are not willfully causing harm as far as i know but they are not providing enough information so that the hospital staff can do their jobs to assure the continuity of the clinical facilities. providing a bill of materials. when it enters the hospital. one completely solved the problem but it will really help because you can't do step two. before you can effectively control. so why that has obviously life saving or implications. what other sectors are you most concerned about and this is for the panel, that the sector integration so to speak of devices within the system is not known? >> public utilities, water gas, electric. it surprises me how they just blast about that.

we are neck and be laughing when the lights go out. i think looking at that is almost self-defeating. if you ask somebody month and a half ago with the vulnerability of the web camera can affect twitter some people would say no. in a lot of ways we barely know how the internet works. and the answer was we are not really sure. it is the emergent properties of protecting everything that causes those vulnerabilities. they are all computers. whether they have wheels or propellers. and they the affect each other. on the same internet. i urge you to think holistically and there are sectors that are more vulnerable than it is obvious. but the cause of the vulnerability could come from

nowhere. >> question on what your thoughts are whether or not those active dissents should be permissible. thoughts on that. >> i know this is been a fairly large debate within my industry. it's been a fairly large debate within the u.s. we have these conversations on a regular basis about green virus is where if we know a particular exposure exists and we know we can write software to go out and patching the system. then we would be better protecting the consumer's as well as the internet as a whole. i think that is a fairly dark road to go down. i think that it is an excuse for us to not fix the ecosystem and provide the

right incentives in the right locations. and has impacts that it isn't necessarily aware of. they are touching a pretty broad set of devices. i would fear more of the consequences of that than i do pushing the right incentives. when going going back to the question of whether or not we have the appropriate safeguards in place. what are the programs and degree programs or other types of certification programs that should be offered that are not offering. our degrees necessary or do we need to have different types of certifications sort of degrees. >> i think we need all of the above. it is a little-known discipline called embedded cyber security.

it is bridging the hardware and the software. i think we need both at the community college level. both in the graduate studies. so especially in advanced master programs. perhaps experts. but even know how to build a security. there's not enough opportunities for those workers to come back to get that training. the final comment is the pipeline. i think in engineering and some of the scientists we have difficulty attracting new resources. i think we can be much more outreach to high schools and some of the kids who are coming up to encourage them to go into these fields and especially women and minorities. thank you all for your work. thank you all for your work. thank you all for being here.

is it accurate that characterize the issue. >> it is absolutely an international issue. they were formed it's where they were located. most of what we are talking about here today. when you have a direct significant impact. >> are there other countries focus on these security issues right now? >> yes. they are very progressive. in great britain as an example there is a significant amount of cyber security work to the

telecommunications sector. if you are going to be offering telecommunication services if it be certified at a certain level. you seen any kind of things through this groove. and how to move forward. and what recommendations would you give to congress to work together on those issues. to my original points which i do believe we are missing the defined standards in this space. we can get some adoption around. we can get some pressure focused on. by setting the standards and setting those by domestic and international groups as well as businesses. i think it will be a major

step forward. in the number of connected devices over the next few years. it's a number we heard today anywhere between 20 and 50 billion devices. it's unreal. when he think they should think about in general regarding cyber security and our connection moving forward. i think innovation is progressing faster than discipline. what tends to happen as we go on a bio rhythm of lack of discipline causing that. ..

so, focusing on making sure that free market controls are placed in the infrastructure will be a significant adoptable and for us >> congressman long brought the issue of passwords and you stated we should get away from passwords altogether. can you elaborate? >> so, passwords are intrinsically insecure. we write them down, and we choose poorly, so any password system is linked to encourage unwise security behavior. of their art technologies out there, one company in ann arbor, for instance that does authentication where you have for instance a mobile phone in addition to a password, but at the heart of it we need to figure out other ways and i will

defer to some of the other witnesses for suggestions, but i feel we really need to retire passwords. these are going to be bringing down our most sensitive systems. >> i went-- to any of you want to elaborate? >> i largely agree. low security devices, low amounts of-- in general, passwords have outlived their use and there are other technologies. you can secure your gmail with a code that comes to your phone as a second factor. i can secure this with my fingerprint. there are many other systems that give us more robust authentication and i think that would go a long way in a lot of our systems to help secure them. two different ways to break into thing, vulnerabilities that are exploited and bad user practice that's also exploited. if you can get rid of one or at

least reduce it we could make it better. >> i'm out of time and thank you all for your time. >> thank you to the gentleman. the chair will recognize mr. mcburney for the purposes of a follow-up question. >> i think the chair for if follow-up. this one is a little philosophical, so i hope you don't mind. mr. schneider, you mentioned the attacks are easier to fund from this complex system and making more complexity opens up new vulnerability, but biological systems work any other way. they build complexity in order to defend themselves. is there some kind of peril we can learn from on this? >> in the past decade or so there has been a lot of research moving the biological metaphor it's of security into it and there are some lessons and some good don't work. biological systems tend to

sacrifice the individual to save the species, kind of not something we want to think about in it or even in our society. but, yes, there are ways of thinking about the security immune system, but the complexity of a biological system is complexity that's constrained. for example, we all have a different genome and that gives us resistance for our species against a week disease and you might be able to do that with an operating system, but it won't beat two or three, but billions which is subtly more expensive like huge magnitude. a lot of the lessons don't apply in some do. researchers are trying to learn from them and that is kind of the new cool way of thinking and i think there is a lot of value their. but, still complexity, and intended consequences,

interconnection, the attack service that we are talking about makes it so that in the near-- in the least of foreseeable future under attack will have the advantage. my guess is there will be fundamental advances in security that will give us maybe not in our lifetime, but eventually defensive advantage, but no time soon. >> thank you. i yield back. >> mr. schneider, you had mentioned along this line and then you mentioned in a response to an earlier question about the autonomous vehicles yesterday in our trade committee we had a hearing on autonomous vehicles, so particularly older abilities or places where the focus should be as that autonomous, self driving vehicle develops as a separate entity. >> i think it's interesting

testbed for what we are thinking about and i don't know how much detail you got into on vulnerabilities, but we learned vulnerabilities are surprising. why attack that used the dvd player as a way to inject malware into the car that controlled the engine. now, that should not be possible, but surprise and similarly i am more about the usb port on the airplane seats potentially controlling avionics airline companies will say that's impossible, but those in security don't believe it, so again the more holistic we can be the better. there are going to always be surprises, so if you get back to the immune system model how do we build a resilience? how do we ensure it is fail safely and securely? how do we ensure or at least make it more likely that a vulnerability here doesn't migrate to another bold ability

they something machias traffic? the more we can look at the big picture the less we focus on this or that because it's the connections and so we think about it it's exponential and i have five things of 25 connections and then 10000 connections, it just goes up. that's a vulnerability and that's why this is so-- that's why complexity is such a problem >> i posed the question earlier and really this is for any of the three of you who wish to answer, i'm thinking like a criminal, but we are still playing checkers and they are playing three-dimensional chess or perhaps multifactorial level of three-dimensional chess. i mean, what are the things that keep you all up at night? what are the things that you wonder about? >> i would say the best advancement in the security space for us as an example is

behavior analytics. it's being able to monitor the network, monitored the enterprise, monitor our infrastructure look for behavior that we have never seen before to determine whether or not it's unauthorized traffic or not. no matter what that technology is based on a compromise already having occurred, a bad guy already being in the network and is so our ability to be more proactive and i'm ability to get ahead of that attack and predict those attacks before they occur and change the technology before they can be exploited, that's where we need to migrate. >> i worry about has traffic risk. one person had the expertise to figure out how to do it and now anyone can do it, so it's unlike my home where i only have to worry about the burglars from driving to my home and there is some bell curve of the burglar quality in the average burglars

when i care about. on the internet, it's the most sophisticated attacker i care about anywhere in the world because of the way computers encapsulate expertise to software. >> mr. fu. >> i worry about something a little more human. i worry about the inability to change. i worry about being the stuck saying well we have never done it that way before. i worry about saying things like , that's unprecedented. the internet of things is unprecedented, so there will have to be changes, so i worry we won't have the strength and resolve to do it. it will take got, i think, but this is foresight and in the safety world we saw this with handwashing and 1840s. it was not even a thought that crossed your mind. it took 165 years to get to the point where handwashing is common and it will take time for security, but the time is ripe

to do something now. >> i would note for the record i think the doctored did end up drawing of a staff infection. >> he also messed up his experiment. he did not write them up well. >> wonderful. this has been a very informed of hearing and see note for mark-- further members want to address questions i will think our witnesses for being here today and i would like to include the following documents to be submitted for the record, a letter from the online trust alliance, a letter from the national electrical manufacturers association, a letter from the college of healthcare information of that management executives, a letter from abba med, advanced medical technology association and a letter from cta. pursuant to committee rules i remind members they have 10 business days to submit additional questions for the record.

i asked the witnesses submit their response within 10 business days upon receipt of the questions. i do not say it, but without objection so ordered that those things are inserted into the record and without objection this committee is adjourned. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> as we wrap up our coverage of this hearing on cyber security a note to the senate returns this afternoon at 2:30 p.m. eastern and our live coverage as the senate continues legislative work continues here on c-span2. today, oil and gas lease revenue for the state senate leadership elections that took place today and looking ahead for the senate 2017 spending. live this afternoon at 2:30 p.m. eastern on c-span2 with our lives senate coverage. the house on our companion network c-span. off the florida day it was the leadership elections making news on the senate side of capitol hill. here we see some of those republican leaders making their way it looks like into their meeting earlier today. the senate republican leaders did not come on camera to discuss the leadership elections, but did release a press release with the results of those leadership elections.

the senate republican conference elect leadership for 115th congress. their press release here this morning the senate republican congress-- congress elected its team for the congress. mitch o'connell as expected returns as senate republican leader which makes him the majority leader. john cornyn senate republican whip. john boone. roy blunt as it senate republican conference brought-- vice chair and cory gardner of colorado as national republican to many chairman and mitch mcconnell with this tweet: it's an honor to once again have been chosen by my senate republican colleagues to continue serving as their leader in the united states senate. on the democratic side, they had a new leader and the hill putting out this article with a picture of chuck schumer who has

widely anticipated is the new democratic leader in the senate. schumer elected senate democratic leader. the hill headline and sets it leadership team. of the article goes on, senator chuck schumer was elected leader succeeding the retiring senator harry reid. schumer appointed to women to high-ranking posts on his team tapping patty murray of washington to serve as assistant democratic leader and senator debbie stabbing out to turn the democratic policy into medication center. dick berman of illinois reelected as senate democratic whip. chuck schumer did not say who will replace senator john caster who faces reelection, but they created a new leadership post for bernie sanders. the independent from vermont, senators elizabeth warren and mark warner also will serve as policy advisers and they have

been given new titles serving as vice chairs of the senate democratic conference. the democrats did go on camera this morning to talk about those leadership elections. paul kane who covers the senate for the "washington post" said the first senate democratic leadership team presser without harry reid in 18 plus years. bit jarring not seen him there. we will look now at that senate democratic agenda news conference. >> we had a great meeting. went very smoothly. i am humbled, truly humbled and honored to receive their support of my colleagues to be the next leader of the senate democratic caucus. i am even prouder to introduce the team joining up here today, which i will get into soon. i came into this job fully aware of its challenges and what it means that my colleagues trust me to live up to a high standard

set by my friend, mentor, just someone my foxhole buddy, harry reid. harry reid is like an older brother to me. his support and counsel are invaluable and when-- i speak for the entire caucus when i say we are grateful for his leadership, his service, his friendship. now, when to say to the american people, exactly what i just said to my caucus. i will wake up every single day focused on how senate democrats can effectively fight for america's middle class and those struggling to join it. last tuesday night was something none of us expected. i suspected that is true for many of you in the press. it certainly did not go the way we democrats hoped. it was a tough night, no doubt about it. when you lose an election like

this you can't flinch. you can't ignore it. you need to look at it right the eye and ask why, analyze it and learn from it. one thing we know is that we heard the american people loud and clear. they felt that the government was not working for them. they felt that the economy was rigged against them in many places and that the government was to behold and two big money and special interest. there is a debate going on about whether we should be the party of the diverse obama coalition or the blue-collar american in the heartland. some think we need to make a choice. spend all of their energy focused on one group of americans or another. i believe that there does not have to be a division. in fact, there must not be a division. we need to be the party that speaks to and works on behalf of

all americans. and a bigger bolder, sharper edge economic message that talks about how people in the middle class and of those struggling to make it there can better, but also deals directly with the unfairness in the american economic system. we will unite our caucus and to speak to blue-collar worker in west virginia and michigan as well as to the people who live along the coast. under leader lead we had seven members and leadership. i have decided to expand the team and added three new members who are here today and i am so proud of each of them. ..

each of us believes we need a sharper, boulder economic message about returning economic system which so many feel is rigged against them to one that works for the people. our leadership team stretches from bernie to joe. there'll be some differences of opinion of course but on the core economic issues, our caucus is united. in fact, on this point we are far less delighted than the republicans. indeed, a silver lining in the deep clouds of this election is that on many economic issues president-elect trump in his campaign was closer to us than

to republican leadership which always seems to wind up in the corner of the special interests. so as republicans return their majorities next year and get set to take over the white house, democrats are beginning to determine our way forward. we will take it issue by issue, case-by-case. but i can tell the american people this. we are ready to stand shoulder to shoulder with republicans, working with soon-to-be president trump on issues where we agree. but we will go toe to toe against the president-elect whenever our values or the progress we have made is under assault. today i want to focus on our new leadership team. they're just a great team, and i want to make sure i get all the -- yeah, give out of their phone

numbers. anyway, we will see a list of the exact titles of each a member of the team. i'm going to lean on this advice. i'm going to lean on this group for advice and counsel. we are going to move forward in the same direction as a team. we are a big tent party with great diversity of views but we are united as a caucus and and purpose. that leadership team is a perfect example of that and they are the right group to lead the caucus and lead america forward in the 115th congress. thank you, and with that i'll take your questions. >> senator schumer, you have a long russian ship with the president-elect. you are from the same city. what do you think your relationship will be like going forward? how will that relationship help speakers i've spoken to a couple of times and i told him just what i told you. when we can agree on issues,

then we're going to work with him. we are not going to, just as some have done in the past, said just because it's president trump's idea or thought we will oppose it personal. where we can work together we will. but i've also set to the president-elect on issues where we disagree you can expect a strong and tough fight. and some of those issues i need. that's how the relationship is going to be. i'm not going to get into the specifics. [inaudible] >> look, i put up my statement and i think it was two days ago, the things he said are reprehensible. i just, we are going to keep a real careful eye on the

president and on him, if they do anything from this day forward, they have done so much awful from this day back, we will go after them in terms of bigotry. [inaudible] >> stay tuned. [inaudible] >> stay tuned. >> what did you learn from the elections that are reflected in your choices? >> and much sharper, boulder, economic message. we need to let the american people understand what we all believe, that the system is not working for them. we are going to change it. >> supreme court, what are you willing -- >> again, first we are deeply disappointed the way our colleagues retreated merrick garland, and i will underline we did not change the rules for supreme court because we thought on something as important as this there should be some degree of bipartisan agreement. last question.

>> you talk about the merits, what that means for future supreme court. >> she will be a superb ranking member and she's going to have a very important job making sure that every aspect of the president's nominee is explored and brought before the public. thank you, everybody. >> democratic senator chuck schumer of new york, the incoming minority leader with the senate leadership elections taking place today. chuck schumer will of course a place to retiring harry reid as the democratic leader in the u.s. senate. here's a look recap in how those leadership elections went on the democratic side today. senator charles schumer of new york, the democratic leader in elect and conference chair, the leadership team also includes

the following members. we will show those. senate democratic leaders dick durbin is a minority whip, senator patty murray of washington is the assistant democratic leader. more democratic leadership post for elizabeth warren. she will be one of the conference vice chair salon with senator mark warner of virginia. wisconsin senator tammy baldwin will be the democratic conference secretary. and the policy and communications committee, the chip will be debbie stabenow of michigan, and joe manchin of of west virginia the vice chair. amy klobuchar of minnesota will take the steering committee leadership post. and a postwar senator bernie sanders who ran against hillary clinton for the democratic nomination for president. he will be the democratic outreach chair. senator bernie sanders of vermont. speaking out bernie sanders, a

hill just out with this story that senator sanders will deliver a major speech on trump. that's the headline in the hilbert the article says senator bernie sanders will deliver a major speech on wednesday night about the direction of the country under president-elect of donald trump, as he continues to frame himself as a chief antagonist of the incoming republican president. let's take a look at the gop leadership election results from earlier today. the senate republican leadership post majority leader, republican leader will go akin to mitch mcconnell of kentucky. go again. the leader tweeting he was honored to once again have been chosen by my senate gop colleagues to continue serving as their leader in the u.s. senate. that from mitch mcconnell. back to the list of republicans, the majority whip john cornyn of texas. the policy committee chair john

barrasso of wyoming. more republican leadership election results. the chair of the gop conference will be john thune of south dakota. vice chair roy blunt of missouri. the chair of the national senatorial committee will be cory gardner of colorado. and this note on the house side, nancy pelosi will once again run for the democratic leadership post in the u.s. house. an announcement saying that she sent a letter to recall examined your democratic colleagues, congratulations on your election. this congress will be a historic one because in some ways our nation stands at the crossroads. the american people are depending on us to step forward, and to do so with every ounce of strength, courage and idealism we can muster. it is both with humility and confidence that i write to request your support for house democratic leader as of this writing i'm pleased to report

the support of more than two-thirds of the caucus. again that from nancy pelosi. she would like another term in that post in the u.s. house. on c-span2 we will be going back to live coverage of the senate at 2:30 p.m. eastern for more legislative business, oil and gas lease revenue for the state's and, of course, we will probably hear some comments on the floor about those leadership elections. all that coming your way as our live coverage continues on c-span2 at 2:30 p.m. members of donald trump presidential team kellyanne conway and rudy giuliani, the former new york city mayor took questions at "the wall street journal"'s annual ceo council meeting. they discussed the presidential transition and president-elect donald trump's economic foreign policy and trade agendas. we will show that to you between now and when the senate comes back. it's about an hour and 40

minutes long. [applause] >> thank you very much ladies and gentlemen. hope you enjoyed dinner. we will get straight into the real meat of the evening. i can't imagine a better way to start than to have someone who is certainly to all of you, someone who has played an extraordinarily important role in this nation's history, america's mayor, of course is who is now, someone who's played an extremely increasing important role in the trump campaign so without further ado let's get straight to your please welcome senior advisor to the trump campaign and, of course, vice chairman of the transition team for president-elect roh, mayor rudolph giuliani. [applause] >> thank you very much. so to start, mr. mayor, i can still call you mr. mayor. >> absolutely.

>> in a few more weeks though we will have to change the address, mr. general, maybe mr. secretary. >> one never knows. >> i want to come onto that and some of the possibility of the trump administration but let me start a family with giving us, i'd like you to give us your sense of what the immediate agenda is for the trump presidency. particularly, we have seen this fascinating election campaign in which president-elect trump want in large part by expressing, by tapping into this very populous sentiment that's out there in the country. but he won as republican and jeff republican congress, the republican house, senate. how is that going to play itself out? how is a populist moment, the pompous insurgency and that

which is driven president-elect trump and republicans in conference, how is up and work out? >> i think you'll see very much the policies he talked about. i don't think that's the hard part. i analogize this election to election of 1824, when andrew jackson defeated what was basically the almost emerging nobility of america, which were the revolutionary americans right down to adams junior. all of a sudden the american people have had enough of this elite corps and decided we needed somebody who represented us. and represen represented us meae people. i think that's what happened. i think the people revolted against what was the elite those

trying to force down on them a group of policies, a group of decisions are either they didn't agree with our were not doing very much open or didn't address what they're concerned about. and donald trump from the very beginning had an instinct, and then his campaign help but a lot of it was his own instinct about what was really cold and the american people. i think that's the small our revolution that's going to happen now. you have to institutionalize that. now, when i run -- what i wonder much of me i won by 3%. ahead of the republican party in new york bill pars came to see me the next day and he laid out for me, he said next up we don't want to have an ulcer waiting for the election returns. we want to win by 10%. here's how you're going to do it, this is how you consolidate power and we can take it through eight years instead of four. that's part of what, what

president-elect trump has to do. he's got to take his agenda and we are a three-part government. the other part is the caucus for his purpose of an epic you've got to get to the congress. it's no good of all these ideas if you can't get them past. >> what are those key elements? throughout the campaign and donald trump talked about, he channeled his populism. he talked about, free trade was not, he opposed nafta. he opposed tpp. he talked about tariffs on goods coming in from certain other countries. he talked about limiting immigration, aggressive moves on immigration. he talked about, he channeled this nationalist populism. he said things in the final week about imposing taxes on companies that laid off workers. this is a populist message. at the same time he seems to

stand or a pretty conventional republican conservative position, deregulation, lower taxes, something that would come a a lot of business in this room would favor. but there's a tension between this populism and his traditional conservative or a business strategy. how is that going to resolve itself? >> first of all, the art, i hate to go to much back to jackson but jackson's election led to the again at the democratic party. so he turned it, he actually turned into a really first viable political party. so now what he's got to do is accomplish most of his agenda and turned it into something where the republican party becomes the majority -- i think the award off the majority part in this country, but the majority part at the

presidential level which we haven't been since really since reagan. we haven't been the majority party at the presidential level. i think it's going to mean a combination of both of those things, being practical. there are certain things has to deliver on. he promised them. sort of the way bush said, read my lips. he has to deliver on -- >> things he didn't deliver on. >> you right. and that cost him the presidency. so we have to deliver on securing the borders. three years from now we have to be a country that doesn't have wide open borders, dangerous people, criminals who are captured committing crimes. he's got to show tremendous progress in that area. i think he has to lower taxes. he has to lower taxes on everybody so everybody gets a little bit more money into

pocket so they can spend it. he particularly has to lower the corporate tax, which i think could be one of the biggest things you can do to really ignite our economy, get down from 35 to 15%. and then i think yes to work on repatriation of money by having a low bar of 10%. you do that and within two, three years you will see an economy that is growing at numbers when we can sustain a lot of the other things that we have to do. on trade, part of it could be the rhetoric of the campaign. part of it can be a misinterpretation of the media. but i think you're not talking about a man who is against free trade. i think a man who is against unfair deals, which i think he regards as the deal with mexico, nafta, as unfair. >> do you think that would address the concerns of the people in ohio and pennsylvania

to wisconsin? they are upset and angry about what they see as the loss of jobs because of trade deals to mexico and china. >> the things i outlined including readjusting nafta, so you don't have things like we built a car in mexico, in america, in michigan, let's say. we send a car to mexico and they put an 18% tax on the. they build a car in mexico back to america and we put nothing on it. that's a one way deal. so how about we can even it out a little bit? i think that's what he's trying to do. he's trying to make these deals, fair deals so we can both make progress on either side of the border. i think if you combine that with his general tax cut, his corporate tax cut, his repatriation tax cut, and fairer free trade deals, i think you're going to see a large increase in jobs in those places where he

won, like michigan, like ohio, like wisconsin, what we call unfortunately the rust belt. >> that tension between the populism, the anti-wall street, anticorporate sentiment, some of which donald trump captain to come at the traditional conservative pro-business deregulation, probably couldn't be better reflected than in the announcement we had yesterday of these 21st appointments for the administration, reince priebus at the chief of staff and stephen bannon as the chief strategist your country and. you know the -- >> i know both of them really well. >> you know what different views they have. so ban is an aggressive popular philanthropic he thinks globalism is destroying, it is destroying national identity and he thinks what he would like to see done is add administration that takes on a sort of globalist corporatist global

capitalist entities. reince priebus is a much more traditional kind of conservative republican. who's going to win that fight? >> donald trump. i love that. that's exactly what i did when i became mayor of new york. i surround myself with people who disagreed with each other. i thought it was a bad idea to surround myself with people who completely agreed with each other because i would give her the other side of the argument. donald trump is extraordinarily smart man. he has a great understanding particularly of the economy. i think exposing him to different viewpoints is the very best thing we can do. it's exactly what obama did not do, although he said he is going to do it. he had read doors or when could with team of rivals. is good for all his rivals in and all he did was put in a bunch of people who never had a job before. and got no advice from business.

i know some of the people on his business council who used to complain to me, we only met once. we met one time and a quick. so i think it's a juicy a president who exposes himself in the case of reince priebus and steven. of course, have somewhat different viewpoints but i saw them work for three months on the campaign as complete teammates. sometimes different views but willing to talk them out of. ultimately, if they have a disagreement, you know who decides it. the president. i worked for ronald reagan. i used to be the third ranking official in the justice department. besides a lot of cavities in which there were very, very big debates between caspar weinberger and ally, caspar weinberger and george schultz, defense, state. there was only one vote.

it's like abraham lincoln. when the cabinet voted against him, they voted unanimously against something and devoted for it, and one of the cabinet member said, i thought this was majority rule? he said it is. the president has the majority. >> reminds me of margaret thatcher. talk about this, about steven. there's a lot of concern expressed today about some of the things he said sosa with breitbart, the organization he runs has got cut out i put this? a reputation for some slightly robust approach to news in ways in which the only people find it very offensive. he's been accused of racism, some even said anti-semitism. you were mayor of new york city. you had to deal with these issues of racial tension. >> i haven't seen any of that in steve in the time that i don't within. i've seen a very, very smart, a

very bright man, very worldly man. i also think something happens to you when the election is over. i think you've seen it happen to donald trump. happened to be when i became mayor. the day i woke up after being elected mayor i realized, oh ohy god, i have to do this now. there's a weight that falls on your shoulders and you start to think in a somewhat differently. different way. it's not that you change your positions but you begin to realize, i've got to bring in more people, listen to more opinions, broaden my horizons. i don't think that just happens to the president. i think that happens to the chief of staff, the policy adviser, the communications director, secretary of defense, attorney general, secretar secrf state. when you're out of there just criticizing it's one thing. when you get on the inside, there's a certain weight of responsibility to the american people that is on your shoulders to i think steve bannon is the

kind of guy who gets that. >> he's a patriot. >> he loves america. he may have a different view than you do but he loves america as much as you or i do. i think he will give donald trump his best advice, and ultimately it's the president who makes the decisions. decisions. >> that change, the realization you are now the president or the mayor, have you seen it in donald trump in the last week? >> everybody has. i think the whole world has seen it. >> in what way has he changed? >> from the moment he went to see barack obama, the way which they dealt with each other. the way in which is conducting himself. his attempt to try as best he can to bring america together. i think all these protests, i don't take it as seriously as some people do. i think they will go away. they are just going to happen for a while because some people are disappointed and angry, and a little bit disorganized.

soros funded and driven but i think that's going to go away. i think what we're going to find is a much more worldly and expansive president than we ever realized we were electing. >> let me ask you a couple specific corporate things and to get onto the foreign policy issues which are of increasing interest to you if i may say so. not that you always haven't been interested in but particular relevance to you. but, one of the things i heard a lot and i spent some time with president-elect trump and with steve bannon and others is that there is again this concerned about big business. it's channeling this pipe was instinct about big business, big companies. this is the mother load of big

companies, mr. mayor. is there going to be an assumption that this is going to be administration double take on some of these big issues? particularly there's a big merger that's been announced that they go through, at&t, time warner. they could come up on your ledger in the antitrust department. something like an odd these mergers going to be opposed by the trump administration? >> first of all i won't be attorney general. i will have to decide that one, thank god. so i can escape without one. spent i should ask jeff sessions that question. >> it wouldn't be in bad idea but i don't know who will be the attorney general. i was the third ranking official at the justice department under ronald reagan but i ran the criminal side of the justice department. although i have litigated three over antitrust cases for at&t

way back when i was a big, big at&t. i think you'll see pretty much a conservative approach to antitrust law. if it is predatory pricing, if it's predatory pricing where there are alternatives, you will probably see a challenge to it. if it's a situation in which there is no alternative under large conglomerate, i think you'll see the justice department passing of that. i think what you will see is pretty much the traditional republican approach to the antitrust division like we had under reagan and bush. i don't think you are going to -- >> that's pretty accommodating. >> the last thing in the world you're going to see is an anti-business administration. donald trump realizes that he got elected to a very large extent on something you said in so many speeches, jobs, jobs,

jobs. i understood this is mayor of new york prefilled away i get jobs is by having businesses. it either businesses out of my country i'm not going to have jobs. so being pro-business is being pro-jobs. one of the big changes that will happen immediately is instead of having in washington administration is antibusiness, which the obama administration was aggressively antibusiness, you will have one that is aggressively pro-business. that doesn't mean there will not be a necessary level of regulation, but i'll tell you one thing that president-elect trump me as we traveled the case of one of the things i learned over running for president, when it began i thought the biggest concern that businesses had was taxes. he said it's true they are concerned about taxes, particularly our highest tax rate in the world 35%.

and ireland being only 12%. he said one part is what the to is the biggest concern is regulation. i'm going to cut those down regulations in half. i bet you anything you want that within three months you will see those, the regulatory burden -- being a lawyer in private practice, that is not good for law firms because we loved all those regulation. of course, we made a lot of money on them. the reality is that was killing job production in america, more than anything else. epa pretending it was congress. other agencies of government, legislating rules, and dodd-frank. dodd-frank, excuse me, but we are now allowed to talk in a vertically integrated terms, right? that's part of the revolution.

we cannot talk politically incorrectly. dodd-frank doesn't have a damn thing to do with the 2007, what if you want to call it, recession, crash, whatever. it has to do with a bunch of liberal ideas that two of the guys that created the dog problem in the first place, dog and frank, frank was a guy who is protecting fannie and freddie when clinton wanted to reform it. and frank stopped bush from reforming it and dodd got a sweetheart loan from them. i think it's the biggest irony in american history that winning the legislation to solve our of seven crash over the two people who probably have the most to do with it. and everything in it is largely irrelevant to why that place in the first place. >> we have elizabeth warren coming to speak with us tomorrow. >> maybe ask her that. >> we would be very happy to run against her in four years.

>> quick couple of questions. that's an interesting kept by the way. before get into some of these foreign policy issues, during the campaign president-elect trump said he would appoint a special prosecutor to investigate and possibly prosecute hillary clinton over the e-mails and the clinton foundation stuff. is he going to? >> i think that's a decision, i've always told in this, that's a decision he should make when he appoints and attorney general. the attorney general should sit down and study it and give him a very reasoned, balanced of two things. one, and they're both important and i don't want to minimize be the one. one is the idea that we don't want to become a country where we have political vindictiveness after an election. number two, but also the want to be a country of unequal protection of the law. a lot of that has to do with what i don't know, which is how bad are the things involving the

clinton foundation investigation? how beyond the pale are they? i think that's going to fall to a large extent on the attorney general. if the attorney general decide if they're not that far beyond the pill, maybe we just put it behind us. if the attorney general decide they have to be investigated, then it shouldn't be donald trump attorney general. it should be an independent counsel who investigates it. i think that has to be a very detailed recent study of the fbi investigation that i believe is in the new york office of the fbi. >> foreign policy. those who are not family with it, "the wall street journal" reporters this afternoon, the choice for secretary state in the trump administration is down to rudolph giuliani and john bolton. we don't have john boehner to i'll ask you the questions about -- >> john would be a very good choice. >> is there anybody better?

>> may be me, i don't know. [laughter] >> let me try and channel some of the confirmations would be like. let's start with iran. i can president-elect trump said the rent deal president obama struck was a disaster parity described as the worst of the old possible to get everything in life answering the was -- the worst deal for the government basis. what should come he's going to be present on genuine 20. this deal is still in place. iran continues to do what it is doing. what would you do but that? >> the president has a lot of options. because president obama didn't do what he should have done really under the constitution. he should have submitted that to the united states senate. that's a treaty. there's no way of escaping the fact that that is a treaty. if you would like to go to sleep earlier tonight, get the

federalist papers and read federalist papers 75 written by hamilton, who is now a broadway star as well as -- if you want the quintessential definition of a treaty, it's the iran agreement or it binds us for more than one president. it binds us for a number of years. it involves a significant area of national security, nuclear power. it should've been submitted to congress to the senate for two-thirds vote of the senate. he never did. what that means is, that deal is over with with the present president. the next president can disavow it as a matter of law by that. >> should be? >> well, either he should be we should use that power to renegotiate it, letting them know, i'd have to live by any of this. none of this is binding on me because he never got the votes.

obama had even a second when he could have done. he could have done as an agreement, in which case he would've only had to gotte gun e majority vote of the house and senate. he knew he couldn't get it. >> it was negotiated not only with iranians but the russians and the chinese, the british and french. you fancy spending the first two years as suggested we negotiating with the -- >> no. i think you to set priorities. so if the priority is let's eliminate isis, maybe you put that off a little bit and to get rid of isis first, and then you go back to that. because isis, short term, i believe is our greatest danger. and not because of isis in iraq and in syria, but because isis did something al-qaeda never did. isis was able to spread itself around the world.

there are 32 countries that have isis cells. the director of the fbi says there are 1000 investigations in the u.s. they've created a danger that al-qaeda never presented to us in terms of their ability to strike, smaller strikes the still very devastating like orlando and the paris and san bernardino and the priest whose head was chopped off in nice, which is one i can't even think about. >> isis is on the run in the region. >> i think if you eliminate them where they are, they lose a lot of power in the ability. want of the values, and there were a lot of disadvantages, but one of the valleys to are a lot of troops in iraq and afghanistan was we kept them on the run. so if you notice from

september 11 until the attack on fort hood, there was no islamic extremist domestic attack in the united states. one of the reasons for that was it's hard to plan an attack when you're being shot at and you're in a cave. computers don't work really well in a cave it and al-qaeda wasn't particularly good at using computers. this new group, isis, is different. a lot of them are recruited from us. they come from england, germany, france, america. they understand us. they understand and use the internet as well as our children do. and in a sense we've got, that's the got to be pretty number one. we have to eliminate that threat. we don't want to live with a third as we have under obama of what's the next city they're going to hit a? are they going to st. louis, chicago? are they going to go back to paris?

once you get that under control, you can start working on the second which may be long-term problem, which is a great fear of mine, which is an iranian shiite kingdom. because now to be honest you would have to say that iraq is a client state of iran. we delivered it to them. could be the worst mistake in american -- probably the worst mistake. >> i think the way we exited iraq was the worst decision made in american history. which meant we turned them over to iran. in turning them over to iran, we turned syria over to iran, and then we were not there when isis began to develop. and so what you have come if you're not careful, what you

have developing is, i call almost a north-south middle east. you have iran, iraq, syria with the backing of russia, yemen right below saudi arabia, so it isn't quite north-south. then you have saudi arabia, the emirates, qatar, oman, egypt, israel, jordan, sunni, the south. that's a war that's going to happen if we don't figure out how to contain iran and stop them from being nuclear. >> russia is playing an important role. there's been a lot of focus on russia and president-elect trump views on russia. is russia a friend or an adversary? >> both. it's about. could be both. but now it's adversary because we made it that way.

it could be both, just like china. what i would like to see china is to be an economic competitor as opposed to a military competitor. russia thinks that the military competitor. it really isn't. e.g. compare the size of our military and mayors, it's our unwillingness under obama to even threaten the use of our military that makes russia so powerful. >> but would that change what they've done in crimea? >> i believe that it could contain them, if we do what donald trump talked about in his military agenda, which is we take our military up to 550,000 troops.

we were going down to 420,000. we take our navy up to 350 ships. we were going down to 247. that's really critical even for china. because at 247 we can't fight a two-ocean war. we gave up the pacific. at 350 china can't match us in the pacific. it becomes very different. he's going to take our marines from about 28 battalions to 36. and it's going to take our air force from about 900 fighters that need parts that we have to get from museums spirit what are they'll going to do? he seems to be against the iraq war. he says he's against the u.s., critical of what the u.s. did in libby. what are you going to do with -- >> well, he used the phrase he borrowed from ronald reagan,

which ronald reagan probably barred from george washington, which is called peace through strength. if you face them with a military that is modern, gigantic, overwhelming and unbelievably good at conventional and asymmetrical warfare, then they may challenge you but i doubt it. gorbachev gave donald trump the answer to how to win. gorbachev wrote in one of his memoirs, i think the principle one that he wrote, ronald reagan spent us into oblivion, and i'm a big advocate of military spending. >> could do the same thing with china? >> i will tell you what happened with china. i believ believe is completely a spin a globe time in china. i believe kevin china and a lot of people here know china, i think you have in china attention not unlike what we have between, let's call them box and the doves.

box our military power can really hope us go economically. the doves say hey, we are so powerful, we are so big, we have so many poor people we have to bring out of poverty. 700 million, that lets become an economic competitor, not a military competitor. so if our navy is that much bigger than theirs, the doves win that war because the hawks can't get the money they need to come and catch us. but if obama takes our navy down here and you can kind of catch us, you kind of encourage them. if we take our navy up here, they are not going to be able to catch us. here's what i believe and know about the chinese. whatever else you think they are enormously practical people. they also realize they have two things to overcome that stand in

the way of being a great world power. one is the enormous amount of poverty that they have to. they are a first world country and a third world country combined. half one, one after the other. that second part someday, if it isn't already, it will be a big problem for the second, they've developed such a large middle-class, you cannot sustain the oppression. you can't sustain the author terrorism that they presently have. that's going to crack at some point. the chinese are great al-qaeda plans except innovative ones. they haven't thought the way through that yet spirit i really want the audience are, a couple of questions please if we could please put her hand up if you have a question. yes, someone over there. right next to you, doctor you

identify yourself? >> alexandra. mayor, i hope you recall my family has been helping to finance the city and states the municipal bond. as i conceive of my company for 15 years and i've dozens of employees in new york, in atlanta, in chicago and i've always taken care of them. they are my family. and so many of them have expressed to me over the last week how scared they are. there's a point at which as a ceo, i can't take care of them anymore. i can't tell them everything is going to be okay. my question to you, with great respect, is when will president-elect trump come out and denounce the very scary things that only happened? some of my african-american employees. i need to go back to them tomorrow and tell them that everything is going to be okay. >> and what are they afraid of?

>> they are afraid of having swastikas painted on the wall. i have african-american boys who are truly afraid to be african-american. they are all scared. they have seen what's going on in the last week and they are terrified. i am terrified for the because against i can't take care of them. i can tell that it's going to be okay. >> okay. you can tell them they will be okay. >> how? >> i will tell you why. they are going to be okay because, number one, they have a president of the united states that not only does not a prejudiced bone in his body him and he doesn't, i've known him for 28 years, but who has ever commitment to try to help the african-american community. he didn't begin saying for four straight months and every single speech that he gave that he is very concerned about the condition of the african-american community in

our inner cities, and that he believes that they should take a look at another alternative to their success than what democrats have done for them. every city you can mention, except maybe mine that had the intervention of a republican and a somewhat republican mayor for a while, that's michael bloomberg, those cities have completely deteriorated under democrats. the democratic policy to the african-american community is make independent, make them dependent on welfare and food stamps and don't do a damn thing for them. so what donald trump said, let me give you a ladder to success. here is a ladder of success in america. number one, a safe community. you can't live in a community like a lot of chicago where -- >> can you answer my question speak was what?

>> can you answer my question? >> i'm trying to answer questions. >> you are not answering my question. what is he going to do? when? >> what -- [inaudible] >> to be fair, i mean,. [inaudible] >> he went on 60 this last night and he said stopped. he said stopped. >> of course you get. look, look -- >> he said stopped, right? he tol told people to stopped. >> he told people to stop doing what they're doing. he has no more control over them than president obama over hillary clinton have over the goons and thugs that are in my city that are destroying property that are taking over streets and better yelling and screaming at donald trump. so go after president obama, ask when is he going to tell the to stop and when is that going to be effective? he has no more control over than

the goons in folks in los angeles who are destroying property because donald trump was elected. so let's be fair about things. now, if there are crazy people who have come to crazy conclusions about donald trump's election, all i can do is tell them to stop it. at least he's done that. i haven't heard barack obama say, that it out, stop demonstrating, stop taking over fifth avenue on the streets, it doesn't belong to you. when i was mayor of new york, nobody, nobody took my streets. you got to take my sidewalks or you could imagine all you want on my sidewalks but my mayor now allows people to block fifth avenue. that is dangerous. if you block fifth avenue, people die. you can't get into the hospital on time to get them safe from

heart attacks. you can't get to a fire on time. so if you want is a donald trump should stop the crazy people from doing stupid things that they are doing, then you've got to say to barack obama and hillary clinton, will you stop the much larger group of people who are doing crazy things in los angeles, in chicago and the new york that are doing serious damage. >> let's move to another question. please tell me by the way the president is going to live in washington. >> the president is -- >> is fifth avenue going to be a traffic nightmare speak with the president is going to live in washington, and new york hopefully we'll have a new mayor next year. >> more questions. yes, at this table in front. >> i'm nick from snap on tools, you know. first of all, congratulations on

winning back to factory workers in algona, the people in shops in peoria and places like that. you like to see the experts compounded sometimes. the american underdog in terms of election but look, i think this is the result question. it has to do with where he's going to live. if you watched donald trump during the campaign, at least in the distance, it looked like he was very hands-on, shaping the message itself, working on it on a regular basis. and, in fact, defining what his message would be. when you become president, it's generally been said that you have a constant barrage of questions that cannot be decided on the fax. do you believe he's going to handle that the same way he does, he did his campaign? in other words, anderson silva delegate. that's one question that he

immersed himself as other presidents have? secondly when he confronts those questions they can't be decided on the fax, educate look at the arithmetic associate with it, what will be his guiding stars? would be jobs speak with very good question. first of all, he probably discounts somewhat because you don't know him, maybe a bit of this is his style, just how reflected and how much he can delve into issues and things. the things he talked to are things he thought a lot about. they are not just things that -- he spent a great deal of time thinking about the policies that he thought were necessary for the american people. that's the reason he won. not to relitigate the election but hillary clinton gave very little attention to the policies she would put into effect when she was president. he gave a great deal of attention to the policies he would put into effect when he

became president. he talked about immigration. he talked about taxes. he talked about trade. he talked about foreign relations, the iranians agreement. she didn't talk about any of that. i think you're giving them a little must credit for the amount of font that went into what he was saying and what he was doing. i've seen him in many meetings with four, five, six, seven, eight people, whether we're talking foreign policy, military policy or domestic policy, absorb what people were saying. i told you about his change of opinion on what was more important to american business, taxes or regulation. he came to the conclusion that regulation was more important. so i think you're going to find an extraordinarily intelligent man who enjoys public policy as issues. he's even admitted to me about halfway through the campaign he

enjoys it even more than real estate because it's a lot more challenging your and then i think you'll see him surround itself with highly intelligent people. because he's not afraid of highly intelligent people. i think you'll see him surround himself with people of much higher intellect and much higher success than we've had in the last eight years. .. it would raise the spirits of a lot of people in this room. you talked about tariffs cheered when he spoke about it come you

talk about other countries lowering their tariffs rather than the united states increasing their response to the trade were scenario. could you talk a little bit more about that framework and would does indeed be something that would lead to a global lowering of trade tariffs? >> so i think what you're going to find is probably -- probably any president we've had in a long time, we have a president who has spent his time traveling the world and doing business all over the world, right? the last president traveled out of the united states may be three times. was he in europe -- not much, ray. george bush, not much. so, we have somebody who's done business all over the world.

he's done a terrific understanding of the fact that we are a global economy. that doesn't mean that we are not also our own economy, but as we have to protect first appeared in our code of me -- own economy we have to make consistent with the global economy so we can get our fair share of the advantages of the global economy. soon as he has said many times, but it's never been reported properly, he is not a protectionist. he is a free trader, but a fair trader. he talks about closing 45-cent tariffs from china. so let me leave you with the following thought, please. if donald trump are going to sell the hotel that he just built here in washington, which may be the best hotel in washington, i don't know how much it's worth. give me a price. if you are to ask for double the price to start read and then he

would probably take less than that. you're dealing with a negotiator. i work for ronald reagan. ronald reagan passed some of the largest tax cut in american history. the one he presented to tip o'neill was twice the size of the one that he got. so we are dealing with a man who knows how to negotiate. you know, when he said he wants everybody to pay their fair share in nato, they interpret that as we are going to pull out of nato. we are not going to pull out of nato. but believe me, he'll get them to pay their fair share. maybe he will do it by putting a few more troops than in exchange for that if we put more troops and companies got together to to that. we can't subsidize you any longer because we've got a big bag. i think what you are going to find is somebody negotiating for us for one.

i'll give you an example of the difference. when barack obama and hillary clinton came into office, they gave away their nuclear defense of the czech republic to reset the relationship with russia. and i was on a panel much like this about six months ago with secretary gates u.s.a. defense secretary. i said to him something that's always troubled me. i said what do we get in return for that? and he said the spanish word not appeared he was supposed to it. that is a negotiation. i don't know if we ever should have given away the nuclear defense, but if we were going to do it, we had to get something in return for it. donald trump will probably go to congress and will go to the world with an agenda that's a little beyond what he needs so

he has room to negotiate. just like everyone of you doing business. you don't put your house up for sale if it's a $2 million house anyone to million dollars for it at 2 million. you put it up for 2.5 or 2.6 in the near end up it to. if you understand business, if you understand how to negotiate, you understand how to do foreign relations, if you have no experience in doing that, you do silly things like give away the nuclear defense of poland and the czech republic for not being and then putin concludes from day one i can push you all over the world because you're not too smart. i think when you listen to what donald trump said during the election and when you listen to some of the things he proposed things he proposed this, please let intelligent leaders of business understand, he's doing the same thing you are doing any

deal you want to make. you don't start at your lowest number. if you do, you're not going to be running your business very long. you start somewhere higher with a plan b and a plan c. and a plan d. and that is the complexity with which he thinks. that makes a great president. i work for one. i only worked for one president my whole life. ronald reagan. ronald reagan was always under rest made it. ronald reagan always had a plan a, plan b, plans the end for scott to worse, he even had a plan d., but he never got really what he wanted. >> mayor giuliani, sounds like you're going to have a very busy evening. can i please join and think in.

>> thank you very much indeed that was fascinating. we will be hearing more over the next few years, next few weeks certainly. moving right along we are little bits of late that this is a fascinating conversation. another equally fascinating conversation that come it every successful presidential campaign architect. famously president obama had david axelrod. president george w. bush of course that karl rove, the architect as he's known. it's fair to say most people in the political business believe that our next guest was very much the architect of the recent presidential election success of donald trump. so we are looking forward to a very interesting conversation about that and also about the next four years. ladies and gentlemen, please welcome kellyanne conway, campaign manager for donald jay trump announced that reiser to the transition team and dairy side from "the wall street journal."

[applause] >> thank you good we almost didn't make it because there is a transition meeting going on. sorry, mayor we had to break it up. thank you for being here. >> this is proof that if you hang around long enough for missing things happen. we first knew each other years ago when you are working for frank luntz and i was a young reporter and here we are. but so who know. life rolls on in interesting ways. you went through an experience, i suspect you hadn't planned on in the last six and we all lived through a tuesday night that was fair to say different from the one most of us had expected. i'll take your word for that. i want to look more forward than backward. let me just start with what you have been on tuesday night and

ask you what was the message, what was the mandate, what was the voice of voters as you read it now that the dust has settled from last tuesday night? >> first of all, thank you for having me and mr. thompson, mr. baker, all of you at "the wall street journal," i really appreciate the opportunity. the message on tuesday night is that there is more than a nice, that i think the clues that the election in 2016 were hiding in plain sight. everything that donald trump said about the populist, about people wanting fairness and opportunity and a voice ended up being true. we can talk about it being an anti-of the this election. i think that's fine and has some merit. but its very core. people were talking about security. it could be security from terrorism, national security but

it's also health care security, economic security. it's s. social security but also small ask social security. donald trump is going to states like pennsylvania and new hampshire talking about opiate use an ohio is a different kind of insecurity that was fairly new to our communities. people also talk about everyday affordability. i've been a vocal and longtime critic of republican politicians who run around talking about job creation. you didn't build that bad a job creator. i'm a much greater. i think that's wonderful. i think that's fabulous. however, that's not 7% of the country are job creators orangeburg mirrors. there's another 7% better the job seekers, the unemployed. 7% or so. the vast majority of households are neither job creators are job seekers. they are jobholders and donald trump gave way to the jobholders.

the people in this country who say what my grandfather had a job or your grant other had a job, it was enough to support the whole family. we have two, three jobs in households and wear white knuckle that the end of each month trying to figure out how to pay the rent or mortgage for the tuition or their school student loan payment, the food and the fuel. i think he gave voice to those folks who are just trying to meet everyday needs and have a fair shake. people are also talking about fairness. i think that hillary clinton's campaign was about equality. a lot of this country of course we cherish equality. it's enshrined in our constitution, that most people are talking about fairness, which is different. fairness is about equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. you listen to people closely, but really undergirded their

views towards education reform, like school choice are opening up more technical location opportunities for many kids who just our college material and not sign. that is good. talk about immigration policy, talking about tax reform, when they're talking about letting serious refugees and bipeds under 50/50% as hillary would or not. they are really talking about what is fair. i think donald trump had issues on the map that no one was giving voice to like trade are like illegal immigration. illegal immigration here take it later through an economic lens. so we would no longer only asking what is fair to the illegal immigrant. all of a sudden we were asking what is fair to the american worker. what is fair to ask employers to do? is it enough to enroll in either a fight much her hands played or should we be asking them to do more?

what is fair to local communities and folks who would do the jobs that others are doing, but they can't do it for $6 under the table, nor should they be asked to do. i think he gave voice to issues that were more part of the social and cultural advice than just a garden-variety political set of ideas. the other thing is i read with rapt attention, but no surprise that hillary clinton had tested up to 84 slogans years in the dance for the presidential race and not just remarkable. i certainly hope her posters got paid by the slogan. donald trump basically started and ended to make america great again. it is very essence it really was about patriotism and a buzz about aspiration and opportunity and freedom and frankly fairness. the other thing i would just take from all of this is what the message.

a couple messages. one is that veracity are a qualification for of the united states. i think that folks in hillary clinton's campaign, which is filled with brilliant bad the strategists including the candidate herself, but the idea that temperament or what you said 20 years ago it is an affirmative criteria and veracity and trustworthy is just not going to be true. you're not going to convince voters otherwise. >> you think it's also fair to say that he tapped into an anger that was in the country and it produced a somewhat divisive campaign, and make a campaign. i think it was reflected in the first question we heard tonight. one of the things i wanted to ask you was what can be done now to heal those divisions? what would you say to an hispanic family that is worried

about the time for a muslim family is worried about the town? what is a message to them and what can about donald trump say to those people in the weeks ahead dessert of tamp down the concerns we are seeing? >> you are back to 1994 when you met him when i was at franklin for the contract of america. the word anger was used in 1994 and franklin had an op-ed in "the wall street journal" right before election day 1994 and he said in a tuesday electorate is angry. i remember it verbatim. i think that is merit, but i also think angry as a way to describe the electorate is a little bit of an excuse. it's an excuse to not actually listen to voters. i think many people who honestly had their day jobs are to listen to voters, to really get to know what america was trying to tell us. they fell down on the job

because they say they are angry so i can be a rest flickr. they are angry, scary, peddling hate and divisiveness when really many of them are just frustrated and fearful, legitimately fearful and legitimately frustrated that they can't pay the bills, but they just can't get ahead. there's nothing else they can do. they have a job, they let the good life, pay their taxes, pay their dues, but by the rules and yet they always feel like they are in the quicksand of everyday affordability. so i want to say there is frustration, fear and not just anger. to answer your question, i would hearken back to a president-elect trump said when he was like dead by then wednesday morning, not tuesday night. he said and he read the speech. i was there. he said i will be the president of all americans, even those who did not support any and that is many millions that he means it. rudy and i can tell you he means

it. let's begin there that he will be present to all americans. u.s. specifically about the hispanic family, the muslim family, anybody who i heard i hope they have heard him say he's expressed regret for any pain he's caused particularly if it was done with words and he did not intend to do that and he means that as well. he said that in august and is each in north carolina. i would beseech them to at least listen and at least acknowledge that he is their president. the same message i would have to the protesters. they have a right to air their grievances, but i also just think we are caught flat-footed and unaware. people got election results they were not anticipating. all the talk about who is angry and who want to accept the election results and who is not appreciating the natural origins and processes of democracy were asking the right questions about the wrong candidate in the wrong candidate supporters.

so give him a chance and see what he does as your president. i know he loves this country. i know he made enormous sacrifices to run for president. a lot of politicians run for power and prestige and status and money and fame. he has all of that and he and his family who have gotten to know very well and respect enormously have made very big sacrifices to do this and it's for love of the country and a belief they can actually make a difference. >> so if you were lucky not trying now to move into washington and govern in a city where i would argue that the earnings are divided. you've got republicans -- there's a populist strain and mayor giuliani were talking about this earlier. there's a pot the strain and the more traditional conservative strain. the democrats, traditional democratic politicians than bernie sanders politicians.

how do you bring that mass together to create a consensus in washington because it seems very hard to me to be able to move from this campaign as divisive as it's been in both parties to a place where you can create policies that bring people together. >> first, i would note that we may want to look at that as a source of strength and not weakness, meaning you just mentioned the two major political parties in the top about the divisions are the differences within them. but it's probably good for the country and anybody who calls himself or herself a republican or democrat or an independent leading toward the other party. it is published strength and comfort for them that their party has different strands within it. you mention the democratic party. he said traditional democratic party and bernie sanders voters as well. bernie sanders voters ended up being incredibly potent force that this is not nothing. he won 22 states against a woman who we've been told for eight

years at least now, maybe 10 or 12 is a shoo-in for the presidency and has now busted twice. first in the primary president upon the now to president-elect trump in the general. so bernie sanders that aliens had millions of votes. i'm not sure, in fact i'm pretty sure that his brand you can call it socialism and democratic populism, but his message was never fully appreciated, respected and it immolated into the larger hillary clinton message and campaign which i think is a mistake. i think that was a mistake. i think there is work to do. i'm also not sure this is the democratic party anymore that i grew up in with the second amendment is respected with pro-life democrat where there are democrats who would dare say it ain't we can actually use a flat tax like the one jfk had enough in spirit i don't see them. they are not there.

as i said before you, before senator ayotte oster of action, the republican party and one of them is here, the republican party had six female united states senators. three were pro-life and three were pro-choice. you probably never heard that before because he would tell you. the democratic party has many more female senators that they all have one view on a pretty divisive issue in our country. so the republican party to me seems like the one that is going through a public call welcome growing teams. one that is actually expanding its constituencies, and we just found out expanding the electoral map by going back into the so-called blue states that haven't gone republican in decades literally. we have a third of the population that's been born, maybe more at this point since wisconsin went red. neither the bushes who are president of wisconsin since 1984 and donald trump won it. that's a sign of a growing party, not a shrinking party.

i am one who is optimistic about having this large republican party where people feel welcome and it really depends and we tried to do this that the term campaign. we look i think in politics and media, with the guy at just these demographics, your gender, your race, your ethnicity. but you have to look at them situationally as well. if you have a negatively affect a comment if you feel you've been negatively affected by the affordable character of, care, that is how you are voting this year and it's almost irrespective of your gender or your ethnicity or socioeconomic status. situationally, and someone close to you has lost a job, that is the prison to which you look at this election and again it is a part rent your gender or ethnicity. >> there are a lot of things to do in a transition obviously. i wonder if one of the things

that president-elect trump feels a need to do is to somehow reach out to the country in a more kind of formal way to address some of these divisions, to bring people together. have you talked about that? is there something plan to make that happen in the next two months before the migration which is the obvious point of which this traditionally occurs? >> it has been discussed. i think you see early signs of it, even though he's since gone in the trump tower right now working hard receiving calls for heads of state and elected officials from both sides of the aisle and other opinion leaders. first of all, he and mrs. trump coming here to washington less than 36 hours after being elected president of the united states, him coming here to meet with president obama and first lady michelle obama and vice president and of course senate majority leader mcconnell and

speaker ryan, especially his meeting with president obama and first lady obama. that was so incredibly poured in to show the country that the sitting president and president the sitting president and president-elect who had really battled it out pretty viciously for a while and personally, not for a while, up until the last moment. >> a long while. >> somehow they are able to lay down the musket a few well and love their country so much that they want to make sure there's a peaceful transition of power. i think that is the earliest and best and brightest sign you have about president-elect donald trump wanted to elect the entire country is one. the second one is frankly his interview with "the wall street journal" over the weekend and wide-eyed -- the readout i got from that and of course what was published. i think his interview on 60 minutes last night when he was on specific policy questions for he immediately denounced those

who say they support him, were peddling hate and divisiveness and he just told them cut it out, stop it and he means it. so yes, i think you'll hear a lot of personal flourish in his inaugural address to i out there was a lot of hurt and pain when he won for many people who weren't not. but if you go back and read what he said in his words that night he was saturday moving in that direction. having said that, the men will not become a walking hallmark card, nor should he. he is a tough guy and america decided it wanted a test later. it wants someone who speaks specifically about what he is going to do and does not back down and is pushing back against this culture of political correctness and is going to put america first common meaning is

going to renegotiate bad trade deals. it's going to bring jobs back from mexico and china. all the things he talked about. that night in a speech come he said because i remember it verbatim. and to the world community, i will always put america first, but i will work with you and i will be fair. and he's going to aim to do both. >> i wrote a column at one point during the campaign that said those who want an independent presidential candidate for years now how one. his name is donald trump because he did run as an independent. i guess the good news if you are in the position of being the president-elect and his team, which you are, as you are not beholden to anybody. the bad news is you have a less solid core support in this town than his normal. i guess the question then becomes, does he work with republicans in congress? does he accept the republican party policy agenda that paul ryan spent a lot of time constructing in the house or do you start over at this point?

>> this'll be his presidency and this'll be his vision. he's been clear about his 100 day plan. anybody can pull it off and you can see what he's talking about. it's very specific. before that, he's talked about this great economic brilliant minds like steve moore and his jobs and tax reform plan creating 25 million jobs over the next 10 years, unleashing energy, independent and really just energy sources, and shale and coal and natural gas. he also talked about infrastructure investment quite significantly educational reform, defeating radical islamic terrorism, reforming the veterans administration. these aren't soundbites and bumper stickers. they're 10.4.5.7. plans that the policy among us would enjoy. you can expect that to define how it goes in and out. use rdf to a very good chart of

working with speaker ryan. i've witnessed the policy of the great meeting last week as did vice president pants. they made their way back so i believe they'll have to find a way to knit together what was already being worked on and could never be signed into law because they had a democratic president and president obama and what mr. trump has put forward as his plan. the excuse of divided government is over. i think it is causation, not coincident that americans gave a republican president and republican house and a republican senate majority republican governor 69 of the 99 state legislative chambers. i read somewhere that the democrats now controlled 26% of the chambers that they lose one or two more they are lower than the threshold than defeat a constitutional moment. these are not quotes. that was not a divided election

in those terms. he has been very, very specific in what he plans to do. if people didn't hear it, it's because they didn't want to hear it. as they are. >> you just described a question about whether there is now a populist party i think for the ceos in this room, i suppose that generates mixed feelings that the entire regulatory message, undoubtedly is cheered, although there's probably some concerned about the big is bad, the anti-free-trade agreement, the xm bank is crony capitalism. ..

his plan to create 25 million jobs over 10 years is centered in part in debt reduction, centered in part and energy and infrastructure investment but also it centered with economic growth over 3%, not be any medical growth we have no. the risk lucas, they look everything. you will never get growth. let's try. does anybody think that growth rates with is the best we can do? he doesn't. vice president-elect pence doesn't. the whole plant is there. he doesn't that all these deals are bad. he believes nafta was a bad deal for the american worker. it sounds like a critical mass of private union households and certainly non-college educated households in places like wisconsin and michigan, pennsylvania, ohio, all the people i grew up with. ey