and debt to consider. second will be michelle who is heritage research foundation, financial markets and monetary policy including reform of the dodd-frank act and of fanny may and freddy mack. i wanted to say that since both dodd frank were supporters, these two issues go very well together. norbert also focusing on the best way to address credit difficulties of large or too big to fail financial companies as paul said and on the issues concerning the role of the federal reserve as we'll be discussing today. next will be nellie young, senior fellow at the hutchins. she's also a consult tant -- >> we'll leave this monetary policy discussion for today's white house press briefing. this is live coverage on cspan3. >> as many of you will recall,

one of president trump's core campaign promises was to defeat isis. with a stunning fall of mosul in june and now with isis nearly eradicated from raqqa, it is ra clear that isis' so called caliphate is crumbling. our brave service members comes at a high cost, particularly to the syrian democratic forces who suffered many casualties as they fought to liberate their own country from the oppression of isis. instead of caring for the urgent humanitarian needs of raqqa's residents, isis utilized the money it stockpiled to finance terrorist attacks across the world, including against many muslims. as coalition and our partner forces closed in around them, isis used civilians as human shields and killed those who attempted to flee. isis' barbaric acts have left many scars across the region, and we remain committed to supporting stabilization efforts

and local security forces in liberated areas through a political transition in syria. unfortunately, the syrian regime and its supporters hindered the efforts to liberate raqqa. instead of focusing on fighting isis, the pro regime forces attacked our partners and attempted to block them from liberating the syrian people from the brutality of isis. while we know isis and its destructive ideology will remain a threat, the liberation of raqqa will mark the beginning of a new phase in the syrian conflict. as we and our partners take away the ability of isis to plot and carry out attacks from territory they control, we will continue to seek the deescalation of violence in other battle fields across syria. looking ahead to tomorrow, we will be welcoming governor rousselo of puerto rico to the white house to talk about the ongoing recovery and rebuilding efforts. we will continue working hand in hand with local leaders in all areas of our country that have

been impacted by several natural dlaf drafts in recent months. as president trump has said, we stand with our fellow citizens, we're here to help and get them back on their feet. and with that, i will take your questions. quiet. john. >> sara, the president stated earlier today he would not allow insurance companies to pad their pockets with money from the federal government. the white house has some concerns about the alexander murray bill. can you articulate what those concerns are? >> we've said all along that we want something that doesn't just bail out the insurance companies, but actually provides relief for all americans. and this bill doesn't address that fact. so we want to make sure that that's taken care of. we think that this is a good step in the right direction. this president certainly supports republicans and democrats coming to work together. but it's not a full approach, and we need something to go a little bit further. >> can you articulate

specifically what the white house is concerned about? >> some of the things -- >> outreach dollars, and making sure the money -- >> some of the things the president has stated before, he wants to lower premiums, he wants to provide greater flexibility. he wants to drive competition. he likes the idea of block grants to states. those are a lot of the ideas he would like to see in a health care plan. >> sarah, the president's tweet this morning, if we can. what proof does president trump have when he says congresswoman wilson is not telling the truth. are there reportings of his phone call with myesha johnson. >> no, but there were several people in the room from the administration that were on the call, including the chief of staff, general john kelly. >> the president also said that he has called every family of someone who has died. is that true? >> the president has made contact with all of the families that have been presented to him through the white house military office. >> there have been families that have since come forward to the associated press, the names are

in these reports who say they have not heard from this white house in any capacity. >> all of the individuals that the president has been presented with through the proper protocol have been contacted through that process. jeff. >> sarah, just to follow up on the health care question. is it correct then to say that president trump does not support this deal in its current form. >> correct. >> and -- >> i think he stated that pretty clearly today. >> and then just as a followup, on another issue. he had a conversation today with governor reynolds of iowa. can you tell us a little bit about what they discussed, and did he make any reassurances about the renewable fuel. >> they didn't make any reassurances. it was discussed. and they will continue to look at that process. but no definitive decision was made on rfs on today's call. but it was discussed. justin. >> today secretary manchin was talking about the tax market and he said it's very hard not to give tax cuts to the wealthy.

seems like an acknowledgment of the realities, math and sort of the independent analysis of the president's tax plan. but as recently as of a month ago, the president said this plan would not benefit the wealthy. >> that's not the focus of the tax plan. the focus, as we have said, time and time again, the focus and the priority of the framework that the white house has laid out is to benefit the middle class. >> but you would agree with secretary manchin -- >> that there may be some people who receive tax cuts that are also in the wealthy bracket, yes. but the fact is, the priority, again, remains that middle class americans are the ones that are most impacted, and that's where the priority and the focus lies. >> sarah, what is the criteria the white house military office uses for presenting names of families to the president after the big casualties in combat? >> so there's a process that is a standard protocol.

once a person is killed in action, the first steps, the process begins with a dod casualty assistance officer making next of kin notifications. after that, they create a package sent to the military office. that package reconfirms the contents of the package have to be confirmed by the white house military office. once that process is completed, the president or other members of the administration can engage in contact. >> just to follow up on that, so are you saying that if the president hasn't contacted the family members of every service member who has been a casualty since he came to office, it's because of the protocols of that office? >> that's my understanding. if there is a specific case, i would have to look into it. but as a whole, and generally speaking, that's my understanding. >> just to follow up on this week, why did the president wait 12 days to speak publicly about the -- >> as i just said, i walked you through that process. so the dod package that was sent to the white house arrived on

thursday of last week. the white house military office confirmed the contents of that package on monday. and the letters had been drafted over the weekend. they were sent once that confirmation was completed and calls were scheduled on monday to be made on tuesday. >> i wasn't just asking about the families. i was asking about why he didn't make public remarks. >> about contact. is the president satisfied he has learned everything he wants to know about the situation itself in niger? pentagon sources described it as what was interpreted to be initially as a low-risk mission. the ambush was a big surprise. there was no air cover. 30 minutes for air cover to arrive. questions about the speed of the evacuation, and having perhaps that something to do with whether or not these military personnel survived or not. is the president satisfied he knows everything he needs to know about this particular raid, rules of engagement and everything about it? >> i believe they're still looking into the details of that. but i don't think that the president can ever be satisfied

when there's loss of life from men and women in the uniform. >> is there anything he wants to know more about this than he's learned so far? >> i can't get into the specifics in terms -- i can't get into the specifics of the details of the raid at this point. but, be again, i don't think you can ever use the word satisfied with the process when there's a loss of life for someone in the military. >> deborah. >> i'll come back if i have time. deborah. >> i have a las vegas question. is the administration looking at having the atf ban bump stocks or does the president think that congress should do it? >> we're certainly still looking into and having a review done of that process. and when there's an official policy position, i'll make that announcement. >> how long -- >> john. >> thank you, sarah. two questions. when the alexander murray bill came up at the scrum rose garden monday, there were questions

about whether it would contain federal funding for abortions. and these concerns have been raised by several pro life lawmakers on capitol hill. will the president rule out signing any kind of measure that improves funding for abortion? >> the president stated that he would like to see a health care bill that does not include funding for abortion. >> will he rule out signing one that does? >> i believe that that is probably something that would be a priority for him. but in terms of negotiating what that health care package would look like, i'm not going to do that from the podium today. >> my second question -- >> i'm going to try to take one question today to get to everybody. john decker. >> thank you, sarah. a question about the nfl. roger goodell, the commissioner of the nfl, earlier today said that all players should stand during the playing of the national anthem. earlier this week, there was new change in policy as it relates to the nfl and mandating that

all players in the nfl stand for the national anthem. does the president believe that he's winning this argument, or has won this argument as it relates to what he said about whether players should stand for the playing of the national anthem? >> i think it's certainly a step in the right direction. as we have said many times before, the president supports standing for the national anthem, saluting the flag. and honoring those men and women in uniform that fight to protect it. >> sarah, thanks. does the president feel as a matter of principle that it is not adequate to simply send a letter of condolence to the family of a slain service person? as president bush and president obama typically did? and does he feel that it was not adequate for president obama to have sent a letter to general kelly, but not call general kelly on the death of his son? >> i don't think that there's anything that any president can

do. there's never going to be enough that a president can do for the families of those that are killed in action. the point the president was making is that there's a different process. sometimes they call, sometimes they write letters, sometimes they engage directly. the comments were certainly, i think, taken very far out of context by the media. and if there is any frustration, i think that's where it should be focused. >> sarah. >> blake. >> let me ask you about something steve mnuchin had said, since you guys talk about the stock market, and the president does, as well. he said, and i quote, there's no question in my mind, if we don't get it done, meaning tax reform, you're going to see reversal of a significant amount of these gains. essentially saying if a tax reform doesn't happen, there could be a major correction. how concerned is the president at this point of that possibility? >> we're confident that we're going to get tax cuts done, and so that's what we're focused on. and we're going to continue pushing forward until we get there. >> on the health care bill, if you don't mind -- >> i'm sorry, i'm just going to

take one question today. >> the president tweeted about the california wildfire situation. does he have any plans at this point to visit california, to survey the damage in person? and if he doesn't, does that speak to a lack of interest in helping the state from the wildfires? >> not at all. again, the administration has been very engaged throughout this process. we're going to continue to be there. we're continuing to talk with state and local officials on the ground. and work with those individuals to make sure that whatever aid is needed that we can help provide that process. >> is he going to go to the state -- >> there's not a trip planned at this time, but it certainly hasn't been ruled out, either. phillip. >> thank you, sarah. can you please clarify the president's position, especially given the takeover. and does the presidency kurdistan as an ally in general? >> as we said before, that position hasn't changed. we urge all sides to avoid

escalating this further. we oppose the violence from any party, and we would like for them to be focused on helping continue in the fights against isis, and that's where -- and iran, and that's where we would like to see their energy focused. >> i >> thanks, sarah. it's been more than two months since the president said he would declare the opioid epidemic a national public emergency. on monday he said he would get it done next week. but that to get to that step, a lot of work had to be done, and called it time-consuming work. can you explain what is taking so long, detail what this time-consuming work is. >> there is a very in depth legal process that goes with declaring national emergency. we'll make further announcements on that next week. but there have been multiple people. it's an interagency process. a lot of different stakeholders have been involved, and we'll have further announcements on that next week like the president said. >> can you tell -- >> sorry, i'm going stick to the one question. >> just following on the tax reform meeting today.

can you just sort of talk about the strategy from the white house going forward on this? i know that mark told us before that democrats were a must-have on this bill. or on tax reform. is that still where things are? >> i think it's pretty simple. the strategy is to get enough votes to pass tax cuts. >> so can you just elaborate on getting democrats on board? >> we don't know why any democrat would want to be against providing tax relief and tax cuts, specifically to middle class america. i don't know why anybody wouldn't want to get on board with that. hunter? >> thank you, sarah. it's been almost a month since hurricane maria hit puerto rico. almost 80% of the island is without power and a million americans, a third of the population, still don't have reliable drinking water. does the administration consider the current state of affairs in puerto rico acceptable. and when it comes to puerto rico, does the buck stop with president trump? >> look, we're continuing to do everything that we can to help the people of puerto rico. it's one of the reasons that the governor will be here at the

white house tomorrow to continue those conversations. to talk about how best the federal government can help aid state and local governments. and help in the rebuilding and recovery efforts. eamon? >> thank you, sarah. the president once said he considers himself to be a low-interest rate guy. does he still consider himself to be a low interest rate guy, and will that have any bearing on who he selects to run the fed? >> as the president said yesterday, he's interviewed a number of very qualified individuals, and he'll make that announcement in the coming days. and we can deliberate all of the details of that once that happens. days add up to weeks. >> the phone call real quick. what exactly is the president denying? is he denying that he ever spoke these words to the widow that he must have known what he signed up for, or is he just saying she took it the wrong way and it was taken out of context? >> the president's call, as accounted by multiple people in

the room, believed that the president was completely respectful, very sympathetic, and expressed the condolences of himself and the rest of the country. and thanked the family for their service, commended them for having an american hero in their family. and i don't know how you could take that any other way. >> it wasn't that he didn't say those words, it was the context. he felt that she put it in the wrong context. is that it? >> i'm not going to get into the back and forth. i think that the sentiment of the president was very clear. he took the time to make a call to express his condolences, to thank the family for this individual service. and i think it frankly is a disgrace of the media to try to portray an act of kindness like that and that gesture and to try to make it into something that it isn't. >> sarah. >> peter. >> did the president speak to his chief of staff, general john kelly, before invoking his son's death and what has about hbecom

political argument? >> he has spoken to general kelly yesterday and today. >> on this very topic. in other words, did general kelly know he would be raising this issue of his son's memory? >> i'm not sure if he knew of that specific comment. but they had certainly spoken about it, and he's aware and they have spoken several times since then. >> can you describe how general kelly feels about it? is he comfortable? >> i think that general kelly is disgusted by the way this has been politicized. and that the focusing has become on the process and not that american lives have been lost. he's disgusted and frustrated by that. if he has any anger, it's towards that. fred. fred. >> the house a few weeks prior to passing the ban on abortions, has said the president would sign this legislation. is the white house putting pressure on the senate to pass the lindsey graham bill that

would ban -- >> i'm sorry, what was the last part of the question? >> is the white house putting pressure on the senate to pass the lindsey graham 20-week ban? >> i know that there is been conversations about that and the administration supports that policy. but beyond that, i don't know if there have been further conversations or pressure applied. but certainly support that effort. >> sarah? >> sarah? >> april. >> sarah, congresswoman wilson, i talked to her a couple hours ago. and she says that this is the president's benghazi. she says that jackson was -- were in niger, trying to find out information and doing the mission about boko haram. and she said his transmitter was still emitting for two days, emitting a signal when he was located. and she says that makes no sense, why he wasn't located. what say you about that. and also, what do you say about her comment that he did not

know, and the wife, the widow, said that the president did not know his name. he kept saying "your guy, your guy." >> just because the president said "your guy," i don't think that means he doesn't know his name. the hardest job he has is making calls like that. i think it is appalling what the congresswoman has done, and the way she has politicized this issue. and the way that she is trying to make this about something that it isn't. this was a president who loves our country very much, who has the greatest level of respect for men in uniform. and i think to try to create something from that that the congresswoman is doing is frankly apalling and disgusting. >> what about boko haram and niger. the mission -- >> as i said to major before, i'm not going to get into the details of that action at this point. >> was she right? >> as i said before, i'm not going to get into the details of

that action at this time. and when we have further information, i'll be happy to discuss it with you. >> sarah -- >> hallie. >> thank you. setting aside the congresswoman, the discussion about the politicization of this. the woman who raised sergeant johnson spoke to the "washington post" and said she felt like her son had been disrespected. and, again, i'm not asking about what congresswoman wilson had to say or anything like that. but given that somebody who has, as you rightly know, making these phone calls is difficult. is the president reconsidering the way that he communicates with these families? has general kelly counselled him on perhaps how he might want to choose or change his words? >> general kelly was present for the call and thought it was completely appropriate. he thought the call was respectful. and he thought that the president did the best job he could under those circumstances to offer con dodolences on beha of the country. phillip. >> nafta. the mexican negotiators have

rejected the u.s. proposals, proposals that were described as unconventional and troubling. is nafta dead? >> not yet. but as the president said, it's a bad deal, and he wants to make sure that we have a deal that benefits american workers. that's what this administration is focused on. we're going to continue to push forward. if we can't get there, we'll let you know what the changes are. francessca. >> thank you, sarah. in a tweet this morning, president trump said that former fbi director, james comey, lied, leaked and totally protected hillary clinton. he also asked where is the justice department on this. what exactly does the president want the justice department to do? is he calling for a prosecution of james comey? what's he asking for here? >> look, the white house hasn't and won't offer a legal opinion on comey's conduct. but, in fact, to the contrary, the white house has actually deferred, as it should, any and all legal questions regarding director comey to the department of justice. that's the appropriate venue.

>> so what does he want the justice to do. that's what i'm asking. >> we will refer any legal action to the department of justice. anything on that front would be handled by them. sarah. >> sarah, normally, when the president is upset about something we hear from him pretty quickly about it. whether it's the senator, an issue with the nfl. so why did it take nearly two weeks for him to say something about this isis ambush, not to reach out to the families, but even to offer public condolences or to explain to the american public what happened and how the deadliest combat mission involving american troops went so wrong? >> as i said before, there is a protocol for that. but there is also -- we did make public remarks from the administration. i know i did in short order after that happened, from the podium at the direction of the -- at the direction of the president. and i speak on his behalf. and i did that on behalf of the president and the administration. >> sarah? >> sarah, you brought up politicizing a couple times in relation to congresswoman

wilson. did the president politicize general kelly's son's death by bringing it up about what past presidents did or didn't do? >> he was responding to a question and stating a fact. >> just to clarify your earlier answer, you're not denying that in some point in the conversations, the president used the words, "it's what he signed up for." >> i spoke specifically to the sentiment that was offered by the president. i didn't get into the details of a personal call. because i don't find that to be that appropriate. trey. >> thank you, sarah. you opened up at the top discussing the liberation of raqqa. so my question for you is, how does the president envision future u.s. involvement in both syria and iraq post isis? >> we want to continue to work with our coalition forces to completely destroy and defeat isis. right now that's the priority, and that's the focus. and that's where we're going to continue to be focused on at this time. thank you guys so much for today and we'll see you tomorrow. >> thank you, sarah.

c-span, where history unfolds daily. in 1979, c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television companies. and is brought to you today by your cable or satellite provider. senator al franken says attorney general jeff sessions is moving the goal posts in denying his interactions with the russian ambassador. the minnesota democrat confronted the attorney general about his january testimony during this morning's oversight hearing with the senate judiciary committee. here's the exchange. >> senator franken. >> thank you, mr. chairman. attorney general sessions,

welcome back. last time we spoke, i asked you about russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. there is now absolutely no question that the russians meddled in the election in order to undermine confidence in american democracy, to damage the campaign of hillary clinton, and to boost donald trump. our intelligence agencies have confirmed this. we also know that there were many contacts and communications between russian operatives and trump campaign officials and associates. now, in order to make sure that this kind of attack never happens again, we need to understand what happened. and whether anyone inside the trump campaign assisted the russian effort. during your confirmation hearing, i asked you, and i quote, if there is any evidence

that anyone affiliated with the trump campaign communicated with the russian government in the course of this campaign, what will you do? that was a simple, straight forward question. what will you do. the implication was, will you recuse yourself. but rather than answer that question, you replied, quote, i have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign, and i didn't have -- did not have communications with the russians. close quote. that was on january 10th. on february 8th, you were confirmed, and on march 1st, the "washington post" published a story that you met with sergei kislyak, the russian ambassador, twice during the campaign. once in july on the 18th and once on september 8th and it was later reported you met with a russian ambassador a third time

at the may flower hotel in april of 2016. confronted with these reports, you subtly changed your story. your answer under oath before this committee was that you, quote, did not have communications with the russians. period. but on the morning that the story broke, you said, quote, i have not met with any russians at any time to discuss any political campaign. on twitter, you said, quote, i never met with any russian officials to discuss issues of the campaign. so, confronted with the truth, you started to qualify your answer. later in a letter you sent to this committee to clarify your testimony and to disclose two of your three meetings, you wrote, quote, i do not recall any

discussions with the russian ambassador or any other representative of the russian government regarding the political campaign on these occasions, or any other occasions. but this summer, the "washington post" reported that american intelligence agencies intercepted communications between the russian ambassador and moscow, in which he described two of his conversations with you. the april meeting at the mayflower hotel and july meeting at the republican national convention, citing both former and current u.s. officials, the intercepts reportedly indicate that you had, quote, substantive, unquote, discussions on policy matters important to moscow. according to officials familiar with russian intelligence reports, the ambassador was well-known for accurately relaying his interactions with

u.s. officials back to the kremlin. attorney general sessions, in response to this report, the justice department declined to comment on the voracity of the intelligence intercepts, but doj did assert that you did, quote, not discuss interference in the election. which is also how you describe your communications to the senate intelligence committee. so, again, the goalpost has been moved. first it was, i did not have communications with russians. which was not true. then it was, i never met with any russians to discuss any political campaign. which may or may not be true. now it's, i did not discuss interference in the campaign. which further narrows your initial blanket denial about meeting with the russians.

since you have qualified your denial to say that you did not, quote, discuss issues of the campaign with russians, what, in your view, constitutes issues of the campaign? >> well, let me just say this without hesitation. that i conducted no improper discussions with russians at any time regarding a campaign or any other item facing this country. >> okay. how do you know? >> that's been the suggestion that you've raised and others that somehow we had conversations that were improper. >> may i suggest that -- >> no, no, you had a long time, senator franken. i'd like to respond. >> okay. we'll note that senator cruz went two minutes over, so -- i don't want to -- they're going to cut me off, and so i want to ask you some questions. >> i -- no.

mr. chairman, i don't have to sit in here and listen to his -- >> you're the one who testified -- >> argue without having a chance to respond. give me a break. >> i'll give you that time. >> okay, thank you. go ahead. take whatever -- >> it was not a simple question, senator franken. >> i'm sorry? >> it was not a simple question. the lead-in to your question was very, very troubling. and i answered to you in a way that i felt was responsive to what you raised in your question. let me read it to you. you said, "cnn has just published a story" meaning that day, while we were in the hearing. that i -- none of us had heard about. >> keep reading. >> and i'm telling you this -- about this news story that's just been published. i'm not expecting you to know

whether or not it's true. but cnn just published a story alleging that the intelligence community -- that's of the united states of america -- provided documents to the president-elect last week that included information that, quote, russian operatives claim to have compromising personal and financial information about mr. trump. you went on to say, these documents also allegedly say, quote, there was a continuing exchange of information during the campaign between trump's surrogates and intermediaries for the russian government. now, again, i'm telling you this as it's coming out. so you know. but if it's true, it's obviously extremely serious, and if there is any evidence that anyone affiliated with the trump campaign communicated with the russian government in the course of this campaign, what will you

do? so taken aback by this dramatic statement that i had never heard before and knew nothing about, i responded this way. senator franken, i'm not aware of those activities. i have been called a surrogate a time or two in this campaign, and i did not have -- i didn't have -- did not have communications with the russians, and i'm unable to comment on it. i don't think that can fairly be interpreted as saying i never had conversations with any russians. it was referring directly to the suggestion that there was a continuing exchange of information between trump's surrogates and intermediaries for the russian government, which did not happen. at least not to my knowledge. and not with me. and that's why i responded the way i do. and i'm disappointed -- yes, you can say what you want to about

the accuracy of it. but i think it was a good faith response to a dramatic event at the time. and i don't think it's fair for you to suggest otherwise. >> three minutes, and then finish. >> he took more than three minutes. >> no, he didn't. >> yeah. >> he took about two-and-a-half. >> no, no, no. >> how much do you want? i don't want to take a long time bargaining with you. >> well, i didn't take as much time as senator franken took. >> hey, let's -- let me just deal with senator franken. three more minutes, please. >> okay. first of all, you said, i didn't have -- did not have communications with the russians. this was about ongoing communications? you had three communications with kislyak. and now you can't recall answering senator leahy.

you can't recall whether you discussed what you discussed with kislyak. >> what i would say to you is -- >> please. >> okay, go ahead. you go make a lot of allegations, senator. it's hard for me to respond during the time i've got. >> can i have a little bit more time? okay. [ inaudible ] you said today in response to senator leahy that you don't recall whether you talked about the campaign. you don't recall whether you talked about issues, and trump's views on issues with russia. those are very, very relevant to the campaign. whether a surrogate from the campaign is talking with the russian ambassador about the

candidate's views on russian policy, especially at the republican national convention. at the mayflower hotel, the day before trump is going to give his first -- maiden speech on foreign policy. that's very different. not being able to recall what you discussed with him is very different than saying, i have not had communications with the russians. the ambassador from russia is russian. and how your -- how your responses morphed from i did not have communications with the russians to i did not discuss substantive -- i did not discuss

any -- the political campaign. and then finally, going to i did not discuss interference in the election. that to me is moving the goalpost every time. and we're starting off with an extra -- and by the end, we're going to a -- you know, a 75-yard field goal. if it has to be us, you know -- saying, i didn't discuss interfering with the election is your last -- is your last statement. that's a very different bar than, i can tell you i did not meet with any russians. >> relatively short answer. >> so he gets to do about ten minutes improperly framing this subject, and i'm given a short chance to respond? >> proceed, please. but then we're going to call on

senator -- >> first and foremost, senator franken, you and i have had a good relationship on this committee. i would tell my colleagues, i think most of you know, i've committed myself to high-level public service. to reach the highest standards of ethics and decency in my service. to be honest about things that i say. and so you have now gone through this long talk that i believe is totally unfair to me. it all arose from this question. when it was charged that these documents allegedly say, quote, there was a continuing exchange of information during the campaign between trump's surrogates -- as if all of them -- trump's surrogates and intermediaries for the russian government. isn't that what you said? you're shaking your heads. >> not all trump's surrogates. >> it says trump's surrogates.

it didn't say some of. it said his surrogates. and i felt a need to respond. and i responded on the spot. we've been six hours in the hearing. the end of the day. and i said, "i'm not aware of those activities." and i wasn't. and i'm not. and i don't believe they occurred. and i said, "i have been called a surrogate a time or two in that campaign, and i did not have communications with the russians. i'm unable to comment on it." i was talking about as a surrogate in the campaign. i didn't have continuing series -- continuing exchange of information. so now everything else -- so now you take that, and say if i ever met with a russian, i've not been candid with the committee, and i reject that. >> you can see the entire hearing with attorney general jeff sessions before the senate judiciary committee tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span. it was an oversight hearing, and

the questions ranged from the firing of fbi director, james comey, to the pardoning of former arizona sheriff joe arpaio. and the "washington post" investigation into a law dealing with the dea. the boston federal reserve president says he expects three to four rate hikes next year. starting in december. the american enterprise institute recently hosted economic scholars and banking sector experts on monetary policy issues. speakers analyzed the impact of past federal reserve actions on small and large financial institutions. this is an hour and forty five minutes. good morning, and welcome to the american enterprise institute. this morning, we have a very interesting policy session entitled "how has a decade of extreme monetary policy changed the banking system." we have