing with the government in a country where the government controls the company that he is dealing with, he has to make sure that there is no benefit embedded in that relationship. that is a real issue. if i were advising you, i would look internationally first at those entanglements because that actually carries some liability. >> host: our guest is here to talk about the guest is mrs., the potential conflict of interest they might present. >> good afternoon. i am sean spicer with the rnc. i want to introduce the panel today. to my right, your left his causeway solutions that will talk about our data operation, chris carr our political

director, katie walsh our chief of staff and garrett lansing, our chief schedule officer. today the goal is to do two things. one, talk broadly about where we are is a party after tuesday's election, and secondly, and also as important, talk about about how we got here and what we did is a party and the investments the chairman has made to make us win up-and-down the ticket. it was interesting, to those of you who are watching the morning show this morning, howard dean was on and he was talking about where their party is after the election and said, what the dnc is about is mechanics. it's it's about being everywhere, training people, having an adequate tech system which we no longer have. mechanics matter. you have to have all the ideals in the program you want and i totally agreeç with what former

congressman harold slow was saying. if you don't do mechanics on the ground, you can't win. i think that's a message that was that after 2012, they talked about data and year-round ground game and minority outreach. working with the trump campaign and harnessing that with president-elect trump's message and movement, we were able to create a recipe for success on tuesday that not only resonated at the top of the ticket but came all the way down to the statehouse level where you saw continued republican success throughout this country. what i want to do today is walk through where we are is a party and how we got there. with that, let me turn it over to katie walsh, our chief of staff. >> thank you sean, very much. thank you for coming today. this briefing is really a culmination of four years of work that the chairman has put into making sure our nominee, as well as everyone running down ticket this cycle had every

possible tool available to them to win on election day. i think the results speak for themselves and i think howard deanç quote this morning was pretty telling and saying that i think the democrats took their eye off the ball following the 2012 election and did not deliver tools to their candidates that we did. committee is committed to do that. we have invested over $175 million over four years to make sure that our candidates from a ground game, digital and data perspective had every tool available to them. i can't can't find another party that has ever invested that level, a federal party that has ever invested that kind of money into a ground game with structure to elect all candidates up and down ticket. it's a permanent ground game. we've had staff on the ground for four years. you can't run a 90 day sprint and expect to win. he has had men and women across the country in communities and in swing states speaking to

minority groups in millennial's and voters for four years now. it is not a small investment and it is a huge change in fundamentally how committees operate. we took a lot of heat over the past four years about why we weren't stashing up our cash and spending it on television and we knew that would give our candidates the tools they needed to win. they very clearly announced after the 2012 election what he believed the role of the rnc would be. there's a lot of conversation that goes on about the role of federal party committees moving forward and i think brian has set the gold standard of what a federal party committee should do for their candidates. i think you saw howard dean this morning say basically they should be doing that as well. what they did was build a structure for all candidates on the republican side of the aisle which is very different and what we have seen the democrats do the last two cycles. honestly president obama built a very successful operation for president obama. hillary clinton, i think, she

tried to build off that and i think what we saw is that you can't translate a machine built for another candidate to try to sell a different candidate and have success. so what the democrats tried to do over and over again, at least the last three structure is build a cycle for one specific candidate. that did not translate for them at the top of the ticket or down ballot. this was not a situation where donald trump and then down ballot folks did not. it was a situation where down ballot folks one and obviously we had success at the top of the ticket as well pad what you see as an investment to speak to all voters across the country, give tools and analytics to every candidate running on our side of the aisle. it's a fundamentally different approach and i think they will get a lot of credit for years to come. for that i turn it over to bill who sean introduced as our senior data advisor for the republican national committee and will talk you through our voters core program. i'm sorry, just kidding. i'm going to go first. one second.

one of the things i think is really important and chris talks about this over and over again, is that the clinton campaign expected turn out to be the highest ever, and there is no data following tuesday night that shows that was accurate. we expanded the electorate in the states that we have historically not been competitive in in the last few election cycles. michigan, pennsylvania, florida and we've not had success in the last couple of election. chris's ground game and data under the rnc investment was able to really bring the ground game in the fight into states that we haven't been in in cycles. we expanded the map to a place that i think it's very hard for democrats to argue that we haven't been successful in ways that they haven't. not only does hillary clinton feel the effects of the lack of the tools of the dnc but so did their down ticket candidates.

they simply didn't give their candidates the tools that the republicans had to ensure they had what they needed to do in order to win on election day. we have unprecedented success on tuesday night. we have 22020 counties that were won by obama in 2012 who flipped their support to donald trump. that's not a fluke. 22020 is a pretty significant number. we maintain that majority in the senate and house and total control over supreme court nomination. these things don't happen by accident. this is four years of work. i want to make sure we walk you through what we've done the last two years but i think the success beaks from itself. from a governors perspective we went from 31 to a net gain of two. we are still waiting on california to be decided. we held 31 lieutenant governors

of the 45 and attorney generals, we had 28 and currently we will be 29 in new hampshire. secretary of state we went from 29 up to to 30 with four gains and legislative chambers remained at 66 of 69. we flipped three, the the kentucky house, the iowa senate. that shows you the statehouse in the white house, we have a turnout of voters with candidate specific messages working with their campaigns hand in glove to make sure they knew how to talk to their voters. with that, here we go. this is our senior data advisor and he has really spearheaded over the past four years a rebuild of our voter court program and how we work hand in glove with candidates up and down the ticket. >> thank you. one of the things we set out to

build when the starter was to build a platform for candidates to grow and have baselines of which to start. the voters core program was essentially a way to assign a predictive value to every single voter on our voter file. 198 million. a percent that would take the exhibit some activity throughout the course of the election. we looked back at previous cycles, we look at a state like ohio and many campaigns would invest in analytics over and over again to create duplicative values. they would created turnout model. what the committee to set out to do was provide that baseline pit if we could identify what everyone was going to invest in and put it out there for them, we would have a standard so we know all campaigns are operating on the same playing field and we could save our campaign money by providing that one universal set. what the voter program is is a large-scale predictive modeling program that predicts the likelihood to republican or democrat and throughout the course of the cycle we were building names ballot, how likely are they to support trump

or clinton. that was always down to the senate and congressional level so we can evaluate each of these models against each other and provide down drafts or coattails, if they existed, to help all our candidates be successful. we had an opportunity under the terms of leadership to begin building this program out in 2013. that allowed us to dry run a lot through the 2014 cycle where we had in norma's success at the senate level. here's an example in north carolina. throughout the spring, they had senator tillis losing. it's scored a path and they were optimistic. from september on, we showed senator tillis with an opportunity to win and lead all the way through september as early voting was coming in, as the race was beginning to unfold we still felt confident in our numbers. final pulling averages at the end had senator tillis losing and our voter show to pass the we went into election day feeling confident in north

carolina. gave us the political department the confidence they needed without spending rash dollars in the final days of the campaign. in almost every state, we predicted almost every single republican pickup in 2014 and had accuracy with our turnout predictions as well. coming out coming out at 2014, our goal was to provide that baseline in all 50 states regardless of who came out of the nomination process and who was running for senate or down ballot. what it really is, what goes into a voter score is the hallmark of the data department which is the voter file. at the middle of the voter file stands every single registered voter in the united states all 198 million of them. we rely on the turn operations to enhance that, beginning with publicly available data, simply what's available from secretary of state offices, county clerk, a team of people who do nothing but go out and collect that data and compile it into a single donor file. we conduct a large sample size surveys to identify behaviors and attributes of candidate

support, we rely on several different consumer inventories, this includes everything from financial to demographic to behavioral attributes that we can purchase that large quantity and append them to the donor file. the political operation has been on the field and they will talk about that. he's been out for close to four years collecting information about what candidate people support, how how likely they are to vote, what their interest is and ideology and behaviors. on top of that everything that garrett's operation is bringing in. the voter warehouse, which we will get to, is now north of 300 tb and contains a robust set of data that we can build each of these predictive models on. the entire operation has been a consistent lifecycle. this year alone, we have done a total of 683 voter score refreshes. each one of these refreshes is generating about 9.9 billion predictions on the entire u.s. electorate it's just an enormous amount of data that allows us to

create really robust data set. year-to-date, we created 115 billion predictions on u.s. electorate. ohio is a great example. we were conducting these nationally everything a month dating back to last july as candidates were beginning to announce and unfold for the primaries. in our target states, in 20 battlegrounds we in increase that frequency to weekly from august on. every time we did this in ohio, we scored scored all 7.7 million voters across 40 different predictions are that resulted in about 300 million new predictions every time we score the file every single week. ohio alone was between 21 times this year and we were able to measure this information not just vertically, who do you support her president, senate, the congressional ballot but also longitudinally. we were able to watch people move in and out over time to identify where we need to make up ground or who we could

persuade in the final days. we felt that predictive modeling and investing in this was a better resource than polling. first and foremost, we have been more accurate with this. we are analyzing every single voter on the voter file we go in. it allows for deeper crosstab and analysis but we have found with the survey research that you look at small subsets in cells but we were able to look at every single vote every time we were doing this analysis. more importantly we can provide lists of voters to our candidates and state parties, to our partners to make sure they were contacting the people we identified needed to be reached out to. to our state parties to our partners to share their contacting the contacting the people we identified needed to be reached out to. it was really an enormous data effort. the team deserve a lot of credit for moving all this is frequently and as rapidly as we did a. we made 25 million calls as part of the boulder score program.

that is trying to contact one out of every eight people in the united states this year to get their opinions. we completed 380,000 surveys. those are not just traditional autodial. these are highly stratified quarter control survey research dials. it is an enormous effort to make sure we're talking to really good subsets of the population and a good understanding. during our weekly retraining we are creating 9.8 billions will every single week which amounted to about 200 gigs abroad data. just an enormous datafile asset we have created for use in the cycles moving forward. here are some numbers. one of the things i think is most impressive is the number of voter file rebuilds. this is a times we go out, sometimes town by town, county by county to collect updated public records. in 2012 we got back and collected about 109 times the voter file assets from local election officials. this cycle we collected 300 refreshes. we're building a national voter

father was will up-to-date and more complete than ever in politics. a team that has done this was focus hold on just getting this information out quickly and completely from the elections officials. the data itself is enormous at 300 terabytes. and provided the analytics, ability to not only be refreshed very, very rapidly but very, very accurately. this is more, i can a lot of this. the most important point is where able to provide actual list of specific voters to the campaigns, to the team so they could go out and act on than ever some movement in electric we knew who moved and were able to provide a trumpet to the campaign and the to be reaching out within days of would resolve the movement. it was a great coordinated effort. i think we were camping club with political like never before and as one body to the program and to provide unparalleled success. >> with that the action is meant more to want to go to katie to introduce chris carr.

>> thanks to the bill. chris carr joined us from nevada in 2013. you with a romney state director in 2012 election and chris saw first in some of the tools he wished over ron at the ticket had had in 2012 the would've aided in making sure we a better turnout in 2012 and chris the following two years in the 2014 cycle opening up a voter registration company in nevada to register more republican voters. and so the chairmen aggressively appointed chris, and i really feel that chris is the best political director in the country. he is complete revamp the way the rnc does political and ground game. he will share that with you now. >> appreciate it. welcome, guys. welcome to the rnc. thank you for coming out to the briefing today. just a couple of things about the change in the field program.

really getting back to the 2004 election which was the last time republicans had won a presidential election. we went and basically did research on lessons learnt in '04, what we did well. we also very carefully look at the obama campaign had them both awake and in 12. our findings were that we're just not utilizing the data assets that the rnc currently has an action that in '08 and 12 of we just were not utilizing the. i have an example i will share with you guys. the early recruitment and better training of our staff. we are putting staff in sku mention the last 90 days of an election cycle and, frankly, that was no way to compete with the obama campaign where the staffers out literally for years at a time. in engaging our committees. this is a big change in the field program. ginny, back over here, have a strategic initiative program. in the past the rnc in a lot of

campaigns across the country without their political and ground game and then you have coalition separate. what we learned was we could be far more effective if we are all working the same program. we took strategic initiative program which was one time called coalitions and we integrated into the field programs. everybody was basically doing the same program. the turf model, i'll show you a map of our turfs in ohio. this was the way for us to really drill down to the actual voter, and the criteria of the turf is 10,000 target voters or and allocated voters and low propensity voters. this allowed us to have a neighborhood campaign other than just working -- this is like what we did in the past. the last thing which i'll talk about in a little bit is the republican leadership initiative which is our fellows program. very proud of this program. this is something we learned from the obama campaign, and we had a lot of success and i'll go

through some numbers on that as well. some other changes to the program. in the past of the victory program literally dating back since 2002, as you all recall what happened in 2000 when the race is basically decided in the supreme court, the rnc really invested into research and realize the rnc and republican campaigns were not as focus on the final 72 hours as we call it with turnout. the democrats were better. we became very good at turnout but we were skipping the first two steps which is registration and persuasion. and '04 we did some registration but the bulk of our registration done and over with all through a difference. we didn't have any pay firms. because we're able to have a field step out in the field since 2013 we focus on training of volunteers on knowing how to do voter registration and doing it effectively. we did quite a bit of voter registration. again we didn't do this in '08

and in 2012. and then persuasion, something we've never done before. with president electrons message in the field and the volunteers that they provided to our camping were able to take the message straight to the voter, to deliver finally turnout which again we felt like we've always been very good at turnout. which is were not doing the first two steps. this is basically the turf model. on the right is the wheel, the turf we'll. field organizer can be only a person within a turf. the rest are all volunteers. neighborhood team leader and ctm, corky member. all volunteers one big difference from the past is that our volunteers, to become a member he had earned that title. you had to go through training program. another big difference that to the left you can see the field organizer and volunteers come with open up these victory offices with five months before an election day and expect volunteers to come to us was with his new program and the

turfs we volunteers i to stay with the neighbors and do voter contact from their own homes. again this just breaks down the different folks with senator. neighborhood team leader, 10 plus hours a week they would do, trains them everything from voter registration, knowing how to do a super saturday walk, staging location at their house. and then the ideal situation was right around 55 volunteers per turf and there were 1201 turfs in 13 states. this gives you an idea of the turf map for ohio. we cut turfs literate in all the states but we're able to put a sizable field staff and volunteers in the battleground states. don't focus on the dark lines. that represents the county boundaries. one thing you guys probably cannot see where you are seated but there are little red stars. those represent where the osh

offices were in 2012. what's interesting is there light at all is exactly with our terms which show after we're done this research over the same basically data as them. again to my point, we were not utilizing the data and putting our resources where the data was telling us to. our fellows program, again were operating in 34 states. we had 467 and trainings. very popular program because we 20,175 applications. it was so popular we opened up an office in queens, new york, and one in southern california. very diverse program, and another great aspect of this program is that we had a training pool of operatives to higher our field from. 68% came from this program. chisum toplines. the number of doors knocked, 24 million.

i'll just note to you that we did in 11 points for volunteered door docks in 2012. of this total 24 million doors that we get this cycle, 9.4 million were done the final four days. we really focused on the remaining voters would not vote, cast about in absentee or early voting. phone calls, 26 million. another big change. in the past was always the total number of our voter contact is always 70% those, 30% doors. you can see it's almost even this cycle and we did that by design because we knew that torture efforts were far more effective than just the phone calls. this shows the contrast between 2012 staff levels and this past cycle. when you add the fellows and the staff in the target states, it was over 6000. if you look at all the 34 states will be fellows, it's over 7000 organizers we had in the field and this compares to 876 that we had in the field in 2012.

this is a breakdown of the states, the voter contact. you can just see we blew away the number of contacts in the battleground states in each of these different states. voter registration, again i've been very passionate about voter registration. coming from nevada which is come it's always a voter registration battle. they have high number of unregistered voting age population in nevada but we took this nationwide into florida, north caroline and ohio but this just goes to show you how many republicans added to the rolls over the last two years since june of 2015. i can tell you, you go back and look at 2012. the voter registration tends, this was exactly as if republicans in the 2012. >> i spoke to a lot of you guys. we kept hammering away i think almost everyday when we would do phone calls.

we were successful. we were behind a lot of the states but you can see the gap was cut in half. i'll point out florida where governor romney and teen, we went into election day down 168,000. this cycle we recount 85,000. so i think that was a big testament to our field operations chase, not only pushing ballot requests at present electrons events but also our chase program was effective as well. and now i think -- >> so ready for the practical problem which is where to build this you can, go find a bunch of people to apply and train and go to the whole thing. and so we had a lot of energy. we needed to capture. one of the things we did is we built this whole program and advertising campaign around the

hashtag which into one right now and check it out. people still use it quite often. we led with these figures would make an osha one of them right now and i'll talk through how we utilize it. >> i will never forget the date. she has autism. i felt that must be other people that are going through the same situation and i needed to be a voice for them. i joined the program. they gave me the tools they need. they gave me a better leader in the community. >> just make it work. where you lead others will follow. the republican national committee is responsible for the content of this advertisement. >> so -- so we made five of

those ads and has been several of them ran on tv, and with the together this larger program where we want to focus on telling stories about people in the field who were doing this. and we, in fact, launched our own account that exclusively covers the field the. is that getting all the likes of follies. issues that come to feel team so that people felt like they were involved and that they could relate to people in faraway in different states them that they were doing the same things. we knew again a lot of energy at is how we came up with capturing it. over the course of five weeks in january, and late december actually, we would release a teaser like a 10-taking second s on wednesday and the fallout on friday across twitter, facebook, instagram to a group of people that was modeled for us to look like all of our current volunteers. so it would after a large audience and then found them on those networks in the delivered benefits.

at the end of five weeks we through e-mail and cost acquisition as we get people to sign up actual apply for the program. we got about 10,000 applications in 13 days. our goal for the spring was 8000 in three months. so again we think we did a good job of capturing that energy and then delivering it over to chris carr where he could train these people and deliver them into the field of teen models you saw he just went through. so a big part of what digital has to do is a racist money and win votes online. basically the two things. we try to avoid everything else. we just talked about some of the winning votes online in building the team. e-mail is involved in both winning the votes and raising the money. with all the fancy technology and data, it's still the killer asked we like to say. we wouldn't be able to do that as much without a. we made a $12 million investment starting in about mid-15, through mid-16 in building up our e-mail filed under e-mail

team along with all the infrastructure behind it. for a federal committee to be able to do that and put a hard dollars behind that, it's a big investment. i credit katie and chairman priebus for following through on that because it wasn't easy to do but it ended up being big dividends on the winning those and on the my site. so in the five months that we teamed up with team of 12 we raised $250 million online. that's about 1.6 a day. -- team trump. on the voter side where we directed everyone to go request an absentee ballot or look up an early vote locations or register, we drove seven and 10,000 actions to vote the gop at our cost on e-mail was 6 cents. and incredibly terrible thing to be paired with a large feel team that was talking people in person but also following up with people under e-mail and on

advertisements. so this cycle, this ballet we talk to someone or show them something online and then they see someone in person from the feel team either the next day or the next week is a pretty complicated thing to put together. it involves the data team and the technology department and the digital team. so over all, we saw 2 billion api calls in the rnc data warehouse in 2016. with 600 the amount in october. so that means if you're using rnc tools and data as a city councilman in oklahoma, let's say, or you're the president-elect of the united states usually the same tools and calling into the same data warehouse. and if you are requesting an absentee ballot on the dot gop but you don't return it, we wanted to e-mail you and if you still don't return we'll send someone to your door from your local labor to ask you to actually return. so a publishing all that is pretty public.

it's the 90% of the iceberg that's underwater. you can't really see that the 2 billion api calls that didn't match up to dennis at the scale of the whole operation. so another large part of just the fundraising side was what we're doing on facebook. facebook has distinguished itself as a key fundraising and advertising platform in digital politics i would say. we spent two-$300,000 a day on facebook for 150 straight days and we're positive our oi every single day. two of our biggest days we spent over 1.5 million again we're positive roi every single one of those days. so part of this was how they set this up to scale as large as possible? we had a competitive buying structure withers multiple buying teams competing for a percentage of that pays spend every 24 hours. and every five minutes we would be altering the ads that those buyers would be able to get, and

at the end of the day it usually about 3 a.m. and api would split. the next days by between based on the performance of the previous day's buyers. so if he did really well he would get more than i did the next day. because he was making better ads or was utilizing the data better, whatever reason is. so that adds up to 40-60,000 different ad variations in a single day everyday for 150 days. and again some of our biggest days we did over 175,000 different add variations in one day. and so facebook rewards people for putting that amount of variations because it wants to show the best content to its people so that people engage with it. they don't want to show all the users that stuff or else it's going to ruin the advertising platform. so it rewards you to spend more

time and to set up a structure where you are altering the ads, ad combination of a high right. >> i'm going to just touch on one quick thing before heading back over to bill skelly the one of the things was a 2 billion api calls that goes back toward data warehouse. those happened because people, candidates work with us all the way down from the statehouse to really nominate another president-elect. this gives you an idea. i think there are a lot of questions that come of me the last two years about our candidates working with your data. i can say with unequivocally, every single senate candidate running this cycle crossed the map worked with bill skelly at our data warehouse. you can see literally the names of the staff there was we work

with on a daily basis. we have weekly calls, over the weekend within and in daily, you know, requests would come into bill skelly and ashley burns undertaking that would say can you guys building a specific universe for my candidate in my state to talk to my voters about this? and then literally our team would built in the universe and they would go send their mail peace out, to their auto dials, put a walk program together, whatever it might be to make sure they were talking to voters that they want to be talking to. i think it's really important to the overall goal, one of the overall goals with isn't something we've been forward leaning on his there's no reason that everything is on the voter contact is made by republican candidate that every single person running for office as republicans should not benefit from the voter contact. so that's the idea. i think you have a lot of candidates have realized over the last four years and really came into focus on tuesday night

exactly how valuable having all that data stored in the place is a. the only place for the data to live is republican national committee. that's been a major focus and really came to be hopeful on tuesday night for every candidate. or that i will turn back over to bill's we can talk to you about what we were seeing leading into tuesday night. >> really, what i will start off with this something that brett to work with a closely and the team closely would say over and over again as were talking to people, that this is indeed predictive analytics but is prescriptive. our goal was not an academic goal. it was nco close we could predict the election. it was to give everyone a path moving for. accuracy helps with that path and we will show you that shortly, but this wasn't a study in big data or studies in how we conduct better served research. it's how can we use this to get people elected up and down the ticket. that was the outcome we are shooting for. in august when we sat down and we wanted to a plan of how we develop some of these universes, this is the battleground map we

were looking at that was plus or minus three points. as we put this path together with the campaign working with brad and others up in new york, this is what we are staring at. by october the map had shrunk considerably but the goal was to can do skating towards where the puck need to be. we didn't alter the path or the plan. to edwards credit we stuck to get people back to we needed to be. i want everyone through that sure that the goal, we set a goal early, data-driven. we knew what we needed to be at the end of the day and we continued to on that path throughout the entire course of the election. by the first week in november the map expand a pretty considerable as you can see. we now have 13 states up until confident. we looked at what we've done. we built a 50 state voter oppression. we have discounted the together universe. we didn't have to scramble to build a path to bigger. we had a plan. we had an accredited robust database. we were to begin operating

spinning the path to 50 plus one in the states. as you can see we ended up winning nine of those 13 states. excuse me thomas kinkade. here for the u.s. senate that. not only were we look at this from the presidential love and down ballot but also senate races. we're working with each of them are pretty much a database a. we were confident in our ability to hold the majority. we get 52 seats in our models predicted where we would end up, and we should end up in that ballpark and 52 seats so we are really happy with how the models work to help with that of the some of the states were moving so rapidly at the end we were we training our data on the way up until election day to get a better understanding of exactly who was going to vote for election day members. here's how we stepped through getting the 50 plus 1% to restore by projecting turnout and a mystical state. this is a florida example as october 1 to walk you through how we got there. at that point we expected it to be about 9.4 million we sent all

of our locals the 50 plus one. there's third party candidates in the race. you probably did need that we want to set high, said apple we knew we would need if we want to win outright. we would i should start with a third party candidates would get. they always poll higher than they do on election day. we want to make sure we're giving the field program of the enough to build hold regardless of what those third party candidates came in at. at that point with mr. trump's vote at about 4 million, 47,007 at 33,000 short of the goal. we need are defined in the spirit about a month a couple days, find seven and 53,000 additional votes. just because we showed we were seven and 53,000 votes short we were not saying we're going to lose. we're just saying it's prescriptive analytics, we need to come up with a path to victory. here's what we did. we started with solidifying the base. we had a large number of what we call underperforming republicans. people that maybe shifted in the

support of the republican party were the nominee from february to the end of election or maybe supporting senator rubio law than mr. trump. we map them out and so will perform pretty well up in the panhandle we moved to improve down in the southeast. we turn to these underperforming republicans over to chris carr over to the television buyers, over to the digital teen. we begin hammering to movable. we felt that was the lowest hanging fruit and if we can move these people back when we felt they should perform the checks and we knew we would pick up a couple. from there we went after what with all the unallocated. these were not necessarily undecided voters. they were voters we don't have not come all the way home. it's the next iteration of those underperformers. these were republicans, leaning republicans but had not yet committed to supporting the republicans at the top of the ticket. they are pretty well distributed across the state were as the panhandle a of the florida we felt we are performing fine, we felt there was some unallocated those. as we begin providing these universes will we might talk

about in the southeast part of the state is different than the panhandle. as we talk about those dynamics, we were able to go door-to-door and give them a customized message to the volunteers after the field organizers that we were talking to. third step was after we cleaned up that, trying to win the remaining unallocated by two to one margin this is the winning the independence. it's just simply taking the republican leaning people that have not yet committed and getting 66%. we thought that was an attainable goal and we knew it would net us a couple points have been. really the low hanging fruit among the leading democrats was will be called hillary change voters. drought our models over the course of the awakened by people that link in the direction of secretary clinton that they showed up as wanting change from obama's policies. were able to had that often. and they and they were able to hammer away, the lowest hanging fruit. i begin this is where parts of southeast florida and

hillsborough and pinellas county begin to pop. with a message of this is another four more years of obama policies, we were able to wedge the way some of these democrats to bolster support where we need to get across to the 1%. this was all that indoor television targeting. we had grids that broke down the entire electorate by ratings, my 15 minute daypart across every single network. all the pies are targeted to exactly who we thought, for example, different parts of the state would maybe want to get an underperform message where there would be markets would want to talk to the unallocated, talk to hillary change. one part of one network would be underperform in a different 50 minute daypart of that number would be unallocated. the teams we worked with did a great job of helping provide us with really targeted television buys that we able to feed over this campaign. as katie mentioned we were not

making the created by using unabated demand that over to all the campaigns so they can understand exactly who they need to talk to, what parts they need to buy what messages need to go into those to be most effective. really the purpose of this was to turn the data into votes. what we did we felt we did a good job of securing underperform. the people and feel from a camping rebel to get those republicans who. the map on the left is what i showed you earlier when we were really doing just fine in the panhandle and central. by the end of the campaign events we brought him home in miami and palm beach. we did a good job of getting the base back talking to them, getting a message in front of them and getting them to show up and vote which was an enormous list by chris and his team. we also persuade the unallocated. you can see the unallocated were pretty well distributed across the state. by the end the remaining unallocated those with a more focused in the miami hillsborough, pinellas, places where you should have the swing to win florida. we've got as much as we could about into the final days, able

to handle those universes onto the campaign and allow them to get the ball across the finish line. .. it was page three of the brochure, she received 12 mail pieces, 20 e-mails between august 19 and november 6 when she finally voted. it was a pretty robust operation. we were either at people's doors, in their mailbox, in their e-mail, on their facebook feed, at a targeted level, we knew knew what we needed to do and we stayed on top of her until we had an opportunity to of reserve she had voted. then we turned off the firehose and moved on to the next motor and began harassing them with

our message until election day. it was a very streamlined operation. there are times when, if you look at some of these voters, as soon as these voter, our host was turned off and we were able to shift our attention to the next voter. by using the api, tracking their contacts, we collected this data at a clip we haven't done in the past. we wanted to make sure we were not wasting contacts. >> the slides show how we drove people to that site to take action so we could go secure that vote. i think there is a lot of confusion sometimes about how online ads work, these are the four blocks on this slide that lay that out. if you start on the left, data gives us an audience of people that we need to turn out. they go to the voter file and they say these folks needed turnout. then we then we go to all these

ad networks like facebook, google and all these places and we say do you have these people on your network. because of the quality of our data and the maturation of the ad industry online, we were were getting an 80% match rate. if they gave us 100 people for precinct in florida, we could send and add 280 of those people in that turf. so, you can follow along where were getting an 80% match rate and we deliver them creative and then we go to vote.gop. on vote gop, the share party resource, people would arrive there, take action, and then appropriate follow-up would happen weather was online or in person or often a combination of multiple channels. if you, if you are republican and you're running for anything in the united states, you can use vote.gop and you send people

there and we send you the data back in the field team helps turn them out. we partnered with everyone under the sun to do that. we sent over 700,000 actions and 85,000 people thousand people filled out an absentee ballot, application and 53000 filled out a voter registration form. we talked earlier about the value of e-mails for raising money and winning votes. you can see the cost of registration is 6 cents and the change of address list resulted in over 22000 for an average cost of $4.24. again, an invaluable resource, the e-mail file was to take multiple kinds of different actions.

we knew we had to enforce so we spent a lot of focus on winning florida. more than 50000 actions were taken. we had 8000 early voting look up locations for an average cost of $10. of those, 50000 requests or 31% had already voted in another 7%, requests 7%, requests had been mailed on an absentee ballot. to that ballet break and do something online and then in person action or phone call or other mail gets to you and there's a circular science that goes into all of that. >> and al go into some of the results of the data we saw and how we use that to leverage the final couple days in conjunction with the team in new york with

chris carr to help us get across the finish line. as i mentioned earlier, we had had 13 battlegrounds we had identified before the election and we ended up winning nine of those 13 states. were very happy with our ability to quickly turn on our data program in the field program that was already in place and begin executing it at full speed for turn out nationally, this was one of the things we had to focus on, if we could paint the playing field correctly, if we could understand the players on the field and turn that over to her campaign, we felt we felt we would have given them a lot of information to really understand. our projected turnout nationally was 135 million, right now they've counted 127 million ballots with california, washington, alaska, connecticut still coming in. as of coming in, we have seen projections that we have turnout

between 134 and 135 million when it's all said and done. we are said and done. we are confident we will have national turnout within a million votes which is very helpful when we can turn the level of accuracy over to our candidates and really have them have an understanding of who is going to vote. we will continue updating this as information comes in. to give a couple examples, here here in florida, our final prediction as of friday had mr. trump down 2.8 points. as i said earlier this was less predictive and more prescriptive. we had a 9,400,000 prediction for turnout. we missed turnout in florida by only 23027 votes which is about point to 4% of the total electorate. going into election day, i will skip ahead, down 2.8 points in our predictive model but we identified 699,000 voters 699,000 voters that we believed

were the remaining undecided voters in the final 96 hours the campaign. that is about 6% of the electorate. exit polls showed about 7% of the electorate made up their mind in the final days of the campaign. we are pretty we are pretty confident that exactly the 699,000 people that we were talking to that the campaign was focused on an digital was hitting with people that were making up their mind in the final days. we were not wasting resources. we were talking to exactly the people who are making up their mind and we knew what we needed to do to close that gap to win florida. we ended up only about 99000 votes off what we thought the predictive goal would be that we tried to shoot high. we were able to execute turnout in the final couple days in the election that we felt played a big role in getting us cross the finish line. michigan is another state that we saw close very rapidly. again, we were really successful in our ability to predict

turnout and ultimately the final outcome. we had predicted turn out to be about 4,806,000 in actuality was 4,789,000 with a difference of only 16900 votes. another place we felt we had a really good understanding of the electorate and we were walking into election day knowing exactly who was going to vote and how to speak to them. they had us up 2/10 of a point in our final model. we are are currently sitting at three tenths and yet to be certified. we knew there were about 480,000 unallocated voters which again mimics a lot of what we see in the exit polls. we knew we had to lead. we felt very confident and we knew people were still making up their mind and those were people we focused on in the final days and we were able to hold onto that lead to carry it across the finish line and it appears we will end up with a win in with michigan and all is said and done.

i was another great example where we knew what we needed to do to win and we had to execute. at the end of the day, we have our turnout off by a little bit, we had about 80000 votes more voting in our prediction than actually showed up. we actually got really close to where we felt we needed to be to win. we were only 14000 votes off where we thought we needed to be they executed and we hit our goals and from all appearances, look like the clinton team and the democrats didn't show up and turn out their vote. because chris was able to execute, because their team in brad's team were able to get out the vote, we hit the maximum number of votes we felt we could obtain and by being successful in our strategy, that's all we could control and we were able to be successful in iowa. then we saw the same thing in ohio. very confident in ohio going into election day. our models had us up, we only miss turnout by about 3% so we had a good a good sense of who we thought would be voting in the electorate. we knew there were about 520,000

voters going into voting day. we had to operate the ohio team, everyone who was operating did exactly what they needed to do. day maximizes our goal. we felt we only needed to win by 1% we were able to hold onto the lead and expand our gains because we executed and it's possible that the other side didn't. we have some fun facts, katie if you want to run through them. >> these are just the total door knock some phone calls and calls and the total number for voter scores. targeted mail pieces but this is what we did for the republican party ticket, part of the victory program. then the phones, that that proved to be very effective. the e-mail that the team in brad's team, also i want to

mention to you as well, we work very closely, very well with the trump campaign. >> we had daily calls 11 am eastern every day between the trump state directors and we were on the same page executing our program. with mr. trump's travel which was far more aggressive than the campaign, it was what the staff was able to do at these rallies in terms of the number of registrations, the number of volunteer sign-up that we were doing, the absentee request that these events. i've been involved with presidential campaign since 1988 and i have never seen events such as the trump events. the goal was, midsummer, late summer was just to harness all that energy and plug all that

manpower into our field program and once we did all the training and got people involved in the turf program and bought into it, they became neighborhood team leaders. those guys out in the field who were carrying president-elect trump's message in the field, honestly proved to be successful and we thought with the turnout on tuesday. >> if there is one take away that i think we throw a lot of numbers out, in terms of numbers of knocks and emails. we have gone from a party in the past four years actually understands who they are voting, how they are voting so it's not just knocking on our door, it's not a gent knocking on our door with the right message at the right time. knowing who they're going to vote and how they're going to vote is really important because delivering the right message to the right person at the right time so they take the right action is what this all comes down to.

i think that is what we as a party, the numbers numbers are important, looking at that total number of term and out, knowing if they're going to show up in what it takes to get them there is really a testament to the progress made over the past four years to give us the confidence we needed on election day that we had the momentum on our side. with that will take some questions. [inaudible] how much was donated on the cycle and what impact did it have. can you can explain how missouri went, on your map and september and then october off the map and then the clinton campaign spent

$500,000 in late october. >> katie spent a lot of time there in different campaigns. she is the perfect person to answer that. >> bill should join me in answering this? misery but one of the things i think is important to talk about , my understanding and i don't work with super pacs, i can't communicate communicate with them but what we encourage super pacs to do and i think every super pack that was working in missouri on behalf of the republican party is they worked with a firm called the data trust which is an outside data vendor that the rnc partners with. it's the only outside organization that has access to the voter file print we strongly encourage anyone who's going to get into the business up and down the ticket to work with data trust. because of our relationship they can access and get value out of

the file. >> the question was how much independent voter id. [inaudible] >> i think it's very hard to quantify. i don't know, phil. >> the take away is that we are the only entity that provides data to the campaign up-and-down the ballot that can say here's who you have to get at in the message. other people may or may not have been out there but because the campaigns had utilized the rnc in the data in the team, they had a support center they could call and get a snoot that new file. again, it's it's not polling, it's not saying this is a subset, they are being provided names, addresses, e-mails that

fit into those different universes. >> you mention longitudinal training, how much did the president-elect have and how much did that change from before he was a nominee to when the rnc started working with him and in the last few months? >> overall there was a consolidation and you were able to track that by and large. i don't know that i saw any difference from 12 years ago. it took governor romney a little time to consolidate the base as well. >> we saw some of the democrat groups begin to engage and then everything began to be moving back in our directional. the longitudinal changes that we

were focused on were voters that started moving our direction but stopped flat of where they needed to be. it was used for finishing or identifying people who we could finish the moment upon. >> in the last few weeks of the campaign, mr. trump, how did he decide where he needed to go and who made this decision of where he needed to go. >> i think i'm mentioned we were in everyday contact working with brad to make sure they had all the data that showed where swing voters were. obviously was up to

thank you very much. i have a question, one is, for the players to carry on this program after he has left in the other one is what are your plans for democrats.

[inaudible] >> i'll take the first part of that. >> the rnc will have an election for the chairman and president elect trump will have an impact on who that chairman is as tradition has always been the case. who that chairman is, i think they have been wildly impressed with the operation and unequivocally want to make sure it is maintained. >> when it relates to senate map, of course we will work with the committee to make sure they play a large role in candidate recruitment and once we have a candidate we will provide them with the tools they need to make sure they are successful. >> hillary clinton, over the weekend. [inaudible]

both the first amount spent and the second announcement, i was curious if you saw any movement along those lines, especially the second one where he said. [inaudible] >> i can tell you, i will let bill answer but i can tell you a lot of things happened at the end. the disclosure from clinton, the obamacare rises, the strength of the program that chris carr talked about, there are a lot of factors that collided at the same time at the tail end of the cycle. i don't know how much we can isolate one factor or another, but i think we would be hard-pressed to say it wasn't one factor. >> the map trunks substantially and then it grew substantially in september but i think the race was fluid up to the end. it is hard to isolate things like that. >> there was a ton of movement and a lot of the states.

>> we each have a percentage of voters that weren't on your radar who came out and voted for trump? >> i will let phil talk up the specifically, but if you're just looking in florida and michigan, no, we predicted turnout within 1 - 5%. we did not see a ton of voters come out that we didn't think would come out. i think there is a hidden or a parsing of words. a hidden voter might be somebody who didn't vote in 2012 or 2008 and we will continue to look at that. that's kind of a different question then did our data team know they were going to vote. we were canvassing the entire country, one out of eight people we talked to, whether or not there was a hidden trump voter, we may be talking about whether they voted and the pastor participated and passed but we felt we had a good handle on the voting population and who was going to turn out.

>> i agree completely. with the vote history, when it comes available will have our analysis of the prediction then. >> given that the election results have brought about conversation of changing the electoral process, can you give your opinion on the electoral college now and if states should divide up those proportionately. where do you stand on this? >> i think we have always deferred to states on how they want to allocate their electoral votes. i believe that is still a position. >> there are a lot of questions now about how much trump voters expect to the letter of delivery

on things like building a wall or prosecuting hillary clinton. you have looked at the data in your smart particle people. where you think the electorate is expecting as far as literally or do they want to go in a general direction? >> i think he laid out a series of issues and a change in a vision and i think he has every intention of following up on what he talked about on the campaign trail. you heard about that since his election. >> i think from a data perspective we were focused on figuring out who was going to vote last tuesday night, who would turn out, what message they needed to hear. moving forward we will keep this robust data. we will continue to focus on not only are they going to turn out but what issues are they focused on. we have to focus on supreme court and obamacare and on down

the line. we will talk to voters in the rnc works hand in glove with the trump team if they want to continue to look at the voter scores in the data we have, we will provide it. >> just a follow-up on the expectations question, do you think it's relevant that hillary clinton won the national vote when the popular vote in that context of that question of what to expect from the trump administration. >> can you expand on that a little? >> trump did not win the national vote, the popular vote. we've been talking about the question of expectations about what we learned out of the results. >> i think electorally, he did win huge. they called in a landslide and i think in terms of where people thought it was going, including the clinton campaign, you played

a game with where it is. in the battleground states and in those 13 states, mr. trump's message and his campaign were successful. it's not even a question of whether he's going to deliver on what campaigned on. that is what he talks about and will continue to talk about. >> i know how hard he has been working to improve the party's image and the view of minorities and women and things like that. how much harder does it make their job. >> i think if you look at the exit polls, he did exceed what we've gotten in the past couple of cycles. at the end of the day it's about

him and his presidency and his ability to move the country forward. frankly republicans haven't gone into those areas in the past. he's talking about school choice in infrastructure and things that will help all americans. i think were going to have to judge the president and vice president elect on their deeds. that's what this is all about. >> last one. >> the report four years ago was not actually followed by the person who became the president-elect. trump is now planning on rather widespread deportation. how do you estimate that will affect this. >> the opportunity to report was 218 recommendations that were

largely followed. they dealt with infrastructure all across the party and up and down and in the sister communities. we looked at what we did mechanically and we laid that out with a resounding success. when you look at the numbers in terms of what katie talked about , the party has been unbelievably successful since that time. we grew the majority and we continue to grow up and down the ballot from coast-to-coast and i think the growth and opportunity report four years ago laid out where the party should go. it was followed and we have grown. again, he has continued to talk about being president and an administration that moves all americans forward and i think

you will that with the trump administration. >> they are getting quite a bit a credit for mr. trump success, but he also, he indicated the president-elect did not have experience in government and he has now been taking over as the white house chief of staff. what skills do you think are transferable to that role and how do you see what he did transferring over to the white house and can you reflect based on what you saw and how you see an equal partnership between the chief of staff and that playing out the white house. >> if you look at what they did the last four years, we had over 6000, almost 7000 people that were part of this effort to take mr. trump's message and work on behalf of the entire ticket. i think they did a phenomenal job. they had a vision four years ago and they assembled an amazing team, not just headquarters but throughout the country, work

with state parties, worked with congress, but he is a consensus builder and someone who takes a vision and an idea and gets it done. if you think about what the team here has laid out that was sort of taking the vision of what he wanted and now he's going to take those qualities and transform them to an administration and work on behalf of the president-elect to take his vision and implement it and get it done and i think he has a track record of success and he's going to use those same qualities to move mr. trump's agenda forward. [inaudible] >> he views his role as a lot of the day-to-day and making things move and he will focus a lot more on the messaging and the big picture stuff that look, over the last three months it's been a phenomenal partnership and that's part of the model

that they worked on, hey, this worked really well the last three months, let's continue this forward to make sure we can do it on behalf of the entire government and the people and implement this agenda. >> thank you guys very much. >> thank you. [inaudible conversation] >> if you missed any of this

conversation you can find it online. we will have it up at cspan.org on the video library. a look at the capital in the senate, about two dozen reporters briefly occupied the capitol hill office of charles schumer today, ejecting his connections to wall street. he is set to become the leader of the senate democrats for the protesters came from groups that include occupy wall street and black lives matter. they remove the protesters who say they want bernie sanders of vermont to lead the party instead. these videos recorded by buzzfeed capitol hill reporter. another reporter with abc tweets there were 17 people arrested outside senator schumer's office charged with crowding, obstructing or in promoting. they return for the remainder of the 114th congress reconvening today to discuss a number of bills but we will have live coverage over on c-span and the senate convening tomorrow. live coverage here on c-span2 at 4:00 o'clock eastern time. senators will debate on a bill dealing with the library of

congress oral history project. also live today on c-span two, a discussion about trade policy which republican congressman kevin brady and u.s. trade representative michael discuss what to discuss from a trump administration. that event will be live at 5:00 o'clock eastern. >> tonight on the indicators, scott keogh, talks about autonomous cars, the hype from the auto industry that they are nearly ready and its prediction on when it will be on the market. >> if you read a lot of the headlines, you see what uber is doing in pittsburgh and carnegie mellon and you see a lot of the proclamations are automotive executives are making, and look him in the automotive business we are used to a lot of hype and i think when it comes to everyday matters, little bit of marketing hype is okay. when it comes to matters such as this i think it is a little bit disingenuous because words are flippantly thrown around.

when someone says autonomous or autopilot or self driving, what someone thinks as they come out of my home, i hit a button and not car will take me anywhere in america under any time in any condition. as we all know, that's not the case. >> watch the communicators tonight at eastern on c-span2. >> the supreme court heard oral argument in lynch versus morale a santana. a case testing the constitutionality of a 1952 immigration law that takes it easier for unmarried women to pass citizenship to their child than it does for a father.

>> mr. chief justice and may i please the court, the united states constitution does not confer u.s. citizenship on anyone born outside the united states, rather pursuant to its authority under article one of the constitution, it is for congress to determine which categories of such persons should be granted u.s. citizenship by statute. in doing so, congress has always required that the persons involved have demonstrated insufficient connection to the united states, either in themselves or through their parents to want the citizenship because citizenship carries with it opportunities on part of the u.s. government. this contains the framework of the 1952 and act meant for granting citizenship for persons outside the united states as part of their birth. others discussed granting it

later than life. those were open to the respondent or the father in this case but were not taken advantage of. in particular, this case concerned citizenship to children born out of wedlock abroad. the situation in which this court's cases make clear that mothers and fathers are not similarly situated with respect to their legal status concerning the child at the moment of birth. the general rules for citizenship at birth are set out and i'm referring to the act as it was revised in 1986. if both parents were u.s. citizens, then the child born outside the united states would be a citizen of the united states as long as one of the parents had resided in the united states for any period of time. congress deemed that to be a significant connection to the united states given that both

parents are citizens. on the other hand, if one parent is a u.s. citizen and one was an alien, congress had a markedly different approach. they had to have resided in the united states for ten years, five of which were after reaching the age of 14. congress evidently determined that because such a trial would have competing claims of allegiance, that a greater residency was required for the parent to establish the connection to the united states. >> is that an argument we heard much about in the floor as case? >> it was made out oral argument , but we think it's also evident from the face of the statute that this court said with respect to another argument that the court addressed they are, it's important for the court itself to look at the structure, text and operation of the statute.

>> they talk about the differential treatment and statelessness. here your argument is that they need to have a sufficient tie. >> we are making both arguments. we did argue in florence that there should be a connection to the united states and the statutory framework is set up that way. it's true that our emphasis was on state business but we are arguing and we think it's entirely evident from the face of the statute that what these provisions are after is a connection to the united states. >> why aren't men and women who are parents similarly situated with respect to their affiliation or their attachment to the u.s. values. this leads you to think that a

man has less of a sense of u.s. belonging and a woman. >> we are making no such argument. the point is, the mother, as this court recognized in other cases, the mother is the only legally recognized parent - there are many cases, especially in generations back when this law was on the books where the mother, the birth certificate came sometime after the child was born and both the father's name and the mother's name might be on it, the moment of birth doesn't necessarily tell you who is the mother.

if there's no birth certificate, then the child, when they get this birth certificate, both names are on it. >> i think this court's decision when and the state statutes that we identify on a footnote in our brief are premised on the proposition that the identity of the mother and her relationship to the child will be known by virtue of the birth alone or at least will be known in the overwhelming majority of cases. that situation there's only one parent, there is not a competing claim of citizenship or allegiance to another country through another parent. on the other hand, when the father legitimates, at that point, you have to parents and the situation where they are of different nationalities, then you are putting the situation where there are two competing claim. >> but why do we look to the

moment of birth? why should we look to the moment when citizenship is sought? >> because, the statutory provision, specifically deals with citizenship at birth and the statute that it's its caption of 1409a with respect to the situation says that the child shall be a citizen as of birth. it's important to understand exactly what's operating here. at the moment of birth, again, the child only has one parent, when the father legitimates, what congress has done generously, one could say, but at least sensibly is to say we will treat the couple as if they were married at the moment of birth. they are getting the retroactive application to to the legitimation so that the child is treated as the child of married parents at that point.

if the legitimating father is a u.s. citizen, in that that situation you would have to u.s. citizen parents and the very generous rule for u.s. parents would apply in that situation. >> think it's more a matter of truth where as this case as justice ginsburg indicate is a question of does the child have sufficient ties to the country. this is quite a different proposition to address. >> two things, this court's decision had identified two separate interests. one was the proof of paternity but the other was recognizing the connection to the united states. the connection to the united states in a situation like this has two steps. one of the relationship to the child to the parent and establishing that relationship and some formal sense and

underlined that the real sense of establishing that relationship, this case deals with the relationship of the parent to the united states. >> the problem is with the exception that has been created for unwed citizen mothers, the first connection to the united states doesn't exist because the statute doesn't require any connection to the united states except for u.s. citizenship. she could of been born, lived here a day and she would automatically confer. >> not under the 1952 act. that was true under the 1940 act, under the 1952 act, it's continuous presence for one year. congress deemed that to be basically somewhere in between where any period of residency was okay and mixed nationality where the congress that it had to be ten and five.

they chose it. somewhere in between. >> twice to be different from unwed father who has legitimate ties to the child. >> because in that situation there are two parents. the argument is not that the father's ties our last, it is that there are competing ties and congress wanted to make sure that the strength of the u.s. citizen ties were sufficient. couldn't that have been done, why couldn't these objectives be served through entirely general neutral language. another was a proposal that the secretary of state made earlier than this that was passed in the 1930s which talks about legal parents which didn't refer to mothers and fathers at all.

i don't think there's any question that they had citizenship and a legal parent when he was born. the question here is whether the makes it liable for both, could could they have written the statute and served it objective in an entirely gender neutral way and it seems as though here the secretary of state presented a statute that actually did that >> while it looks gender-neutral, it would've operated in exactly the same way

the congress enacted it to operate because no one has really taken the proposition that we have that at the moment of birth, the mother was the only legally recognized parent. it would have operated in essentially the same way. let me come at this in a slightly different direction. when you have one parent, the mother in this case, she gets to make all of the pertinent decisions about the child, situations like that. when a father legitimates, he does not then acquire the sole right to make all the decisions for the child. there are then two parents. >> these are complicated things, but the question, i think is, think of the child. a child is born out of wedlock.

if his weather dash mother was american the child becomes american if she has lived here for one year. if the father is an american the child becomes american only if the father has lived here for eight or ten years. that's the difference and why does that make a difference? >> that justifies the gender discrimination. >> at the same rule that applies to married parents. >> two wrongs don't make a right. >> no one is challenging. >> i except that no one is challenging but i'm not asking that question but i'm asking the question of what it is to repeat the question which i think is the equal protection question at the heart of the case. >> it's very well-written and brilliant, but it went into this thing about stateless persons

and then we have like 17 briefs that say no, that wasn't what the situation was, so i guess the question would be, wasn't enough enough of a stateless person justification. >> the first argument we are making again is a point of connection to the united states and that's where the married couple comes in. no one is challenging a residency requirement. >> along residency requirement, i did have justice question in mind, why don't they asked the child at the age of 21 to be connected to the united states and see if he votes in american elections and stays here for a while. why are we so worried about the child's parent.

>> it provides for the acquisition of citizenship at a date after birth. >> they've lived here for 14 years and all kinds of stuff. i don't argue on this point but i wonder if i've got the reason for saying the mother, if she's a u.s. citizen and born out of wedlock, you've only laid lived here for a year, but the father has to live here for ten years or eight years or something like that. the real justification for that, the only one you can find has to do with stateless mother. >> no, we have two reasons for the first is the connection to the united states which is evident on the face of the statute. when the father legitimates, what the statute does is treat the couple as if they were married. in this case the child is legitimated by marriage and what the statute basically did was make the marriage retroactive to

the date of birth. >> i'm going to make an example where they never marry. they like living together without being married. now what's the justification? >> under the amendment, it is easier for the father to acknowledge the child but in that situation, there are two parents and in that situation the father does not get to make unilateral decisions about the child. he gets to be apparent too. he he doesn't get to be the only parent, the way the mother is the only parent before legitimation. this is true in the case that this court has had in the domestic contact. >> they were given a sophisticated rationale but we are talking about legislation from 1940 and 1952. at that time, the statute books were just shot through with

distinctions between children born out of wedlock and the affiliation with the mother and the father. this was a piece of all of that legislation, and it wasn't until,. [inaudible] a child born out of wedlock can inherit state from the mother only, not the father. it put mothers and children together and separate it fathers from their children, and nobody thought until the 1970s that that was a violation of equal protection, but in a whole series of cases in the 70s, the court recognized as indeed there was a violation of equal protection. >> insofar as the two equal protection arguments that have been made, 11 of them has to do

with the equal protection on the basis of illegitimacy. that claim is not raised here with good reason because as a person outside the united states and an alien did not have constitutional rights. >> there are laws that existed. put mothers and children born out of wedlock together and separate fathers from their children. >> in this court's decision in the immigration context, that was exactly the situation in the court rejected equal protection claims based on both sex discrimination and illegitimacy. >> that wasn't for claim of citizenship. >> it wasn't, but citizenship is entry into the membership of our society on a permanent basis with rights to come and go with all the rights and obligations,

but i also wanted to address your question with respect to the domestic contact spread this court's decision in robinson sustained a situation where a child was going to be put up for adoption. the mother would ordinarily have the full right to decide that, but the situation was what about the father. while the father had to take some affirmative steps to put himself in a position where he could have a role, veto power. >> did the couple mary? >> yes they did, but again he is not similarly situated at the time of birth or the time he legitimate. >> if a court thinks that the statute violates the equal protection clause, doesn't

follow the relief awarded to him by the second set? >> no it does not. could you confirm that? there was a criminal conviction in here criminal convictions are not at issue. the criminal condition had nothing to do with the alien issue. >> right. they were regular state law. >> i take it the question is what is the remedy. if we level up it's easier for both. if we level down that it's harder for both. >> we think the court clearly should not apply to the u.s. citizen fathers for one year limitation. the general rule is an exemption to a general rule that covers

the vast majority, the three categories of cases, married fathers, married mothers and unmarried fathers. there's no thought that they would want unmarried fathers -- >> 1i can think of that i would like your opinion on, how many do you think unmarried fathers were there in 1952? who couldn't qualify under eight years. that's not so hard to do if you're in the army because all your active-duty counts. but they would've qualified under the one year. i use the numbers in your brief which are brilliant of you to try to find. i don't know how you found them. that 4000 number cup coming back. i thought maybe there were a couple thousand year. do we know there were more than a couple thousand. >> i thought they were untold numbers.

>> yes they were untold numbers, that's true, but i'm trying to find how close we could come. >> it's very hard to estimate. this court's decision identified the number of people in the numbers are little bit higher even now. >> let's go back to 52 and a couple is unmarried and it's the father who in fact would qualify if he only had to live here for a year, but he wouldn't qualify if he had to live here for eight years before the babies born and never marry some other. okay i'm saying who could those people have been? they would've been people working for american businesses or something there weren't that many at that time. i used your 4000.

>> we have wondered the same thing. the only thing we were able to identify, and this is not on point but the state department told us that today they grant approximately 8000 certificates of birth abroad and of those, i think around 3000 are under 1409c which those are the ones granted to u.s. citizen mothers abroad. >> i'm sorry, were you finished? >> yes. >> we generally have a rule that when we find an equal rights violation we either level upper level down. that's generally been the courts practice. would you agree. >> yes that's generally the practice but the court has made clear that they are not -- there

are compelling reasons not to do it. >> i find one compelling reason to do it and i thought it would offer it up to see what you had to say. in this case, unlike others, the really is in a choice between leveling up and leveling down in one sense because if you level down, this party gets no relief. in other words you say well, you apply it respectively but this party gets absolutely no relief. isn't that a problem? isn't it the same problem as justice harlem recognized in welsh when he was dealing with a criminal matter? he said you know you can't level down because you can't give everybody the exact same benefit. so how do we deal with that? >> in this context in particular, the serious questions about whether the court can, but at the very least

substantial reasons why the work should not grant citizenship to someone who congress itself has not granted. >> if it's exercising the constitutional part of the statute -- >> but it would have that effect, and in a situation like this where the only proper remedy is to apply the tenure role to everyone and let congress step in and adjust the problem. >> if he had been married would he be entitled to relief? >> no. that is the point. another point is, there are other situations in which the court finds a constitutional violation but does not grant relief. the court might adjudicate -- >> if we were to level up the effect would be that the petitioner would be given

preference over someone who was similarly situated except for the fact that those parents were married. if such a person were then to bring a suit, they would have a strong equal protection claim, would they not? >> this illustrates the problems of the remedy. >> if the claim is gender discrimination and married parents, the mother and father have both been treated equally badly, but when they're their unwed, the mother is given preference and the father is not. we are talking about equal protection and not qualified immunity. we have two people similarly situated, they have to be treated equally. the unwed father is equal to the