rep. brady: we recovered fairly quickly in the 10 year window and also i think that anybody recognizes, if we want to continue these deficits, except the slow growth economy. our kids will have the deficits continue. we have got to restrain spending, just like in business. two things you have to do. restrain spending and grow the revenue. that is where the tax reform is so critical long-term to getting our financial house in order. paul: you will move it right out of the box? rep. brady: soon as we can. we unveiled the timetable in june, the morning after europe -- or britain voted to leave the european union. so no one saw that press conference, including my family. [laughter] brady:: so we want the

feedback. we will be listening and improving for the rest of the year, working with the trumpet administration on tax reform. we want to test drive the blue prepared our point is, do not take one provision out of it and test drive it like it is an old car like we are ready today. we are proposing a new car, it has different features and it drives much faster. so to test drive this blueprint, we will have feedback. and we also have a transition from the old clunker to the new tax cut, so it is important to have that feedback as well. paul: ok, let's move on to health care which is also your portfolio. do you endorse the universal tax credit, the refundable tax credit for anybody with health

care for who wants to buy it on the individual market? rep. brady: i do. i think it is actually important, may the most important part of insuring every american has the freedom to buy the health care they need to and to take it with them throughout their lifetime. because house republicans, without bringing in new taxes, we have to unlock the current tax break that you get at work to carry that health care plan with you from job to job. state-to-state. home-to-home. and we would argue, if the health care plan, the health care backpack works for you into your retirement years and having the freedom to get help you have now at work, to take with you, is pretty critical. paul: as you approach the aca repeal, you want to the repeal it, i assume. what are the key elements, , opening the guarantee

up insurance across state lines, you would do all that? rep. brady: repeal the mandate and literally, there are 159 federal agencies essentially between you and your doctor. it is one of the drivers of why this thing cannot just simply be tweaked. you have to start over. and i also think it is important to retain some of the items that actually we think of strong public support. letting kids stay on the health care plan until 26-years-old. pre-existing illnesses, a lifetime cap. because if you got a disease early in life, you will bust through those early. paul: so, did we not have the problem of pre-existing conditions before, finding hard to actually write those, isn't

that close to what the president proposed? rep. brady: no, we take a different approach. because the president tried, unsuccessfully, to force everybody into insurance that they did not want and cannot afford. today, we have a situation where the insurers are not coming back to the market, the premiums are not coming down and the networks, you will not have a broad range of hospitals and doctors. so that cannot be fixed. we believe the challenge is to get the incentives right and have a simple and clear incentive where americans understand that after they leave their parents' healthcare, and if they make that good faith effort to keep minimal coverage at least through their lives, when they do get cancer or a horrible action occurs, that they can get affordable coverage without the huge rate's like. i think in the republican plan would get the incentives right for americans to want to be covered with affordable health

tailored to them. paul: it will your goal be to create an individual marketplace that will allow the seamless movement from employer-sponsored care, equalizes the tax treatment between employers and individuals? rep. brady: it is important to keep employer-sponsored health care. that is where 150 million americans -- paul: you do not want to people into the individual market? rep. brady: no. but we want them to be able to unlock that so americans will be able to take it with them for those that are not working for a company that offers that health care, we need to be of what to get people to freedom to pick a plan that is right for them to take it with them throughout her lifetime. we think that is the most streamlined and conservative approach. paul: is medicaid going back to the states? rep. brady: yes, it it has to. paul: why does it have to? rep. brady: the cost is unsustainable. when i was in the texas

legislator, i think this was 4% of the budget. today it is 30% and growing. so when president obama essentially said, the solution to the big problem is to make the problem bigger, do more medicaid for more people at a higher cost, he exacerbated the problem. so now republicans have taken a different approach and we decided it was not enough to simply replace that, we need to fix and create 21st century health care reform. in a bigger way. and so medicaid, giving states the flexibility to design it further states we think is critical. paul: do you send it back with a block at grantor with a payment per beneficiary? rep. brady: we will give the option. there is strengths for both of them and depending on the size of the state, the demographics,

you might want to one or the other. paul: we spoke with the democratic governor of rhode island and she said it might work, but i need enough money. because they have a small state and a big growing population on medicaid. rep. brady: i think having the second option, which is per capita, it goes with the population and it may be more flexible for the governor. paul: what about medicare? donald trump did not talk about it during the campaign, so that, is it on the table for the premium support plan that your caucus has supported? rep. brady: it has to be in a better weight solution on health care, we lay out steps to save medicare for the long-term, which is, it is not the 800 pound gorilla in the budget, it is the 800,000 pound gorilla. you will not save it for the long term by just cutting benefits. you have to redesign it. paul: you are already doing tax

reform and replacing the aca, so if you put medicare on the table, that is a very heavy political lift. rep. brady: the trick is not the do all the in the afternoon. [laughter] paul: you organ away until next thursday? -- you are going to wait until next thursday? rep. brady: there is what is different. because of the leadership of paul ryan and our leadership in the house, they are pushing us in an agenda to put forward these issues and we have them in place and ready to be acted upon. you know we want to know from , the president what the priorities are, but as we are speaking right now, we are theing the tax, and legislative language for the major reforms, because you cannot talk about health care if you do not also talk about medicaid and a solution to save medicare. paul: have you spoken to the president-elect and his team about that? rep. brady:: the answer is no.

they have been focused, rightly i think, on tax reform and health care issues and it has only been a week. it has only been a week, so we will have the opportunity. paul: we will talk about trade bid the president-elect proposed putting tariffs on american -- and the goods from american companies if they move operations overseas, if they try to sell those goods back into the united states. he mentioned ford motor quite a bit. do you support that kind of a policy on companies back overseas -- that go overseas? rep. brady: if the president wants to grow the economy and he sincerely does, you need to get the tax code right and you need to balance relation, but we need more customers around the world. you need to get trade right as well. i think it is critically

important that he gives us a chance to make the case that done right, strictly enforcing trade agreements is incredibly important to turn one way trade in the u.s., turning trade back to it. two-way trade. not toce would be withdraw from the tpp, not to withdraw from nafta take the opportunity to make those agreements better. we have given this president and and the new one tools. i hope that he will take a broader view on tariffs like that to drive up costs, i hope he takes a couple approach to all of that. a good thoughtful approach to all of that. paul: you mentioned tpp, that seems to be dead. would you concede that? rep. brady: i would say it is on hold. paul: on hold?

rep. brady: it is not enough to simply buy a american. we have to sell a american throughout the world. and the asia-pacific region will hold half of the middle class customers on the planet by the end of the decade, so we want to be in there. if we withdraw, our economy will suffer. so, i am hopeful that the new president gives us a chance to make the case to keep what is good in trade and create jobs and fix what is perceived to be bad and there is plenty in that area to tackle with his skills. he could do very well. paul: there is a lot of discussion about the new republican coalition and how do you reach, how does the congress, other than by increasing growth, appeal to americans that have not been as well as those in this room? trade is one way that the president-elect has tried to do that.

do you think you have to move in some way on trade in order to satisfy that message because set up? i am talking about restrictions, tariffs, some people are talking about an import license. that has been loaded by some economists. rep. brady: tariffs tend to punish the american consumers for the behavior of other countries. it tends to boomerang back on the u.s., which is what any pro-growth administration does not want to do. by, he has got some tools on enforcement that he could drive -- paul: what do you think he could use? rep. brady: on the enforcement side, they could be more streamlined.

use that. at the wto, america has won about 17 cases through the wto. other 18. but i would advise this -- let's go after china for investment violations. but i would say president bush , started the treaty with china and the obama administration continued it. i would think it would be terrific for the donald trump administration to finish it, because those bilateral trade and investment protections that we have been fighting for a long time -- so, if you have a big problem, my advice is to go straight at the problem. and i think that is the way, with his negotiating background skills, donald trump could make a difference. paul: ok. opening it up to the audience. any questions, anybody have a question? >> that you can send the monotony ipad, at it is better

if you raise your hand and identify yourself. so we can pin you and your company in the world press. [laughter] paul: we have one over here john. >> anybody want to follow up on tpp being on hold? >> thank you for your comments. my question is about health care. one thing missing with the affordable care act, when people have a choice, where did they go? rep. brady: having the aca card does not make coverage. you have got very expensive and shirts with huge out-of-pocket deductibles and a very narrow network. that is because of the design. to the point, if you think that there are simple fixes to this, to save it, it is not. is,of the indicators i use if you look at the number of americans in a state that are required to take aca insurance and get money to do it, how many

take it up in states like new york, for example. nearly four out of five new yorkers have figured out a way not to be covered by the aca, so a huge red flag for those who think they can just fix it. the republican blueprint envisions getting the incentives right, so those americans can have an insurance plan that is right for them at that point in their life. the portability to take it with them and their situation and change that plan of there is another need that they have. and not just that plan. when you talk about the concept of health care backpack, what we're talking about is, what are the tools americans need in the 21st century? we need a health care plan tailored to them and to be able to afford it and take it with them. they need it easy access to control of their medical records, to give the new doctor and hospital. and aen the easy and affordable

way to save for the day-to-day expenses. we think that concept of giving americans the freedom to have those tools in a world different than it was 30 years ago, is critical to that access issue. >> another question over here. dog, -- >> i am from amway corporation. we will take the bait. we are curious about how it moves forward. hearing that it is dead makes is a bit anxious. but we are curious on how it will move forward and hearing it is dead makes us nervous. so we are interested in the overall trade policy and doing what is right in the long term. rep. brady: republicans will continue to support the freedom to trade, to sell and compete anywhere in the world with as little government interference as possible. that is one of the key

principles of our party and the heart of free enterprise. my advice to the new president will be to take a look at the transpacific partnership and keep, do not withdraw, renegotiate. keep what is good and there is plenty to level the playing field in a way for that region. renegotiate, fix the problems that exist today, and let's find a way to move forward. because i think with taxes and reform and with balanced regulation and access to more customers, that will grow the united states economy for the long-term. paul: chairman brady, have you , it has only been a week since we have had the president-elect. will that be an acceptable approach? rep. brady: no winking and not in yet. this team is moving incredibly fast for the first seven days. we have a lot of discussions on health care and tax reform. >> another question in the back.

>> good morning. a question around pricing of drugs and provider services in health care. any thoughts on that? rep. brady: anymore specific? >> medicare part b, medical or d,t d -- medicare part negotiations with drug manufacturers and talk about that during the election. rep. brady: in a greater price controls, i think it would be a mistake. even negotiation on the prices for those cost schedules. taking the bottom line is taking that approach ensures patients will not get the cutting-edge technology. they will be limited in their access. it is a very simple formula. if you want to go that approach, the v.a. approach, we can for seniors, but just know that you won't getting the full range of medical opportunities.

you will be limiting your access. i don't think we want to go that direction. at the end of the day, it is still competition. it is still much faster timetable to the marketplace. competition in prescription medicines drives down prices. that is the approach we ought to go. paul: we've got one more. we are approaching the end. reporter: one of the elements of your tax plan that mayor giuliani mentioned his border adjustability. it is mostly with indirect tax systems. you are talking about trying to apply it to an income tax system. any further developments? rep. brady: we are proposing to move from an income tax for businesses based on where you produce to a casual tax a stub -- to a cash flow tax based on where you consume. here's the point.

today, an american-made technology product is a disadvantage here and abroad. we propose to take taxes off american products being exported, put them on products being imported. that has three huge impacts. one, it ensures quality -- price based on quality, not the tax code. two, it allows us to signify the tax code. -- simplify the tax code. it eliminates any tax incentive for compan it eliminates any tax incentive for companies to move jobs, research, manufacturing headquarters overseas. it creates huge incidents to bring that investment back, and that's part of our goal. paul: thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, ladies and gentlemen. appreciate you coming. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

and trade party. this is 25 minutes. ♪ >> good morning. so, i am here with superstars senator tom cotton. >> if i am a superstar, the firmament must be very dark. >> he is -- which is where saying that his fathers gop would be different from the other fathers. : for the record, my father is a lifelong democrat.

a shift in the last eight years. >> i know we want to talk about donald trump and his influence in the party. before that, it struck me as i was thinking about this panel just how much the republican party has changed itself over the past 10 years, prior to donald trump even coming on the scene. i mean, i have covered politics most of my adult life. moved down here more than 10 years ago. and that was the party that got thrown out of the house in 2006. we had the rise of the tea party, we have had all of these primaries, we have had this culminating in your class in the senate in which the republicans took over. what are the big differences in your mind between today's republican party and the one just 10 years ago? we talking about the party in isolation from donald trump. sen. cotton: we have changed a sen. cotton: we have changed a

lot in the last 10 years. you can look at some of the aces in the party. 10 years ago this sunday, i reported to iraq with the airborne. there are a lot of senators in the selection -- this election like joni ernst or dan sullivan or cory gardner who were not involved in politics at all 10 years ago. i think a lot of us who came in to politics in the last three or four elections have learned some of the lessons of things that went wrong in the 2000. i think our party both in grassroots and in congress is more of a pro-market party rather than it pro-business party. we are focused on the operation of markets in the free enterprise system. we celebrate businesses that succeed, but we recognize in a market-based system, we're not there to put our thumb on the scale for this or that industry. we are there so that people who have good ideas and companies that are well run will succeed in the marketplace. we have gone back to a real focus, too, on the constitution and the constitutional structure of our government. and getting back to constitutional basics. and getting back to constitutional basics. and i'm not talking primarily on

individual liberties. i'm talking about the structure of our government and the need to rein in executive agencies and the need to return some structural balance between washington and the state government. i think those are a few of the big differences you have seen over the last few years. as we have been in the wilderness for eight years. irrespective of donald trump's victory in this election year. >> eu say your party is more based on ideas? i remember you canvassed 100 republicans, about 99 of them did not know anything about health care policy for instance. sen. cotton: when you're the party out of power, all you have is the power of ideas. you can i get up, you can't award contracts. you don't have patronage the way you appeal to parties. the way you appeal to voters is the power of your ideas. i think it is fair to say that over the last eight years in the obama administration, our ideas have one. if you look at the results from 2010 and 2014, and now 2016, you also have a lot of new, young thinkers coming into the party who are eager to move beyond

some of the old, stale dogmas. realizing that ronald reagan was a great leader, uninspiring -- ronald reagan was a great leader, an inspiring leader, but if you are like today, he would say the problems of 1980 are not the problem of 2016. >> you have defined what the new generation in congress looks like. now we have done trump, who does not look like that in many ways. i know you have spent a lot of time out with voters on the ground. do you think donald trump is changing the republican party, or is he a response to change to voters? is the conservative movement on the ground changing?

sen. cotton: he is both. most successful presidential candidates are both. they sometimes see things that are true that too many politicians, elites in culture and business, but also presidential candidates who succeed, they take their parties in different directions as well. it is a little bit of both. some of the things donald trump has seen is that down in places like arkansas arts and the places i campaigned in the last month. indiana, wisconsin, iowa, pennsylvania. there are a lot of people that feel ill-served by washington, d.c. they feel ill-served by the policies that have been implemented under the obama administration, or some of the policies that you had bipartisan but in my opinion wrong consensus on like immigration. donald trump was speaking to their practical concerns. it is not surprising donald trump what into economically distressed areas in places like pennsylvania and ohio and wisconsin and said i'm going to bring jobs back to you. hillary clinton did not go there. if she did go there, she would say i'm going to bring you more obamacare and mass immigration. it's not surprising what the result of that election were. >> you said you spent time in

the upper midwest and you were not surprised at all by the vote total. sen. cotton: my wife's family is spread of the upper midwest and minnesota and wisconsin and iowa, so i got to know a lot of folks there and i campaigned there. in all three of the states recently. i was not surprised to see the trend of those states moving in our direction, and part because i feel they feel somewhat estranged from some of the elite consensus that they see in our various capitals. our business capital in new york, cultural capital in los angeles, little capital in washington. they can like washington policies have not been benefiting them. they wanted a leader who actually spoke to those practical concerns, not one who spoke to airy abstractions.

>> what does that mean at the end, especially for the people in this audience and some of the big issues they care about? i'm sure donald trump is giving them a bit of a heartburn. these are things you have been sending a lot of time on in the senate. take trade. what are we going to see, and how does the senate work with donald trump on this issue given what he has said -- pulling out of nafta and abandoning in general what has long been an american pro-trade agenda? sen. cotton: i will leave the details of trade policy to donald trump very i will say that sometimes, the expressions in the media of his opposition to trade are overstated. to my knowledge, donald trump has never said he is opposed to trade. if it's a lot of our trade deals have been bad for the u.s. if you compare some of the promises that were made and the last 15-25 years about these trade deals -- i would also point out that the promises that were made under these trade deals about economic impacts that it would have in the united

states in terms of jobs created or economic growth simply did not pan out. you can debate why that happened, but that fact is if you are listening to politicians who are selling those deals and look at the results, there is a mismatch between rhetoric and results. >> you don't deny to have been generally good? sen. cotton: that happens sometimes. [laughter] >> you oversell? cotton:: i try not to oversell. that is why so many people are disappointed with politicians in washington. they consistently do overpromise and under deliver. i would say in the day after british citizens voted to leave the european union, donald trump was in scotland where he has a golf course. he was celebrating the so-called brexit vote. he said we need to have a trade deal with the u.k. .t does not surprise me

he is not opposed to trade deals, he wants better trade deals. is going to have the opportunity to get better trade deals, whether it is we go to -- renegotiating deals like nafta. when the trade that when we passed trade promotion authority, it was for six years. that was in no small part because we wanted a new republican president to have the authority to negotiate deals for the united states. shortly after the brexit vote, in keeping with what donald trump said that we would give great britain the terms of all trade agreements that we had with the european union. i thought that was frankly appalling that so many european leaders from the continent and barack obama had implicitly or explicitly and the citizens of great britain with punishment if -- implicitly or explicitly threatened the citizens of great britain with punishment if they voted to leave the european union. i'm not a british citizen, i never expressed an opinion on it and that is their choice, their sovereign people. but, we should not be threatening our closest ally in europe for making that kind of decision. that said, i would expect -- and i would hope any agreement we have with a country that has an 1/9 thethat is 1-8 or

we would have an agreement that would benefit us. because of the size of our economy and the security guarantees we provide around the world, it is a little disappointing to a lot of people that are trade deals often do not match the record behind them. >> is a suggestion being that may be going forward, what you will see in american trade policy other donald trump and under a republican congress is one in which you have a country by country trade deal, at a distinction between developed countries and developing countries? sen. cotton: bilateral deals are easier to negotiate than multilateral once -- ones. you can consummate them quickly. i think donald trump will pursue some of those. if he pursues multilateral deals like the transpacific partnership, which the obama administration has admitted as written will not pass.

there are a lot of issues that he should revisit like the treatment of biologics, or the treatment of intellectual property. when you look at the terms of trade deals, they are traditionally focused primarily on things like reducing tariffs and reducing quotas, or maybe internal subsidies. increasingly, trade deals -- not just ours, but around the world, have focused more on what they call regulatory harmonization, which normal americans would call laws. and they elect people like me to make those laws. they do not elect bureaucrats in brussels or the wto to make them. that was one of the big issues that drove the vote in great britain. it was immigration and it was surrendering authority over their day-to-day lives to brussels.

when you talk about reducing tariffs on goods, that is one thing. when brussels is dictating the size of olive oil decanters that can be on a restaurant table in london, that is another thing. why should a people surrender those kind of decisions to an unelected authority outside of their own boundaries? >> you said that what you took out donald trump's comments on brexit was that he is not opposed to trade. what about this idea of slapping tariffs on companies that move to other countries? sen. cotton: i will let him speak about specific details. he spoke about them throw the campaign in very ways. i think the best thing we can do for those companies that are looking to move jobs overseas is to make america a more attractive place for those jobs. to reduce our taxes, because our business is now pay higher taxes than any other country in the industrialized world. when you're in industrial giant like general electric, it is true if you're one of the businesses in arkansas that is taxed as a pass-through that makes up two thirds or two quarters of our businesses. not just strict relations that he did change, like the fiduciary advisory role or the overtime role, but the ways these agencies rate -- right regulations to begin with so little democratic accountability from congress. that is the way we focus on both keeping jobs here in the u.s. and increasingly bringing jobs back into the united dates.

-- the united states. >> i would take a second to bring up our audience poll. they get to weigh in on a thought. and we will bring it up. if it comes. nope. well, i can tell you what it says. is that in two years time, will , the gop look more like the party of paul ryan or the party of donald trump? and while you think about that sen. cotton: 190 want to buy is the jury so i will -- sen. cotton:: i do not want to -- jury, so i will opine afterwards.

>> another thing you looked at in the senate is immigration. that is another potential area in which republicans in congress and donald trump may have different views. what do you think are the views in which you agree, disagree, and more importantly, do you think so much attention has been focused on some of the big items that he says he will pursue? what are the prospects for a comprehensive immigration reform? sen. cotton: that is washington immigration. i hope that we will address this very early in a sweeping fashion, because our immigration system has badly needed change for a long time. this really was the signature issue for donald trump in the primary and in the general election. this is where he most differentiated himself from other republicans who were on that stage with him. this is an area where he saw things that were right and true and so many other republicans tested. for years, for decades going

back to 1986, there has been a bipartisan consensus in washington that all immigration reform should look like what i just described. or what the 1986 bill look like, which is amnesty for immigrants here today, followed by enforcement lately -- enforcement later. you get the embassy immediately, you don't get the enforcement, because congress loses the will for it and the bureaucracy slow roles it. and the courts and join it. you get the increases of legal immigration, which is why you have seen stagnant wages in so many fields for so long. as donald trump said repeatedly. start with enforcement, build a wall or a fence or some kind of physical barrier, not drones and sensors and other things that are shiny and politics like to talk about. get serious about enforcing immigration law and all the other ways as well, like having a functioning, with workable employment verification system for american businesses. having a system to track these is -- visas, because about a third illegal immigrants came here legally with a visa. those are the table stakes. the big focus needs to come on legal immigration.

our legal immigration system sickly does not serve the interest of american workers. we let into this country about one million green cold does green card holders everything will year. we've done that about 50 years going back to 1965. of that million, only 140,000 of them are admitted because of their job or their skills or economic background. 14%. in that 40% of people like lawyers. i do not think we need to give preferences to lawyers coming into the united states. you could immediately refocused regard admissions on spouses, minor children, because we are profamily. we went to see nuclear families reunited. keep those 140,000 minus the lawyers. [laughter] keep a refugee

program that can be fully vested. you could cut green card admissions down to 500,000 overnight. you have a whole group of guestworker programs that have several million people working on them. many of them in unskilled and low skilled jobs. there is no sign that we have a shortage of that kind in the united states. if you look at research in the census data, in almost every sector and in every job, the job is held by majority of us-born workers. that means, contrary to popular opinion, there are no jobs that u.s. workers will not do. there are no jobs that u.s. workers will not do. to me, that is an elitist and snobbish viewpoint. furthermore, in those jobs they have not had pay raises. the hospitality industry, the construction industry. they have not had pay raises in many years.

according to census data. i am not an econ phd. i think when there is a shortage of something, the price is supposed to increase. it simply has not. we have needs. if you live in rural canada, like rural arkansas, you find a lot of doctors who come from overseas because we have needs that evidence shows we need to meet with highly skilled immigration. like computer scientists who are going to some of our best schools. or doctors, nobel prize winners, engineers and we have high skilled or ultrahigh skilled needs. but we need to focus our immigration system on those needs and skills, not on the policies we have had in place for 50 years. >> there is the answer up there. sen. cotton: that is wrong. it will be the party of donald trump in two years. the president leads his party. in 2000, the party was not the party of denny hastert, it was the party of george bush. the democratic party was not

deep party of harry reid or nancy pelosi, it was the party of barack obama. >> hi, i'm ceo trusted media brands, former reader's digest association. one question is about your transformation from a democratic family to a republican in knowing that you came from a democratic background pattern i'm a republican, how do you think this country will work together better on behalf of the people? sen. cotton: to be clear, my father was a democrat and i was the election sheep in the family. i was a republican from the beginning. i was 15-years-old when bill clinton was elected president. i couldn't believe my governor was about to be president. i thought i couldn't believe what my governor's doing as president. i must be a republican. and, you know, i mean, my parents don't tell me how they vote, but i suspect my father, for instance, may have voted for al gore in 1988, the clintons

for the 90's, and john kerry in 2004. he was a vietnam veteran. he always favored veterans who ran for office. but eight years ago, arkansas had virtually no elected republicans. we had one member of congress that had held a seat for about 50 years. and then you know all seven , states -- state offices were democratic. all five remaining seats were democratic. two thirds of the state house and state senate are -- were democratic as well. today, at the end of the obama era, all six members of congress are republican, all seven statewide officeholders are republican, three quarters of both the state house and state than it are republican. it is the result of the obama era and the policies of the did not work for gones like organon, -- or , or places like

michigan and wisconsin and minnesota and iowa and ohio and pennsylvania and you have a lot of barack obama voters in 2008 who became donald trump voters in those areas. maybe a third of the counties i read that voted for barack obama went for donald trump this time around. that is because they did not deliver on the promises they made in 2008. >> thank you senator for your service. that was very insightful. in your vision of this new republican party, i would like to hear a little more about if it is going to be an inclusive vision, which is the vision of where that when he first century is going to be. story fors of this the century will be inclusive societies and could you elaborate a bit?

sen. cotton: absolutely great you are the same thing from donald trump on election night, you heard it in the speeches he was making in the last month or two of the campaign. i understand some of his rhetoric was hard-edged through the campaign, but he consistently campaigned on they do present for all americans, and being there president as americans. the democratic party has been practicing identity politics for many years. they appealed to the sector of the polity on that issue and micro targets is the term we use. what donald trump did was what the republicans have done best when we have succeeded as we did with george w. bush and ronald reagan is appeal to voters as americans. not based on their race or ethnicity or the class, but appeal to them as american. you know, that is, for instance, one of the reason that is why think donald trump did better with hispanic voters in arizona that mitt romney did. quite a bit better. and it is because he was not appealing to them as hispanic americans, he was appealing to them as american. they are people who have been hurt the same way midwest voters have been hurt by some of the field policies of the last eight years. so, i was pleased to see donald trump grew our share of the hispanic and african-american vote. i hope we continue to grow that.

the way we will continue to grow that is to appeal to all americans. we are never going to out identity politics the democratic party, nor should we try. i don't think that is a healthy thing and a large, multicultural, multiethnic democracy. which you can see here not just in the united states, but in some of our allies around the world who struggle with those tensions as well. >> you are from a part of the country that blue dog democrats were from. your thoughts now with senator harry reid gone and the ability for republicans -- particularly moderate republicans -- to reach across the aisle to more moderate democrats. when you think the thoughts are that with the margin in the house and senate? sen. cotton: i'm happy harry reid is gone. also, i'm looking forward to working with chuck schumer. chuck and i have worked together on legislation before, like the 9/11 first responder bill. i was one of the first main republicans to sponsor that bill.

i thought it was the right thing to do. some of the concerns of my more conservative colleagues were misplaced on it. i've talked to chuck since the election about working together. joe manchin is the senior democrat on a subcommittee that i chair. are eager to work together hand we have a lot of democrats who are up in states that donald trump won. i suspect they would like to work with us as well. they represent states like missouri that is pretty similar to arkansas. they have similar concerns of the people i serve. we're looking forward i hope to moving some legislation that is long overdue that addresses some of these colleges we have had for a long time, with barack obama, but especially harry reid, has been frozen in congress. >> thank you very much.

>> on newsmakers, adam smith, ranking member of the armed services committee. he talks about the incoming trump administration. and, dealing with president vladimir putin and syrian president assad. newsmakers, 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> i have always been a big student of american history, particularly the history of its african descended people. night on q&a, --

>> my uncle formed this impression from watching cinema. particularly where cowboys would gather together in a bar in a extend a few words. we never understood. but at one point, they would always stare each other down and start shooting. my uncle formed the impression that that is what americans would do to you if you looked them in the eye. shoot you. >> it now, a discussion on possible conflicts of interest facing the incoming trump administration. from washington journal, this is 40 minutes. our next guest is a professor of corporate law at the university of minnesota law school and he was also the former associate counsel to the president under george w. bush administration between 2005-2007 and he joins us from minneapolis.

for takingank you the time to talk to us this morning. richard: thank you for inviting me. post: let's start by explaining what your role was in the white house. the president and the chief of staff andy white house and all of the nominees for the executive branch who had approved by the senate. interest andof divestiture of holdings they have said they can do their jobs consistent with ethics rules in the government and i also advise the presidential staff on a wide range of issues with respect to political activity and the protection of classified information and the receipt of gifts that are important as people carry out their jobs in

the white house. host: what are some of the major appointments you handle during your time there in what did you advise some of these folks to do to make sure there were no conflicts of it interest? >> there were quite a few including secretary paulson and the department of othereasury and also major appointments such as ben bernanke over at the federal reserve. a number of these people had holdings that had to be sold in order to take those jobs. the chairman of goldman sachs had hundreds of millions of dollars and you cannot have a treasury secretary sitting on a fund. a fairly complex transaction given the amount of stock that had to be sold but that needed to be done before he

took office and a whole range of people i would discuss these issues with. some were not willing to sell their securities in order to take a government job and i had to advise the white house counsel office to pick somebody else. host: donald trump could very well be the wealthiest person ever to sit in the white house. what were the jews say he should do in order to ensure there are no conflicts of interest. say he should do in order to ensure there are no conflicts of interest? do not apply to the president. the criminal conflict of interest would prohibit every other person in the executive branch from participating in any matter that has an impact on their financial well-being. require selling a

lot of these assets in order to take a job as secretary of state. the president and vice president are exempt from the statute. that gives him some broad latitude under the law to do what he wants. is, first, there are serious appearances of impropriety in a president has financial covenants of interest. the previous presidents have all done everything that could -- they could to eliminate conflicts of interest. i don't know of any president who has engaged in any policymaking in the white house that would violate the criminal conflict of interest statute, even though the statute does not apply to them. needs to decide whether he's going to do this like every other president and like everybody who is working for him in the executive branch who has to obey this law or whether he wants to go his own way and keep

this business empire. which is going to pose substantial conference of interest. that are some legal issues could come up if he chooses to keep it. i want to ask you about one part of his business empire, trump university. it was just announced yesterday that donald trump has settled a lawsuit against him that was brought by the attorney general eric schneiderman. a settlement for $25 million. just as money, donald trump tweeted this -- just this morning, donald trump tweeted this -- he then added -- tell us about some of the challenges that an open case might have presented for the president-elect going forward.

--ler: we all know about guest: we all know about the challenges of an open case for a sitting president. jones andrsus paula what came out of that litigation with the president required to give deposition testimony and the rest of it. that is not compatible with the duties of the president. the president can be sued in his personal capacity. if mr. trump as president trump chooses to hold onto this business empire, the lawyers will see an opportunity at every juncture to file suit against different parts of mr. trump's business empire. some might be legitimate and

others might be frivolous. against a sitting president, there will be people cheering on , that will be an enormous risk to the president. it will become litigation magnet. that is unfortunate. the jones versus clinton stance -- i don't think he will be able to avoid getting dragged into that type of litigation if he falls onto his business empire of his president. president. is host: here are the numbers to dial. for democrats. republicans, 202-748-8001. independents, 202-748-8002. you can also send us a tweet. we will take our first caller from los angeles, california. brenda is on the democratic line. good morning.

go ahead, brenda. caller: good morning. calling -- i do not want to disrespect mr. trump, but i want to tell you how i feel about him. he should have done his homework he has allan because of his business and family -- i go to the person himself. i wrote him a letter to tell him how i felt about him. the only thing i wish for him is that his hair. and turns gray or white -- falls gray or white and that every part of government will give him grief like the senate did with president obama. let's hear from rafael in florida on the republican line.

caller: how are you doing? trump is a little more difficult -- it's not like he owns stocks -- everything is under his name. hotels, properties, country clubs and all of that. i work in a country club. you cannot put them in a blind trust. .ost: let's ask richard painter can he put all of that in a blind trust? guest: you don't put the property into the blind trust. publicld do an initial offering and put it into my company and have a public offering for cash. people do this with family businesses and high-tech companies. you can go public. public offerings are done all the time in the united states. they create a great deal of profit for the people who own the business.

you take the cash and put it in a blind trust. is worth what he says it's worth, he will come out of an ipo with a couple billion dollars. that is enough money for him and a bit for his kids as well. they can put that in a blind trust or mutual funds in treasury securities and so forth. finished in the white house, the family can get back into the real estate business or whatever they choose to do with the money. it is not that complicated. there are plenty of investment bankers and lawyers in new york city who can help them do it. if he wants to do it. wants to do it. that is critically important if he wants to succeed in the presidency. host: richard painter, as far as we know, is that the approach he is taking to establish the blind trust? , but there is no

a lot of confusion because we were told that his children would be running the business empire, yet his children seem to theery interested in government side. it is unclear what will happen, and i'm hoping he is going to rethink this issue with respect to his business empire, and think seriously about an initial public offering, a leverage buyout or some other way to convert these holdings to cash, and then put the cash in a blind trust while he is president. there is hope he will do the right thing. the "wall street journal" called on him to do this. a broad range of opinion among republicans and democrats that if this administration is going to succeed coming you do not need people taking potshots at president trump every other day over this business empire. another problem is the risk as far as government money getting in there, because that would be

a violation. host: i was going to ask you about that. ---- re al guest: any gift from a foreign government or a bank by a foreign government, such as the bank of china, which is lendin a very fast amount of money, all of these relationships with foreign governments or companies controlled by foreign governments will have to be unwound, or we could get ourselves in serious allegations where the president of the united states has taken payments from foreign governments in .iolation of the clause in the government since the beginning, because they did not want taking money from the british crown.

the punishment is impeachment, and we do not want to go that route. that is a very good reason to divest a business empire. host: let's hear from the next caller, rick, in springfield, illinois. mr. trump, during his candidacy, basically said that he was going to hand over his business interests to his children, and that would be something that would be far enough away from his own oversight that that would be acceptable. and i do not see it that way. host: richard painter? guest: that would not satisfy the conflict of interest rules or for any other person in the

executive branch. you could set that up in a blind trust and set that up in a blind trust. an official who did that, then had an impact on the investments in the blind trust, would commit a criminal offense. the only way would be if that did not or -- statute apply to be president or vice president. it is not a workable blind trust when your children are running the business. arrangement,this he would not be selling the assets. so he would know what the assets rp or you cannot take the trump tower and put in a blind trust and pretend you do not know that you own it. that is why the initial public or leveraged buyout has some way to convert these buyouts to cash, a couple of billion dollars that he could put in a real blind trust. that's the way to go. host: you mentioned the children

potentially having a role in managing this so-called blind trust. it looks like the children could have a role in the white house as well. the "wall street journal" reporting that donald trump's son-in-law could get a key position. richard painter, can you talk nepotism neste nested to roles? guest: a number of years after john f. kennedy appointed his brother, the anti-nepotism statute that clearly applies to the president, says right there in the statute that it applies to the president, and it someone in the federal government appointing a relative, including a son-in-law or a sibling, to a government position in an agency or

department over which the appointed person has control. clearly prohibits an appointment by the president anywhere in the executive branch of his son-in-law. there is some debate about whether that applies to the white house itself. i think it does. counsellieve the legal at the justice department has opined that it does. but there is some room to include family members in the special commissions, task force, and other boards, and the theedents for that is in district of columbia circuit case that came after hillary clinton was appointed to the to restructure the in thecare industry early 1990's, and the district of columbia circuit said that

was consistent with the anti-nepotism statute. it was not a full-time , and it was on a presidential task force. i think clearly, jared kushner or any other relative that participates in that capacity, and those positions can be quite powerful. hillary clinton had quite a bit of power, probably too much power in 1993, 1990 four with respect to the health care proposals. there were members of congress who resented that pure that is another point -- a rich of political pushback here if too much power is given to relatives of the president who were not themselves elected. but there is a lot you can do, without running afoul of the anti-nepotism statute. sticks with task force, boards, in that area rather than going for a formal white house appointments, for example, assistant to the president,

there you would get yourself into a very problematic area with the antenna but to some statute. host: richard painter, let me ask you this briefly. the ethics office he worked for in the white house, is that an independent agency, or alre the folks who work there appointed by the president? guest:. appointed by the president the -- guest: appointed by the president. the lawyers, the counsel to the officent, the counsel's who have commissions are appointed by the president. of the typexample i find the that anti-nepotism statue would apply to. host: john from phoenix, arizona is the next caller on the democratic line. caller: good morning.

for an in peace met before inauguration. host: mr. painter? guest: should i comment on that? i do not think that is the route to go. i was very upset with donald trump when he said he would not accept the results of the election. but i do not think we need to jump the gun here, and we need to give them a chance to run this government in a responsible manner. i do think the divestiture of his portfolio, real estate holdings, is absolutely critical. but we also need to look at his appointment in the white house. we cannot have, if people sympathize with white supremacists, sitting there in the white house, advising the president. several of senators, the republican senators, ought

to make it very clear to president trump there are certain basic standards of decency in this country, and a standard behavior that have to be complied with, or they are just not going to do business with him. if we do not make that point clear to begin with, we are going to get ourselves into a lot of trouble, and then we could end up with an impeachment scenario, and that is not what we want to go up your we want to set the ground rules from the beginning so we can have a successful administration. host: kathy is on the independent line. good morning. caller: hello? host: hello, you are on the air. i just wish that everybody would come together. you know, he is our president. he is going to be our president they wanthey say peace, but they do not show that they want peace.

it is really a sad situation. i was people would come together and quit fighting. i wish president obama would announce this, and he won't do it, and i don't understand why. host: all right, that is kathy. let's hear from john from illinois on the republican line. john, good morning to you. caller:. good morning morning. good as far as he or comments about the haters and we need to be careful, i think we are seeing the democrats and the supporters in these marches -- they are the real haters. let me tell you what the real conflict of interest is. when hillary clinton did with secretary of state and enriching their family is going to be the case of the future as far as a using conflict of interest of her office.

is know, donald trump already plenty rich. to think that he -- we are worrying about his conflict of interests, that he may further enrich himself, this man's message was that he wants to make this country better again. host: all right, that is john in illinois. guest: may i respond to that? host: yes. here is some perspective on twitter. richard painter, go ahead? guest: i will not spend my time worrying about the clinton issues at this point your clinton is in the past. she did lose the election. andll not argue about why so forth. we will have a trump administration. not hillary clinton. we will not talk about hillary clinton every some an issue

comes up with respect to president trump. the problem of hate in america is a serious one. president bush made it very clear after 9/11 that we were not at war against islam, and that islam is a religion of peace, and those people who believe and who continue to say that the islamic faith is a threat to the united states are perpetrating hate, and those people do not belong anywhere near the white house. .e do not know them mr. trump never associated with those people when he was in new york, before he started getting involved in politics. he needed to appeal to the far wine wing in order to this election. now he is going to be president, and we are going to get those people out of the white house, and they are not going to influence this administration, or it is going to be a failure. do you think it's

possible, then, mr. painter, that any of these nominees that he put forward, you mentioned some of the nominees or his future nominees for national security positions, that they may not get confirmation. guest: some of these positions do not require senate confirmation. again, there is a lot of rhetoric leading up to this campaign that was hateful rhetoric. it is also very damaging to our national security, for example, to denigrate muslims. we do not need a billion people in the world hating the united andes because a few racists bigots in the united states choose to hate them. there is a very small percentage of muslims who face extremism, and we can deal with that just as we deal with the ku klux klan and other christians who embrace extremism. but we need responsible people

in government who will focus on where the problems are and solve the problems. enough with the hateful rhetoric. enough of the divisiveness. he has a job to do. host: all right, michael from illinois is our next caller. he is on the independent line. caller: i have a couple of quick points. we sit out here, and we are starving. in my small town of 5000 people, es that five compani have closed. that is about 300 jobs, which is a pretty big hit. all you people in the government cohan group, the the giuliani group, you are all lobbying, and then you have the democrats and republicans, they will vote -- to see nancy pelosi run off a broker, made a quarter of a million dollars, and reporters

ask her about it, and she said that is how it is done, that is business as usual. timedy in office, by the you leave, you are all multimillionaires because you make deals with people in the business community. of majore ceo's corporations us in his you leave office. all you people. that is why we elected trump. host: that is michael from illinois. richard painter? guest: this is exactly why we have a serious problem in the united states. i used to live in central illinois, and i saw the economic devastation in many cities there as companies moved out and jobs disappeared. that is true in ohio, pennsylvania, and many places all over the united states. people are angry, and they are rightfully angry. we need to create wealthy and jobs for middle-class america, not just an opportunity for the superrich, but for everybody

across our country, and there is a love of anger over this. people voted for mr. trump. now it is his job to solve that problem. but that is a challenge to create more well paying jobs, to bring economic growth to the is goingates, and he to need to accomplish that in order to be a success. but none of it is going to be accomplished by wallowing in racism, hate, and getting ourselves sidetracked on other things. the economic role is our number one priority come and we need to bring it back to middle america, or we will continue to have a great deal of divisiveness in this country. , i want tord painter address the story and politico. donald trump's transition team, at least three lobbyists have left donald trump's presidential

transition operation after the team required a new ethics policy that would have required them to drop all of their clients. it is being run by new jersey governor chris christie. they were caught off guard wednesday by this new policy. what do you think about this requirement that members of the transition team drop their clients? what do you think'it says about trumps effort to -- what do you think it says about trump's effort to drain the swamp going forward? guest: i like that. the problem is you do not have a lot of people who are registered lobbyists who are engaging in lobbying. so this is part of the swamp, but it is only the registered lobbyists. a lot more swamp needs to be trained to support that effort appeared a lot more needs to be done here it also, when we drain ae swap, need to not get into situation where there is a lot of backfill in the trump

empire or elsewhere. we need a government that is responsible to the people. that is going to be president trump's challenge going forward. host: robert from north carolina is on the republican line. good morning, go ahead. yes, i have listened to your program a little while ago, and yes, hillary won the popular vote by 2%, but our founding men,rs were very brilliant and they showed that the country would be controlled by three or four states with the highest population, so they broke it down into the electoral college, which would take that strength away from those cities. the gentleman who is doing the entering did not explain that to that lady or to anybody else that is listening to your program. it is very important that they know and they are not getting

the in history, i don't think, anymore. had 90 years old, and i very good high school training, and i went to college after the second world war. i was on the g.i. bill, so i went to the university of florida. , but ofd a lot there course, that's still was not explained in my civics class. i just have been studying myself. now, one more thing -- this last gentleman does not seem to be more democratic than he is republican, and i should think that the people on here should be explaining both sides. i think mr. trump is a very rich man, and i would have to think very thoroughly of how i'm going

to put my wealth into other people's hands. host: ok, that is robert from north carolina. richard painter? guest: i think we can always have the debate about the electoral college, but i would not put too much into that. if the rules had been different, we would have the focus on the popular vote, mr. trump would have campaign and spent a lot more money in places like new york and california. you have a lot of voters in those states who share a lot of the same concerns as the voters in ohio and pennsylvania that went for mr. trump. of thechange the rules game, people play the game differently, and i do not know what the outcome would be. vs. same with the bush gore election where we have the same type of situation. the rules are what they are, and mr. trump won the election. he is going to be the president. the focus now is on making sure

he is a good president. when he to marginalize the and focus on doing the job to restore the american economy, protecting our national security, and doing what the president is supposed to for all the american people. and i hope that he is going to think seriously about how important this job is and do it the right way. host: we have been talking a little but about the role that donald trump's children might play in the white house. i would like to get your thoughts on this story. trumpthe trump -- ivanka sits in on meeting with japanese prime minister p or her inclusion comes as donald trump hisides assurances that empire will be walled off. was it appropriate for ivanka trump to sit on that informal

meeting? guest: it depends him what role the trunk children are going to have. i think they can have a very valuable role as advisors, and they could serve on task forces, and hillary clinton had an exceptional amount of power in the clinton administration on a presidential task force. that can be very valuable, and quite friendly, i think the trump family members are a lot thanstable and intelligent a of the far right extremists who are trying to ample trait a trump white house. that could be a very helpful role. but they cannot do that and run trump businesses. if that is the plan, then president-elect trump nice to make it clear who will run the business. that is my proposal.

now, where all those lines considering that no trust has been created as of yet, was it appropriate for her to sit in on a meeting of the nature? guest: i think it is inappropriate not to sell the assets. i do not think the plan is going to work to have the children run it. perhaps he is moving away from it. i do not think it will work whether she sits in on meetings with the japanese prime minister or not. we will have a serious problem over the next four years if present trump hold on to the trump business empire and has it run by his children. so any decision that moves away from that i think is a good one, and maybe that is a hopeful sign. host: all right, charles and rockwell, north carolina. democratic line. charles, what do you have to say? caller: hello? i am a 69-year-old vietnam vet,

howi was just wondering greed has run the greatest nation in the world, and mr. trump, i mean, nothing against him personally, but how can a man that has never done anything , anderica, never pay taxes has sued in so many people and beat people out of money that , and bring inim 1800 illegal immigrants to work on his hotel to keep from paying union fees become president? host: all right, that a strauss from north carolina. let's get to another caller. frank is on the independent line. go ahead, frank. caller: how are you all doing today? host: we are good. gentlemen, thewo and the oneinois

from north carolina that just came off, speaking about two different things, we have got taxation without representation here. it seems like to me be more money have, the more leeway you get, and now they are trying to do a thing with the state taxes. not only that, there is a conflict of interest here. everyone has to admit there is a conflict of interest. why is this it decided about what in the world has happened with this man's taxes? as an independent, i do not understand. host: that is frank from west virginia. richard painter, your thoughts? guest: every other presidents, every other candidate has released their taxes. donald trump should release is tax returns. if he has taken advantage of loopholes to not pay taxes, then simply saying so, and let's talk about those tax holes appeared let's close them because we need to have a tax system that is fair where everybody is paying their fair share of taxes. i am all for lowering taxes,

particularly on the middle class, but we do not need to tax code that extracts money from working americans while letting the superrich not pay taxes. tax holes he has been using, then fine, let's talk about it, but let's the upfront and disclose the tax return. heo not know to what extent used so-called illegal immigrants. these are people who come to the united states, yes, without the proper paperwork, but americans have been hiring them and in their homes for decades. and then we're going to turn around and say because you can hear the wrong way, we are going to throw you out of a country? that makes no sense. it is un-american. the fetal came over on the mayflower, they left england illegally, they came here to the united states without asking permission from anybody here, and i think we are quite glad there was not a no amnesty policy here.

immigration has been part of our history since 1620, 396 years, and people come over here all different ways. we do need to solve the immigration problem, but not doing mass deportations and denigrating people who live and work here in america. american businesses, perhaps including mr. trump's for many years. an from alabama is our next caller. joan, what do you have to say this morning? caller: i want to ask the gentleman why he avoided answering the question about hillary clinton and her foundation. but that is not the reason i was calling. i was calling because he keeps -- trump'sut the people. have you ever seen anything like the hate that george soros and

the democratic party is spewing out there with george soros' thugs out on the streets? the first thing trump should do is exile that man out of this country. host: all right, that is joan. guest: i will respond to that. first, i will not talk about hillary clinton because she lost the election. she had one thing the election, we would be dealing with the clinton conflict of interest, and we can have a lifelong discussion about that. but trump wondering the election, and we will focus on making sure he has a successful president appeared i do not think president-elect trump really hates anybody do i do not believe it. but there are people who do. there are people who want to hate muslims. those people do not belong in our government. as the founding fathers made very clear, there is freedom of religion in the united states. in the same people who hate

mexicans or african-americans, they are out. when you to find out who they are and get an out of the government. that is a job for republicans, and i am a republican, and that is a job for democrats and independents, and that is mr. trump's job. when he is president trump, we will not tolerate hate in america. host: mr. painter is a law professor at the university of minnesota. he was also a lawyer u >> c-span's "washington journal," live every day with policy issues that impact you. man aaron and judicial crisis network chief counsel kerry severino will be on. they will talk about the effect of president trump on the makeup of the supreme court and the case is ahead for the court. francis burwell of "the atlantic council" discusses transatlantic

relations, the future of nato, and trade and economic policy. make sure to watch "washington journal" this morning. >> e-house hearing on efforts to ensure safe and efficient technology for self driving cars. this is just over two hours. rep. burgess: come to order. the chair recognizes himself or five minutes for an opening statement. good morning and welcome to today's series hearing on self driving cars. a ground breaking technological development that has the potential to transform and redefine the vehicle and transportation system we know and understand today. because this may be the last time we have the privilege of

having the doctor before our subcommittee let me thank you , for your service. he has always cooperated with this committee and we have continued to improve the agency, the recall process, and although a big task we have improved safety. thank you for your service. self driving cars promised to be the most significant automobile safety development in our lifetimes. this hearing will kick off what i expect to be a major focus of the subcommittee for years to come. the reason is simple. last year automobile related fatalities were around 35,000. they rose for the first time in nearly a decade. my home state of texas was about 10% of that. the vast majority of those fatalities are still related to human behavior. already we have heard fatalities are up for the first half of this year. truly self-driving cars are not about to be deployed in any

great numbers anytime soon. the sooner we can safely get them to market the sooner we can start saving lives. i am not among those who are worried about the adoption of this new technology will outpace safety. it will not be broadly adopted before it is ready. our job is to be smart and identify a path forward where the government can provide a cop on the beat for the industry and respond quickly where safety incidents arise. we cannot let the government paralyze the very innovation that promises to make us safer. the national highway recent evidence is well-meaning. i worry about the implementation . waiting for the government to a approved technology is not a good formula. we must remain vigilant and areas of cyber security where industry must be held accountable if they are not taking reasonable measures. in addition to safety, self - driving cars promise a reduction in in fuel emissions

and energy consumption as a result of improved mobility. self-driving vehicles may also allow for more efficient land use instead of wasting resources on parking and city lots. we can expect to see an increase in transport and mobility opportunity such as ride hailing ridesharing, opportunities for , labor cost, improved access to elderly and underserved populations, and other enhancements that may improved societal and economic welfare of communities across the country. that's what makes the development and deployment of autonomous cars exciting. their impact will be virtually limitless. we are reminded at the last hearing that we cannot afford to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. this means allowing innovators to innovate and give them the flexibility to test.

preemptive action on the part of regulators before gaining a full understanding of the appreciation of self-driving cars may lead to unintended consequences that limit the capabilities of this emerging technology and it's promise life-saving economic and societal benefits. i want to thank our witnesses for taking the time to inform us of this technology. i look i look forward to a thoughtful and engaging discussion. let me yield back my time and recognize the vice chairwoman of the full committee for five minutes for an opening statement. >> thank you, nestor chairman. i want to say thank you to you. chairman for thanking you for your service and for taking the time to be here. the issue that we are looking at today and as part of our disruptor series is important to my constituents.

you have the general motors springhill plant that is in my district. they are doing much of the green tech innovation. you also have nissan north america that is located in my district and then on the outskirts of our district we have the toyota vote i'm -- bodine engine plant. as i talked to the innovators and engineers that are working on the next-generation concept they repeatedly remind me that automobiles are now driving computers. we need to recognize that and be mindful of it. as we look at the internet of things, of course it is well-placed. as we view this we also view the necessity for safety. the technology that will make cars safer or help make them safer will bring forward some of the driverless components and have those interfaced with the marketplace.

those are issues issues that are going to be important to us. reducing fatalities on the road. that's something we are interested in. when you hear the self driving for driverless directed component has the potential to reduce fatalities by 90%, that is something as a mother and grandmother that really interests me. we all want to have those opportunities to make vehicle s safer. i thank you for the time, i thank you for going ahead and moving forward with this hearing and i yield back the balance of my time. rep. burgess: the chair thanks the gentlelady. does anybody else in the republican side seek time #cnn -- time for an opening statement? seeing none, we will depart from regular order.

nd, we will ask you to go forward with your statement. whenl not interrupt you the democratic side arrives. they will then be recognized for opening statements. so i want you to talk about your entire remarks before you do that. we want to thank our witnesses for being here today. today's witnesses will consist of two panels. each panel witnesses will have an opening statement followed by a round of questions. once we conclude we will have a brief recess. our first panel for today's hearing is dr. mark rosekind, the administrator at the highway traffic safety ministration. we appreciate you being here today. rosekindegin with dr. and you are recognized for five minutes. dr. rosekind: members of the committee, thank you for holding the meeting and for inviting me to testify.

at ntsa, our mission is to save arrive lives on america's highways. we have have carried out that mission by writing enforcing regulations to make vehicle safer. inst drunk driving building a consensus about , seatbelt use and other efforts that have saved hundreds of thousands of americans on our roadways. we have far more work to do. that can can be measured by very alarming numbers. in 2015, we lost 35,092 people on our public rose. we know that is not just a number. those are mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters, coworkers, friends, colleagues. the problem is getting colleagues. the problem is getting worse. last month we announced roadway fatalities in the first half of this year are up over 10%. the department of transportation under leadership of anthony foxx has been working hard on aphids -- efforts to facilitate the safe deployment of automatic vehicles. carryautomated vehicles

enormous potential to transform the transportation system, it is also there to have potential to revolutionize that has us motivated. one more number that helps explain why. the number is 94. that is the percentage of crashes that can be gone back to human choice or error. it is to speed, drive drunk, or send a text message or misjudge the stopping distance. that 94% represents the untold potential of automated vehicle safety technology. we envision a future to reduce crashes but a world with fully self-driving cars that hold the potential that eliminate traffic fatalities altogether. the federal automated vehicle policy that the department issued on september 20 is world's first comprehensive government action to guide the safe and efficient development and deployment of these technologies. it covers four areas.

vehicle performance guidance for one, automakers, tech companies, researchers and other developers. testers and other players of automated vehicle technologies. two, a model of state policy to build a consistent national framework for the testing and operation of automated vehicles. three, and expiration -- an exploration of the use of our current regulatory tools that can be used to advance the technology. four, discussion of possible new tools that government might need to promote the safe deployment of safe technology as the industry develops. i want to share a few thoughts about the approach. for 50 years our approach has been reactive. they prescribed safety standards and respond to the standards as they arise. a traditional would be to engage slowly in the rulemaking process ready new regulation that describe specific standards and take years to take effect. our view is that that approach would be slow. it would stymie

innovation. our policy takes a different path built on proactive safety. it will better serve both safety and innovation. the policy allows us to work with automakers and developers on the front and bank to ensure sound approaches to safety throughout the development process. it's a new approach will take adjustment for everyone involved. we're confident it will help us accomplish two goals. first, make sure new technologies are deployed safety. second, make sure we don't get in the way of innovation. our approach is not prescriptive. it does not tell developers how they must provide safety but instead built a transparent and proactive approach to ensure they are properly addressing the critical safety areas. that future is not without threats. as president obama wrote quote, the quickest way to slam the brakes on innovation is for the public to lose confidence in the safety of new technology. both government and industry

have a responsibility to make sure that doesn't happen. it's our view of the best way we can build that public confidence is by working together. showing the public that the government is on the side of innovation and industry is on the side of safety. i submit the balance of my statement for the record and i look forward to taking your questions. thank you. rep. burgess: the chair thanks the gentleman. we will go back to member opening statements. i reallykowsky: late thisfor being morning and i thank you for accommodating that and i look forward to the questions we can ask of our witness. i first want to take a moment to recognize a great loss in the auto safety committee. on clarence dillow, the center thursday, for auto safety passed away after a battle with cancer. for 40 years clarence led the

center for auto safety where he was a tireless advocate for stronger auto safety standards. he fought for lemon laws to ease return of defective vehicles in all 50 states. if you've ever had a recall on the vehicle there's a decent chance clarence was somehow involved in pushing the national highway safety traffic administration and automakers to take action. he provided insight to lawmakers over the years including as a witness before this subcommittee. clarence continued fighting for consumers until his final days. as recently as september he was working with my office on reducing the number of used cars sold with open recalls. he even weighed in on today's topic. in august he wrote an op-ed on the importance of strong safety standards for self-driving cars. clarence has an outstanding